Bel's thoughts

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on October 20, 2022, 3:40 pm

Wow, what a champion this guy was.

Thank you for sharing that, Bel, it's helpful to read about all the disempowering shit that some of the worst individuals resort to in an effort ot disempower, demean, and sap the self-esteem of others (and to then more easily control them).

However, +1 to what Mats says: it's exactly like ke we say here at TPM. Eventually, those tactics "work" with a few people and will keep you the worst ones around.
Eventually, many people wisen up and leave -and among those, the best ones-.

Quote from underdogexceptional on October 20, 2022, 8:56 pm

Absolutely ridiculous behaviour from that childish man.

Can I ask Bel, when your former boss started pulling that dickhead behaviour, couldn't you have a direct talk with him, going meta or indirectly addressing the situation. It's good that guy is not your boss anymore, and personally these are the reasons for myself I never want to be an employee (99 percent of the time), and I would never stay at a place like that, it could only end in confrontation/showdown and rightly so.

But what if you gave the following responses then

"Hey, I understand you have people to talk to and you're a busy guy, however I'm working on important work and on top of that, I've got serious deadlines, could you use someone else's office to have these talks with colleagues, I can get our work done effectively this way?" (all in a direct, firm tone, no laughing or downplaying body language or voice tonality).

or going meta here with the following response

"Look, every time I have work, work that is very important and work that you gave to me, you bring your colleagues into the office and start talking loudly and distracting me from my work, I noticed that you are doing this more and more and it's bringing down my work efficiency. Let's talk directly here, is there a reason why you are doing this? I come here to work and be dealt with respectfully. The company is what I care about."

If you wanted to stay at that job, then these are the responses you could give. I wouldn't have stayed at that job, and I probably would have went meta with no intention of collaborating or staying there and I would have got into a power-showdown with him. That's because it goes against my values and yours too I think, no-one should have to sacrifice their basic self-respect as a human being because of an asshole "boss". Even collaborating would feel like submission. Nasty people.

I also don't know if you stayed at that job or what happened. Let me know if I missed any details in regards to this former boss as I've been reading through this blog entry recently, but haven't got around to reading all of it yet from the beginning, yet 🙂

Quote from Bel on October 23, 2022, 1:19 pm

Thank you so much guys for your kind words!

Quote from Bel on October 23, 2022, 1:58 pm

Handling a former bad client

New developments with this person.

This person had been insulting me covertly in front of my relatives and friends and I went no contact; unfortunately I was also working for him, and I begrudgingly decided to complete my work.

When I completed work and obtained a favorable outcome for him, I sent him my invoice and asked to be paid immediately, as I wrote here

Quote from Bel on September 7, 2022, 6:46 pm

Him: Hi Bel,

in pleasantly getting these news I wanted to thank you for the great work performed.

I wanted to ask you if you know when they will pay me this sum.

To pay you do I make a wire?

I immediately thought he was trying to link him receiving payment from the counterpart to him paying me.

While this is something I would usually accept, I did not want to make this favor to this person due to his past behavior toward me.

Me: Hi,

please proceed to wire my fees as you say.

Kind regards

Him: Hi Bel,

but do you know when they will pay me? Because as soon as I get paid I will make the wire to you.

Thank you

I immediately think I must either surface the implied question or just deny the implied request, and I choose the latter:

Me: Dear X,

please proceed to the payment immediately, I also have deadlines and expenses and I can't wait further.

Him: Hi Bel,

Ok to wire you, but you didn't answer my question do you know when they will pay me?!

Thank you

Me: Thank you, term of payment to you is x days.

Bel

Him: Hi Bel,

perfect thanks a lot.

Can I make the wire to you on ... since I receive my salary on that day?!

I now think since he asked openly I can agree, but want to show little investment:

Me: Yes that's ok,

bye X

Now this is the new exchange that ensued:

Him: Hi Bel,

x days have passed but I haven't yet received payment by [counterpart]?!

Do I need to do something?!

Thank you

Good day

I couldn't help but notice both the constant interrobang use, the inherent tasking and the nasty tone.

I waited four days and answered with:

Me: Hi X,

term of payment is x days, but a little delay is not indicative because ...

If you want to push, you can directly call the customer service.

If that doesn't work, one can then send another reminder by email.

Bye

Ten days later, I receive this from him:

Him: Goodday Bel,

I haven't yet received any payment, I called to no avail ...

Can you send them a reminder also to know when they will pay.

But these companies can do what they want even after a judgement by the judge?!? They don't incur any sanction even though they don't comply with deadlines!

If they shouldn't pay me?!

Let me know thank you

Good day

I think I would have helped him in being paid, notwithstanding his past behavior, if he had asked kindly and thus shown being at least a bit sorry about how he treated me in the past.

But his present tone (where he basically throws his anger at me, something he used to do even more when I was unaware) is pushing me more and more to the side where I don't want to help him.

So I thought about it; I waited ten days, and answered:

Me: Hi X,

you can send yourself the order to the customer service, including by email, specifying your bank coordinates and pushing for payment within 15 days.

Bye

Some reflections on this:

• I don't yet know if I will have to help him or not in enforcing the order and get him paid. Since I made the mistake of not entering into a written agreement for my work for him, as I (naively) trusted him as a "friend", there is no clear cut answer.
• Since he is behaving offensively, I am not jumping at the chance to show I'm eager to work at any condition, as I used to always do.
• If he explodes, I will use that as a reason to stop helping him.
• If he comes to the conclusion that I'm not useful to him anymore, he might go elsewhere himself.
• If he still pushes me to help him get paid, I still have the option to either: (i) go along and do it; or (ii) say I'm busy and I cannot take this new work, as I wouldn't be able to assist him with the quickness he needs. I will evaluate and decide based on how things develop.
• If in the end I choose to go along and help him, to avoid any complaints on his part, he will have in any case seen I am not jumping at helping him due to his rudeness.

---

On tasking

While before I was constanty submitting and accepting being tasked, now I have the opposite behavior: as soon as I see tasking, I go into "not doing that" mode.

I think even accepting light (socially innocuous) tasking also depends on the prior relationship one has with a person:

• If one has behaved very badly in the past, no tasking can be accepted.
• Similarly, if the acquaintance is very recent, no tasking can be accepted, even if light.

If on the contrary one has known a person for a longer time, and the other has shown being a good person, then light tasking can be accepted (but always guard up).

------------

I understand myself that the above is not ideal behavior on my side. But he's really draining my patience.

Edit: his manipulative move that is making me unconsciously resent him is blaming me for the behavior of the counterpart.

Now that I reread this, I understand his manipulative move consist in blaming the counterpart's behavior on me, as if I was guilty of not doing a good job since he hasn't been paid yet.

That explains his interrobang use, his "anger" projected at me, and so on.

I think putting this in my reply could have worked in throwing back guilt where it deserved:

Me: Yeah, these companies can be sloppy sometimes.

It would have subcommunicated that I didn't accept his projection and that I knew full well what he was doing.

So it could have stopped him in his tracks.

Quote from Bel on October 24, 2022, 12:37 am

Manipulation technique: "guilt-tripping triangulation"

From the post above, here's the manipulative technique I now recognize.

It consists of a combination of behaviors, and can be done in person, on the phone, in writing.

Here the components used by the manipulator:

• showing high emotional distress
• verbalizing that the distress derives from the behavior, words or actions of a third party
• implying/subcommunicating that the listener is responsible for the distress (which has been verbalized as deriving from the the third party): otherwise, why act in distress precisely when talking with the listener?

The effect: guilt-tripping the listener to take quick action in favor of the manipulator.

In-writing example

In the case above we have all three components in writing:

Him: Hi Bel,

x days have passed but I haven't yet received payment by [counterpart]?! (verbalizing that the third party has not paid him, but implying I am at fault since he is distressed; use of interrobang ("?!") precisely to show he is distressed)

Do I need to do something?! (covert guilt-tripping; what he really is saying is: you need to do something as you are my lawyer; and again the interrobang to imply he is distressed)

Thank you (tasking me covertly by assuming I am going to do something to redress the situation; the message is "as an empathic normal person would do something here to help me")

And in his second email:

Him: Goodday Bel,

I haven't yet received any payment, I called to no avail ...

Can you send them a reminder also to know when they will pay. (open tasking)

But these companies can do what they want even after a judgement by the judge?!? They don't incur any sanction even though they don't comply with deadlines! (useless line. Only function is manipulating me by showing he is distressed. He doesn't really want to know the answer to his question. He just wants me to fall into his frame that I have to provide explanations, and thus justify myself as to why the counterpart has not paid him. Interrobang used in triple form to show more distress: "?!?". In essence: he is verbalizing the third party is bad; but is clearly subcommunicating it is my fault. Otherwise why show the distress to me?)

If they shouldn't pay me?! (covert guilt-tripping. Implying I am responsible for having asked to be paid by him while he now risks not being paid)

Let me know thank you (tasking)

Good day

In-person example

I remember a relative I was working for in an inheritance matter meeting me after having been to the bank.

He was very agitated and angry at the bank's staff behavior.

I had sent him there to get some certificates. He then met me and was very angry and distressed, and he verbalized that the staff was not helpful and was dragging things on, and told me some things they "had said to him" that proved this.

I remember feeling "responsible" for his distress, in the sense that I had not done "enough" for him; otherwise, why be so angry?

But, more interestingly, I also remember at a certain point I said something to the effect of:

Me: Well if they told you this thing, I will write them a legal complaint immediately. They cannot be allowed to do things like this.

And the incredible happened (I remember being very surprised):

  Him: Wait. They are good people after all. No need to go this far.

In essence: he confessed to me that his "distress" was fake, and only meant to manipulate me. The bank's staff had probably been perfectly polite to him.

On the phone examples

Example one.

I remember the above exact former client of mine, the one now trying to guilt-trip me via email, getting another lawyer for a specific case due to a conflicts issue.

I was not even assisting him. But I remember that I received a phone call from him that went like this:

Him: Hi Bel.

My lawyer Mr. X sent me to the bank to get information about ....

I went there and wasted an entire morning. (with an angry, very irritated tone)

Can you believe it ?!? An entire morning!

I am so angry! F***!

I distinctly remember I cut the phone call short and I thought: "why in the world are you getting angry at ME if this other lawyer sent you there?".

Now I understand: he was precisely using the guilt-tripping triangulation.

It didn't even make sense in this case!

But he used it because, very probably, he had tried it on me in the past and it had worked. So he just repeated the behavior even though, in this case, I wasn't even assisting him.

And of course, I remember he then, some days later, asked for my help in an aspect of the case.

But I had been already "feeling" something was very off, and had blocked him already.

This also explains why he tried it again in the email exchange here above.

Example two

A friend of mine was getting married shortly. I was with her and other people for a visit two or three days before the wedding.

Suddenly she received a phone call from her cousin. Her cousin started screaming on the phone to her, so much that even I could hear:

Cousin: "X, I talked to your musician for the wedding to ask him to be able to sing a song for you. But he is creating problems! He is so nasty! I only want to sing a song on your wedding day. Why does he have to object and create problems?!?"

I remember my friend cutting the phone call short by saying something like:

My friend: "Look cousin, I don't have time for this now. You please solve this problem directly with him".

Now: the fact that she told her cousin to "solve it directly with him" derives from the subcommunication my friend was picking on, which was:

Cousin: "This is your fault. You chose this musician so you now talk to him to allow me to sing at your wedding".

Not verbalized, but implied via the (fake) distress.

How to address it (tentative):

1. Recognize the distress is fake and meant to manipulate
2. Stay emotionally unaffected
3. Subcommunicate you understand what is happening AND that the distress is unwarranted

For example by asking if they need help with their anger/distress:

Other: You won't believe it! They did this and this! How is it possible?!?

Me: Do you need a camomile? Or maybe it's better you go calm yourself now and we talk later.

Other: No I need your help in dealing with this person!

Me: Me? What have I got to do with him? / or / Well, right now you seem a bit too distressed, it's better if you calm down first.

Now that I'm starting to recognize it, I'm already feeling it losing much of its power.

Until now, even though I felt the need to take distance and it was irritating me, it was somewhat still working as I didn't recognize the distress was fake! 

Even though I rejected the tasking, I still felt subconsciously "guilty" (for example in the email exchange above).

How sad and nasty of these people.

Quote from Bel on October 24, 2022, 1:57 am

I'm happy that, thanks to the opportunities for better knowledge of these hidden power dynamics I got from Power University, Lucio and TPM's community, I am learning more than I ever could in a so short period of time.

I never had so many insights in such a short time. And I was a person who always tried to learn and make sense of things.

I'm not yet fully finished grieving my past mistakes, but I sense the toil is starting to be somewhat easier. Making sense of these dynamics is making an incredible difference. Not only I am more able to counteract manipulation and live a happy life, I am finding my thoughts are freer to learn more.

Even in other areas.

My life's looking more and more good from now on.

Quote from Bel on October 24, 2022, 4:10 am

Quote from Bel on October 24, 2022, 12:37 am

Manipulation technique: "guilt-tripping triangulation"

From the post above, here's the manipulative technique I now recognize.

It consists of a combination of behaviors, and can be done in person, on the phone, in writing.

Here the components used by the manipulator:

• showing high emotional distress
• verbalizing that the distress derives from the behavior, words or actions of a third party
• implying/subcommunicating that the listener is responsible for the distress (which has been verbalized as deriving from the the third party): otherwise, why act in distress precisely when talking with the listener?

The effect: guilt-tripping the listener to take quick action in favor of the manipulator.

In-writing example

In the case above we have all three components in writing:

Him: Hi Bel,

x days have passed but I haven't yet received payment by [counterpart]?! (verbalizing that the third party has not paid him, but implying I am at fault since he is distressed; use of interrobang ("?!") precisely to show he is distressed)

Do I need to do something?! (covert guilt-tripping; what he really is saying is: you need to do something as you are my lawyer; and again the interrobang to imply he is distressed)

Thank you (tasking me covertly by assuming I am going to do something to redress the situation; the message is "as an empathic normal person would do something here to help me")

And in his second email:

Him: Goodday Bel,

I haven't yet received any payment, I called to no avail ...

Can you send them a reminder also to know when they will pay. (open tasking)

But these companies can do what they want even after a judgement by the judge?!? They don't incur any sanction even though they don't comply with deadlines! (useless line. Only function is manipulating me by showing he is distressed. He doesn't really want to know the answer to his question. He just wants me to fall into his frame that I have to provide explanations, and thus justify myself as to why the counterpart has not paid him. Interrobang used in triple form to show more distress: "?!?". In essence: he is verbalizing the third party is bad; but is clearly subcommunicating it is my fault. Otherwise why show the distress to me?)

If they shouldn't pay me?! (covert guilt-tripping. Implying I am responsible for having asked to be paid by him while he now risks not being paid)

Let me know thank you (tasking)

Good day

In-person example

I remember a relative I was working for in an inheritance matter meeting me after having been to the bank.

He was very agitated and angry at the bank's staff behavior.

I had sent him there to get some certificates. He then met me and was very angry and distressed, and he verbalized that the staff was not helpful and was dragging things on, and told me some things they "had said to him" that proved this.

I remember feeling "responsible" for his distress, in the sense that I had not done "enough" for him; otherwise, why be so angry?

But, more interestingly, I also remember at a certain point I said something to the effect of:

Me: Well if they told you this thing, I will write them a legal complaint immediately. They cannot be allowed to do things like this.

And the incredible happened (I remember being very surprised):

  Him: Wait. They are good people after all. No need to go this far.

In essence: he confessed to me that his "distress" was fake, and only meant to manipulate me. The bank's staff had probably been perfectly polite to him.

On the phone examples

Example one.

I remember the above exact former client of mine, the one now trying to guilt-trip me via email, getting another lawyer for a specific case due to a conflicts issue.

I was not even assisting him. But I remember that I received a phone call from him that went like this:

Him: Hi Bel.

My lawyer Mr. X sent me to the bank to get information about ....

I went there and wasted an entire morning. (with an angry, very irritated tone)

Can you believe it ?!? An entire morning!

I am so angry! F***!

I distinctly remember I cut the phone call short and I thought: "why in the world are you getting angry at ME if this other lawyer sent you there?".

Now I understand: he was precisely using the guilt-tripping triangulation.

It didn't even make sense in this case!

But he used it because, very probably, he had tried it on me in the past and it had worked. So he just repeated the behavior even though, in this case, I wasn't even assisting him.

And of course, I remember he then, some days later, asked for my help in an aspect of the case.

But I had been already "feeling" something was very off, and had blocked him already.

This also explains why he tried it again in the email exchange here above.

Example two

A friend of mine was getting married shortly. I was with her and other people for a visit two or three days before the wedding.

Suddenly she received a phone call from her cousin. Her cousin started screaming on the phone to her, so much that even I could hear:

Cousin: "X, I talked to your musician for the wedding to ask him to be able to sing a song for you. But he is creating problems! He is so nasty! I only want to sing a song on your wedding day. Why does he have to object and create problems?!?"

I remember my friend cutting the phone call short by saying something like:

My friend: "Look cousin, I don't have time for this now. You please solve this problem directly with him".

Now: the fact that she told her cousin to "solve it directly with him" derives from the subcommunication my friend was picking on, which was:

Cousin: "This is your fault. You chose this musician so you now talk to him to allow me to sing at your wedding".

Not verbalized, but implied via the (fake) distress.

How to address it (tentative):

1. Recognize the distress is fake and meant to manipulate
2. Stay emotionally unaffected
3. Subcommunicate you understand what is happening AND that the distress is unwarranted

For example by asking if they need help with their anger/distress:

Other: You won't believe it! They did this and this! How is it possible?!?

Me: Do you need a camomile? Or maybe it's better you go calm yourself now and we talk later.

Other: No I need your help in dealing with this person!

Me: Me? What have I got to do with him? / or / Well, right now you seem a bit too distressed, it's better if you calm down first.

Now that I'm starting to recognize it, I'm already feeling it losing much of its power.

Until now, even though I felt the need to take distance and it was irritating me, it was somewhat still working as I didn't recognize the distress was fake! 

Even though I rejected the tasking, I still felt subconsciously "guilty" (for example in the email exchange above).

How sad and nasty of these people.

Coming back to this post: it’s not a guilt-tripping triangulation, but rather a covert guilt-tripping.

The covert nature of the guilt-tripping derives from the fact that the guilt-tripper, in this case, does not verbalize that he thinks you are responsible, and instead verbalizes that a third party is responsible.

But his distress still communicates the message very loudly.

So the guilt-tripper protects himself against being blamed (or even discovered) for the guilt-tripping because he is blaming (verbally) a third party!

This makes me understand that ignoring, as I did above, can also work to address the maneuver.

After all, the “cover” of the manipulator prevents not only the listener, but also the manipulator from escalating. Since he is not verbally putting the blame on the listener, the listener can just ignore. Give him rope to hang himself by following the lead that the third party is the sole person to blame!

And maybe, while the guilt-tripper hangs himself by continuing to complain about the third party, play a bit on the unstable mood of the guilt-tripper by suggesting a camomile. Totally deserved. Or even go along (if doable without risking further triangulation) in painting the third party as bad, to reinforce the verbal message that the third party is the sole party to blame.

If the guilt-tripper comes out of the cover by directly guilt-tripping, one can then fight on a balanced plane: superficial empathizing and generalizing the situation.

And maybe even being surprised: wasn’t the third party the bad one?!

The best technique to address guilt-tripping: generalizing the situation or suggesting the guilt-tripper is too sensitive

Guilt-tripping works because it suggests two key messages:

1. The situation of the guilt-tripper is unfortunate and unique (uniquely bad); and

2. The guilt-trippee does not share the situation, and has the power to redress it.

This suggests that the best way to address guilt-tripping, after superficial empathizing (as social cover) is to:

1. Generalize the situation of the guilt-tripper: he’s not the only person to experience this, many others also do. In fact he’s a bit too emotional and out of control in such a normal situation.

2. Technically, one could also address it by dealing with 2, by removing one’s power to redress it (eg by suggesting an external constraint) or by sharing the unfortunate situation with the guilt-tripper. But this has to be done carefully to avoid conveying lower power.

This explains one suggestion I received from Lucio:

Such losses are always painful.

Meant to subcommunicate that the guilt-tripper was not the only one to experience a loss. I’m only realizing this underlying intent now.

And it also explains some of my unconscious replies. Here the more complete text of my email above:

Hi X,

term of payment is x days, but a little delay is not indicative because these companies have complex internal procedures.

I was suggesting he was not in an exceptional case, but in a normally shared situation.

This insight is incredibly helpful to me, as guilt-tripping was probably the most frequent manipulation I was encountering so far.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on October 24, 2022, 8:06 am

Hey Bel,

I haven't yet read it all, and it's for a good reason: whenever I grasp that something could be a new important concept, I stop to let it sink and reflect on it.

And this is really, really good.

I think it's a new concept indeed, and deserves its own name.

In terms of dynamics, it's a mixture of anger projection/redirection (from the original cause, to you), and guilt-tripping.

I could also reconnect it to some people in my life, with the same effect: you feel guilty, you get angry, and sometimes take action on that guilt and anger.
BUT you also lose a lot of respect and grow resentful towards the manipulator, which is why it's best not to use this approach.

 

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on October 24, 2022, 8:24 am

Some further notes on this dynamic:

As the case for many power moves, sometimes it's pre-meditated, and some others times it's (bad) personality.

In some cases, it's motivated by weakness and submissiveness.

Example: lower power leads to this annoying power move

One person who's also an example in PU for other games would send me pictures of the bad things the other flatmate would do.

I was in another continent, but she would get distressed and covertly angry at me, while barely talking directly to the other flatmate.

This person didn't have the courage and assertiveness to talk directly to the other flatmate, so the manipulation was motivated and driven by personal submissiveness and lack of assertiveness.

Rather than go there and be straight, she'd write me, who wasn't even there personally, trying to get me to do something about it.

I remember once she sent me a dirty toilet as I was about to eat, and if I resented that person already, that was the last drop that made me start to truly dislike that person. Disliking her for her little games out of weakness.

That links to the concept of straightness and direct talk, too: these are the techniques and little manipulation that make you come across as "bent" or "non-straight", and make people resent, dislike you, and lose all respect for you.

---

Obviously, submissiveness and low personal power may not be the driving force with your client, Bel -and probably isn't-.

Still, the dynamics and effects are the same.