[Plaything48]

Does this mean anything to anyone?

This theory gives a person the best possible option in relational confrontation.

Mr. X, 17: He wakes up one morning to find that everywhere is covered in snow, and that there’s little chance of getting school. His parent disagrees, but gives him the option of staying home or going to school, although his preference is for the latter. Mr. X stays at home, and while in bed decides that it would be best to do some work. After a short while, the parent comes into the bedroom and tells X that because he’s not going to school, he should do work.
The problem we now have is a conflict. It’s in Mr. Xs nature to rebel, but he does have other options, which he can apply to the situation. If we imagine a rectangle as a representation of a battle ground, and we draw a line somewhere across it. On one side of this line is Mr. Xs’ ground, and on the other side is the parents ground. This imaginary battle ground represents the rules and power of each player. The more ground you have, the more power you have, and the more rules you can set. When Mr. X was born, he only had a tiny fraction of this ground, but with every year he aged, he was able to claim more of this ground, which meant the parent had to lose ground. The parent is always going to have fundamental rules that can’t be taken away, and similarly Mr. X is always going to have fundamental rules. A fundamental rule set by the parent maybe something long the lines of ‘Your not going out dressed like that, it’s cold. Put something warmer on.’ It doesn’t matter what age Mr. X reaches, he can never seize those rules from the parents ground. Mr. X may have rules to about privacy, that will always remain between him and the parent, and so cannot be seized. However, there are rules that can seized by Mr. X, which he can use to claim more ground. Rules such as ‘go to bed’, ‘do your work’, and ‘tidy up’ are all subject to capture eventually.
In the situation described in the first paragraph, Mr. X has three options. Usually, he would rebel, but he decides that there are other ways of going about it.

Option 1

Mr. X can rebel, and not do work. The reason for him doing this is due to a conflict between him and the parent, where Mr. X has decided to do something, and is then being told to do it anyway. However, if he rebels there can be consequences. He will ultimately seize more of the battle ground, but in doing so, he may force new rules to be created by the parent, which ultimately ends up in more ground lost than won.

Option 2

Mr. X can do the work, but then runs the risk of seeming less dominant. This can lead to the parent trying to take advantage of the situation and claim more ground, because the parent sees Mr. X as cooperative and non-rebelling. Mr. X will ultimately lose ground, while the parent gains a substantial amount.

Option 3

Mr. X can do the work, but sees it as opportunity to claim ground with non-fundamental rules. The parent will see it as cooperation, and so may likely revert to the outcome of option 2, but whereas Mr. X may be able to know what ground he’s losing, the parent won’t know what ground Mr. X is taking. It would be best for Mr. X to take ground, because then he can claim a lot more than what he’s losing.

In all three options, the idea is not to have the best outcome for the cause of the conflict, but to have the best outcome for the ground gained in the conflict.