Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Bel's thoughts
Thank you very much Lucio for your help with this.
Path-based thinking vs. situation specific-thinking in uncertain situations
When situations are uncertain, and reading the specifics is difficult, it may make sense to adopt decisions under path-based thinking.
This means that, instead of trying to infer the meaning of the other person’s behavior and how he would react to a specific action, it may be best to adopt the decision that makes more sense for you based on where you are in life and your path.
So for example, in the case of my client above, it probably makes more sense for me to adopt the decision based on my current learnings and where I am going, rather than try to contact the client and appease him.
I feel I did nothing really wrong, and I learned that it’s important to subcommunicate I am busy and I am firm in my decisions. And the fees I asked of him are at the low end for the kind of work I did.
So, sending the invoice and leaving him to surface any issues, seems the most appropriate solution.
“I understand the situation perfectly well”
I am thinking this could be a stock technique/ answer when someone tries to make you backtrack after a power move that you checked.
One simple case:
Other person: Really, I was just making a joke.
Me: Don’t worry, I understand the situation perfectly well.
Its plus is that it can be interpreted in two directions. Either you are accepting the (fake) justification, or you are implying that the other was deliberately mean.
Now bystanders are likely to interpret it as you being the higher person, while the real asshole will interpret it on the basis of his malicious intentions. But he won’t be able to say anything because of the double meaning.
Quote from Bel on August 18, 2022, 8:18 pmOther person: Really, I was just making a joke.
Me: Don’t worry, I understand the situation perfectly well.
I liked this one a lot! You don't accept his frame that it's a joke, diffuse it, and give back a power move of your own (don't worry). Very high power!
The way it's worded, I'd use it if the joke was very obviously disrespectful. For example, when everyone else watching the interaction is a bit shocked instead of amused. The word choice is more on the formal side of the language, and "perfectly well" ups the intensity. So it's great when we want to put some emotional distance in the interaction.
In situations where the nastiness of the joke flew under everyone else's radar (and especially if they are laughing), I believe it's still a great line (provided that we use some softener):
Other person: Really, I was just making a joke.
Me: Don’t worry, man, I got it (delivered with a tonality/body language that maintains rapport)
So I'm with you, I think it could be a great stock technique/ answer.
Thank you very much for sharing, Bel!
Very interesting topic:, let's title it:
What to say after you check a power move
I think there's a time and place for that answer, and it can work great in the right situation.
However, the answer I probably use most often after checking a power move is a simple:
It's OK
The reason is that the main message of power/awareness/not being cool with their games is already sent the moment you check it.
It's certainly possible they'll keep playing power moves going forward, but it's also very possible that's the end of it: they got the message you're not the guy to be taken advantage of and/or pushed around, and now you can have an adult-to-adult, open and genuine interaction -or even alliance-.
At that point, you may as well focus on re-building rapport.
In our turkey-eagle allegory, after you enforced boundaries may be the perfect time to soar back up.
"I perfectly understand the situation" instead keeps on playing the "one VS another" game.
There's also an important reason I often like this approach: saying "I perfectly understand the situation" thread-expands on the game playing.
A strong "that's OK" instead sub-communicates that it was a small parenthesis in your life: you're not the type of guy who either appreciates power moves, who engages in power moves, or who's used to power moves -the latter one is important, it sub-communicates high-power, that people don't pull power moves on you very often-.
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 23, 2022, 2:44 pmor who's used to power moves -the latter one is important, it sub-communicates high-power, that people don't pull power moves on you very often-.
This is why an attitude of "what the fuck was that" with power moves is often a wonderful approach and frame of mind:
It sub-communicates personal character and value, but also a history of high-power interactions.
Only people who are used to others treating them well have an attitude of "what the fuck was that" -people used to poor behavior from others instead almost expect power moves-.
The same approach can also apply in physical self-defense.
Say, if someone pushes you, rather than (necessarily) fighting back, slinking away, or verbally attacking, you can look at him sternly/angry and say out loud "dude, what the fuck was that".
Even if you just walk away after that, you still recovered a lot: you sub-communicated "I'm not the guy who's been pushed around in life" (literally, in this case).
Lucio these two posts are awesome and very instructive.
My only question is if the principle of going back to win-win works also in case of red level power moves.
I feel it may not, and in one of those cases (the handshake power move) you also mentioned the possibility of communicating (afterwards) that one doesn’t want to be there if the power mover is also going to be there in other occasions. If that’s the case, shouldn’t one maintain the one vs another frame even in the immediate?
I guess another way to ask this question would be: what if, after I communicate we can go back to win-win, the other uses this to play a nastier and even more unexpected power move?
I understand if I check it again I may come up as even more powerful (because I gave him a chance); but my current capacity to check power moves is not high. So I’m wondering if adopting a stance of “you power move, you’re (mostly) out” could make sense while one is learning.
This happened to me today as I went to pay at a bar, in front of other people as well:
Me: Do you accept cards?
Owner: Yes, we also accept toilet paper four sheets.
Me: (puzzled face) So you don’t?
Owner: Yes, come here. (points to POS machine and inputs amount; I pay)
Owner: Sorry, I have a delicate bottom.
Me: We all have.
Owner: Well, there are people who wipe on newspapers. Do you want a receipt?
Me: Yes, thank you.
Owner: I’ll give you the receipt and then print another for myself.
Me: (I take the receipt and turn around)
Owner: Goodbye sir and have a great day.
Me: (without turning) You too.
This caught me totally unexpected and all I could do was try to limit damages as above (removing warmth and not answering).
Unbelievable. Especially because he could have just said “no” and I would have paid in cash.
I just went through the “ask and drop” technique in the Machiavellian portion of PU.
Now I’m sure my client above (who disappeared) is using a technique against me, and that I will just send him the invoice for work done and then stay silent myself.
BTW, a good answer I’ve seen used against the “ask and drop” when I (inadvertently) used it myself was for the seller to contact me again while framing his previous offer as time-limited.
This, in fact, recently happened to me with a hotel room quote. The hotel sent me a quote valid until the day after, and then in the evening (of the same day, this one day before expiration of the quote) contacted me again saying they were receiving other requests for the same room (which they said was the last one), and they asked if I had decided.
I booked, and then found out the room was not technically the last one. It was the last one for the first day of my stay only.
So I’m thinking I could have countered with being unsure or just requested a discount, just to avoid coming across as a gullible person.
In fact, I’m thinking that being on the receiving end of a “scarcity principle” ploy should probably always be countered with the stance that one cannot proceed.
Because let’s face it, if the seller is really fully booked, why bother going back to someone?
In the case above I was booking last-minute, thus my interest was mainly in not coming across as a person who could be manipulated.
Yeah, I second that:
It's (almost) always better to proactively take steps not to come across as gullible.
One, because even short interactions sometimes include several exchanges.
For example, the hotel may then proceed to try to overcharge you a meal, or the parking place, etc.
But, even more important in my opinion, is because of self-signaling, and habits.
It's better to get into the habit of coming across as power-aware, so that whenever you need it, it's automatic-mode, rather than something you need to switch to.
Quote from Bel on August 24, 2022, 4:43 pmLucio these two posts are awesome and very instructive.
My only question is if the principle of going back to win-win works also in case of red level power moves.
Yeah, in some cases, including several red levels, then it's fair and often a good idea not to "OK" the move and your original stock answer is legit.
