They seems to know what the word ‘manipulation’ means. But does knowing the rules makes you a good player? You know the answer. Or, you think you know it.

All those books, and posts and talks. All of them describe the game. They try to explain what they see, they don’t say what they do. They don't play it because they cannot, or they don't know they can. They can analyze the MO of the apiarist, they see him operating, but he also can see them watching him.

A good player never admits he's playing. The ‘never’ is absolute. What is not explicitly said counts as much as the said part, if not even more. No light exists without dark, the ancient said.

The first law is to lower their defenses. Equivalently expressed as: to not raise their defenses. Adaptation seems to be a useful word in this context, but it is not. It does not lay in the layer of the action itself. The description layer is where they all can stay.

Watch the world with their eyes is closer than 'adaptation', you can see. 'ten steps ahead' does not convey much, yet, it is indeed a result of the action. They can see the result; they can describe the result. A result is not obtainable if one starts from 'the result'.

What is a set for one of the sets of its powerset? A superset. What is 'the sum of all the parts' for one of the parts? Can a set see what belongs to its superset? What happens when there's two minds, and one of them is a superset of the other? Why you can easily deceive a child? Or, if you are immune to syntactic or have different tastes: why can you easily manipulate a child? Is a superset 'ten steps head' of its subset? No. The superset lays on a different layer. The superset plays the game with what he knows more in respect of the subset. A result is 'to be ten steps ahead'. They can describe the result, can they obtain it?

The subset can only see what he knows, you see. The superset can make himself appear like the subset. The subset will never know it. It should be clear by now that a tautology like 'you can only see what you see; you cannot see what you cannot see' is a rather not-so dull one now.

When the best leader's work is done the people say, 'We did it ourselves.'

What is the best way to make people think like you want them to think? There is no way. They have to think it.

What is inherently under your control? What is inherently not under your control? Easy questions I make. Easy answers you have?

You say to people what people must think, you raise defenses, you are a threat for them. The game is played when it seems there is no game to be played.

When you observe the system you are in the system. Knowing you cannot not change its state when you are in it, what can you again control in it?

You read a piece of writing, you think you think what you think. Are you? A person talks to you, you think you think what you think. Are you? Now, a person is the subset, you are the superset. You now decide to have fun. The person thinks he thinks what he thinks. Your fun increases.

You talk. You write. You do. While this, you are in the system, so again, what can you control in it? Either you think it or not, the system changes after you do. You hurry up, but there is no train to catch. Are you deciding? Or, do you think you are deciding? Will knowing definition make you a better player? Will describing the rules and results make you obtain the results? Will deciding give you what you decided to have? Are you deciding?

Do you actually think something can make you a better player? There is no something. You create the something. You are the something.

They so much like to describe it. They so much like 'to hold it'. To 'hold' is the result. Your $being like you are$ creates it. You hold nothing. There is nothing to hold. There is no something.