Bel's thoughts
Quote from Transitioned on January 13, 2023, 11:59 pmWow Bel you have amazing tolerance. If I had relatives like this I d emigrate. Or is it just like stupid 'macho' culture in your area?
Thank you Transitioned! Can't choose relatives unfortunately 🙁
The cover for the "joke" was a local folklore festivity, based on the legend of an "old hag".
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on January 14, 2023, 5:47 amBel, you rocking man!
Those were some masterful high-power moves and frame controls.
I'd have also guessed that the initial asshole was trying to make a pass on Bella when he ignored you and tried to power move you.
This one here:
Quote from Bel on January 13, 2023, 7:41 pmHim: Hi, old hag! (in the sense of "ugly witch")
Me: To you!
Him: But I was joking affectionately!
Me: So am I!
Him: Don't push it!
Me: You too!
- click on quote to expand
No place like (some) relatives' home to be greeted kindly 🙂
Absolutely love it!
You drew your line quickly and easily and forced him to move away from "sarcastic one-up" to direct aggression.
Already a smaller-step win.
And even when he went higher aggression, you still held your line.
Fantastic, really.
Just to maintain warmth, I'd have maybe rephrased a bit as in:
Him: Hi, old hag! (in the sense of "ugly witch")
Me: (hugs him and slaps him in the back) Ehehe, to you!
Him: But I was joking affectionately!
Me: I know, I know, same here (of course)
Him: Don't push it!
Me: Hey, you started it and I'm playing along
Also a good option when you're the guest:
Him: Hi, old hag! (in the sense of "ugly witch")
You: Thank you, you're always so kind ehJust other options, great stuff!
Thank you Lucio!
Your suggestions are the next level again, a place of "affectionate self-defense". I'll strive to get there.
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on January 16, 2023, 4:17 pmYou have to think it this way:
How would a superior VS a same-level colleague VS a subordinate act?
The "thank you" isn't too bad because it's not the most typical subordinate type of behavior.
Many (smart) subordinates don't say thanks to their bosses for a compliment because acting for their bosses is normal.However, it's also not too uncommon.
On the negative side, it expands on the power move because the "thank you" points right back at the original power move ("thank you for what"? Oh yeah, because Prya gave him a manager-type pat on the back).
And it also encourages more of that "I'm your leader" behavior.
Later on, promotion time comes, and Priya the power mover has been acting like a leader, and you kind of going along with it.
One may not even like Priya too much, but it's tough to justify the promotion of someone else when the dynamic is that one is already acting like a leader and the rest are at least going along with it -and the promotion a subordinate-acting one would look bad on anyone who makes that decision, so don't hope that "being liked" on its own will get you there-.
Thank you for this Lucio, this is enlightening to me.
Promotions at work go to high-power people
It explains the practical reason behind the principle that "those who act dominant at work get promoted":
- those who decide promotions unconsciously choose to promote those that are already receiving the group's support from a power dynamics perspective
- conversely, they avoid promoting low-status persons who would trigger the Carlsen-Niemann / Williams-Osaka effect (ie those high in "actual power" feeling "demoted and disrespected", and thus leaving).
Corollaries:
- the group will always unconsciously resist and test people who are "scaling the power-ranks"
- everyone will undergo the need to "renegotiate power" before earning his "promotion"
- again, content expertise will never be enough to reach a "high-rank", which will rest mostly on power dynamics.
Important exceptions to the concept of "always responding to emotional bids"?
This is also triggering some personal reflections on possible exceptions to the principle to "always respond to emotional bids".
Well, in the case of Transitioned's thread above, the reason seems clear:
- the emotional bid is a "fake one", ie it is clearly a power move meant to mimic a "thank you" by a superior, but done by a peer at work.
But I'm starting to wonder if I haven't recently taken the "always respond" idea a bit too far.
Speaking of my position as a lawyer, some potential caveats to the above idea now come to my mind:
- is it possible that some clients, or people inside company clients, may have also been using the "thank you" as power moves on me, especially if others are in cc in emails? If so, I need to start discriminating;
- is it possible that I should avoid answering altogether to "thank you" emails from lower level employees in company clients? Because, in responding, I may be "cementing a mental association" between myself as external lawyer and low-level employees (as in: "he's the lawyer for our interns, see how they chat well").
Power-align with the "high-power superior"
A specific case comes to mind where I unconsciously seem to have done something that derives exactly from this last point:
A woman client does not have email. When we started working, she told me to correspond with her daughter about all developments in the case.
But I later unconsciously stopped emailing her daughter, and now only inform her husband (who is the one paying my fee).
I often wondered why I made this switch, de facto, as the case went on. Now I understand.
The normal power-dynamics position of a lawyer with respect to a client may vary either depending on the issue at hand, or due to power moves
- Is my position as lawyer of a client a position of "peer/colleague" or "subordinate" to the client?
I think it is going to normally be a "peer/colleague" position.
But it definitely can undergo detours into the "subordinate" and even into the "manager" position.
In some situations, this may be natural:
- client comes to me on something he doesn't know how to solve without me: I am going to start from a more "superior" position;
- client has the last word on a decision: I am a "subordinate" on that;
- I am aggressed by the client and take a "superior" position to address it, if only for a moment;
- I don't agree on a course of action and first rule it out, then hint at my withdrawing from representation: I am a "manager".
But, in a parallel to Transitioned's thread, these detours can also be deliberately triggered by power moves by clients, or guided by my behavior.
Quote from Bel on January 16, 2023, 5:57 pmSpeaking of my position as a lawyer, some potential caveats to the above idea now come to my mind:
- is it possible that some clients, or people inside company clients, may have also been using the "thank you" as power moves on me, especially if others are in cc in emails? If so, I need to start discriminating;
- is it possible that I should avoid answering altogether to "thank you" emails from lower level employees in company clients? Because, in responding, I may be "cementing a mental association" between myself as external lawyer and low-level employees (as in: "he's the lawyer for our interns, see how they chat well").
Yes, definitely possible.
They gain when they can engage with the higher-power external consultant/lawyer and he replies to them, but you can lose.
Sometimes power dynamics for maximum effectiveness can seem cruel, but they were just trying to leverage the law of reciprocity for personal gains.
They had no business trying to latch onto your high status for their personal gain.
So you can either ignore, or answer more briefly -ie.: "cheers"-, or more coldly.
SLIGHTLY OFF-TOPIC: DATING
The same and even worse can happen in dating.
Sometimes some women will be outright disrespectful or mean to their partners, either publicly, or in front of a man they may consider dating (or cheating with).
A natural feeling for most good people is to empathize with the man and may want to talk to him or help him out (socially or otherwise).
But if -IF!- one wants to date the woman, you must show no respect for their partner and either ignore him or, worse, may be even pile on.
Of course, you're not forced to play that game.
I personally have no interest in that: there are kinder women who don't resort to that cr@ppy behavior, and you're probably better off with them.
SLIGHTLY OFF-TOPIC: DATING
Now I get some strange weird stuff I experienced that I couldn't explain at the time.
Some secretaries at my first law firm would establish quick "friendship" with me, then social climb
They were doing so to lift themselves up. I was a newly admitted lawyer, and by first gaining friendship with me, then social climbing on me, they were trying to lift themselves up.
I remember distinctly one secretary who was really obnoxious when we both were working at the firm, who was then fired. I met her outside on the street and she was super-sweet, somewhat expecting me to "have a friendship" with her, which I couldn't understand.
Now I get that, once the "social-climbing the law firm hierarchy" need was over, she just lost the unconscious motivation to antagonize me.
I also remember my former boss telling me something to the effect of "It's a mistake for you to have this close friendship with the secretaries, you should have instead kept cordial distance and even antagonized them a bit" (!).
More recently, my palace doorman was also bullshitting me under the same dynamic
Establish friendship to lift up --> publicize friendship ---> social climb to lift up more.
Speaking really crudely: a "close" friendship with the doorman (who moreover was social climbing on me and my family) was a "public" loss for me as a laywer in my environment where I lived.
For him the whole deal was a net win. That explains why he didn't want to let go of his power moves. And also why other people in my palace seemed to all maintain a "cordial distance" with him: nobody went to dinner with his family like I and my family did.
My former colleague at my first law firm also falls under the same dynamic
He basically established a frame where we were "closest friends" at the firm.
But now I remember all others were constantly criticizing him as lazy, obnoxious, etc.
He made friends with me and then social climbed under the same dynamics. And, my association with him hampered my chances of climbing the law firm hierarchy.
And now he doesn't want to let go under the same dynamics (except that now it doesn't matter what he does, as I am more aware of things).
Takeaways
- social climbers are most likely to be people on the way out from the group;
- social climbers always fake friendship at the outset;
- spotting social climbing is thus a way to avoid people who are trying to drag one down and may be on the way out;
- social climbers "switch persona" once the reason for social climbing is over.
Additional ideas to experiment with:
- in an online forum or on Facebook etc., any social climbing is probably inherently “in absentia”. As such, it may pay more to ignore rather than to respond to social climbing posts or messages;
- since “thanking” social climbers for their power moves thread-expands, it only encourages more, even if one is thanking the sole positive portion of the message and trying to address the others. So no more thanking these moves;
- when in doubt that a move may be social climbing, it probably is. Best act accordingly.
BOOM!
Nice, Bel!
I had never thought of putting these "status climbing" dynamics into an actual principle.
And now I even added it to PU.
For now, I titled it / described as:
People Of Different Status Levels Can Pull You Up Or Down By Simple Association
And then added what you're talking about as social-climbing on higher-status people can provide an even bigger lift.
I remember a specific situation which seems to exemplify this quite well.
I was generally “accepting” of secretaries in my former law firm “joking around”, for various reasons which in any case are - thank God, and thank PU - over now.
But, once - many years ago - I was asked by one of my bosses to see a huge client alone for an urgent matter.
I went to work and went to talk to a particular secretary to ask for her help in preparing the meeting, and this is the conversation that ensued:
Me: Hi Marla! Boss told me he won’t come today and that I’ll see the client alone. If you could please prepare the meeting room for two at X time, I would be really grateful.
Her: What’s up Bel! Playing at big attorney today?
Me: (instantly getting angry, I changed tone and became very curt): Please prepare the room, I have no time for this. (I turn around and go away).
Power move: compliment about “patience” followed by derogatory remark about people one associates with
In light of the principle here above:
People Of Different Status Levels Can Pull You Up Or Down By Simple Association
it makes sense that a person may deliberately publicly suggest an association between another person on the one hand, and “bad” or “low status” people, on the other hand, to power move on that person.
This is especially effective when one has just finished telling a story about some relative or friend who behaved badly, and the power mover goes:
Power mover: Wow, you’re really patient! If I had friends so bad, I’d restart my circle of friends from scratch!
The cover of the move is compounded by the “fake compliment”, which distracts from the power move.
Other covers present are:
- power mover talks about “what he would do”;
- hypothetical nature of the statement.
Solution: maybe surfacing the move:
Me: You know, I can criticize my friends, but I don’t expect you to do so.
Or maybe even better:
Me: You know X, everyone can make the mistake of behaving badly or talking shit sometimes (pointing subtly at him).
This:
- subtly points out what the power mover is doing, suggesting he is behaving badly; and
- reframes the story one has told as not indicative of having a “bad friend”, but as indicative of a “one time episode”; and also
- suggests being open to win-win in the future, ie not judging people as black or white (which is what the power mover was doing).
Edit: on the other hand, the solution I chose when I encountered this for the first time (ie suggesting one doesn’t ever really know people, or can’t choose people) is bad, because it suggests one does not have agency and reinforces and thread-expands on the power move.
Let’s just assume I checked it correctly now
Just received a LinkedIn connection request by a marketer for lawyers starting with:
Him: Hi attorney, let’s see if I can help you!
I think him framing the whole thing in reverse (reaching out, but framing himself already as higher status and me down) warrants the “ignore” button.