Awareness of (covert) power moves in my daily life - examples

Quote from John Freeman on July 10, 2022, 12:51 pm

Great move!

You answered his question therefore you helped him. He's typically in the "victim mindset" so he's helpless ("I don't know what to do") whereas in reality he's not since he already called the police and called you. He's now trying to guilt-trip you because I think he actually wanted emotional support but he did not ask for it (I'm speculating here). So he's trying to punish for not responding to the unsaid demand. He's trying to give you some responsibility you don't have, which you rightfully refused.

Maybe you guys are not as close as you both thought in the first place. But this info is useful for you. There's nothing to feel guilty about. You did what you did within the boundaries of the friendship you have with them.  You have the right to decide what you're willing to participate in/to give. Moreover, you had insider information about her mental state, so this helped you take a more informed decision about your involvement.

What I mean is that:

1. You helped him
2. You stated your boundaries
3. It's not your mother/sister so you're not going to run to her home and bang on the door, that is not your responsibility (the closeness part) and it's ok.

So you behaved responsibly and did your best while asserting your boundaries. I think you are in a time in your life where you are weeding out the negative relationships. It's very important. One less person sucking the life out you.

With honest and mature people you can be closer and more vulnerable. With the manipulative one, your stance is the best: at an arm-length.

I see now your update: Drama = red flag. Hopefully you did not get involved in this crazy mess!

Quote from Bel on July 10, 2022, 8:24 pm

Hi Emily,

after John's excellent post, I would also like to add that I personally encountered this same situation, and in my case also, the person who was supposed to be suicidal was in reality not suicidal, and was very surprised that I would be worried about him when I did call him.

The similarities between the two situations now make me feel that this move may be a triangulation power play meant to have other people harass the "supposedly suicidal" person and to poison the well with her friends. Very nasty.

Let's think about it from an abstract perspective: if we had a friend who was really suicidal, after calling the police, would we be calling one or more of her friends? I'm not sure, but I'd bet that we would want to attract as little "drama" around the suicidal friend as possible. So the most caring outcome seems to be the opposite of what went on in our two cases.

Some comments on the interaction:

Quote from Emily on July 9, 2022, 11:35 pm

Him: Mary is threatening suicide and won't answer my calls. I'm kind of panicking, can you call her? Please, I'm sorry. I just don't know what to do. I called the police. I really don't know what to do.

I also encountered the "panicking" in my case (which I now think might have been fake), and also guilt-tripping. So I agree here with your impression:

He might be really panicking, but from what I know about them both he was more likely to be covertly playing vulnerable victim to get me to do the thing he wants me to do.

I think you handled it very well, certainly better than I did at the time. Here:

Me:I have the impression that she isn't really suicidal, and she mentions suicide when she gets emotional, which seems to stem from relationship problems, so I offered my resources to her.

When reading this I felt that you were falling a bit into the triangulation, i.e. speaking for Mary.

The frame you got until that point seemed stronger: she's a grown woman, you already mention having done whatever you could, so that's it.

Me:In this case, I don't think you contacting me about her suicidal threats is a good use of either your or my time. Let's make it a mutual understanding. I would appreciate that.

I think here you did good. But when you said you didn't want to be involved with hearing about "her suicidal threats", you somewhat validated that what he was saying was true, and opened the door to him continuing to play along that fake ploy, which he did by then implying you did not care.

I'm just thinking out loud if going meta could have been preferable, as you mention that the first time this happened you contacted Mary and she said everything was ok:

Me: Dean, this is the second time you contact me about this. The first time I got into action, and it turned out things were not exactly as you painted them. Why are you doing this?

This could have cut to the core of the manipulation, and could have made him retreat by leaving him no escape.

Here his closing:

Him: Noted. I overestimated your friendship with her, and with me. It was a misunderstanding, and I apologize. I will not contact you again.

Was very nasty and threatening (i.e. don't do as I say? You lose me as a friend, and you're also a bad friend to her), and I think your answer was good.

Another possible answer since he was very nasty, just to think out loud:

Me: Dean why are you continuing to play games here by painting me as indifferent? When the reality about why you're calling me is a totally different one?

Quote from John Freeman on July 10, 2022, 8:27 pm

Was very nasty and threatening (i.e. don't do as I say? You lose me as a friend, and you're also a bad friend to her), and I think your answer was good.

Agreed with Bel. I also agree with you, I would have kept the interaction shorter as everything has already been said. That is why the first time I read it I thought it was options of other answers. Or you could have gone "broken record": you repeat exactly what you have said if the person did not seem like they heard it.

Quote from Emily on July 11, 2022, 8:13 am

Quote from John Freeman on July 10, 2022, 12:51 pm

Great move!

You answered his question therefore you helped him. He's typically in the "victim mindset" so he's helpless ("I don't know what to do") whereas in reality he's not since he already called the police and called you. He's now trying to guilt-trip you because I think he actually wanted emotional support but he did not ask for it (I'm speculating here). So he's trying to punish for not responding to the unsaid demand. He's trying to give you some responsibility you don't have, which you rightfully refused.

Maybe you guys are not as close as you both thought in the first place. But this info is useful for you. There's nothing to feel guilty about. You did what you did within the boundaries of the friendship you have with them.  You have the right to decide what you're willing to participate in/to give. Moreover, you had insider information about her mental state, so this helped you take a more informed decision about your involvement.

What I mean is that:

1. You helped him
2. You stated your boundaries
3. It's not your mother/sister so you're not going to run to her home and bang on the door, that is not your responsibility (the closeness part) and it's ok.

So you behaved responsibly and did your best while asserting your boundaries. I think you are in a time in your life where you are weeding out the negative relationships. It's very important. One less person sucking the life out you.

With honest and mature people you can be closer and more vulnerable. With the manipulative one, your stance is the best: at an arm-length.

I see now your update: Drama = red flag. Hopefully you did not get involved in this crazy mess!

John, you are absolutely right that it is time for me to weed out negative relationships. I know you've been in a journey to construct social life from scratch for some time. I look forward to learning more from your experiences.

I agree with your impression of this interaction, and I appreciate one point (that I overlooked) as you pointed out -- in reality he was not hopeless (as he already called the police), so it is really a contradiction that he did this, and he likely had ulterior motives. Thanks for spotting this!!

Quote from Emily on July 11, 2022, 8:33 am

Quote from Bel on July 10, 2022, 8:24 pm

Hi Emily,

after John's excellent post, I would also like to add that I personally encountered this same situation, and in my case also, the person who was supposed to be suicidal was in reality not suicidal, and was very surprised that I would be worried about him when I did call him.

The similarities between the two situations now make me feel that this move may be a triangulation power play meant to have other people harass the "supposedly suicidal" person and to poison the well with her friends. Very nasty.

Let's think about it from an abstract perspective: if we had a friend who was really suicidal, after calling the police, would we be calling one or more of her friends? I'm not sure, but I'd bet that we would want to attract as little "drama" around the suicidal friend as possible. So the most caring outcome seems to be the opposite of what went on in our two cases.

Some comments on the interaction:

Quote from Emily on July 9, 2022, 11:35 pm

Him: Mary is threatening suicide and won't answer my calls. I'm kind of panicking, can you call her? Please, I'm sorry. I just don't know what to do. I called the police. I really don't know what to do.

I also encountered the "panicking" in my case (which I now think might have been fake), and also guilt-tripping. So I agree here with your impression:

He might be really panicking, but from what I know about them both he was more likely to be covertly playing vulnerable victim to get me to do the thing he wants me to do.

I think you handled it very well, certainly better than I did at the time. Here:

Me:I have the impression that she isn't really suicidal, and she mentions suicide when she gets emotional, which seems to stem from relationship problems, so I offered my resources to her.

When reading this I felt that you were falling a bit into the triangulation, i.e. speaking for Mary.

The frame you got until that point seemed stronger: she's a grown woman, you already mention having done whatever you could, so that's it.

Me:In this case, I don't think you contacting me about her suicidal threats is a good use of either your or my time. Let's make it a mutual understanding. I would appreciate that.

I think here you did good. But when you said you didn't want to be involved with hearing about "her suicidal threats", you somewhat validated that what he was saying was true, and opened the door to him continuing to play along that fake ploy, which he did by then implying you did not care.

I'm just thinking out loud if going meta could have been preferable, as you mention that the first time this happened you contacted Mary and she said everything was ok:

Me: Dean, this is the second time you contact me about this. The first time I got into action, and it turned out things were not exactly as you painted them. Why are you doing this?

This could have cut to the core of the manipulation, and could have made him retreat by leaving him no escape.

Here his closing:

Him: Noted. I overestimated your friendship with her, and with me. It was a misunderstanding, and I apologize. I will not contact you again.

Was very nasty and threatening (i.e. don't do as I say? You lose me as a friend, and you're also a bad friend to her), and I think your answer was good.

Another possible answer since he was very nasty, just to think out loud:

Me: Dean why are you continuing to play games here by painting me as indifferent? When the reality about why you're calling me is a totally different one?

Bel, I think you are getting into something deeper in here. Sorry to hear that you had to go through the same thing.

Yes I am aware of triangulation, actually because of my experience with (covert) narcissists, I read a lot about the topic. But no matter how much I heard of/read about it, it's still a shock when I observe it first-hand in operation. It's nice for you to call it out directly! If you would like to exchange thoughts about narcissistic traits/behaviors further, I would be happy to talk more.

For this specific person, there were signs before that he has narcissistic tendencies. When I think of it, this all comes together now. I remember that this happened before with a common friend's partner, who had a fallout with Mary and did not talk to her for a long time because of his intervening. Your direct approach sounds great, if I want to completely cut this person out (i.e., "absolute no contact"), and there are no stakes involved. Nonetheless, I could have controlled the frame better, as you suggested, especially not falling into his "Mary is suicidal and unstable, and look I am such a victim you need to help me" frame.

The reason that I did not call him out, is that he is involved in a friend's circle a lot, and in that circle I have friends I do cherish. Knowing who he is, I think it is safer to use caution, as he already smear-campaigned Mary. He probably resents me since I am closer to her. Anyway, I agree with your insight that this is a nasty move when he felt he had no control over her, he wanted to recruit other people to further paint a bad picture of her and isolate her.

Quote from John Freeman on July 11, 2022, 10:06 am

Quote from Emily on July 11, 2022, 8:13 am

I agree with your impression of this interaction, and I appreciate one point (that I overlooked) as you pointed out -- in reality he was not hopeless (as he already called the police), so it is really a contradiction that he did this, and he likely had ulterior motives. Thanks for spotting this!!

That is why it's a game. If you don't help him you're a bad person, if you help him he can (and sometimes it happens) go on the offense and defend: "I know I already did that, I'm not stupid". So it is a game with a secondary benefit: getting attention.

It can quickly turn into a game of "Why don't you, yes but."

If you're interested about games, I can recommend you games people play

Here is the PDF

Here is the summary:

4 WHY DON'T YOU-YES BUT
ANALYSIS
Thesis: See if you can present a solution I can't find fault with.
Aim: Reassurance. Roles: Helpless person, Advisers. Dynamics: Surrender conflict (oral).
Examples: (1) Yes, but I can't do my homework now because. . . . (2) Helpless wife. Social
Paradigm: Adult-Adult.
Adult: "What do you do if. . . ." Adult: "Why don't you. . . ."
Adult: "Yes, but. . . ." Psychological Paradigm: Parent-Child.
Parent: "I can make you grateful for my help." Child: "Go ahead and try.

Moves: CO Problem-Solution. (2) Objection-Solution. (3) Objection-Disconcertion.
Advantages: (1) Internal Psychological—reassurance. (2) External Psychological—avoids
surrender. (3) Internal Social-YDYB, Parental role. (4) External Social-YDYB, Child role, (5)
Biological—rational discussion. (6) Existential—Everybody wants to dominate me.

Of course, it might be another game as well. This reminded me of this one.

Since he's embedded in your social circle, here is my adventure with such a dynamic. That could be helpful as well.

Quote from Emily on July 11, 2022, 6:56 pm

Quote from John Freeman on July 11, 2022, 10:06 am

Quote from Emily on July 11, 2022, 8:13 am

I agree with your impression of this interaction, and I appreciate one point (that I overlooked) as you pointed out -- in reality he was not hopeless (as he already called the police), so it is really a contradiction that he did this, and he likely had ulterior motives. Thanks for spotting this!!

That is why it's a game. If you don't help him you're a bad person, if you help him he can (and sometimes it happens) go on the offense and defend: "I know I already did that, I'm not stupid". So it is a game with a secondary benefit: getting attention.

It can quickly turn into a game of "Why don't you, yes but."

If you're interested about games, I can recommend you games people play

Here is the PDF

Here is the summary:

4 WHY DON'T YOU-YES BUT
ANALYSIS
Thesis: See if you can present a solution I can't find fault with.
Aim: Reassurance. Roles: Helpless person, Advisers. Dynamics: Surrender conflict (oral).
Examples: (1) Yes, but I can't do my homework now because. . . . (2) Helpless wife. Social
Paradigm: Adult-Adult.
Adult: "What do you do if. . . ." Adult: "Why don't you. . . ."
Adult: "Yes, but. . . ." Psychological Paradigm: Parent-Child.
Parent: "I can make you grateful for my help." Child: "Go ahead and try.

Moves: CO Problem-Solution. (2) Objection-Solution. (3) Objection-Disconcertion.
Advantages: (1) Internal Psychological—reassurance. (2) External Psychological—avoids
surrender. (3) Internal Social-YDYB, Parental role. (4) External Social-YDYB, Child role, (5)
Biological—rational discussion. (6) Existential—Everybody wants to dominate me.

Of course, it might be another game as well. This reminded me of this one.

Since he's embedded in your social circle, here is my adventure with such a dynamic. That could be helpful as well.

Hi John, thank you for the "games people play" book. I've heard of it but haven't had time to read it yet. I will take some time this month to read this classic.

Also appreciate sharing your similar experience detailed in the thread you sent. Lucio had some great insights on bolder moves I wouldn't think of myself there. I also personally feel that going meta in front of the whole group is not worth it for me in general and for this particular case. I have no intention to receive more nasty moves or a concerted smear-campaign from him, as it is clear that he is capable of those.

On the other hand, most of his core group people are not people I am interested in developing deeper connections with. So for me I feel the best strategy is to have a slow fade, while also trying to invite the people I like in that group to do something that he would have no particular interests in.

Quote from John Freeman on July 11, 2022, 7:14 pm

Exactly you recruit the people with good will and leave behind the bad apples.

If they appreciate the vibe, events you organize and you connect well, they’ll be happy to come again.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 11, 2022, 10:14 pm

Oh wow, what a next level sneaky fuck that Dean.

In these cases, my take is that the more you engage, the more flank you give to these types of people.

Seems like his objective was to tarnish Mary's reputation, and that's what he was also doing with you -really a lowlife move-.

You went assertive, which is OK.
The thing is... Sneaky fucks don't deserve assertive -it's time-consuming and high investment, can make you enemies you don't want, and still involves you in the interaction, both timewise, and emotional-.

As soon as you smelled the rancid, I'd have kept my replies more spaced out in time, and far briefer.

The reason is simple, yet so effective:

The more out of reach you are, both in time and emotionally, the more out of reach you are for his games and manipulations.

As for maximum effectiveness, it's "out of reach, but still with just enough politeness and responsiveness to avoid a total cut".

So:

Him: Mary is threatening suicide and won't answer my calls. I'm kind of panicking, can you call her? Please, I'm sorry. I just don't know what to do. I called the police. I really don't know what to do.

You: (5h later) hey Dean, sorry the delay, only see this now after a long day. Worry not, Mary is a cool lady, she'll be fine. Stay strong (slight power move on your own. Sub-communication being: you're the bitch who's panicking for nothing)

After that, expect he contacts you right away saying that no, Mary is not ok.
To which, you do not reply. Then the day after or later say something like "so nice of you to worry about her, but trust she's good :). Cheers Dean!"