Bel's thoughts
The plot so far:
- this guy literally faked not seeing me the first time we met, to say hi to my partner Bella instead;
- later, he invited everyone to his home for the birthday of his wife; I deliberately didn't go, and he then tried to flirt with Bella in front of his own wife (!).
Now, enter "Act III: - The Job Opportunity"
He now sent several texts to Bella's parents about a "job opportunity" for Bella.
Here they are (with some comments of mine beside them!):
Him: My daughter received a job offer from company X
But she refused as she received a better one (disparages what he's proposing already)
In that company there is a friend of hers that got her an interview
Me and my wife were thinking about you and Bella, that's the name of your daughter right? (no comment)
I asked my daughter to contact them to make her name, but I wanted to first tell you and tell you to ask her if she's ok with it (so kind)
My daughter also told me:
If she has LinkedIn in the meantime tell her to go at the company page of [...]
There are other positions open
Maybe she'll find something better or relevant to what she did so far (admitting his "offer" is useless already!)
Contact her right now and talk to her (tasking, urgency, triangulation)
If you think let me speak with her (ta-daah! And, a totally smooth way to ask for a number)
These things must be done immediately (on a Saturday, right)
And of course have her prepare a resume (yeah, because Bella lived on Mars so far)
One day we'll all remember him and say: this was his finest hour.
Bella is thinking how to reply to her parents. My take is something like:
Thanks, tell him he's so kind but I'm already discussing a better offer.
Or maybe best to just ignore.
Hello Bel,
Right now Bella has a nice shield: her parents.
I'd think twice before throwing that away and letting her answer in first person (ie with a war analogy.: stay unreachable in the command office instead of putting her in the line of fire).
Tell her parents to reply next week saying they don't really check texts much and they'll "let her know".
P.S.:
When he said "Maybe she'll find something better or relevant to what she did so far" I read that as disparaging her past experience and building up his own offer.
Also, Bel, think about this from a Mach / social strategist point of view.
I know you probably want to shut the door on this guy's face as loudly as possible -I'd feel the same-.
On the other hand, think if he may have value to give.
Even on the off-chance he might, it's best to keep him in the periphery.
As per PU case study, remember the goal:
For assholes it's: far enough not to bother you, close enough to grab the benefits.
Also, if you want to exact your revenge, it's probably more harmful to the asshole to keep "just far enough".
It's more frustrating, and for longer, when he thinks he may have a chance, but never gets it, than to know for sure he doesn't (which may hurt more in the short-term, but ends quicker).
To go for that strategy, Bella's parents would reply:
Thank you!
She's got some opportunities she's pursuing and she's looking into this one as well now.
Fingers crossed
Thank you, Lucio!
This
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on January 29, 2023, 2:30 amThank you!
She's got some opportunities she's pursuing and she's looking into this one as well now.
Fingers crossed
is very helpful, already told Bella and that's what her parents will reply!
And Bella had the immediate feeling of "no way I'll let this guy have my number".
The interesting thing is that all the offers from this company the guy was touting are in IT, while Bella's experience is in HR.
He didn't even align these...
Edit: This is also very helpful:
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on January 29, 2023, 12:54 amP.S.:
When he said "Maybe she'll find something better or relevant to what she did so far" I read that as disparaging her past experience and building up his own offer.
Right, he was basically saying "she might not even have the requirements for what I'm proposing".
Guilt trips and pity plays are always manipulative, and must always be refused
In the back of my mind, there was still this thinking that, while guilt-tripping was bad, there were situations in which it could be "justified".
Eg a client with a bad economic situation not being able to afford a lawyer.
But in the last days I had a reflection on this, and thought about what I would do if I were in a bad economic situation.
And, I came to realize I would never ask for the pity of others. Or, go to a professional and expect not to pay due to my "bad situation". I would rather prefer to really sleep under a bridge.
So I had this realization that guilt-trips and pity plays are always manipulative, and that many things I did not classify as such are, in fact, guilt-trips.
And that they are always to be refused. A switch needs to light up in one's head whenever a guilt-trip happens.
Some were still slipping through my awareness
One example of guilt-trip I had not recognized was here in the situation I described in this thread.
I was telling there of a client who had her house renovated, and defects in the works started showing.
She didn't want to sue, and I was compelled to a big and anxiety-provoking balancing act with the other party (who had caused the defects).
When I described the matter there in the thread, though, I omitted saying that my client had communicated to me she didn't have the money to sue:
Me: We can send a warning letter, and then if nothing happens we can sue.
Her: How much is it going to cost?
Me: The letter is going to cost ..., and the lawsuit ...
Her: Don't have this money, unfortunately.
But, the works she had done had costed infinitely more than what I was asking.
While dealing with the case I felt uneasy and physically restless, and I thought it was due to the counterparty behaving manipulatively.
But, I now realize my client was behaving manipulatively as well.
Because nobody goes to a lawyer "not intending to sue". Or not having the money to sue.
It doesn't make sense.
And I fell for it hook line and sinker. I significantly reduced my fees due to her manipulation.
And I handled the case in a situation of extreme physical anxiety, due to being manipulated both from my client and from the counterparty.
No more from now on.
Me: The letter is going to cost ..., and the lawsuit ...
Her: Don't have this money, unfortunately.
Me: I understand that may be the case. You might want to consider a lawyer who does pro-bono work, then.
I also think it would have been different if the client had said that to me first thing at first contact.
In that case I could have chosen to start handling the case from the start as a pro-bono.
But, saying that to me after I told her the cost - and after she had paid a lot more for the works - was a guilt-tripping.
Verbally stating a favor I am doing as a way to defuse microaggressions?
Yesterday evening I was at a restaurant, and the waiter was behaving a bit too "jokingly" and slightly one-upping for my taste.
So I waited till he came to get my plate, and I got it and handled it to him.
And I said:
Me: Here, I'll help you with the plate.
I found he behaved less "microaggressively" afterwards.
I think stating verbally things I am doing may be a form of light scalping.
It makes more obvious that one is giving.
I'm unsure whether this may be a good first way to handle microaggressions, though my unconscious is starting to do it.
Verbally repeating what another said as a way to subcommunicate "awareness", and/or "not letting him/her have the last word"
I also found myself lately stating things verbally, as a way to subcommunicate "awareness", or "having the last word" when I sense the other may be slightly one-upping.
I think I picked this up from some things I saw Lucio writing here, but don't know yet if I'm using it correctly.
I don't really remember the exact situation, but something like this in a public setting:
Other: Hey you did X!
Me: Indeed I did X.
Or
Other: Well today it's raining anyways! (slightly one-upping)
Me: Yeah, it is raining.
Mobbing power move: reversing the hierarchy structure
This is something I had not consciously realized until now, that I went through the “power” section of PU again:
One of the ways my former boss used to mob me was that of de facto placing me at the bottom of the firm hierarchy.
And, in his firm, I was the most experienced attorney after him.
He would do this by using two prongs, very effective:
- first, he would not let me yield any power over any trainees or lower-lever attorneys.
I remember several instances of asking for the help of hierarchically lower-level folks in the firm, and being either told that they had received instructions from the boss not to get involved in my work, or being openly rebuked by the boss when they started helping me.
In the end I chose to work alone, even though I had not understood what was happening consciously.
- second, even more effective, he would often instruct lower-level trainees or other attorneys to “get help from Bel”.
In other words, while a normal boss would have come to me and told me to avail myself of the help of a lower-level attorney, he inverted things: he would speak with them (thereby subcommunicating they were higher-level de facto) and tell them to avail themselves of my help (thereby subcommunicating I was the lowest of the low employee).
Often he would also send them emails, copying me, where he would tell them do so something, and end with “Get help from Bel on this”.
Now it makes sense, that I started to be so disgusted of going to work everyday that I decided to get out.
And it’s really incredible, knowing what I now know, that I was so unaware.
If this ever happened to me now, I would get out immediately.
The only thing I do not understand is: how could a person think that I would have remained there after being treated like this.
Edit: I also remember that, when he made a plate on the door of the firm, he also put my name there below other people who were involved only tangentially.
I remember even going to him and asking him why he had done so, and telling him that I expected to be higher on the plate. I only managed to be shamed by him for “being attached to things like these” and to be told that he had “listed people in order of age”.
But it was gaslighting. Basically all that he ever did was aimed at destroying my self esteem. He spent an enormous amount of energy around manipulating me.
I am still considering the possibility of deferring him to the bar in 4 years.
Yeah, great observations, Bel.
Keeping the extra manpower and resources "stricly for him" only would have already been a red flag.
But inverting the power structure just so to keep the "second highest" from being, feeling, acting and working as the second highest was a red flag of a twisted personality.
That plate power move was so twisted that it sounded almost comical.
That's the thing of gaslighting: sometimes you find yourself discussing things that should be so obvious, but that just by discussing them, one may start doubting them.
This is why BTW in that old post calling out gaslighting I wrote "even a 6-years old would know about this".
It was on purpose, with the goal to show that it was a fake, made-up discussion about nonsense because any reasonable person knows it. It was a "surfacing" approach to the gaslighting effect.
Power move after being ghosted/blocked/dissed: subcommunicating "you dissed me, but I don't need you" by telling a story or showing "having other friends"
I now understand the motive behind different behaviors I experienced from people I had formerly blocked and recently resumed contact with.
- Guy who (still) owes me a dinner made a show of "having a list of 30 people he was sending Christmas wishes to" (here below my post about this):
Quote from Bel on December 27, 2022, 1:31 amMy former manipulative “friend” (who now owes me a dinner) enters again
I met, in the context of a lunch with a group of people, the guy who used triangular guilt tripping on me to try to push me into additional work for him.
I noticed two behaviors that, this time, seemed to be “off”.
1. During lunch he got up, went to a nearby table, and in the presence of others, took two pages of handwritten text out of his pocket.
He then took out his phone, and started typing.
He then said:
Him: Huff, I can’t do this anymore. (At another person present): You see? I have a list of people to whom I want to send Christmas wishes, and this is taking a long time!
2. At a certain point he asked my partner what we were doing for New Year’s Eve.
She said we hadn’t planned yet.
Then this ensued:
Bella: And you?
Him: Well, I have several invitations from people. I now will have to choose where to go.
2. One relative of mine told me a story of him "being able to get legal redress without me" (here below my post about this):
Quote from Bel on December 19, 2022, 8:01 pmA visit to relatives
The background is: when I started understanding these relatives' manipulations, I was helping them in an inheritance matter.
When I understood what they were doing, I went no contact and stopped helping them.
Recently I resumed (formal) contact, and some weeks ago I went to their house to visit for the first time in more than one year, together with my partner.
So we get there, and one of my relatives starts talking.
He bragged
I immediately see he is aggrandizing himself and bragging, but what I did not understand until yesterday was why he was bragging about this specific thing.
Basically, he tells an elaborate story about how, in the last months, the bank where the inheritance was located had omitted transferring to my relatives a significant portion of the assets.
Then he details how he sent an email to the complaints department of the bank; and how, in this email, he pointed out what had happened, protested, asked for redress, etc.
And how, after receiving his email, the bank finally gave my relatives all the missing assets, even apologizing for the mistake.
This discourse by my relative went on for like 20 minutes, and I stayed silent.
Then he started another story about how he was able to get some other documents from the same bank after protesting again.
After letting him talk, I joined the conversation
After he ended his talk, I said this:
Me: Nice! Do you think they complied immediately since they knew I am a lawyer, and maybe feared I could intervene here?
Him: I don't know. (stoneface)
Then after some more chitchat, in which I found myself talking out loud about the possibility of suing the bank on a related matter, we left.
My partner later told me this relative of mine had felt a bit "out of place" and "bragging" to her.
My later reconstruction of the dynamics
I didn't understand the dynamics here until weeks later.
Now I realize that this relative was basically saying to me, with his bragging:
Him: You see? We don't need you helping us Bel! We can do this even without you!
I think my (unconscious) answer after giving him rope (which was also unconscious) is total proof that Power University ROCKS SO MUCH!!!!
3. I recently saw again the guy who owes me dinner, in a group context, and during dinner he spent lots of time playing out loud some whatsapp audio messages from supposed "friends" who were all inviting him out.
I believe these moves have one common aim: subcommunicating (to me in this case) "you missed out by blocking me, not me. I have other friends".
My thinking is that this is one example of behavior which may be just addressed by not reacting in any way. Which is what I did. The more I don't react, the more these people will likely be enraged.
And btw: why feel the need to state this if it were true :)?
But I could also wait for the next time and say something like this in front of everyone:
Me: Hey X, hear this: we know you have other friends.
So no need to play out loud whatsapp messages from three years ago of people inviting you out, as you did last time.
EDIT: this guy here above is a never-ending source of information about power moves... whenever he does something!
Before-TPM he was driving me crazy, now he's enriching my knowledge so much... triangular guilt-tripping, triangular-raging, manipulative thread-expansion, social climbing in absentia, all from him!
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on January 30, 2023, 3:40 amYeah, great observations, Bel.
Keeping the extra manpower and resources "stricly for him" only would have already been a red flag.
But inverting the power structure just so to keep the "second highest" from being, feeling, acting and working as the second highest was a red flag of a twisted personality.
That plate power move was so twisted that it sounded almost comical.
That's the thing of gaslighting: sometimes you find yourself discussing things that should be so obvious, but that just by discussing them, one may start doubting them.This is why BTW in that old post calling out gaslighting I wrote "even a 6-years old would know about this".
It was on purpose, with the goal to show that it was a fake, made-up discussion about nonsense because any reasonable person knows it. It was a "surfacing" approach to the gaslighting effect.
Thank you, Lucio.
It's very helpful.
Gaslighting can ultimately only be addressed by being firmly grounded in one's beliefs, and refusing to discuss things one knows are false.
That's because the gaslighter knows that what he's saying is false. So, just by accepting the discussion with a gaslighter, one is subcommunicating the gaslighting is working.
Because, if one knew the other had the aim to gaslight, why accept a discussion on it?
That's why it's mostly effective on children, people at their first job experience, inexperienced people, non-power-aware people.