Signaling Theory

This is a guest post contributed by Le Cygne Gris.

Why routines?

Perhaps one of the nastier criticisms hurled at the practitioners and purveyors of Game is that the routines suggested and then put into practice demonstrate its artificiality. Essentially, the argument is that Game can’t be true because it is a conscious, overt application.

While it is true that application of Game is often intentional and overt, it does not follow that the fundamental insights of Game are incorrect. Ultimately, though, Game is nothing more than a specific application of signaling theory.

Signaling theory is a branch of economics that arose in order to explain why people didn’t behave with perfect rationality. What economists quickly discovered, however, is that people were, in fact, behaving quite rationally, but the signals that economists observed were quite removed from their eventual consequences.

The classic example of this phenomenon is that of education: the reason why some students went to college wasn’t simply because they wanted to learn more about the world surrounding them, but rather because they wanted to demonstrate to employers that they were well qualified to be hired for specific jobs.

Now, one could take the principles of signaling theory and apply them to one’s educational choices in an overt and conscious manner. For example, if one wanted to be an astronaut, he would do well to major in astrophysics and participate in sports, since astronauts must be in shape and be quite intelligent. This would signal to potential employers that he was quite serious about becoming an astronaut. It is, then, quite ludicrous to claim that making an obvious and overt application of signaling theory invalidates its existence, principles, or conclusions. In fact, just the opposite is true: deliberate application of signaling theory, when successful, validates its claims.

The same is true for Game. Routines and sets give men a way to field test the validity of the core principles and tenets of Game. If men successfully apply the tenets of Game, then they know that it is correct. (Note that testing Game by attempting a routine requires that one not botch the routine in order for the results to be considered valid. This is a general principle of the scientific method, and certainly applies here.)

But routines offer men more than just a way to validate the claims made by proponents of Game. It also offers men keen insight into the mind of an Alpha, for routines are more than just lines, they also encompass delivery and choreography. In order for a routine to work, a man must, much like an method actor, adopt the mind of that which he wishes to embody.

Routines are therefore useful in enabling a man to become a better man. As a man adopts the mindset of an Alpha, he becomes aware of how an Alpha moves, how he talks, how he interacts with others, what he thinks of others. And as a man does this, he becomes more and more in tune with the workings of the Alpha mind, until one day he is no longer able to distinguish between his Alpha persona and his “normal” persona. In essence, he fakes it until he makes it.

And thus, contra to the claims of haters and heretics, routines do not invalidate Game. On the contrary, they offer men a chance to test the truth for themselves. And in doing so, they allow men to become the men they are destined to be.