Mind-games have several characteristics that distinguish them from games played merely for fun. Usually either the rules of the game are not well known to both players, both players are not willing participants, or one player or the other is not fully honest about what they are trying to get out of playing the game.
We sometimes associate mind-games with dating. Dating is a terribly complex exercise, something I was never very good at, and happily something I haven't done in years since I met my current partner. Years ago I used several different web sites for singles. I noticed an odd pattern while reading advertisements. Some individuals (both men and women) would post very aggressive adds giving lists of things that they didn't want, and not saying very many positive things about themselves or anything else. They would say things like, "don't message me if you don't have a photo" (men + women), "don't message me if you wear a hat in your photo, it means you are balding and I won't date a bald man" (women), "don't message me if you say you have a few extra pounds, that just means you're fat" (men) and most frequently of all "don't message me if you are into mind-games" (men and women).
How these individuals ever got a response with advertisements like these never made any sense to me. While none of these things applied to me (I had a photo where I wasn't wearing a hat and never had any intention of playing mind-games with anyone), I would never contact people who wrote adds like this. Maybe the good looks in their photos were enough to attract people, or who knows maybe there are people who didn't see these anti-requirements as a deterrent or indicitave of an unpleasant and rigid person. I didn't want someone who was interested in playing mind-games, but to my thinking, saying you wouldn't play such games didn't mean that you wouldn't. If anything, denying that you played mind-games hinted to me that you might be a very smart game player. I reminded my partner of these advertisements, she suggested that they might have been examples of "negging", a particularly ugly dating strategy where an individual insults someone to undermine their self-confidence and make them more vulnerable to advances. Yuck. Being out of the dating scene, however, hasn't relieved me of the requirement of playing games where I don't fully understand all the rules.
At Recovery meetings we have a few tools that relate to games, one thing we say is "Avoid symbolic victories" and we also say "Treat your mental health as a business and not as a game". The first one is easy to spot and extremely common. In Recovery we talk about a symbolic victory as an unimportant contest that someone enters into and stubbornly refuses to give up their position because they just must be right in the scenario. They dig in during a disagreement, stop listening to what the other person is saying and insist that their position is the best/smartest/most-righteous/correct etc. The trouble in this situation is that they often present the scenario as though they are trying to sort something out, but in fact they really have no interest in any opinion but their own. Their goal is either to prove how smart they are by not giving in, or sometimes simply to stir other people up and call a lot of attention to themselves. In either case the stated goal of "lets figure something out" isn't at all what they are after. What they really want is attention, and to establish their dominance over others.
In Dr. Low's book MHTWT, the chapter "Temper, Sovereignty and Fellowship", he quotes a discussion conducted by his patients.
Annette: I will quote an example of my own. An elderly aunt of mine, we shall call her Aunt Jane, was the type of person who enjoyed temper tangles. She had never lived with anyone, but during the depression we had to take her into our home. When she came I decided I'd make an effort to get along with her. I felt I could do that because she confessed to be fond of me. But what I actually did was to try to convince her that she was wrong and that of course ended up in pretty terrific temperamental outbursts on both our sides. One time, after a rather heated argument, I awoke in the middle of the night with a very odd sensation in my abdomen. I felt as though something awful had happened and I was going to burst. I was frightened but did not know at that time that these were nervous symptoms. But the sensations followed so regularly on temperamental spats I couldn't help realizing that they were closely associated with my temper. Several years later after I had undergone a good deal of Recovery training I had occasion to get in contact with Aunt Jane again. A friend of mine let me use her car and I invited Aunt Jane to join us on an automobile ride. This time I had a good opportunity to notice how I had changed while my aunt had not. Whenever I found myself wanting to prove her wrong and myself right I knew at that very moment that all I was out to accomplish was a symbolic victory. I stopped short instantly and instead of getting provoked myself or getting her worked up I merely answered her remarks with "maybe" or "is that so?" The argument didn't even get started. On leaving the car my aunt was obviously irritated and said, "I am just worn out. I never spent such a boring day in my life." And if that remark didn't provoke me into a sharper answer I realized that I must have learned the technique of giving up the battling for trivial symbolic victories.
Attempts to win arguments about nonsensical, trivial, or inconsequential things creates stress for everybody involved. If you are often the instigator of this sort of contest, by either contradicting things other people say, or refusing to let an argument go, the impact that this habit has may not be obvious to you. In small doses the pleasure of getting attention and winning may hide the long term consequences of increased stress and social alienation. There are individuals that I simply don't bother to engage with because I know that when they disagree with me they aren't interested in a discussion, they are only interested in being right and dominating me. I've excised a number of people like this from my life, and I often don't bother to explain the details to them. I would be wrong anyway, so what would the point be in trying to explain myself?
I also engage in this sort of behavior myself, although I am working on doing it less. Its fun to be right, and its tough to let this go, but not pursuing these symbolic victories is an important part of getting along with others and being "group minded" as we say in Recovery.
The basic structure of the games described by Dr. Berne requires that each player takes on one or two roles from the basic set: Adult, Parent, or Child. Each game starts with what usually looks like a harmless exchange, often a realistic question, statement or request framed from one Adult to another. There is usually a secondary exchange going on, implied by the moves or the game framework that is rooted in a non-rational exchange between Parent and Child ego states, or two Child ego states. The ego state of Parent or Child is something that Dr. Berne argues that all people resort to in both healthy and unhealthy scenarios. Child-like behavior can be exuberant, playful or fearful. Parent-like behavior can be nurturing, instructive, or domineering. Adult behavior is always realistic and goal oriented, but in a game is often used to hide ulterior Child-like or Parental intentions.
Games have two chief characteristics that differentiate them from other behaviors, 1) that they have an ulterior quality- that is, are based on implication and do not clearly state their goals or rules and 2) that there is a payoff, or something that the winner can get out of the exchange. The payoff is often something more complicated than simply dominating the other player by winning. Sometimes the payoff is collecting reassurance that you think you can't simply ask for, or it may be showing how a class of people are unworthy without saying so directly.
Dr. Berne describes a game that Dr. Low also talks about. This game comes up in therapy sessions and Dr. Low talks about it when he refers to "but-knockers" in his chapters on sabotaging mental health. The "but-knocker" will say anything to subvert his physician's recommendations. This game also comes up in everyday exchanges and is one of the most common and easy to observe games described in Dr. Berne's book. Dr. Berne call's this game 'Why Don't You- Yes But'. Dr. Berne presents the following example, using the players names "White", "Black", "Red" and "Brown" to illustrate the game:
White: "My husband always insists on doing our own repairs, and he never builds anything right."
Black: "Why doesn't he take a course in carpentry?"
White: "Yes, but he doesn't have time."
Black: "Why don't you buy him some good tools?"
White: "Yes, but he doesn't know hot to use them."
Red: "Why don't you have your building done by a carpenter?"
White: "Yes, but that would cost too much."
Brown: "Why don't you just accept what he does the way he does it?"
White: "Yes, but the whole thing might fall down."
...
'Why Don't You- Yes But' can be played by any number. The agent presents a problem. The others start to present solutions, each beginning with "Why don't you ..." To each of these White objects with a "Yes, but..." A good player can stand off the others indefinitely until they all give up whereupon White wins.
...
Since the solutions are, with rare exceptions, rejected, it is apparent that this game must serve some ulterior purpose. 'Why Don't You- Yes But' is not played for its ostensible purpose (an Adult quest for information or solutions), but to reassure and gratify the Child. A bare transcript may sound Adult, but in the living tissue it can be observed that White presents herself as a Child inadequate to meet the situation; whereupon the others become transformed into sage Parents anxious to dispense their wisdom for her benefit.
While each move in the game is amusing to the instigator, where White gets to repeatedly reject each suggestions, the real payoff is the silence at the end of the game. This demonstrates that all the other Parent players are inadequate.
The thing that is truly enjoyable about this book is that it provides interesting counter moves to the games that it describes. I've found myself stuck in this game on many occasions, usually I play the one trying to offer advice, but sometimes I also play the one refusing to accept advice. The solutions suggested by the other players are usually obvious and a 'Why Don't You- Yes But' player will in most cases have thought of them, or if not, in many cases will come up with a reason why the suggestion is no good regardless of its actual value. This is the purpose of the game, not to get suggestions, but rather to reject them. The ultimate over arching goal of the game is to both prove that others want to dominate, but also that they are in fact inadequate, and not able to.
The counter move suggested by Dr. Berne is simply not to play. So if someone tries to start a game with "What do you do if..." and this person is a known 'Why Don't You- Yes But' player, a suggested response is "That is a difficult problem. What are you going to do about it?" If the game starts in the format of "X didn't work out properly," the response then should be "That is too bad." Both of these are polite enough to leave the instigator at a loss and disrupt the game, or if not fully disrupting the ulterior request at least to coax them into being specific and asking for what they really want.
I don't have a good instinct for dealing with these sort of games. I really like Dr. Berne's book because it presents a collection of templates that are easy to follow and it helps me to understand when someone doesn't have my best interests at heart. While sometimes I can spot a negative social exchange the next day, in the moment, I'm often not sure what to do, and I sometimes just feel bad or cornered. Recognizing that sometimes people do have ulterior motives is helpful. Instead of accusing them of playing a mind-game, which may or may not be the case, Berne's book provides simple civilised strategies that involve recognizing the game and refusing to play.
In Recovery we encourage people to be both realistic and civilised. It would be niave to assume that this is true of everyone that we need to deal with. It is helpful to know that even when others are being unpleasant or dishonest, we can recognize this, and that in many situations there are easy answers, like declining to play the game, whatever it might be.
If you find social situations upsetting and feel like you get 'played' a lot, you can learn simple tools that will help in these situations at Recovery meetings. If you are an unconscious player who has alienated a lot of people, you may learn to recognize your bad habits by first looking at whether you pursue symbolic victories. All meetings follow a regular prescribed format, we don't allow teasing, judgement, sarcasm, or advice giving, and we try to thus ensure that no games with unwritten rules are played at meetings.
More Information
Sarcasm, Humour and Ambiguity
The Complaining Habit
How Does This Work?
