Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumPublic Forum: Self-DevelopmentJournalsBel's thoughts

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Bel's thoughts

#461 · February 7, 2023, 10:16 pm

Quote from B on February 7, 2023, 10:16 pm
Covert power move: You have so much time to waste
I was looking at an old interview between two politicians.
For context, politician A was known to be a "rich entrepreneur", while politician B was known to be an "intellectual dandy".
And this exchange took place:
Interviewer: This between you two is a debate that never happened before, right?
Politician A: No. I am in great difficulty for the absolute extraordinary elegance of my competitor, who has all the colors of an autumn forest, and therefore beats me in this grey smoke of London, always the same, also because I don't ever have time to go choose other colors...
Politician B: Well, it's fair and right that we are with colors and they are grey.
So: Politician A was subcommunicating that Politician B was more focused on "elegance" and "styled dresses" than on "working and acting".
The power move was meant to imply that Politician B was unfit to lead the country, as he was a "lazy time waster focused on useless stuff, like fashion".
Politician B totally missed the point of the exchange, and thus fell for the power move.
When he confirmed that his party was the one "with colors" while his adversary was "grey", he showed to the audience that he was oblivious to the "power-exchange" going on.
It's significant that the interviewer commented:
Interviewer: Politician B is on the defensive...
The interviewer had subconsciously picked up the winning power move. And, as we know, subconscious stuff is more powerful than conscious communication.
Out of the example, I find that this is a very common power move between professionals.
I remember my former boss playing it constantly on others. He would always find ways to misinterpret things one said and subcommunicate "well, lucky you, it seems you have a lot of free time".
Politician A above framed the power move more covertly, as a fake compliment: and thus it was both more powerful, and more difficult to spot and counter.
If he had said:
Politician A: My opponent here is a time waster and a dandy!
the effect would have been negligible.
Now my take at an answer:
Politician A: I am in great difficulty for the absolute extraordinary elegance of my competitor, who has all the colors of an autumn forest, and therefore beats me in this grey smoke of London, always the same, also because I don't ever have time to go choose other colors...
Politician B: Thank you, I'm sure you have those who shop for you though. You could just tell them to vary a bit your luxury choices.
Maybe that could have been a better counter, as it would have implied that Politician A was trying to hide his luxurious lifestyle and his being surrounded by "butlers".
Power-awareness at work, in elections, in life
It's becoming clearer and clearer to me.
I used to watch political debates and focus on "programs", "content", etc...
But:
at work, promotions are decided upon who's more high-power than others, and not upon content-matter expertise;
it thus makes sense that elections are also decided on who's more high-power than the other.
Because, while anybody can make political promises, what the people are keenly, if unknowingly, watching, is the subcommunication:
What the people are asking themselves: Who between these politicians is the most high-power, and thus the more fit to lead my country?
Clients who explicitly say they are full of things to do
Sometimes a client will write to me and, among other things, specify that he's full of things to do.
The question that now pops in my head is whether I need to say the same back.
I'm wary of doing that though, because a lawyer saying "I'm busy" can give clients the feeling he may have no time to work on their case.
So what I usually do in these cases, is subcommunicate it by answering a bit late.
But now that I'm putting the pieces of the puzzle more "together", I noticed that many text examples by Lucio often specify something like
I don't check messages often
or
Back home now from a long day
These make me wonder if just taking time to answer, without saying anything, may be a bad thing.

Covert power move: You have so much time to waste

I was looking at an old interview between two politicians.

For context, politician A was known to be a "rich entrepreneur", while politician B was known to be an "intellectual dandy".

And this exchange took place:

Interviewer: This between you two is a debate that never happened before, right?
Politician A: No. I am in great difficulty for the absolute extraordinary elegance of my competitor, who has all the colors of an autumn forest, and therefore beats me in this grey smoke of London, always the same, also because I don't ever have time to go choose other colors...
Politician B: Well, it's fair and right that we are with colors and they are grey.

So: Politician A was subcommunicating that Politician B was more focused on "elegance" and "styled dresses" than on "working and acting".

The power move was meant to imply that Politician B was unfit to lead the country, as he was a "lazy time waster focused on useless stuff, like fashion".

Politician B totally missed the point of the exchange, and thus fell for the power move.

When he confirmed that his party was the one "with colors" while his adversary was "grey", he showed to the audience that he was oblivious to the "power-exchange" going on.

It's significant that the interviewer commented:

Interviewer: Politician B is on the defensive...

The interviewer had subconsciously picked up the winning power move. And, as we know, subconscious stuff is more powerful than conscious communication.

Out of the example, I find that this is a very common power move between professionals.

I remember my former boss playing it constantly on others. He would always find ways to misinterpret things one said and subcommunicate "well, lucky you, it seems you have a lot of free time".

Politician A above framed the power move more covertly, as a fake compliment: and thus it was both more powerful, and more difficult to spot and counter.

If he had said:

Politician A: My opponent here is a time waster and a dandy!

the effect would have been negligible.

Now my take at an answer:

Politician A: I am in great difficulty for the absolute extraordinary elegance of my competitor, who has all the colors of an autumn forest, and therefore beats me in this grey smoke of London, always the same, also because I don't ever have time to go choose other colors...
Politician B: Thank you, I'm sure you have those who shop for you though. You could just tell them to vary a bit your luxury choices.

Maybe that could have been a better counter, as it would have implied that Politician A was trying to hide his luxurious lifestyle and his being surrounded by "butlers".

Power-awareness at work, in elections, in life

It's becoming clearer and clearer to me.

I used to watch political debates and focus on "programs", "content", etc...

But:

at work, promotions are decided upon who's more high-power than others, and not upon content-matter expertise;
it thus makes sense that elections are also decided on who's more high-power than the other.

Because, while anybody can make political promises, what the people are keenly, if unknowingly, watching, is the subcommunication:

What the people are asking themselves: Who between these politicians is the most high-power, and thus the more fit to lead my country?

Clients who explicitly say they are full of things to do

Sometimes a client will write to me and, among other things, specify that he's full of things to do.

The question that now pops in my head is whether I need to say the same back.

I'm wary of doing that though, because a lawyer saying "I'm busy" can give clients the feeling he may have no time to work on their case.

So what I usually do in these cases, is subcommunicate it by answering a bit late.

But now that I'm putting the pieces of the puzzle more "together", I noticed that many text examples by Lucio often specify something like

I don't check messages often

Back home now from a long day

These make me wonder if just taking time to answer, without saying anything, may be a bad thing.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.

#462 · February 8, 2023, 1:31 am

Hello Bel,

Super interesting case study of "covert (and manipulative) frame control".

It may be helpful to link to the exchange when a real-life example is available -or to name the politicians, if they're popular enoguh-.

Reading the description of "rich entrepreneur" plus that time of frame control and approach to social interactions made me think a lot about Berlusconi.

Was it him?

As for "how people decide the best politician", yes, you said it, it's a lot more about personality than programs -in large part, power, but also warmth/liking-.
Same for companies, albeit there actual results matter a bit more, especially if the founders are heavily involved since it's in their best interest to promote people who impact their bottom line.
However, bigger corporations are more in-between since most people who do the promotions aren't going to be heavily impacted by the results of the individuals -and it's very possible, if not even common, that the best employers are not promoted unless they're also good at politics. And they may even be fired because an enemy or a problem-creator who's good at his job is just more dangerous-.

B has reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#463 · February 8, 2023, 11:02 am

Hello Lucio,

it's totally Berlusconi.

Here the video:

By the way, I initially thought that his political decline was mainly due to outside factors (ie his actual "job performance", his "judicial cases", and so on).

But watching him interviewed today, he is a shell of what he was in the video above.

He forgets things, self-justifies, pleads, gets angry, behaves generally much lower power. In the video here below he says to the host

If I haven't disturbed you too much, invite me again.

This, I realize, is an important factor in his political decline.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.

#464 · February 8, 2023, 1:26 pm

Quote from B on February 8, 2023, 1:26 pm
Semi-cold reach out email: improvements to apply from now on
Two-three weeks ago, at the local bar election, I met a member of the board of the local social security provider for lawyers, and talked to him about a choice I have to make on whether to integrate my contribution in view of an imminent change in the social security system.
He talked to me but, though in words he affirmed he wanted to help, in body language he didn't seem too keen on helping me about understanding this choice.
So in the end I asked him for his card and if I could contact him later to ask for elucidations. He gave it to me.
I thought about whether to contact him for these two-three weeks, and then decided I had to at least give it a try.
The email I sent:
Subject: Good day, we met the last day of the recent bar elections
Dear ...,
I am Bel. We met the last day of the recent bar elections, when attorney X introduced us.
As you will remember I have a doubt on the opportunity, in view of the imminent changes in the social security system, of opting for an integration ... that would allow me to remain in the ....
Can you provide me some indication about the choice I have to make?
I am happy to call you or also to meet you in person.
Kind regards
So this email was the result of rewriting from the original draft I had prepared, which was different in several regards (here below the things I had changed/removed):
First draft
Subject: Good day, we met the last day of the recent bar elections
Dear ...,
I am Bel. We met the last day of the recent bar elections, when attorney X introduced us. ~~First of all thank you for your availability to discuss.~~ (removed this as it referred to availability, which implied he was doing me a big favor, and also could irk him by "assuming the close")
As you will remember I have a doubt on the opportunity, in view of the imminent changes in the social security system, of opting for an integration ... that would allow me to remain in the ....
~~Could I ask you for~~ (changed this into "Can you provide me some" because the original wording felt too submissive) indications about the choice I have to make?
~~If you prefer~~ (deleted this as it also felt too submissive) I am happy to call you or also to meet you in person.
Kind regards
Now that I sent it, as always, I see room for several improvements (I must be the most frequent see-it-afterwards case in human history!):
New better draft
Subject: Good day [name], we met the last day of the recent bar elections (adding his name to the subject line also would have made it more personal)
Dear ...,
I am Bel. We met the last day of the recent bar elections, when attorney X ~~introduced us~~ referred me to you (I suspect the phrasing "introduced us" that I used here is not optimal, as I was the one asking to speak with him. So maybe I should have written that I was referred to him, to avoid scalping on the "introducer". I also suspect this is a bad part that may irk him and make him not respond)
As you will remember I have a doubt on the opportunity, in view of the imminent changes in the social security system, of opting for an integration ... that would allow me to remain in the ....
~~Can you provide me some indication about the choice I have to make?~~ (I think the best choice here would have been to remove this part altogether. However phrased, it feels like tasking. It's probably the worst part of my email and will be the reason for his non-response if it irks him. Plus, the request had already been stated in person and is implied in my reaching out. So I probably should have left it totally out)
~~I am~~ Happy to also call you or ~~also to~~ meet you in person. (the way I phrased this, it seems I was assuming the call was the minimum necessary. Instead, what I wanted to convey was that I was happy even if he just shot me a clarifying email. I think I botched this)
Kind regards
That's it. I hope the above mistakes, even if bad and even if they make him not respond, do not paint me totally badly in the group of lawyers in his entourage.
I now realize my trying to remain invisible as much as possible before-TPM was mainly due to this: I subconsciously understood I was making costly mistakes in dealing with people.
Conversely, my increased dealings with people now are due to feeling a bit less incompetent. So, I hope the learning phase I am going through now will not entail mistakes that are too costly and/or that cannot be repaired.
EDIT: I re-read the text of what I sent vs what I tried to improve here above. I think they are not too different. So maybe I am reaching a stage where I am not making major costly mistakes anymore.

Semi-cold reach out email: improvements to apply from now on

Two-three weeks ago, at the local bar election, I met a member of the board of the local social security provider for lawyers, and talked to him about a choice I have to make on whether to integrate my contribution in view of an imminent change in the social security system.

He talked to me but, though in words he affirmed he wanted to help, in body language he didn't seem too keen on helping me about understanding this choice.

So in the end I asked him for his card and if I could contact him later to ask for elucidations. He gave it to me.

I thought about whether to contact him for these two-three weeks, and then decided I had to at least give it a try.

The email I sent:

Subject: Good day, we met the last day of the recent bar elections
Dear ...,
I am Bel. We met the last day of the recent bar elections, when attorney X introduced us.
As you will remember I have a doubt on the opportunity, in view of the imminent changes in the social security system, of opting for an integration ... that would allow me to remain in the ....
Can you provide me some indication about the choice I have to make?
I am happy to call you or also to meet you in person.
Kind regards

So this email was the result of rewriting from the original draft I had prepared, which was different in several regards (here below the things I had changed/removed):

First draft

Subject: Good day, we met the last day of the recent bar elections
Dear ...,
I am Bel. We met the last day of the recent bar elections, when attorney X introduced us. ~~First of all thank you for your availability to discuss.~~ (removed this as it referred to availability, which implied he was doing me a big favor, and also could irk him by "assuming the close")
As you will remember I have a doubt on the opportunity, in view of the imminent changes in the social security system, of opting for an integration ... that would allow me to remain in the ....
~~Could I ask you for~~ (changed this into "Can you provide me some" because the original wording felt too submissive) indications about the choice I have to make?
~~If you prefer~~ (deleted this as it also felt too submissive) I am happy to call you or also to meet you in person.
Kind regards

Now that I sent it, as always, I see room for several improvements (I must be the most frequent see-it-afterwards case in human history!):

New better draft

Subject: Good day [name], we met the last day of the recent bar elections (adding his name to the subject line also would have made it more personal)
Dear ...,
I am Bel. We met the last day of the recent bar elections, when attorney X ~~introduced us~~ referred me to you (I suspect the phrasing "introduced us" that I used here is not optimal, as I was the one asking to speak with him. So maybe I should have written that I was referred to him, to avoid scalping on the "introducer". I also suspect this is a bad part that may irk him and make him not respond)
As you will remember I have a doubt on the opportunity, in view of the imminent changes in the social security system, of opting for an integration ... that would allow me to remain in the ....
~~Can you provide me some indication about the choice I have to make?~~ (I think the best choice here would have been to remove this part altogether. However phrased, it feels like tasking. It's probably the worst part of my email and will be the reason for his non-response if it irks him. Plus, the request had already been stated in person and is implied in my reaching out. So I probably should have left it totally out)
~~I am~~ Happy to also call you or ~~also to~~ meet you in person. (the way I phrased this, it seems I was assuming the call was the minimum necessary. Instead, what I wanted to convey was that I was happy even if he just shot me a clarifying email. I think I botched this)
Kind regards

That's it. I hope the above mistakes, even if bad and even if they make him not respond, do not paint me totally badly in the group of lawyers in his entourage.

I now realize my trying to remain invisible as much as possible before-TPM was mainly due to this: I subconsciously understood I was making costly mistakes in dealing with people.

Conversely, my increased dealings with people now are due to feeling a bit less incompetent. So, I hope the learning phase I am going through now will not entail mistakes that are too costly and/or that cannot be repaired.

EDIT: I re-read the text of what I sent vs what I tried to improve here above. I think they are not too different. So maybe I am reaching a stage where I am not making major costly mistakes anymore.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.

#465 · February 8, 2023, 2:50 pm

Quote from Bel on February 8, 2023, 11:02 am
Hello Lucio,
it's totally Berlusconi.

GREAT observations Bel!

And yes, you said it.

Interestingly enough, it's a similar pattern with Donald Trump.

Many early Trump interviews are great examples of a high power, but also likable, high-warmth person -or at least, higher warmth-.

Later Trump was embittered, in constant warfare, made too many enemies, and was unlikable outside of the more extreme Republican factions.
He became a good example of pursuing power with too little warmth.

Same for Berlusconi.

In this interview here Berlusconi was a beast.

Leagues higher power than his opponent -he controls the frame, he leads the interaction, he picks the topics-, but also leagues higher warmth.

Later Berlusconi complained of commentators being against him -just like Trump-.
This Berlusconi had the commentator on his side, without even having to do anything -quite impressive-.

I wouldn't have voted for more recent Berlusconi as much as I wouldn't have voted for more recent Trump -and many independents would agree with Clinton when she talked about a "basket of deplorables"-.

But this Berlusconi, wow... He's so charismatic and charming that he takes your vote.

B has reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#466 · February 8, 2023, 3:00 pm

Quote from Bel on February 8, 2023, 1:26 pm
Semi-cold reach out email: improvements to apply from now on

Some quick thoughts on this:

Is this consultation supposed to be pro bono, as a colleague helping a colleague?

If so, yes, I'd have cut out the request and proposed the meeting instead.

And maybe even said I was going near to his place and inviting him.

Or I'd have thought about providing some benefits or told me that I was happy to repay with consultation on something you're knowledgeable about, or hinted at future giving, or told him you'd refer some client on his area of expertise.

For example:

And happy to help in case you need some help or opinion exchange on...

B has reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#467 · February 8, 2023, 3:11 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 8, 2023, 3:00 pm
Quote from Bel on February 8, 2023, 1:26 pm
Semi-cold reach out email: improvements to apply from now on
Some quick thoughts on this:
Is this consultation supposed to be pro bono, as a colleague helping a colleague?
If so, yes, I'd have cut out the request and proposed the meeting instead.
And maybe even said I was going near to his place and inviting him.
Or I'd have thought about providing some benefits or told me that I was happy to repay with consultation on something you're knowledgeable about, or hinted at future giving, or told him you'd refer some client on his area of expertise.
For example:
And happy to help in case you need some help or opinion exchange on...

Thank you, Lucio.

I understand. I should have added something like

and of course, happy to talk in the future if something comes up where I may be of help.

I think another mistake I made was writing

Happy to call you or meet you.

It’s obvious I’m happy to call him, as I can only gain. So it was also off.

Better to go as I used to do:

Would you be available for a call?

#468 · February 8, 2023, 3:33 pm

High-warmth, compliment-reciprocating honest exchange talk

This just popped into my head from the discussion above:

Taker: Thank you so much for this Bel, you are so good in civil law!
Me: It’s a pleasure. Knowing your expertise in criminal law, I’ll also call you for sure if I ever should need quick help or advice.

The idea is to wrap the honest exchange talk inside a high-warmth frame of reciprocal compliments.

It also uses the thank you/ compliment of the other person as a step to justify the exchange talk.

And, takers often substitute compliments for reciprocity.

The issue I faced in using honest exchange talk is that, since takers usually are covert takers, if I do it out of the blue, I offer easy fodder for a counter or a fake-surprise: and fake-offended reaction.

But, if the honest exchange talk is covertly embedded inside the frame that I’m just reciprocating your thank you and compliments, then it’s the perfect shot.

#469 · February 8, 2023, 3:45 pm

Quote from Bel on February 8, 2023, 3:11 pm
sds
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 8, 2023, 3:00 pm
I think another mistake I made was writing
Happy to call you or meet you.
It’s obvious I’m happy to call him, as I can only gain. So it was also off.
Better to go as I used to do:
Would you be available for a call?

No, not necessarily.

The first one is higher pressure, may lead to more "closes" if you're selling something, but also a lot more pissed-off prospects.

The second one may be lower odds in sales, but "safer" and burns fewer bridges.

HOWEVER...

Since you're not really offering anything in your email, I think the lower-pressure approach is simply superior (it doesn't self frame as a chasing-taker).

B has reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#470 · February 8, 2023, 3:50 pm

Who goes near whom, and why it shouldn’t be explicitly stated

From this:

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 8, 2023, 3:00 pm

If so, yes, I'd have cut out the request and proposed the meeting instead.
And maybe even said I was going near to his place and inviting him.

This makes me remember several mistakes I did in the past with “location based exchanges”.

Dating

I remember, decades ago, meeting women from out of my city, exchanging contacts and telling them to get in touch if they ever came back to my city. Never worked, of course.

I also remember an acquaintance of mine meeting a woman from another city, and exchanging contacts. He then went on purpose to her city, and contacted her faking he had had a problem there and had nowhere to go. It worked.

Work

More recently, I also remember one of the partners of my former law firm calling me on the phone and saying something like:

Him: I’d like to talk to you. When are you coming here near the firm?

I answered something to the effect that I had not in program to go there, but could go there on purpose. And he never called me again.

Now you also suggested the possibility of hinting I would be near this lawyer area and saying happy to meet. If I interpreted it correctly it’s:

I’m going to be near your office for work next week, and happy to meet in person.

I now get that the fact that one is willing to move to get near the “giving” person should be subcommunicated, not explicitly stated.

My mistake has been stating it plainly.

But saying “I’ll come to you” can trigger “hounding/feeling trapped” reactions.

While saying “I’m going to be in your area for work next week, and happy to meet you in person” instead is sufficient to convey that it’s really an excuse, I’m going there to do my part: but at the same time not trigger a reaction and offer an easy excuse.

EDIT: and stating it plainly also amounts, I now realize, to scalping on it.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.