Bel's thoughts
Just read this in Reardon’s book “Comebacks at Work”:
If I didn’t know you, I would think you are trying to insult me / one-up me / trip me up / make me look bad to your advantage.
The idea is to use it as a “first warning” in situations where one is in doubt about intentions and/or before knowing a person well.
Power moves by thread-expanding and distorting what one says
These kind of power moves are made in group settings, and work by exploiting the "commitment and consistency" social principle, whereby it is difficult for the mark to go back against what he or she (publicly) said.
They can be directed either at the person making the utterance, or at a third party (adding triangulation to the mix with the aim of putting one person against another).
In most cases though, the commitment and consistency principle seems to be deliberately distorted by the power mover, as the utterance that is exploited is deliberately distorted in meaning in order to power-move.
So it follows that one of the ways to counter the move would be to surface the distortion introduced by the power mover.
But I think this is a later step:
- the first step is always countering the move
- leave it to the power mover to then surface the "latching-on"
- only then, and only if necessary, attack the connection and surface the distortion
- maybe, in some cases, it's higher power to "own having changed one's position" or "having said something wrong" or just "own the contradiction".
I think the first step is always not being afraid of going counter to one's word in any case.
It was not written in stone!
Two subgroups
I have experienced this many times, and I think it the move can be divided in two main subcategories:
- Power mover deliberately provokes the utterance that is then latched-on to power move;
- Power mover exploits an unprovoked, naturally-occurring utterance made by another person present.
I had many examples of the first kind in legal negotiations, where counterparties may say things with the aim of being countered, to then use the countering in a self-serving way. One example:
Counterparty: We cannot accept a clause compelling us to repay future liabilities arising from our past management, and besides we have always managed the company in a spotless excellent way. (when it was blatantly false)
Lawyer: (falling for the verbal trap) That's not exactly what we saw according to the documents.
Counterparty: Great, then let's specify which cases we are talking about and let's limit the clause to them.
Some other times I was led to say something under the implied understanding that my explanation would serve a purpose, but the other person then reinterpreted my utterance in another light.
Example: I was once trying to change department in a work setting.
Higher up: What did you do so far in this department?
Me: (thinking I may be attacked on not having worked enough) I did... [this and this and that].
Higher up: You did so many things, and learned so much! Isn't it a great department then?
In these cases a good way to deal with it would have been to politely reframe the request.
Me: As I said, it's not a matter of learning or not, it's a matter of personal conflict... that's why I made this request.
One example of the second kind (Transitioned, yours is the example - no ill-feelings on my side and I also understand it was unwitting - but it is such a great example!):
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?
This is a great example as it used many different covers:
- latching on to my story about a relative trying to insult me
- fake compliment ("tolerance", implying I was accepting being disrespected, where my story instead showed I had checked the disrespect)
- talking about self but clearly referring to me, and framing himself as "less willing to accept self-respect than I was", moreover by incorporating a hyperbolic joke ("I'd emigrate", not really likely)
- disparaging my "culture" and my "area" by asking if it was "stupid", implicitly referring to people by association
- seemingly curious, but at a close reading the question seems just a "cover" for what comes before
- the final question also seems a leading question and a "deflective way out" for me that reduces the likelyhood that I would "defend and attack back". Because: why trigger a conflict if I could just agree that "Yeah, it must be the culture". But yet, he still said what he said...
In this case, my feeling is that I should have gone full backwards and just not cared about the "latching-on".
Me: Woah! Why are you disparaging my relatives?
Then let the other person backtrack or get out of the rut. If he points out I said something to the effect of what followed, either:
- ignore and refer back to the other
- or highlight the distortion if possible
- or otherwise own it and distinguish.
Sorry Bel
I certainly didn't mean it that way. But yea if there was malice that would provide cover. I see what you mean it was clumsy wording.
I think I have a new rule of not making any short posts here any more it's a bit dangerous if you don't explain yourself properly.
The compliment was genuine you have posted about some situations with your relatives I don't think I would have handled them as well in fact my relatives get under my skin all the time and I make every mistake you can imagine.
It failed the rule of making compliments specific.
The question was genuine as well the reason I was curious was when I 1st arrived in Australia I hadn't had any exposure to mediterranean cultures. The neighbourhood I landed in was very popular with Greeks and Italians. Of course you would bump into these guys when you were out and about socialising and I noticed they were always verbally sparring more than I was used to. Not totally idle curiosity I had thought about settling in Europe more than once.
My post really was intended as a conversation starter and not any kind of one up.
Thank you Transitioned, I get it now. Sorry here as well, and glad it's all good.
Nice one on labeling that new dynamic, Bel!
I'm thinking it over for a good name -"latch on power move" already isn't too bad though-.
As for that Transitioned's post, if someone else and in a different environment had done it, it might be a covert power move indeed (and good analysis on it).
However, considering this forum's environment and Transitioned's history I'd have read that as some sort of "not ideally executed attempt at supporting you".
In the sense of "I feel the same, that person sucks, you're reading the situation well and those power moves are real and annoying".
So if I may add a note on this:
Quote from Transitioned on January 22, 2023, 6:14 amI think I have a new rule of not making any short posts here any more it's a bit dangerous if you don't explain yourself properly.
Please go for those short posts if you feel like.
You have that type of good reputation that even a string of misunderstandings will be just that: a misunderstanding or miscommunication.
Worst case scenario, it's a good learning opportunity.
No doubt on this situation being a misunderstanding.
At the same time let me add to this discussion that, in principle, these dynamics never start with a bang, and most often are not conscious.
It’s always a little nib here, a bad choice of words there, then a misunderstanding, then a clumsy attempt at sympathizing there, and before you know it you’re a doormat to another person.
So when one starts to read a slippery slope happening (ie after letting it slip once or twice, which is what I did), best to start setting things in another direction.
Which, btw, is not what I initially did here, but is definitely what I’ll do from now on in general.
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on January 23, 2023, 4:56 amNice one on labeling that new dynamic, Bel!
I'm thinking it over for a good name -"latch on power move" already isn't too bad though-.
Thank you, Lucio!
After reflecting on it and reading your post (and others’) as to how to handle it in the other thread, I believe it’s a form of manipulative thread-expansion.
It seems the manipulative other-side of the “give them rope” technique.
The manipulator (or the unaware user):
- first spins the meaning of something one said or of another’s situation (eg from “I’m taking care of my partner” to “I’m criticizing my partner for eating too much”, or from “I have a bad relative” to “all my family is shit and I live in a place where everybody is used to one-upping one another”)
- and then thread-expands on that
- to give to the group a false negative impression about the behavior or situation of the mark.
The manipulation works because the “distorting what one said” or “distorting one’s situation” is not done explicitly, but is implied in the “latching-on” comment and is therefore left outside of the conscious awareness of both the mark and the group.
Dissecting the dynamics seems to point in the direction that, to effectively address it, a frame of “you’re distorting the situation” must be subcommunicated to the group.
The power of this manipulative technique is so strong that even in this forum, nobody but you pointed out that the guy I was describing in the other thread was distorting something I was legitimately saying as male partner.
I myself was gaslighted into thinking I had criticized my partner and was doing something “wrong”, and - by the way I myself presented it in the forum - most got convinced that I had done that and said something “wrong”.
And in the case of the other comment in this thread, the choice of words and the only two alternatives offered produced that effect irrespective of the good intention, so the move should definitely have been checked by me at the outset.
Quote from Bel on January 23, 2023, 3:53 pm
Dissecting the dynamics seems to point in the direction that, to effectively address it, a frame of “you’re distorting the situation” must be subcommunicated to the group.
Elaborating on this: the reason why this (ie the distortion or “spin”) must be surfaced to the group is that, even if one checks the “disrespect” in itself, the manipulative move will leave in the group’s impression that the mark has said or done something “bad”, or is in a “bad situation”.
And that’s the main motive of the manipulation, not the disrespect. (The disrespect is a cherry-on-top decoy, so to say.)
So that (ie the social climbing component) is what should be addressed, at least by subcommunicating that things are being “distorted”.
And, btw, your proposed answer in the other thread does exactly this: it addresses the distortion before the disrespect.
Because, in responding with
That doesn’t seem a very kind thing to say…
the clear subcommunication is
… and don’t try to say I said the same thing now.
Because nobody who said the same thing would point out the bad manners of the other with such directness and conviction.
Yep, I agree, great points Bel and given the forum we're in, it always makes sense to address it and surface -even if only for learning experience on all sides-.
My original point was there to add a stronger and clearer "break line" between the post and the person.
I think that's important also because it isn't always the case that a behavior is different from the person -ie.: for some it's rarer and because of a miscommunication, for some others it's more of a pattern and a "way of being"-.
Quote from Bel on January 23, 2023, 3:53 pmThank you, Lucio!After reflecting on it and reading your post (and others’) as to how to handle it in the other thread, I believe it’s a form of manipulative thread-expansion.
It seems the manipulative other-side of the “give them rope” technique.
The manipulator (or the unaware user):
- first spins the meaning of something one said or of another’s situation (eg from “I’m taking care of my partner” to “I’m criticizing my partner for eating too much”, or from “I have a bad relative” to “all my family is shit and I live in a place where everybody is used to one-upping one another”)
- and then thread-expands on that
- to give to the group a false negative impression about the behavior or situation of the mark.
The manipulation works because the “distorting what one said” or “distorting one’s situation” is not done explicitly, but is implied in the “latching-on” comment and is therefore left outside of the conscious awareness of both the mark and the group.
Dissecting the dynamics seems to point in the direction that, to effectively address it, a frame of “you’re distorting the situation” must be subcommunicated to the group.
The power of this manipulative technique is so strong that even in this forum, nobody but you pointed out that the guy I was describing in the other thread was distorting something I was legitimately saying as male partner.
I myself was gaslighted into thinking I had criticized my partner and was doing something “wrong”, and - by the way I myself presented it in the forum - most got convinced that I had done that and said something “wrong”.
And in the case of the other comment in this thread, the choice of words and the only two alternatives offered produced that effect irrespective of the good intention, so the move should definitely have been checked by me at the outset.
Yep, great analysis.
Whether one wants to come up with a fancy new name or not, at the core, it's a manipulative thread expansion:
- Tread origination: Start from what you or someone else did or say
- Thread expansion: Jump in, comment, ask a question, criticize, etc...
- Spin it into something value-taking for the originator and/or for a third party (something the originator never meant)
Added it to the dictionary now and eventually it'll have its own article.