There will always be a voice that rises above all the others, since the nature of human relationships is generally hierarchical.

What you’ve outlined is exactly the problem we have in broken political arrangements. The dominant voices run the show and dictate public policy, while the aloof majority tries to play cool or refuses to speak up for their OWN interests.

“dominance is the medium to make it happen. Dominance is the language.”

This is so key.

I dont want to shine – I just dont care what others think of me.

To me, that is coming from a place of infinitely greater strength than wanting to shine, which implies needing some kind of acknowledgement from others. I just dont need that. Thats weakness. I surrender my power to others that way.

Of course there will be times when I need to stand up for my rights and interests – as well as respect others rights and interests – but that has nothing to do with dominating.

I simply have no wish to dominate, and think that wishing to dominate always comes from a place of psychological weakness. I am perfectly satisfied with standing up for myself and my interests in appropriate ways, like a mature individual with a strong ego. I dont need to prove myself through dominating others.

Nor is this aloofness at all. I can have relationships with people and cooperate with people all the time without wishing to dominate them – I can insist my rights are respected while at the same time extending them the courtesy of respecting their rights.

Let me tell you, if some dude tried to dominate me in a social or cooperative venture, it would be the end of our interaction. And for what? Because he needed to feed his ego? It would so obviously be the behavior of a weak guy.

So much of game comes from a place of weakness. So much of it is the stuff a weak person IMAGINES a strong person does, but which a strong person actually never does.

Ruling, governing, controlling, commanding – all of this implies compulsion. It is implicit in the definition. One rules, commands, and governs via an army and police force. There is no choice involved. This is not a good model for social interactions. Certain jobs need a hierarchy for efficiency, but social interactions don’t, they work via a process of give and take.

What you are – I think – trying to describe is non-coercive guidance and direction. As in, you provide clear and firm suggestions to others, who are then free to follow your suggestions or not. This is an offer of guidance, not an attempt at domination. But you are still engaged in cognitive dissonance – you say you do not attempt compulsion, but then say you “tell” others what to do. Yet using commands rather than suggestions or clearly stated preferences IS an attempt at compulsion. You are trying to salvage your fondness for genuine dominance (compulsion) even as you recognize that it is an expression of weakness.

The moment you introduce the element of compulsion, the moment the peson does not fall in line with your suggestion and you insist the person does, you are trying to dominate, and you look weak. Further, the moment you use the language of command rather than clear suggestion, you are attempting compulsion. (and you yourself admitted you use the language of command). Further, if you use the language of command and the person laughingly refuses, you look like an idiot. Because you attempted command and failed. This is what I mean when I say trying to command is putting yourself in anothers power. They can choose to refuse, and you are left looking foolish and weak. By simply clearly stating a preference of desire, or making a suggestion, you do not appear ridiculous if the woman refuses.

For instance, if you say, “hey, lets all go to a movie!”, and everyone agrees, that is not dominance. That’s democracy.

If you say “we’re all going to a movie now. Get your bags”. Thats dominance. There is no choice in the matter.

When you tell a guy to dominate women, you are telling him to literally try and force her to do things she does not want to do. Maybe not physically, but verbally and emotionally. If you use the language of dominance, such as “telling”, rather than “suggesting” or “requesting”, you are trying to create an emotional atmosphere of compuslion.

The fact is women like men who know their own minds and have clearly expressed preferences. Women often willingnly follow such men. Gamers completely mis-understand what is going on here, as they misunderstand everything. The man did not attempt to dominate the woman, he merely expressed clear preferences, and since the woman liked him, she chose to follow them. It is a mistake, though, to think that the man “dominates” the woman. He did not force her to do anything she did not wish to do, nor did he verbally attempt to force her (such “dominant” men don’t run around “telling” women what to do. They merely state clear preferences, and the women willingnly follow. If the woman DID disagree, such a man would never try and force the issue. He would compromise or not, depending on the case. And if you use the language of command and the woman laughingly refuses, you have made yourself look foolish. You clearly attempted compulsion and fail. That is why using the language of command rather than suggestion is putting yourself in anothers power. They can refuse, laughingly, and you look like an idiot.)

Weak men think they are becoing strong, confident men when they use the language of command and order others about, but they just look foolish. It is amateurish. Confident men have clear preferences and state them unambgiously – if others wish to come along for the ride, fne, if not, not. If the confident man values the company of the refusing person, he sees no reason not to comrpomise. His ego is not so fragile that he feels threatened if he cannot command others in social situations.

Ordering people about will merely arouse antagonism. Trying to control and command social interactions will do the same. Worse, they will make you look insecure and weak. If you are confident in what you wish to do, and have clear, firm opinions about what would be fun and worthwhile doing, others might agree to go along with you, and thats great. But if they don’t agree and you value their company, there is nothing wrong with compromising. Trying to force the issue will make you look weak. Trying to “dominate” the interaction will make you look weak.

So why not drop all this macho domainance and telling others what to do crap? Simply have clear, firm ideas about what you want to do, and express that, and compromise as needed in line with what is fair and respectful to others, or simply go your own way. Attemtps at dominance are always weak.

r

For the most part, your behavior here was decisive, not dominant. In some cases you went over the top and attempted dominance. Its a bit of a mix. Nor did you cover all scenarios. Nor did you mention voice tone and body language.

Bottom line – be decisive, not dominant.

Anyways we are largely in agreement which is cool, but I feel you are still leaving some room open for ideas of dominance to creep back in. The reason I am saying this is because game excels at cognitive dissonance -saying one thing while doing another – and I feel that your conception of dominance is not entirely free from this kind of cognitive dissonance. You are a million times better than most gamers, but in my view, still not there.

But cheers, and good luck!

“Ruling, governing, controlling, commanding – all of this implies compulsion.”

No, it doesn’t, nor is it implicit anywhere in the definition.

It looks more as though you are coloured by the negative connotations that these words have developed in recent years.

It may have been mentioned, but you must remember that at the bottom of all this is the other person’s choice to follow your lead. A dominant person would expect their lead to be followed; the insecure person that you describe may coerce and force his lead to be followed.

A dominant person would expect their lead to be followed.

A person who relates to others in a way that suggests he expects them to follow his lead without regard to their own will is being obnoxious and attempting dominance. He is acting in a way that implies he has power over others. He is making an assumption of dominance, acting as if he actually has the power to compel. This is both obnoxious and is likely to blow up in your face if the person refuses, making you look silly.

There is no distinction between someone acting as if he has power over you and someone who actually tries to coerce you. This distinction you are all trying to draw is illusory. Both are making an attempt at coercion.