Quote from B on June 27, 2023, 11:13 am

By the way: my responses were all out of place.

And I probably had, and still have, internalized these people's way of seeing things.

My cutting off contact was not ideal, and how I managed the aftermath also was not ideal.

I am still unable to let go of these "wanting to get even" thoughts.

I suppose, in a way, this is proof of how bad one can go down if he doesn't realize how far people are pushing and power moving.

On the other side, it's now my responsibility to find a better way of seeing the world, including these people.

Quote from B on June 27, 2023, 12:07 pm

The things we are prepared do to our "worst abuser" set the standard for how low we will behave when things get rough in life

Once, when we were speaking about manipulative parents, Lucio suggested "wanting to get back at them" is not a good aim in general.

I reflected on that.

Initially I thought there was a "blood bond" that reverted damage back to us if we did wrong to them.

Now I am starting to think that there is a link between how low we are prepared to go to "get back" at someone, and what will likely happen when we are triggered, get emotional, have an argument, etc. in general in our life.

Let's suppose a person abuses another close person by raging on him, constantly and periodically.

And let's suppose the abused eventually "wakes up", and needs to decide if and how to "get back" at the "abuser".

And let's suppose the "abused" decides to call the "abuser" and rage on him, every now and then. To "get things even".

The result will be that the "abused" will subconsciously internalize that raging is an acceptable response whenever life is unfair at him.

And then, what will likely happen when the "abused" is very strongly emotionally triggered by a friend, or by a partner, or by a son?

Exactly. Rage.

But then, what differentiates the original "abuser" from the "abused"?

And what likely results will the "abused" obtain in life that are different from the "abuser"'s results in life?

Will the son of the abused likely estrange himself when adult?

Hasn't the "abuser" probably started exactly that way in his life? Ie, subconsciously decided that it was fair to fight fire with (stronger) fire whenever things got flustered?

In the end, getting better at power dynamics gives a wider spectrum of ways to handle situations without stooping low, and empowers one not only with power, but also with the responsibility to behave better and higher. Including when one has been treated very badly.

EDIT: And not only for "pro-social" reasons, but for very selfish reasons. Ie, to leave a good life: the one that those who treated us badly were not able to live.

Quote from B on June 28, 2023, 11:02 am

Quote from Power duck on June 26, 2023, 9:49 pm

Thanks for sharing that Bel, some of the things you said resonated strongly with me.

I'm starting to think that those things might have happened  to me as well.

Particularly these two:

Quote from Bel on June 26, 2023, 8:06 pm

......

When you don't understand power dynamics, being abused creates wrong links and wrong mental associations, and mostly self-blaming ones.

.......

But I paid a big price: so far, I had rationalized my not wanting to be near these abusers as me "not liking to play cards", and worse: "liking to be alone" and "being an introvert"

......

I wonder why some people rationalize after negative social situations that they like to be alone, I suppose it's a survival mechanism to stay away from potential abusers/toxic people.  I'm no expert in the matter though 🙂

Cheers.

Thank you, Power Duck.

It's a common reaction, I find.

It's actually derived from a combination of factors:

• one, the trauma and betrayal bond with the abuser (read the book on this by Patrick Carnes, "The Betrayal Bond") makes it impossible for someone who is dependent on an abuser (eg on a father, mother) for survival to "see the abuse", unless and until the abused gains the means to survive on his own; the only sensible solution for the child, before that moment, is to rationalize that he himself must be the problem;
• two, it is what the abuser encourages. The abuser wants the child to think he is the problem and is "introvert and a-social". This is because isolated people are more easily controllable. The more you interact in the world with normal people, the more you may come to see an abuser is not "normal". Plus, isolation fosters depression. A common ploy to reinforce isolation by abusers is to create a scene on something irrelevant anytime the child is going out to a party, with friends, or enrolls in a social activity. I remember my father making a very raging scene on a new year's eve just before I was going out, ostensibly over the fact that the food I was bringing to the party was "not adequate" (but in reality as a way to make me associate going out with "pain").

In a way, the instinct to stay away from the abuse is manipulated by the abuser to make the abused think he is not a sociable person.

But the instinct is usually spot on. I remember when living with my parents eventually I would go out of the house in the morning and come back at midnight, every day, even when I had nothing to do.

I didn't know why I was doing it, but I didn't care. And I did it anyway.

Quote from B on June 28, 2023, 11:07 am

How to address the job interview ploy of "why are you here? You don't seem qualified for this job"

Just found an awesome answer, that maybe we can even perfect:

Interviewer: So from your resume, it doesn't seem you have experience relevant to this job...

You: I thought you had read my resume before calling me...

No use accepting a job after the interviewer pulls this one on you, unless he backtracks after being called out.

Quote from B on June 28, 2023, 3:04 pm

Covert reach out

I was reading PU's page on covert power moves and the Covert reach out section struck a chord with me.

I remember several episodes:

• my former boss always made me ask things to people he knew

I remember infinite episodes of this: from him telling me to go to another room and ask another firm lawyer with something, to him telling me to call another lawyer in another firm he knew and ask for something on his behalf.

I also remember these people to whom I relayed the requests were usually very upset with me.

Now I know why: my former boss was trying to covertly reach out to these people so that he would not incur debts - I would be the one to incur a debt on his behalf if the request succeeded.

Most of the times, these people said "yes" to me, and then disappeared and did not go forward with what I had asked on my boss's behalf.

• one former client of mine also used this technique by having a colleague of his write to me.

And, the email I received from this person contained no open request, in fact it framed things as if I was the one who needed something from them:

Hi Bel how are you?

I write regarding an issue we have had...

I know my colleague has tried to call you to better expose the issue. (I had blocked them)

We (them two) agreed we would send you the documents, here enclosed.

The counterparty is saying we have five days to answer. (puts pressure on me)

For any clarification we can talk when you want (this part reverses the social exchange making it seem I need them for "clarifications")

Thanks (covert tasking)

I remember when I got this I thought: it seems like he's making a favor to me here.

I never replied and chose to forgo the relationship with both of these people forever, instead of submitting.

They had done other things, of course; but this proves that covert reach outs can sometimes cost the entire relationship.

And at the time I was not much power-aware.

I suppose I could have just sent them my fee quote instead.

I considered that, but didn't want to have more to do with them.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on June 28, 2023, 6:23 pm

For the resume, "I thought" is a bit low power.

If you wanna challenge him for good, then better a higher power one, for example "what? You didn't read my resume before scheduling this?". Said in a tone of "I don't believe this shit and that you can be so sloppy".

But you generally don't wanna antagonize the interviewer, so you may want to let him play his power move just to have one more option.

 

Quote from Bel on June 28, 2023, 3:04 pm

Covert reach out

(...)

Thank you for sharing this, Bel!

It all makes sense.

What I wanted to ask you since I don't remember every lesson is: did the lesson make sense in itself?
Or did you have to think it over and you think I should add some of your post there?

Quote from B on June 28, 2023, 7:40 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on June 28, 2023, 6:23 pm

Quote from Bel on June 28, 2023, 3:04 pm

Covert reach out

(...)

Thank you for sharing this, Bel!

It all makes sense.

What I wanted to ask you since I don't remember every lesson is: did the lesson make sense in itself?
Or did you have to think it over and you think I should add some of your post there?

Thank you, Lucio.

I think the lesson (https://thepowermoves.com/courses/power-university/lessons/covert-power-moves/topic/covert-power-moves-advanced/#9_Covert_Reach_Out ) is very clear and includes "having someone else reach out for you" already.

I don't remember reading it in prior readings, so I suppose the "Covert reach out" part has been an addition from the last PU update.

Or I may have not been "ready to understand it" at the time.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on June 28, 2023, 6:23 pm

For the resume, "I thought" is a bit low power.

If you wanna challenge him for good, then better a higher power one, for example "what? You didn't read my resume before scheduling this?". Said in a tone of "I don't believe this shit and that you can be so sloppy".

But you generally don't wanna antagonize the interviewer, so you may want to let him play his power move just to have one more option.

I see your point.

My strong push-back derives from my feeling that all interviewers who use this may infer manipulability from non-pushing back - and worse, the frame would be set they are making us a favor in selecting us for the position. Which can influence not only the starting offer, but also work conditions and later advancement possibilities.

Usually what I would have done in the past is, unfortunately, start qualifying myself and falling into the frame they were making me a favor:

Interviewer: So from your resume, it doesn't seem you have experience relevant to this job...

Me: But I have done this and this and this...

Maybe there's a better middle ground.

Quote from B on July 1, 2023, 1:40 pm

As long as you're part of a group (for example, a workplace), don't ever suggest the group is "bad" - even though the group may be the worst place on earth

Quoting Lucio:

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on June 30, 2023, 10:52 pm

Hey Bel, yeah, I think that you basically said it: as a general rule, you don't wanna antagonize everyone.

When you antagonize eveyrone you can also end up gaining a reputation for childish rebellion and a generally low-character since people generally think "come on, it's not possible you have a problem with everyone... Maybe the problem then is... You?".

Madonna fell for that on the Letterman Show:

https://youtu.be/BMQWR2v9opQ?t=468

She was in her rebellious years and Letterman framed as a sexual freak.

She felt judged but instead of calling it out with Letterman, she tried to embarrass him by embracing the sexuality and going extreme.

However, she's really not comfortable with it.

You can see she's nervous, and Letterman effectively frames it as Madonna against everyone (making the audience uncomfortable with her antics).

That's a huge learning for me.

For me the learning is translated into this principle:

• Even if you may be temporarily stuck into a very dark group (eg a workplace)
• and even if half of the people may have disrespected you and the other half may have thought you are an idiot undeserving of respect
• it's still always better, as long as you're part of the group, to frame-control the situation as you liking and being part of the group
• and the other person being "out or being antagonizing the group"
• than the reverse.

That's because if you antagonize everyone, you instantly lose all support - and worse, other people may start consciously thinking you are an enemy.

I remember several instances in which I violated this principle, and I now see it was a mistake.

Once I was at work, and my former boss entered my room (full of people) on my birthday, after having mobbed me for months, and he told me:

Boss: Today it's your birthday, and you didn't even bring any food for us to enjoy?

Me: (thinking: how can this asshole provoke me so much) Why should I bring food in this cesspool of a workplace?

I fell for it hook line and sinker.

Even if I wanted to antagonize him (which was a mistake anyway as far as he was still my boss), I should have answered something like:

Me: I would have, had you not poured so much work on me...

Now I see my answer likely antagonized all the people in my room, and explains why I lost my colleague's support more and more.

In part, it was me falling for a manipulative ganging up move.

In part, it was a severe lack of frame control on my part.

Very very helpful going forward.

It's like a seismic shift.

Something that should have been obvious, but in reality - even in rebelling against the bad people in my life - I fell into their frame that I was the outcast of the group.

It's as if they said to me again and again:

Them: You're not part of this group, you're not part of this group, you are not a good (employee, son, whatever).

Me: Ok, bye. Enjoy your (workplace, family) by yourselves.

Huge mistake.

Even if I wanted to go away, I should have framed it very differently.

At the very least I should have framed it as in:

You're a bad person, and you're leading this group of fine people down a very bad path. God have mercy of you and may help them get rid of you.

This ties into my recent realization that I'm not really an introvert - I just fell for these people's manipulation.

EDIT: This is exactly Fredo's mistake that spells his doom in The Godfather.

Michael even explains it to him:

Michael: Fredo I love you. You're my brother. But don't ever take sides against the family again.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 1, 2023, 2:36 pm

Hello Bel,

Yes, as you say.
When you attack everyone, the "group" gets to shake their head at you and they can tell themselves "he's really (hostile / angry / aggressive / weird)".

And because it's many VS one, because they have each other to back them up, it becomes the new "group reality".

If you leave, you also lose any chance of shaping that narrative.
And if you get even angrier at the situation, you may even provide evidence for that initially false reality (gaslighting / crazymaking).

Now here's the interesting thing:

The group may not all be comprised of assholes.

But the truly dark characters in the group can keep hiding among the sheep because they get to turn you into the "bad" one.

Let me know if you think should be in PU (and if so, if you have an idea about where, also very helpful).