Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Bel's thoughts
Putting it here to remain on topic in the “isolation” thread:
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 31, 2023, 6:06 pmQuote from Bel on July 31, 2023, 1:54 pm33. Obtaining obvious favors from third parties in front of the mark, who is instead treated normally by the third party
For example, convincing the mark to go on vacation together at a hotel.
Then, at checkout, obtaining a big discount due to some prior work the manipulator has done for the hotel, and flaunting it in front of the third party, who is instead treated normally by the hotel owner.
This has the effect of discouraging any relations between the mark and the hotel owner.
I'm not sure I would classify these as "isolating power moves".
Sure, they may contribute somehow.
But it feels a lot more tangential to me,
That was a power move for sure, but more of a "I'm better than you / you're below me" type of power move.
Or even "up yours" as in "I'm getting a big discount and not lifting a finger to extend the same to you".
This guy (that flaunted the discount for his bigger hotel room in front of me and Bella) was the same person who I had done significant work for, and to whom I later asked to be paid in full.
He then paid me, and as we talked about many months ago, he sent me the email I spoke about when I first got on TPM, where he wrote :
HIM: I am sad that you didn’t make a discount for me, since we are friends and relatives.
We pay our dues and wish you good luck Bel.
Now I understand why I didn’t reply to this POS, and that not replying was probably also a big power move on my side 🙂
Quote from Bel on July 31, 2023, 10:23 pmHe then paid me, and as we talked about many months ago, he sent me the email I spoke about when I first got on TPM, where he wrote :
HIM: I am sad that you didn’t make a discount for me, since we are friends and relatives.
We pay our dues and wish you good luck Bel.
Now I understand why I didn’t reply to this POS, and that not replying was probably also a big power move on my side 🙂
Also common for manipulators to call up relationships and kinship for whatever fits them.
Yes. On that I internalized your advice that the “family/friendship frame “ should never be denied, but instead made our own and used to counterattack if necessary.
I was reflecting on this format Lucio used:
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 28, 2023, 10:47 pmI'd like to turn it into an actual article where it can get a lot more readers adn reach out a lot more people who may need this.
If you wanna do the honors with your username, just let me know (of course I'll make it easier for you and since it'd be your first article I'll do the heavy lifting in any case).
If not I'll proceed later on.
It's very effective in proposing without imposing and without asking for time and reflection to answer.
The subcommunication is:
- I respect your time
- I respect your mental time (I'm not even asking that you think whether you want or not, if you don't want to think about it)
- I will do it anyway
- I'd like for you to do it, but if you don't, or don't want to think about it, no action required
If one wants to say yes, it increases the likelihood that he may do so (because it's higher power and more power-protecting).
If one wants to say no, it power protects both parties: the "askee" doesn't need to deny openly, and the "proponent" doesn't face any possibility of refusal.
Yep, and also these parts:
- it can get a lot more readers and reach out a lot more people = WIIFY, you'll reach a lot more people
- who may need this = mission/responsibility, as in "if you got something this helpful (and you know how helpful it was to you), it may as well be a "moral duty" to help other people free themselves
Yes, Lucio you did the same with me and I agree. It's very leader-like, power-protecting and rapport-building. It's quite effective. Also the last condition: "if not I'll proceed" keeps the asker empowered and not dependent on the askee. Quite important to stay on track.
Thanks Bel for the analysis.
Useless hierarchies to make people compete for nothing and keep them busy
I was reading The Status Game and now came across an article which explained that ancient Romans had put in place a hierarchy between their slaves, whereby slaves could - by working hard - get to “higher power and status levels” (but always wishing the “slave status”).
Tying it with the “big fish in small pond” concept, and also with what The Status Game explains - ie that humans are hard wired to work to gain more status in social groups - now the bigger scheme that manipulators use is evident to me.
The manipulators create “useless hierarchies” for their marks to compete in, while the real motive of their exploitation - the “real game” - is hidden from the view of their marks.
This is a phenomenon that is all-pervasive in human life and society.
Examples:
- striving to get the “best employee of the month” certificate, while the boss pockets all the money;
- striving to be the best law firm associate, while you may have no chance making partner;
- striving to please manipulative parents who keep you busy with bullshit while they live magnificently and steal away your life or best years.
The dynamic is more pronounced the more the situation is abusive - an example are gulags or concentration camps, where the “internal hierarchy” no doubt was very deliberately plotted - but it is also present in everyday situations.
The key here is to become aware of the real game, and strategize to play that game while trying to escape the “useless game”.
If one keeps busy playing the useless game, one can learn useless things and even become more afraid of leaving the useless game to compete in real life - as one may be nobody out there and have to start from scratch.
Yep, there is an article on this here about "corporate manipulation".
Some of those hierarchies aren't totally useless and are not always and fully win-lose.
One can still gain something by moving forward, so how manipulative and win-lose they are, depends on how much he's actually gaining, VS how much the owners gain.
Plus, some people never want to be entrepreneurs for whatever reason, so it can be fair for them to compete in that hierarchy and still improve their lot while getting days off, and fewer headaches.
And it can also be a grey area if one is getting enough "emotional rewards" out of it and if the owner is adding value with his work.
For example, if one runs a company about recycling and he gets employees to work very hard with the dream/objectives of doing good for the world and the business truly does a great recycling job, then, it can be fair.
So yeah, an element of manipulation can certainly be there, but as usually you'd want to look at the situation/people.
I was thinking to add this to the business module / business university eventually on how to motivate people (and how to spot and defend against manipulative motivation).
I was reading the awesome summary on the biography of Robert Moses.
The move where he answered a letter by one of his opponents (copying 72 people) by implying the opponent had been impolite and angry in tone struck as a common manipulation I have encountered.
The opponent could have responded to the move by sending his own original letter to the 72, and mentioning he had forgotten to copy them.
I believe this may be a good stock response to this kind of manipulation.
The readers will certainly draw their own conclusion, and no doubt be offended by the manipulator.
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 20, 2023, 3:04 pmYep, there is an article on this here about "corporate manipulation".
Some of those hierarchies aren't totally useless and are not always and fully win-lose.
One can still gain something by moving forward, so how manipulative and win-lose they are, depends on how much he's actually gaining, VS how much the owners gain.
Plus, some people never want to be entrepreneurs for whatever reason, so it can be fair for them to compete in that hierarchy and still improve their lot while getting days off, and fewer headaches.And it can also be a grey area if one is getting enough "emotional rewards" out of it and if the owner is adding value with his work.
For example, if one runs a company about recycling and he gets employees to work very hard with the dream/objectives of doing good for the world and the business truly does a great recycling job, then, it can be fair.So yeah, an element of manipulation can certainly be there, but as usually you'd want to look at the situation/people.
I was thinking to add this to the business module / business university eventually on how to motivate people (and how to spot and defend against manipulative motivation).
I suppose the fairness of this solution ultimately rests on the awareness of the real ultimate outcome on the part of the “working bees”.
In the worst cases in history, they were promised freedom for their efforts and then sent to slaughter.
On the contrary, if I know that by working to climb a “set-up hierarchy” I can really gain something specific (eg practice for real life), then it’s undoubtedly fair.
