The psychiatrist who writes the book describes two types of games: games with others and games within one's self. I'll ignore the latter for now. Of particular interest here are the "NIGYSOB," "Yes, but," and "Rapo" games.

NIGYSOB refers to how certain people use some minor incident as an excuse for a huge outburst, condemning almost everything about the other. I've seen this played before, but more often this game disassociates the people involved. Often, the agressor becomes mad at someone or something else, and then takes it all out on you when you make a joking criticism or are 30 seconds late. This is one of the easiest traps to fall into, but I think it's also the easiest to pull one's self out of.

"Yes, but" involves someone always shooting down suggestions to prove that (s)he's superior to the other person. This one is commonly the domain of volunteer organization presidents. Many of these people seek "power" (in quotes because there isn't really any involved) because they feel bad about themselves and need some sort of status to prove they're OK. Once they are elected, they believe they can run things their own way without taking any other suggestions whatsoever and that everyone should treat them as if they are gods.

"Rapo" is of particular interest to this site because it deals directly with the primary barrier between men and women in dating and relationships. These stereotypes of sex vs. love are behind 90% of the game-playing out there, and are probably why there is so much "rudeness and arrogance." In my case, it's quite possible to explain away almost every incident that's occurred over the past year because the woman probably thought that I was just out for sex.

Now, here's where most people and I differ. Most people would try harder to convince the other person that the "Rapo" stereotypes aren't true about him/herself. I, on the other hand, wouldn't change how I acted and state the rejection was a good thing. Who wants to be with someone who needs to play this game?

As stated in the book, there is only one purpose for playing these games with other people: to make one's self feel superior because (s)he really feels inferior to everyone else. That's why most relationship sites tell men to "be a challenge" and stand up to these reactions (David DeAngelo).

I'm starting to think there's a contradiction here. On the one hand, perhaps it's not these women's fault (especially the physically attractive woman's fault) that they feel about guys the ways they do and therefore deserve some symphathy. Wouldn't you learn to mistreat everyone if they first mistreated you? On the other, is it really your job to try to "get through" the facade of game-playing and try to correct everyone's emotional problems at the expense of your own mental health?

The seduction community and DeAngelo believe that that is your job if you want to find a partner. I'm still not sure whether I agree.