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,
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.
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!
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?”
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.
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