| The AnteUp Game Introduction |
| ANTE-UP GAME METHOD LEVEL 1 OPENING LINES Small Talk that is Strictly Impersonal |
| LEVEL 2 THE IMPERSONAL PERSONAL Anything that Anyone in Town Can Know You Could Learn About This at the Courthouse People with excellent interpersonal skills are good at this level, including salespersons, politicians, and church members |
| LEVEL 3 THE PRIVATE PERSONAL The Things That People Close to You Can Know This Means You Are Friends This stage requires self-restraint to avoid excessive personal revelation, e.g. about religious, political opinions |
| LEVEL 4 VALUE AND MEANING Personal Goals, Beliefs and Values Getting to Know You for Real This begins the serious test of whether of not you will want to be close to this person. This exploration should require many conversations and should precede discussion of personal hopes and dreams and hurtful past experiences |
| LEVEL 5 HOPES AND DREAMS Personal Goals, Beliefs and Values We Imagine About Happiness and Love This begins the test to see whether this person could share your life and help you fulfill your plans for the future |
| LEVEL 6 JOY, HURTS AND FEARS Our Most Private Feelings and Experiences We Deal with What Matters Most This tests the trustworthiness of the other |
History of the AnteUp Game
I was in graduate school, observing
that women who report abuse by
men frequently engage themselves
in relationships differently than do
healthier, more secure women. For
instance, women who frequently
become victims in relationships with
men often have a set of fantasies, as
set of ‘hopes and dreams,’ the
fulfillment of which is first in their
minds when entering new
relationships.
They ask themselves questions, such
as,
“Will this man care about my
feelings, my hurts, and my
needs?”
“Will this man support me
financially?”
“Is this man as dedicated to my
religion as I am?”
I was in graduate school, observing
that women who report abuse by
men frequently engage themselves
in relationships differently than do
healthier, more secure women. For
instance, women who frequently
become victims in relationships with
men often have a set of fantasies, as
set of ‘hopes and dreams,’ the
fulfillment of which is first in their
minds when entering new
relationships.
They ask themselves questions, such
as,
“Will this man care about my
feelings, my hurts, and my
needs?”
“Will this man support me
financially?”
“Is this man as dedicated to my
religion as I am?”
In other words, this woman has a set of goals she hopes to accomplish
through her relationships with men, which often include increased comfort
and sense of belonging, ego enhancement, and financial support.
These are potentially healthy goals. Nevertheless, they are just that: goals
normally accomplished through a timely and active process of observation,
experience and problem solving. It takes time to accomplish such goals,
because success at achievement requires that the woman use caution, self-
restraint, diligence, and attention to detail, as she accumulates realistic
information about the person she admires.
Furthermore, such a process of relationship development requires an ability
to postpone gratification. Unfortunately, adult victims of abuse often grew
up with dominating parents who denied them opportunity to develop
reliable plans for achieving personal goals. These children learned to
depend upon the whims, needs and demands of powerful family members.
Upon reaching adulthood, such women often continue to reach towards
their goals through fantasy and wish fulfillment, rather than through
assertive observation, choice and action. In other words, these women have
learned to be dependent upon others for their beliefs, perceptions, feelings,
and choice of relationship styles. Thus, women who are excessively goal-
directed in their relationships live in a world of fantasy, rather than in a
world of process towards goals, or problem solving.
Moreover, the woman who finds herself frequently abused by others has not
learned to evaluate the character and motives of others. Instead, she sees
them as potential opportunities for wish fulfillment without accurately
assessing the true character of the object of her attention and affection. She
is very much like Walt Disney’s Pinocchio, who cannot see the details about
the wicked fox and cat that would forewarn her of danger. She sees, in
other words, what she wants to see, not what is real or true.
Having observed these relational problems, I decided to develop a
communication method that would help a woman learn how to achieve her
relationship goals in a realistic and effective manner. This method indeed
works, not only to protect from abuse, but in the actual development of
healthy, stable, satisfying relationships with others, including spouses,
children and coworkers.
It was also important to develop a method of communication that is
completely natural. That is, the principles of good communication have
existed throughout history, and for many different cultures. Unfortunately,
many people learn dysfunctional communication skills during childhood.
Therefore, it might be possible to develop a game-like method to retrain
ourselves in communication skills that would normally have been learned in
a healthy childhood. This method might then contribute to the resolution
of childhood pain and deprivation.
Eventually I would learn that people with personality disorders would not
follow the principles of the AnteUp Game, because they have learned to use
patterns of manipulation and interpersonal force in achieving their personal
and relational goals. However, these same people can heal from their
disorders if they follow the method faithfully. This is because their attitudes
and expectations of themselves and others gradually change in the direction
of good health and enhanced spiritual development.
Furthermore, the continuous use of the AnteUp Game in family
relationships often increases the health of spouses and children, as they also
learn that healthy communications methods work best.
I often teach clients to help their family members know how to reliably get a
“yes” from them, that is, how to get cooperation from their spouse or
parent. If my children learn that they can win a “yes” from me by providing
good reasons and facts whenever they ask for a privilege, then they will
learn to use logic and details in responsibly presenting their plans and
requests to me. If, on the other hand, there is no way for them to get
cooperation from me, they why should they learn effective communication
tools in dealing with me.
There is another principle of communication that underlies the effectiveness
of the AnteUp Game: that is, “If you are going to say “YES,” then say it
quickly.” By following this principle in your communications, family
members will know what “Yes” means, and similarly, what “No” means.
How can anyone understand the meaning of “No,” if he has never
understood about “Yes?” People who drag out their help, agreement or
cooperation teach their family members to beg, cajole, nag and
manipulate. These are all communication methods that increase frustration,
stress, and even hostility. Thus it is better to say ‘yes’ quickly, so that family
members understand a calm and firm “NO!”
Another principle underlying the AnteUp Game is the principle of Systems
Theory, with its observations about effective communication (feedback)
between parts of the whole. Look for further discussion of Systems Theory
in a later chapter regarding the effective use of the AnteUp Game.
The Onion Theory
During graduate school, I read a book called Social Penetration. It described
relationship as being similar to an onion. A healthy relationship develops as
if we were peeling the layers of an onion. In this analogy, the greatest
intimacy is seen as being at the center of the onion. In order to achieve
healthy intimacy, we must progress gradually through the outer layers of
the onion. This involves getting to know a person gradually, first through
normal small talk and casual relationship, then by gradually progressing
through the ideas and beliefs held by both persons, and only later by
sharing one’s most intimate hurts, hopes and dreams.
The analogy I give is as follows: suppose that I am lonesome for
companionship, I go out for an evening with a man, and he listens
attentively to all my problems and hopes for 4 hours. Later I talk with all my
friends and tell them that I have just met the most attentive and comforting
man! In reality, in telling him all my most personal stuff, I just taught him
how to pretend to be exactly what I want him to be. He can now be a
“Chameleon,” who will continue to be whatever ‘color’ I want him to be
until I am safely ensnared into his web. In this analogy, I end up marrying
this man, without ever finding out what He think and believes, what He
wants from me and others, what He will do to get what he wants.
Therefore, it is after a few months of marriage to this man that I discover he
is a member of the Klu Klux Klan. Such a thing is intolerable to me. Now
that I have learned this unbearable fact about him, I file for divorce.
Unfortunately, this man now knows everything about my innermost self,
including what hurts me the most, and I will not get out of this relationship
without serious emotional bruising.
What is the antidote to this kind of pain? Get to know the person before
becoming intimately involved. Learn through experience and conversation
what his attitudes about life, relationship, religion, politics and personal
goals are before becoming emotionally and physically intimate with this
man!
Thus, the Onion Theory is a very useful concept, but it does not explain
about method and process well enough to suit my purposes. Therefore, in
1976, I developed the AnteUp Game.
The AnteUp Game
Suppose that you and I are playing a hand of poker. We each have a hand.
We each have a stack of chips to use during that hand. When it is my turn,
if I wish to play, I will put my Ante into the center of the table. Then the
Game begins. I must wait. I must let you decide how you are going to
respond. You will respond in one of three ways. You will decide not to play
this hand, you will decide to match my bid, or you will decide to “Up the
Ante.” If you do the latter, then I will have the same choices: to Decline, to
Match, or to Up-The-Ante.
This set of choices is the essence of the AnteUp Game.
In our communication with a person that matters to us, we make an
overture towards them. Perhaps it will be eye contact, which is the
beginning step of all effective interactions between people. Once I have
attempted eye contact with you, then I must wait. (That is the essential
principle of the AnteUp Game. Learning to wait teaches us to build
character, teaches us to learn to postpone gratification, teaches us to
observe and not fantasize).
You then have choices to make. If you decline to respond, if you decide to
‘not play’ at that time, then my healthy attitude must be, “There will be
another time.”
Learning to accept this response teaches us a healthy respect and regard for
the needs and rights of others. We must learn to accept that the other
person might be busy, preoccupied, or just simply unable to respond. In
such a case, why should we nag, manipulate or punish them for hurting our
feelings? Why should we take this so personally? When we learn to accept
their right to know when it is best to engage with us, then we are learning
to stop seeing ourselves as the center of everything, and we begin our own
journey towards emotional healing. We are also learning how to allow
other people to feel safe with us.
Thus, there are two principles that underlie the action of the AnteUp Game.
Those principles are: Safety and Engagement. What does that mean? It
means that if I decline to respond, it is because of two reasons. I am either
unable to engage at that moment, or something about the interaction
makes me feel unsafe. These are the two principles that rule all
communications, and enable us to relate in a way that is mutually beneficial
to both parties.
Okay. So what if you decide to ‘Match’ my overture, by making eye contact
in return? Then my healthy attitude must be one of gratitude. If you have
ever lived a week with no one making eye contact with you, then you know
that simple eye contact is a precious gift to your sense that you exist in the
eyes of others. Thus, if you match my efforts, it strengthens my character
when I let that be enough for the time being. Again, you will learn to feel
safe with me if I do not demand from you more than you are ready to give.
If, however, you up the Ante by smiling, and then by adding a pleasant,
“Hello,” then it is my turn to make a choice. I will learn a lot about you by
how you respond to my choice. Suppose that I do not want to increase
intimacy by speaking. I only wanted to look, to acknowledge you, and to
finish something I was doing. I am not able to engage more fully at that
time, and I would not feel comfortable (safe) doing so. Therefore, I look at
you, and then continue to complete my previous activity. Moreover, from
this event, I will learn about your character. What if you get your face into
mine, and yell,
“Hello-oh?” Then I know something about you, and that includes that I
need to learn quickly how to set limits on your demanding attitude, because
you are a person who thinks about your own needs, but not about my rights
or responsibilities. I will in the future be careful about getting close to you.
Maybe I match your overture, by smiling back, before I return to my
previous activity. Your response is supposed to be appreciation for the
positive energy that I just sent to you even though I was busy with other
responsibilities. Again, I will learn from you. If you pout for hours or days
because I neglected you, then I know that you will not be able to
understand my legitimate needs for time, privacy, making my own choices,
or fulfilling my agreed-upon duties. Again, you will have taught me that,
“Everything is all about you!”
Now maybe, I stopped what I was doing, made eye contact, smiled and
added, “How are you today?” I have invited you to increase the level of
intimacy, and now you have the same choice all over again.
When one is conversing happily with another person, and then suddenly it
feels uncomfortable and unsafe, then, at that moment, the skilled
conversationalist simply returns to the level of intimacy where ‘it was
working,’ that is where both people felt safe and engaged.
Because of this method and learned skill, we never have to be afraid of
attempting to engage another person, because we know how to maintain a
dialogue that is constantly constructive, useful, peaceful and kind. When
you begin to talk about the Klu Klux Klan, I can simply back down to earlier
levels of intimacy where our dialogue was still safe. This, in fact, is what
effective therapists do. If the dialogue becomes threatening to the client,
the therapist returns the thinking to a place where the client appeared to
feel safe. “There will be another time” to engage on that more difficult or
frightening issue.
Now why do people argue, instead of returning the conversation to a more
suitable place? Because they have to be right? Because they want you to
be just like them? Because they want to punish you for your attitude or
choices? Because they want justice? Because they demand that you meet
their needs right then? If you find yourself arguing with others, then work
harder at the AnteUp Game. In this way, you will learn to stop controlling,
or “fixing,” other people. If you find others arguing with you, then work
hard at returning the level of intimacy to lower levels of the AnteUp Game,
where the conversation felt more safe.
The AnteUp Game is similar to the Onion Theory in that it involves levels of
achieving intimacy. With the Onion Theory, the intimacy proceeds towards
the center of the onion. But in the AnteUp Game, the intimacy climbs
upwards, as if the interaction were a ladder reaching towards intimacy.
There are six levels of interaction, and each one includes both verbal and
body language. These levels are explained in more detail in graphs that
follow this discussion. However, a brief summary of those levels is offered
here.
another. That is, one must engage first at Level 1, then Level 2, etc. With
suitable levels of safety, two people can reach Level 6, where both people
experience an important and real sense of intimacy. If, however, two
people engage at Level 6 without having progressed through Levels 4 and
5, then there will be trouble.
It is also important to note, that every interaction begins at Level 1, no
matter how long two people have been together. Therefore, the simple fact
that two people were working in the garden together does not mean that
they can rightfully begin a Level 6 discussion about “What is wrong with
our marriage?” If we want to discuss such important issues, then we must
proceed carefully in dialogue through all levels of intimacy, because this
prepares us both to feel safe and fully engaged in the conversation. It means
that both people feel that they had a choice in selecting that common task,
and therefore they feel safely connected to their partner.
There is an additional important aspect to the AnteUp Game, and that is the
issue of “Chips.” In using this communication method, all people must learn
that we earn additional chips for continued relationship when our
conversation goes well at
Levels 1, 2 and 3. By contrast, we use up chips at Levels 4, 5, and 6. Levels
4, 5 and 6 prove the intimacy of the relationship, but they also use up a lot
of relational energy. Therefore, people who loved each other intensely at
the outset of marriage will find themselves fatigued with each other if all
they ever talk about is ‘what hurts.’ These people say, when they come to
marriage therapy, “I just don’t have that feeling anymore.” I explain to
them, “Of course you don’t. You have worn each other out with so much
negative, painful talk!”
Nevertheless, there is hope. All relationships build chips available for
serious encounters at Levels 1, 2, and 3. That is partly why they are
essential to important discussion. Even in a therapy session where each
member intends to discuss difficult problems, everyone makes eye contact
first, says “Hello,” in a variety of ways, talks about less important personal
matters, and shares beliefs and values before jumping into the weighty
business of Hopes and Dreams (Level 5), or Love Gone Wrong (Level 6).
The other reason that these early levels matter so much is that here is where
‘love blooms.’ These modest, peaceful exchanges create the feeling of
safety and interest in one another that create bonding and attachment.
Nobody becomes attached to another person who keeps saying, “I want to
know where this relationship is going!” However, we become very attached
to people who are ‘present’ to us, who are authentic and real in their
responses to us, and who do not hurt us, even when they have a chance to
get away with it. Humor that does not tease or ridicule, questions that do
not challenge or intimidate, affection that does not seem to have strings
attached—these things build confidence, safety, engagement, and
eventually, bonding, attachment and love.
We therefore strive to master the AnteUp Game. We practice it wherever
we go, whether it is in the grocery story, the workplace, the neighborhood
stroll, the Church, the gym, or even the highway. We become skilled at it,
and eventually we realize that we have really learned how to give and
receive love. We have learned to contribute to the emotional health of
other people, and for that reason, we have discovered that we really do
matter to this universe!
through her relationships with men, which often include increased comfort
and sense of belonging, ego enhancement, and financial support.
These are potentially healthy goals. Nevertheless, they are just that: goals
normally accomplished through a timely and active process of observation,
experience and problem solving. It takes time to accomplish such goals,
because success at achievement requires that the woman use caution, self-
restraint, diligence, and attention to detail, as she accumulates realistic
information about the person she admires.
Furthermore, such a process of relationship development requires an ability
to postpone gratification. Unfortunately, adult victims of abuse often grew
up with dominating parents who denied them opportunity to develop
reliable plans for achieving personal goals. These children learned to
depend upon the whims, needs and demands of powerful family members.
Upon reaching adulthood, such women often continue to reach towards
their goals through fantasy and wish fulfillment, rather than through
assertive observation, choice and action. In other words, these women have
learned to be dependent upon others for their beliefs, perceptions, feelings,
and choice of relationship styles. Thus, women who are excessively goal-
directed in their relationships live in a world of fantasy, rather than in a
world of process towards goals, or problem solving.
Moreover, the woman who finds herself frequently abused by others has not
learned to evaluate the character and motives of others. Instead, she sees
them as potential opportunities for wish fulfillment without accurately
assessing the true character of the object of her attention and affection. She
is very much like Walt Disney’s Pinocchio, who cannot see the details about
the wicked fox and cat that would forewarn her of danger. She sees, in
other words, what she wants to see, not what is real or true.
Having observed these relational problems, I decided to develop a
communication method that would help a woman learn how to achieve her
relationship goals in a realistic and effective manner. This method indeed
works, not only to protect from abuse, but in the actual development of
healthy, stable, satisfying relationships with others, including spouses,
children and coworkers.
It was also important to develop a method of communication that is
completely natural. That is, the principles of good communication have
existed throughout history, and for many different cultures. Unfortunately,
many people learn dysfunctional communication skills during childhood.
Therefore, it might be possible to develop a game-like method to retrain
ourselves in communication skills that would normally have been learned in
a healthy childhood. This method might then contribute to the resolution
of childhood pain and deprivation.
Eventually I would learn that people with personality disorders would not
follow the principles of the AnteUp Game, because they have learned to use
patterns of manipulation and interpersonal force in achieving their personal
and relational goals. However, these same people can heal from their
disorders if they follow the method faithfully. This is because their attitudes
and expectations of themselves and others gradually change in the direction
of good health and enhanced spiritual development.
Furthermore, the continuous use of the AnteUp Game in family
relationships often increases the health of spouses and children, as they also
learn that healthy communications methods work best.
I often teach clients to help their family members know how to reliably get a
“yes” from them, that is, how to get cooperation from their spouse or
parent. If my children learn that they can win a “yes” from me by providing
good reasons and facts whenever they ask for a privilege, then they will
learn to use logic and details in responsibly presenting their plans and
requests to me. If, on the other hand, there is no way for them to get
cooperation from me, they why should they learn effective communication
tools in dealing with me.
There is another principle of communication that underlies the effectiveness
of the AnteUp Game: that is, “If you are going to say “YES,” then say it
quickly.” By following this principle in your communications, family
members will know what “Yes” means, and similarly, what “No” means.
How can anyone understand the meaning of “No,” if he has never
understood about “Yes?” People who drag out their help, agreement or
cooperation teach their family members to beg, cajole, nag and
manipulate. These are all communication methods that increase frustration,
stress, and even hostility. Thus it is better to say ‘yes’ quickly, so that family
members understand a calm and firm “NO!”
Another principle underlying the AnteUp Game is the principle of Systems
Theory, with its observations about effective communication (feedback)
between parts of the whole. Look for further discussion of Systems Theory
in a later chapter regarding the effective use of the AnteUp Game.
The Onion Theory
During graduate school, I read a book called Social Penetration. It described
relationship as being similar to an onion. A healthy relationship develops as
if we were peeling the layers of an onion. In this analogy, the greatest
intimacy is seen as being at the center of the onion. In order to achieve
healthy intimacy, we must progress gradually through the outer layers of
the onion. This involves getting to know a person gradually, first through
normal small talk and casual relationship, then by gradually progressing
through the ideas and beliefs held by both persons, and only later by
sharing one’s most intimate hurts, hopes and dreams.
The analogy I give is as follows: suppose that I am lonesome for
companionship, I go out for an evening with a man, and he listens
attentively to all my problems and hopes for 4 hours. Later I talk with all my
friends and tell them that I have just met the most attentive and comforting
man! In reality, in telling him all my most personal stuff, I just taught him
how to pretend to be exactly what I want him to be. He can now be a
“Chameleon,” who will continue to be whatever ‘color’ I want him to be
until I am safely ensnared into his web. In this analogy, I end up marrying
this man, without ever finding out what He think and believes, what He
wants from me and others, what He will do to get what he wants.
Therefore, it is after a few months of marriage to this man that I discover he
is a member of the Klu Klux Klan. Such a thing is intolerable to me. Now
that I have learned this unbearable fact about him, I file for divorce.
Unfortunately, this man now knows everything about my innermost self,
including what hurts me the most, and I will not get out of this relationship
without serious emotional bruising.
What is the antidote to this kind of pain? Get to know the person before
becoming intimately involved. Learn through experience and conversation
what his attitudes about life, relationship, religion, politics and personal
goals are before becoming emotionally and physically intimate with this
man!
Thus, the Onion Theory is a very useful concept, but it does not explain
about method and process well enough to suit my purposes. Therefore, in
1976, I developed the AnteUp Game.
The AnteUp Game
Suppose that you and I are playing a hand of poker. We each have a hand.
We each have a stack of chips to use during that hand. When it is my turn,
if I wish to play, I will put my Ante into the center of the table. Then the
Game begins. I must wait. I must let you decide how you are going to
respond. You will respond in one of three ways. You will decide not to play
this hand, you will decide to match my bid, or you will decide to “Up the
Ante.” If you do the latter, then I will have the same choices: to Decline, to
Match, or to Up-The-Ante.
This set of choices is the essence of the AnteUp Game.
In our communication with a person that matters to us, we make an
overture towards them. Perhaps it will be eye contact, which is the
beginning step of all effective interactions between people. Once I have
attempted eye contact with you, then I must wait. (That is the essential
principle of the AnteUp Game. Learning to wait teaches us to build
character, teaches us to learn to postpone gratification, teaches us to
observe and not fantasize).
You then have choices to make. If you decline to respond, if you decide to
‘not play’ at that time, then my healthy attitude must be, “There will be
another time.”
Learning to accept this response teaches us a healthy respect and regard for
the needs and rights of others. We must learn to accept that the other
person might be busy, preoccupied, or just simply unable to respond. In
such a case, why should we nag, manipulate or punish them for hurting our
feelings? Why should we take this so personally? When we learn to accept
their right to know when it is best to engage with us, then we are learning
to stop seeing ourselves as the center of everything, and we begin our own
journey towards emotional healing. We are also learning how to allow
other people to feel safe with us.
Thus, there are two principles that underlie the action of the AnteUp Game.
Those principles are: Safety and Engagement. What does that mean? It
means that if I decline to respond, it is because of two reasons. I am either
unable to engage at that moment, or something about the interaction
makes me feel unsafe. These are the two principles that rule all
communications, and enable us to relate in a way that is mutually beneficial
to both parties.
Okay. So what if you decide to ‘Match’ my overture, by making eye contact
in return? Then my healthy attitude must be one of gratitude. If you have
ever lived a week with no one making eye contact with you, then you know
that simple eye contact is a precious gift to your sense that you exist in the
eyes of others. Thus, if you match my efforts, it strengthens my character
when I let that be enough for the time being. Again, you will learn to feel
safe with me if I do not demand from you more than you are ready to give.
If, however, you up the Ante by smiling, and then by adding a pleasant,
“Hello,” then it is my turn to make a choice. I will learn a lot about you by
how you respond to my choice. Suppose that I do not want to increase
intimacy by speaking. I only wanted to look, to acknowledge you, and to
finish something I was doing. I am not able to engage more fully at that
time, and I would not feel comfortable (safe) doing so. Therefore, I look at
you, and then continue to complete my previous activity. Moreover, from
this event, I will learn about your character. What if you get your face into
mine, and yell,
“Hello-oh?” Then I know something about you, and that includes that I
need to learn quickly how to set limits on your demanding attitude, because
you are a person who thinks about your own needs, but not about my rights
or responsibilities. I will in the future be careful about getting close to you.
Maybe I match your overture, by smiling back, before I return to my
previous activity. Your response is supposed to be appreciation for the
positive energy that I just sent to you even though I was busy with other
responsibilities. Again, I will learn from you. If you pout for hours or days
because I neglected you, then I know that you will not be able to
understand my legitimate needs for time, privacy, making my own choices,
or fulfilling my agreed-upon duties. Again, you will have taught me that,
“Everything is all about you!”
Now maybe, I stopped what I was doing, made eye contact, smiled and
added, “How are you today?” I have invited you to increase the level of
intimacy, and now you have the same choice all over again.
When one is conversing happily with another person, and then suddenly it
feels uncomfortable and unsafe, then, at that moment, the skilled
conversationalist simply returns to the level of intimacy where ‘it was
working,’ that is where both people felt safe and engaged.
Because of this method and learned skill, we never have to be afraid of
attempting to engage another person, because we know how to maintain a
dialogue that is constantly constructive, useful, peaceful and kind. When
you begin to talk about the Klu Klux Klan, I can simply back down to earlier
levels of intimacy where our dialogue was still safe. This, in fact, is what
effective therapists do. If the dialogue becomes threatening to the client,
the therapist returns the thinking to a place where the client appeared to
feel safe. “There will be another time” to engage on that more difficult or
frightening issue.
Now why do people argue, instead of returning the conversation to a more
suitable place? Because they have to be right? Because they want you to
be just like them? Because they want to punish you for your attitude or
choices? Because they want justice? Because they demand that you meet
their needs right then? If you find yourself arguing with others, then work
harder at the AnteUp Game. In this way, you will learn to stop controlling,
or “fixing,” other people. If you find others arguing with you, then work
hard at returning the level of intimacy to lower levels of the AnteUp Game,
where the conversation felt more safe.
The AnteUp Game is similar to the Onion Theory in that it involves levels of
achieving intimacy. With the Onion Theory, the intimacy proceeds towards
the center of the onion. But in the AnteUp Game, the intimacy climbs
upwards, as if the interaction were a ladder reaching towards intimacy.
There are six levels of interaction, and each one includes both verbal and
body language. These levels are explained in more detail in graphs that
follow this discussion. However, a brief summary of those levels is offered
here.
- Level 1 is Strictly Impersonal. It is small talk. It is about the
weather, not about you or me.
Level 2 is the Impersonal Personal. It includes anything about
you or me that everyone in town is free to know, such as details about
me that you could learn at the courthouse.
Level 3 is Personal. How did I feel when that big Mac Truck ran
into me? How did I like the movie? What made me move to the town
where I live?
Level 4 is about Values and Meaning. What do I think about
everything? What do I believe? Level 4 is where I should have
learned that you are a member of the Klu Klux Klan, or where I learned
that you wanted to help the victims of a natural disaster in a famous
southern city.
Level 5 is about Hopes and Dreams. Sometimes this is an area of
fantasy that can destroy relationship; in other cases, it can strengthen
a common bond.
Level 6 includes our most Personal Feelings and Experiences,
including our Deepest Joys and Hurts. In physical expression, it
also includes sexual activity.
another. That is, one must engage first at Level 1, then Level 2, etc. With
suitable levels of safety, two people can reach Level 6, where both people
experience an important and real sense of intimacy. If, however, two
people engage at Level 6 without having progressed through Levels 4 and
5, then there will be trouble.
It is also important to note, that every interaction begins at Level 1, no
matter how long two people have been together. Therefore, the simple fact
that two people were working in the garden together does not mean that
they can rightfully begin a Level 6 discussion about “What is wrong with
our marriage?” If we want to discuss such important issues, then we must
proceed carefully in dialogue through all levels of intimacy, because this
prepares us both to feel safe and fully engaged in the conversation. It means
that both people feel that they had a choice in selecting that common task,
and therefore they feel safely connected to their partner.
There is an additional important aspect to the AnteUp Game, and that is the
issue of “Chips.” In using this communication method, all people must learn
that we earn additional chips for continued relationship when our
conversation goes well at
Levels 1, 2 and 3. By contrast, we use up chips at Levels 4, 5, and 6. Levels
4, 5 and 6 prove the intimacy of the relationship, but they also use up a lot
of relational energy. Therefore, people who loved each other intensely at
the outset of marriage will find themselves fatigued with each other if all
they ever talk about is ‘what hurts.’ These people say, when they come to
marriage therapy, “I just don’t have that feeling anymore.” I explain to
them, “Of course you don’t. You have worn each other out with so much
negative, painful talk!”
Nevertheless, there is hope. All relationships build chips available for
serious encounters at Levels 1, 2, and 3. That is partly why they are
essential to important discussion. Even in a therapy session where each
member intends to discuss difficult problems, everyone makes eye contact
first, says “Hello,” in a variety of ways, talks about less important personal
matters, and shares beliefs and values before jumping into the weighty
business of Hopes and Dreams (Level 5), or Love Gone Wrong (Level 6).
The other reason that these early levels matter so much is that here is where
‘love blooms.’ These modest, peaceful exchanges create the feeling of
safety and interest in one another that create bonding and attachment.
Nobody becomes attached to another person who keeps saying, “I want to
know where this relationship is going!” However, we become very attached
to people who are ‘present’ to us, who are authentic and real in their
responses to us, and who do not hurt us, even when they have a chance to
get away with it. Humor that does not tease or ridicule, questions that do
not challenge or intimidate, affection that does not seem to have strings
attached—these things build confidence, safety, engagement, and
eventually, bonding, attachment and love.
We therefore strive to master the AnteUp Game. We practice it wherever
we go, whether it is in the grocery story, the workplace, the neighborhood
stroll, the Church, the gym, or even the highway. We become skilled at it,
and eventually we realize that we have really learned how to give and
receive love. We have learned to contribute to the emotional health of
other people, and for that reason, we have discovered that we really do
matter to this universe!
- © Copyright by Nancy Carter, LCSW, ACSW
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |