Quote from B on April 17, 2023, 11:29 pm

BOOM! Thank you so much, Lucio!

It's a stellar improvement.

It even removes the possibility that she may "get angry" because I'm "manipulating her into paying for just a word dilemma".

Reworded as follows as per your suggestion:

Me: Good day Ms. ..., I hope all is well.

It is not possible for me to provide answers or assume professional liability on matters so complex and delicate via text or phone; since the matter is complex, one wrong or misplaced word or concept could be sufficient to derail negotiations or potentially render null and void an agreement, and open the door to future lawsuits.

Kind regards

Quote from John Freeman on April 18, 2023, 2:02 pm

Hello Bel,

I think the dynamic is that she got things for free in the past so probably she expects to get the same treatment. Regarding her question: this kind of situation happens also in medicine when people want simple and immediate answers to things that need a proper medical consult. So personally, if I would like to have her as a customer, I would rather set an appointment and make her pay for it (as it is the custom).

Here is a suggestion:

Me: Good day Ms. X, thank you for your message. This is a question that is best answered in person as it is more complex than it seems at first glance (some power protection here with "at first glance"). We could set up an official consultation so I could have more information on the matter and give you a proper answer.

Please let me know if you want to arrange such a meeting.

Best regards,

Bel

By official, I mean: "that would be billed to you and within the frame of a normal professional relationship with a lawyer".  To make it official. To take into account the power dynamics that Lucio exposed, there is no question asked here. It's rather a suggested task: "Please let me know if you want to arrange such a meeting." instead of "what do you think?". Since she needs you more than you need her, that she had free services in the past it's normal that she's the one that has to come to you. I would then "fire and forget": if she's interested good and you make money (make her pay extra as Lucio suggested seems a good rule of thumbe) or she's not and you dodged a bullet (freeloader).

Quote from B on April 19, 2023, 1:48 pm

I was at a lunch with family at a table of 5.

When the wine came, the waiter asked who would taste it.

One relative, the one seated at the short end of the table, answered:

Relative: (pointing to me) The doctor here will taste it.

I subtly smiled, didn't say anything, tasted the wine and nodded that it was ok.

I then asked myself why I didn't address it.

I believe that in not answering (even though the phrase was clearly dismissive and condescending to me) I may have unconsciously applied what was discussed with Kavalier and Lucio about the fact that when people give you high status, even if dismissively, they are already making you win.

At that point, it makes no sense to come back down to their level to address their social climbing.

Quote from B on April 19, 2023, 2:16 pm

Observable (appropriate) variability in responses to different situations makes one gain respect, power and "attractiveness" in a short time

Here below a past discussion on how displaying more emotional variability (if appropriate to the context) in a short time makes people seem more attractive in a dating context:

Quote from Bel on April 5, 2023, 4:41 pm

Came across this article which explains that people are more attractive and seem more authentic when they present more emotional variability (the article speaks about "moods" but I believe the correct reference is to variability in "emotional states"):

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/why-bad-looks-good/202210/are-you-more-attractive-when-you-express-different-moods

I believe this is a great principle to implement that definitely works from my experience in all contexts: dates, job interviews, work, friends, family.

The underlying idea, as I understand it, is that only a secure person would not fear coming across as "emotionally variable" in emotion depending on external events.

To be clear, I find the most attractive stance is that of showing being "superficially able to react emotionally" while maintaining an internally grounded stance.

I find that this is totally true in the context of dating and seduction: the most attractive people tend to naturally convey an aura of "normality" and "being able to be influenced" by reacting with different facial and emotional expressions depending on the interaction. Here one example:

https://youtu.be/RTT5v43eoUw?t=9

Contrast this to a hypothetical person who would be focused on appearing "strong" and "unswayed": it would be much less attractive and sound "fake".

But I find it works also in job interviews and in friendships. In fact I am backwards realizing it is one of the most attractive things that top people do.

In fact, I find they tend to look for occasions to showcase more emotional variability in a short time when meeting someone to establish more familiarity and a stronger bond.

Now, it happened to me that I sent to a client, with two others in copy, a blunt email in response to a rather curt one I received.

Just some days ago, I had sent to the other two (who now are in copy) a very warm email on an unrelated project.

So these two people have seen me:

• send them a very kind and warm email, first;
• then, answer curtly to another person who had been curt with me.

Now - irrespective of whether my behavior was appropriate or not in the specific situations (in fact, I believe I may have gone a bit overboard in bluntness in the second case) - this reflection is based on the idea that people assess character based on visible (external) clues.

So the idea is that showcasing a more diverse gamut of power/warmth responses, appropriate to the situation, in a short time makes one gain power and respect fast:

1. If, in interacting with me they had seen only my initial warm email to them, then among their "reasonable assessments" these two people could have legitimately bet and inferred that I was a pushover.

And then they could have tested that later with some power move of their own.

2. If, in interacting with me, I had - as a working hypothesis - been totally low warmth and high power with them in response to an initial curt email of their own, then they could have inferred (among their reasonable assessment options) that I was simply an asshole to everyone.

3. On the other hand, seeing me be "appropriately" high-warmth, and then low-warmth, in response to different tones and behaviors from different people in different ineractions, gives them only one "reasonable assessment": that I am a kind person who demands respect.

Thus "observable appropriate response variability" to different situations may be what gets respect and status fast.

On the other hand, in my former situation before-TPM, one of the most telling clues that I could be pushed around was that I had "stock invariable responses" to different situations. This subcommunicated I was clueless about the power game, and I would always be "weak" in any case, irrespectively of how I was treated.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on April 19, 2023, 6:34 pm

Quote from Bel on April 19, 2023, 1:48 pm

I was at a lunch with family at a table of 5.

When the wine came, the waiter asked who would taste it.

One relative, the one seated at the short end of the table, answered:

Relative: (pointing to me) The doctor here will taste it.

I subtly smiled, didn't say anything, tasted the wine and nodded that it was ok.

I then asked myself why I didn't address it.

I believe that in not answering (even though the phrase was clearly dismissive and condescending to me) I may have unconsciously applied what was discussed with Kavalier and Lucio about the fact that when people give you high status, even if dismissively, they are already making you win.

At that point, it makes no sense to come back down to their level to address their social climbing.

Good one Bel.

I'd be curious to know how that was in your family, but feel free to skip that info.

Another possible move;

Bel: (sips the wine) Hmmm... The doctor says it's good

So even if they tried to be demeaning, you take it as a positive -or at the very least as a good opportunity for some good humor-.

Flying higher:

They wanted to one-up, you spin it positively -and thread expands the positive, too: you're a doctor, yes, let's highlight that once again-.

Quote from B on April 19, 2023, 6:57 pm

Thank you Lucio.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on April 19, 2023, 6:34 pm

I'd be curious to know how that was in your family, but feel free to skip that info.

You mean who specifically made the move? It was my father.

Another possible move;

Bel: (sips the wine) Hmmm... The doctor says it's good

So even if they tried to be demeaning, you take it as a positive -or at the very least as a good opportunity for some good humor-.

Flying higher:

They wanted to one-up, you spin it positively -and thread expands the positive, too: you're a doctor, yes, let's highlight that once again-.

It's good.

However, my feeling is that, since I am a lawyer, he said "doctor" both as a way to remark an inexistent "difference" between me an the rest, and as diminishment.

So, however I had spun it, my feeling is that I would have conceded here.

BTW he always used to make moves like this.

Quote from B on April 19, 2023, 7:08 pm

In established relationships where a negative power-imbalance had been established, when rebalancing power, is power-protecting sub-communicated by the "slowness/graduality" of redressing/steering back the imbalance in one's favor?

Today I received quite a blunt and tasking email from the employee of a client, with two people - also employees of the client - in copy.

The person who sent me the email is a junior person. The email was basically worded as follows:

Him: Hi Bel,

please we need three legal letters with this and this and this.

They will need to be made in this way and sent by this date.

Let us know if you need more.

Thanks a lot.

I immediately felt disrespected.

I sent back this email here below (translation is a bit off but the gist is correct):

Me: Hi X,

gladly as to the letters.

Please also send me to this aim the contracts concerning the services indicated.

Kind regards

The idea was to task back and subcommunicate I could be as curt as him, unless he worded his emails a bit more warmly.

But immediately after sending it, I had the feeling it was "too abrupt".

So I went back to reread my previous email exchanges with this person, and I found I had basically let him write this way to me without any push-back, for months (it was before-TPM).

So while to an external observer my email could seem fine, in my internal replationship with this person it's probably going to be perceived as curt.

I now believe I should have been a bit more gradual in pushing back:

Me: Hi X,

I'll gladly prepare the letters.

Could you also please send me, to this aim, the contracts concerning the services indicated?

The point is that, I suppose, when we discussed on the forum that steering back power should be done gradually, we were really dealing with a form of power-protecting.

As if steering back abruptly equal to not power protecting, and is likely to be perceived as a badly rapport-breaking move.

Or, alternatively, I could be off the mark here: maybe my reply was ok, and it could just be an insecurity of mine as I am starting to dial down warmth more in some situations, and this is making me uncomfortable.

EDIT: It's also possible my email was off in any case as I am the service provider, and I'm just starting to behave disrespectfully for some reason I do not yet realize. Probably to test how far I can go, because some things are really starting to get on my nerves.

Quote from B on April 20, 2023, 8:58 pm

Stopping free work

Update on this:

Quote from Bel on April 17, 2023, 11:29 pm

BOOM! Thank you so much, Lucio!

It's a stellar improvement.

It even removes the possibility that she may "get angry" because I'm "manipulating her into paying for just a word dilemma".

Reworded as follows as per your suggestion:

Me: Good day Ms. ..., I hope all is well.

It is not possible for me to provide answers or assume professional liability on matters so complex and delicate via text or phone; since the matter is complex, one wrong or misplaced word or concept could be sufficient to derail negotiations or potentially render null and void an agreement, and open the door to future lawsuits.

Kind regards

I took John's post (thank you, John) to mean that the message here above was a bit too blunt.

I also realized that I couldn't be sure that the client was manipulating me, since I have been changing in my interactions and behavior even if slowly.

So I tried to add some warmth:

Me: Good day Ms. ..., forgive me for the delay but these have been full days. Among the fact you narrated to me I don't remember - but you have the documents - that any lien had been formally established. Please keep into account that it is not possible for me to provide answers or assume professional liability on matters so delicate via phone and without an engagement; since the matter is complex, one misplaced word or concept could be sufficient to create potential legal problems and open the door to future lawsuits. Kind regards

I sent it and received this response:

Client: You are right. But I thought I had understood that, since nothing had been formally established, we could not speak of one, but of the other... ok, patience. I will avoid the point ;) Thank you anyways. This weekend I'll speak with my counterparty to conclude, so let's talk next week. Good evening :)

I think, based on the response, she might have been in good faith and my initial stance was too much. But I also think dotting the i's was not a mistake, and this may be headed towards the right direction.

Quote from B on April 20, 2023, 9:08 pm

Tasking back clients who task me

Update on this (where I tasked back a client who had tasked me, by writing to him "please, send me the contracts as well"):

Quote from Bel on April 19, 2023, 7:08 pm

In established relationships where a negative power-imbalance had been established, when rebalancing power, is power-protecting sub-communicated by the "slowness/graduality" of redressing/steering back the imbalance in one's favor?

Today I received quite a blunt and tasking email from the employee of a client, with two people - also employees of the client - in copy.

The person who sent me the email is a junior person. The email was basically worded as follows:

Him: Hi Bel,

please we need three legal letters with this and this and this.

They will need to be made in this way and sent by this date.

Let us know if you need more.

Thanks a lot.

I immediately felt disrespected.

I sent back this email here below (translation is a bit off but the gist is correct):

Me: Hi X,

gladly as to the letters.

Please also send me to this aim the contracts concerning the services indicated.

Kind regards

The idea was to task back and subcommunicate I could be as curt as him, unless he worded his emails a bit more warmly.

But immediately after sending it, I had the feeling it was "too abrupt".

So I went back to reread my previous email exchanges with this person, and I found I had basically let him write this way to me without any push-back, for months (it was before-TPM).

So while to an external observer my email could seem fine, in my internal replationship with this person it's probably going to be perceived as curt.

I now believe I should have been a bit more gradual in pushing back:

Me: Hi X,

I'll gladly prepare the letters.

Could you also please send me, to this aim, the contracts concerning the services indicated?

The point is that, I suppose, when we discussed on the forum that steering back power should be done gradually, we were really dealing with a form of power-protecting.

As if steering back abruptly equal to not power protecting, and is likely to be perceived as a badly rapport-breaking move.

Or, alternatively, I could be off the mark here: maybe my reply was ok, and it could just be an insecurity of mine as I am starting to dial down warmth more in some situations, and this is making me uncomfortable.

EDIT: It's also possible my email was off in any case as I am the service provider, and I'm just starting to behave disrespectfully for some reason I do not yet realize. Probably to test how far I can go, because some things are really starting to get on my nerves.

The client sent me the contracts, tried to call me, and then asked me via email to talk on the phone.

I waited two/three hours, called him and the call was good. He was kind and warm.

So his tasking me, and me tasking him back, did not create problems.

I think I had an unconscious fear about tasking people openly - that hopefully is being resolved.