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

#751 · September 11, 2023, 7:05 pm

Hi Lucio,

I am referring to the mental detachment, emotional resilience and "outcome indifference" that, I'm starting to realize, is necessary to have a really loving and satisfying relation with a woman.

Before TPM, I now see, I was a mess in this area. I tried to be strong and independent as much as I could, but reality always seeps through.

Now, I'm starting to incorporate more and more traits that I see have a positive effect on reciprocal attraction.

But these traits are also driving me to really become indifferent from any specific outcome.

So I'm in a sort of conundrum. When I looked at my partner for reassurance, love, validation, physical connection, I drove her away.

Now that I'm starting to "not need" these, she's becoming more attracted, albeit it's still up-and-down.

But now I'm starting to really "not need" these... and I fear I'll have to go even further mentally to have a really satisfying relationship.

So now I understand why so many men at that point of "reaching success" don't want a relationship anymore.

They really don't need one.

And paradoxically, this point - of not "needing" - seems to me to be the only thing that guarantees a successful relationship.

Maybe this is all tied to my confusion while I'm shedding my weak points, and will resolve in some more time.

EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is that it seems to me that women will only really accept - meaning "unconsciously accept" - men who have "no emotional weak points whatsoever".

And if not, those weaknesses will always mar the relationship until solved.

Or, maybe it was just me.

Maybe I just did have serious weak points in the areas that would have been crucial to have a satisfying relationship.

Yeah. The reality is that I "needed" those things to be secure in myself.

I wasn't asking, but "requiring". And that, unfortunately, is always a turn off.

It was so so hard to get to this point, and I'm not even there yet.

John Freeman and Power Duck have reacted to this post.

#752 · September 11, 2023, 9:09 pm

I agree with Lucio as being detached being the consequence of having options.

I also personally think that it comes from high self-esteem: you like yourself more than you do other people and it’s fine.

I am personally in this phase: I care less about approval here and in my life. And people are indeed more drawn to me. I don’t need them so I don’t make them to carry my emotional load. I carry it myself. That’s how I view it.

I also agree with the nuances you introduce in your last message. I personally call it the “price of maturity”. That is to be a man is about being (emotionally) strong. And when one is emotionally strong one does not need others (as much) to feel good. So it’s freeing even if it does make me feel more alone. Not lonely but more alone. These days I feel I am becoming a (more mature) man. Developing the positive masculine qualities.

However it does have a price. I think like any step in self-development there is some grieving to do. I think it’s not the pain of seeing us as worse than who we thought we were as we exchanged recently. It’s the sadness of letting go of what was. The ideals, the child self. That’s how I view it.

But I feel it’s a good thing. The responsibility of being a man. I like it. Being the rock in the storm.

I’m not sure women will accept only men who have no emotional weakness at all. I think they’re attracted to strength. So it’s on a continuum.

I also think there is no end to this. It ends when we die. We can choose the pain of change or the pain of stagnation. I think that’s the choice we have.

So I think that detachment goes hand in hand with maturity. I have no working theory of why is that so though.

Edit: removed some text

Lucio Buffalmano, B and Power Duck have reacted to this post.

#753 · September 11, 2023, 9:48 pm

Once accepting that needing something is ineffective to get it, and somewhat getting to emotional detachment, for me there seems to be a phase I always go through - more or less long - when I don’t want the thing anymore.

It’s like the “need” was so unconsciously superimposed to the “want” that only by rejecting both I can ultimately, after some time, go back to want without need.

I wonder if that’s common for everybody or just for me.

I suppose it’s a common experience. It explains why many men who become good with women go through a phase when they don’t even want a relationship anymore.

I guess it’s a way to prove to oneself that the “need” has really, ultimately been crushed. And also a way to get back at the world for all the hurt one had to go through to get there.

Lucio Buffalmano, John Freeman and Power Duck have reacted to this post.

#754 · September 11, 2023, 10:01 pm

Quote from Bel on September 11, 2023, 9:48 pm
Once accepting that needing something is ineffective to get it, and somewhat getting to emotional detachment, for me there seems to be a phase I always go through - more or less long - when I don’t want the thing anymore.

Yeah man I feel the same. I think it’s the price to pay. It is what it is.

It’s like the “need” was so unconsciously superimposed to the “want” that only by rejecting both I can ultimately, after some time, go back to want without need.

Yes. An adult and a child both want chocolate. How much they desire it and how they go about getting it is quite different I believe. So as we evolve our relation to our desires evolve as well.

I wonder if that’s common for everybody or just for me.

I don’t know for other people. I can tell you it’s the same for me.

I suppose it’s a common experience. It explains why many men who become good with women go through a phase when they don’t even want a relationship anymore.

Probably.

I guess it’s a way to prove to oneself that the “need” has really, ultimately been crushed. And also a way to get back at the world for all the hurt one had to go through to get there.

There’s definitely some truth to that. That’s how I feel with the friends I pursued and my sister. Dark side: “you did not need me well I don’t need you either now. Cool if we see one another and I’m cool if we don’t.”

I like more people than I used to but I love less people than I used to.

So yeah it’s new to me. I’ll probably evolve from that as well. That’s how I feel now. I love spending time with myself.

"Solitude is dangerous. It's very addictive. It becomes a habit after you realize how peaceful and calm it is. It's like you don't want to deal with people any more because they drain your energy" - Jim Carrey.

Lucio Buffalmano, B and Power Duck have reacted to this post.

#755 · September 16, 2023, 10:59 am

Quote from B on September 16, 2023, 10:59 am
How to triangulate a lawyer to obtain a discount from another lawyer
I connected the dots on this just yesterday.
It happened years ago.
I had gotten to know this man (who was an acquaintance of a distant relative) who phoned me in frenzy because his former lawyer had just lost a criminal lawsuit where he (my acquaintance) was indicted, and now he risked going having his driving license suspended (he was a truck driver and thus needed it to work).
He asked me if I could examine the judgment and take care of the appeal in lieu of his former lawyer.
I studied the judgment and thought a great deal about it.
Then, before I could tell him what I thought, he phoned me again: he asked me if I could accompany him to a meeting with his former lawyer. Said lawyer wanted to talk about the judgment, and what to do.
I said yes, that I would accompany him.
When we got to this law firm, the other lawyer asked me if I was a lawyer, and as soon as we all were seated, this ensued:
Other lawyer: I can't believe this. I just can't believe this. I would NEVER have accepted to accompany a person to another lawyer as a lawyer myself.
Me: I am accompanying him as a friend, not as "another lawyer".
Other lawyer: (very angrily and escalating the tone): Let's not tell BULLSHIT among ourselves.
Me: (taken aback): You are really unpleasant.
Other lawyer: OUT! Go out of my firm. I can't believe you come here and you have the courage to tell me I am unpleasant!
Me: Don't worry, I'm going out myself. (to the person I accompanied): I'll see you later.
* click on blockquote to expand
I remember that the person I accompanied told me that his former lawyer had concluded the meeting by saying that the client could go "with them, or even with me if he wanted".
The interesting thing is that the client did not contact me again about this, and basically went to appeal the case with his previous lawyer.
Then I remember taking distance from the person I had accompanied and stopping responding to his calls.
Now I see that, while my behavior could have probably been improved in several respects here, the bigger picture here was that:
this guy wanted me to accompany him mostly to create the impression of a possible alternative, to have his former lawyer lower the fees for the appeal.
My mere presence there was intended to serve as an incentive for the other lawyer to lower his fees (and NOT as a way of "understanding things better", as he had told me when asking me).
In turn, the other lawyer was probably subconsciously angry at his client for using this ploy. But since expressing anger at the person who was paying was not possible, the anger was instantly redirected at me (who was the "unaware party").
Drats.

How to triangulate a lawyer to obtain a discount from another lawyer

I connected the dots on this just yesterday.

It happened years ago.

I had gotten to know this man (who was an acquaintance of a distant relative) who phoned me in frenzy because his former lawyer had just lost a criminal lawsuit where he (my acquaintance) was indicted, and now he risked going having his driving license suspended (he was a truck driver and thus needed it to work).

He asked me if I could examine the judgment and take care of the appeal in lieu of his former lawyer.

I studied the judgment and thought a great deal about it.

Then, before I could tell him what I thought, he phoned me again: he asked me if I could accompany him to a meeting with his former lawyer. Said lawyer wanted to talk about the judgment, and what to do.

I said yes, that I would accompany him.

When we got to this law firm, the other lawyer asked me if I was a lawyer, and as soon as we all were seated, this ensued:

Other lawyer: I can't believe this. I just can't believe this. I would NEVER have accepted to accompany a person to another lawyer as a lawyer myself.
Me: I am accompanying him as a friend, not as "another lawyer".
Other lawyer: (very angrily and escalating the tone): Let's not tell BULLSHIT among ourselves.
Me: (taken aback): You are really unpleasant.
Other lawyer: OUT! Go out of my firm. I can't believe you come here and you have the courage to tell me I am unpleasant!
Me: Don't worry, I'm going out myself. (to the person I accompanied): I'll see you later.

* click on blockquote to expand

I remember that the person I accompanied told me that his former lawyer had concluded the meeting by saying that the client could go "with them, or even with me if he wanted".

The interesting thing is that the client did not contact me again about this, and basically went to appeal the case with his previous lawyer.

Then I remember taking distance from the person I had accompanied and stopping responding to his calls.

Now I see that, while my behavior could have probably been improved in several respects here, the bigger picture here was that:

this guy wanted me to accompany him mostly to create the impression of a possible alternative, to have his former lawyer lower the fees for the appeal.

My mere presence there was intended to serve as an incentive for the other lawyer to lower his fees (and NOT as a way of "understanding things better", as he had told me when asking me).

In turn, the other lawyer was probably subconsciously angry at his client for using this ploy. But since expressing anger at the person who was paying was not possible, the anger was instantly redirected at me (who was the "unaware party").

Drats.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.

#756 · September 16, 2023, 11:09 am

Quote from B on September 16, 2023, 11:09 am
The power-unaware person is the EASY OUTLET: he or she gets most of the anger and power moves going on between other power-aware people
The above story contains a concept which I frequently used to experience, but that I never was able to really, deeply understand until now.
The concept is this:
Power-unawareness begets most of the "system" anger and power moves, if only because other power players see the power-unaware person as the EASIEST OUTLET and as the FASTEST AND MOST OPEN PATH TO TRIANGULATION
In other words:
If A and B are power-aware, and engaged in a power struggle, they both know subconsciously that openly power moving or projecting anger against each other is a losing proposition.
Each of them subconsciously understands that there will be a price to pay for that.
The reasoning is the same behind the concept that revenge is usually costly, and that it is better to "resume playing the game" than "focusing on revenge" after becoming power aware.
For example, if A power moves on B, B can check the power move and gain power at the expense of A.
Or, B could go meta. Or, B could retaliate.
But if A and B both work with the young trainee C, and C is power UNaware, then it is obvious that any power struggle between A and B is going to be played mostly through attacking C.
C, after all, is unaware by definition. This means that:
C will not retaliate. C will not check power moves. The risks inherent in power moving on C, projecting anger at C, demeaning C, humiliating C, are much much lower.
And, if A wants to cause damage to B, and C is working for B at that moment, attacking C has the bonus of triangulating and damaging B by proxy.
That explains why I got the brunt of power moves, anger and all the rest of the shit by these bastards while I was power unaware.
Including in cases where I was not responsible of anything in the slightest.
This is key, and finally solves a big conundrum in my head.
I simply could not understand why so many people had ill-will toward me even though I always tried to "do as they wanted".
Well, it was precisely because of this that they behaved so dastardly toward me.
Incidentally, this is one dynamic that thoroughly, finally explains both my family's, and my former workplace's behavior.
I got the brunt of everything that was going on between others.
I believe this is tied to what is colloquially known as "being the scapegoat" (ie the one who is always blamed, punished, etc. for nothing).
The scapegoat is the weakest link, and power moving on him, projecting anger on him, maintains the homeostasis of the system while costing "less" than any other solution.
Now we have an explanation for this based purely on power dynamics.

The power-unaware person is the EASY OUTLET: he or she gets most of the anger and power moves going on between other power-aware people

The above story contains a concept which I frequently used to experience, but that I never was able to really, deeply understand until now.

The concept is this:

Power-unawareness begets most of the "system" anger and power moves, if only because other power players see the power-unaware person as the EASIEST OUTLET and as the FASTEST AND MOST OPEN PATH TO TRIANGULATION

In other words:

If A and B are power-aware, and engaged in a power struggle, they both know subconsciously that openly power moving or projecting anger against each other is a losing proposition.

Each of them subconsciously understands that there will be a price to pay for that.

The reasoning is the same behind the concept that revenge is usually costly, and that it is better to "resume playing the game" than "focusing on revenge" after becoming power aware.

For example, if A power moves on B, B can check the power move and gain power at the expense of A.

Or, B could go meta. Or, B could retaliate.

But if A and B both work with the young trainee C, and C is power UNaware, then it is obvious that any power struggle between A and B is going to be played mostly through attacking C.

C, after all, is unaware by definition. This means that:

C will not retaliate. C will not check power moves. The risks inherent in power moving on C, projecting anger at C, demeaning C, humiliating C, are much much lower.

And, if A wants to cause damage to B, and C is working for B at that moment, attacking C has the bonus of triangulating and damaging B by proxy.

That explains why I got the brunt of power moves, anger and all the rest of the shit by these bastards while I was power unaware.

Including in cases where I was not responsible of anything in the slightest.

This is key, and finally solves a big conundrum in my head.

I simply could not understand why so many people had ill-will toward me even though I always tried to "do as they wanted".

Well, it was precisely because of this that they behaved so dastardly toward me.

Incidentally, this is one dynamic that thoroughly, finally explains both my family's, and my former workplace's behavior.

I got the brunt of everything that was going on between others.

I believe this is tied to what is colloquially known as "being the scapegoat" (ie the one who is always blamed, punished, etc. for nothing).

The scapegoat is the weakest link, and power moving on him, projecting anger on him, maintains the homeostasis of the system while costing "less" than any other solution.

Now we have an explanation for this based purely on power dynamics.

Lucio Buffalmano, Mats G and Power Duck have reacted to this post.

#757 · September 16, 2023, 12:03 pm

The EASY OUTLET theory explains most of the bad things that happen to "good people"

There was a tv show called "The Best Defense".

One of the most important concepts I got from it was that ill-intentioned thiefs, robbers, criminals usually target the houses, and the people, that are "weakest".

They are opportunists.

If a mugger sees a string of people passing through the dark alley, he is not (usually) going to rob the strongest, head-up, securest person that passes.

He is going to choose the one with his head down, frightful, numbed, abused, meak, submissive.

The same goes for power moves.

If we assume that most power moves and anger beget from the disposition of the power mover, and not from the merits of the situation, it makes sense that most gratuitous power movers choose the person least capable of defending.

Lucio Buffalmano and Power Duck have reacted to this post.

#758 · September 16, 2023, 5:10 pm

Post deleted.

#759 · September 16, 2023, 5:31 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 16, 2023, 5:31 pm
Quote from Bel on September 16, 2023, 10:59 am
How to triangulate a lawyer to obtain a discount from another lawyer
I connected the dots on this just yesterday.
It happened years ago.
I had gotten to know this man (who was an acquaintance of a distant relative) who phoned me in frenzy because his former lawyer had just lost a criminal lawsuit where he (my acquaintance) was indicted, and now he risked going having his driving license suspended (he was a truck driver and thus needed it to work).
He asked me if I could examine the judgment and take care of the appeal in lieu of his former lawyer.
I studied the judgment and thought a great deal about it.
Then, before I could tell him what I thought, he phoned me again: he asked me if I could accompany him to a meeting with his former lawyer. Said lawyer wanted to talk about the judgment, and what to do.
I said yes, that I would accompany him.
When we got to this law firm, the other lawyer asked me if I was a lawyer, and as soon as we all were seated, this ensued:
Other lawyer: I can't believe this. I just can't believe this. I would NEVER have accepted to accompany a person to another lawyer as a lawyer myself.
Me: I am accompanying him as a friend, not as "another lawyer".
Other lawyer: (very angrily and escalating the tone): Let's not tell BULLSHIT among ourselves.
Me: (taken aback): You are really unpleasant.
Other lawyer: OUT! Go out of my firm. I can't believe you come here and you have the courage to tell me I am unpleasant!
Me: Don't worry, I'm going out myself. (to the person I accompanied): I'll see you later.
* click on blockquote to expand
I remember that the person I accompanied told me that his former lawyer had concluded the meeting by saying that the client could go "with them, or even with me if he wanted".
The interesting thing is that the client did not contact me again about this, and basically went to appeal the case with his previous lawyer.
Then I remember taking distance from the person I had accompanied and stopping responding to his calls.
Now I see that, while my behavior could have probably been improved in several respects here, the bigger picture here was that:
this guy wanted me to accompany him mostly to create the impression of a possible alternative, to have his former lawyer lower the fees for the appeal.
My mere presence there was intended to serve as an incentive for the other lawyer to lower his fees (and NOT as a way of "understanding things better", as he had told me when asking me).
In turn, the other lawyer was probably subconsciously angry at his client for using this ploy. But since expressing anger at the person who was paying was not possible, the anger was instantly redirected at me (who was the "unaware party").
Drats.
Crazy story.
Yeah, if you wanted to "win" the client, would have been better to either say you are a lawyer, acting as such, or refusing to leave until you both should lave (and then the "client" would be forced out of the other firm as well and probably come to you).
Probably better to lose those clients anyway.
Still, to look at the positive, a great experience.
Today and as you grow, you want to refuse to go anywhere without a commitment or with something coming to you (high investment for free is no good).
But to learn, it was Ok.

Quote from Bel on September 16, 2023, 10:59 am
How to triangulate a lawyer to obtain a discount from another lawyer
I connected the dots on this just yesterday.
It happened years ago.
I had gotten to know this man (who was an acquaintance of a distant relative) who phoned me in frenzy because his former lawyer had just lost a criminal lawsuit where he (my acquaintance) was indicted, and now he risked going having his driving license suspended (he was a truck driver and thus needed it to work).
He asked me if I could examine the judgment and take care of the appeal in lieu of his former lawyer.
I studied the judgment and thought a great deal about it.
Then, before I could tell him what I thought, he phoned me again: he asked me if I could accompany him to a meeting with his former lawyer. Said lawyer wanted to talk about the judgment, and what to do.
I said yes, that I would accompany him.
When we got to this law firm, the other lawyer asked me if I was a lawyer, and as soon as we all were seated, this ensued:
Other lawyer: I can't believe this. I just can't believe this. I would NEVER have accepted to accompany a person to another lawyer as a lawyer myself.
Me: I am accompanying him as a friend, not as "another lawyer".
Other lawyer: (very angrily and escalating the tone): Let's not tell BULLSHIT among ourselves.
Me: (taken aback): You are really unpleasant.
Other lawyer: OUT! Go out of my firm. I can't believe you come here and you have the courage to tell me I am unpleasant!
Me: Don't worry, I'm going out myself. (to the person I accompanied): I'll see you later.
* click on blockquote to expand
I remember that the person I accompanied told me that his former lawyer had concluded the meeting by saying that the client could go "with them, or even with me if he wanted".
The interesting thing is that the client did not contact me again about this, and basically went to appeal the case with his previous lawyer.
Then I remember taking distance from the person I had accompanied and stopping responding to his calls.
Now I see that, while my behavior could have probably been improved in several respects here, the bigger picture here was that:
this guy wanted me to accompany him mostly to create the impression of a possible alternative, to have his former lawyer lower the fees for the appeal.
My mere presence there was intended to serve as an incentive for the other lawyer to lower his fees (and NOT as a way of "understanding things better", as he had told me when asking me).
In turn, the other lawyer was probably subconsciously angry at his client for using this ploy. But since expressing anger at the person who was paying was not possible, the anger was instantly redirected at me (who was the "unaware party").
Drats.

Crazy story.

Yeah, if you wanted to "win" the client, would have been better to either say you are a lawyer, acting as such, or refusing to leave until you both should lave (and then the "client" would be forced out of the other firm as well and probably come to you).

Probably better to lose those clients anyway.

Still, to look at the positive, a great experience.

Today and as you grow, you want to refuse to go anywhere without a commitment or with something coming to you (high investment for free is no good).
But to learn, it was Ok.

B has reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#760 · September 16, 2023, 5:44 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 16, 2023, 5:44 pm
Quote from Bel on September 16, 2023, 11:09 am
The power-unaware person is the EASY OUTLET: he or she gets most of the anger and power moves going on between other power-aware people
The above story contains a concept which I frequently used to experience, but that I never was able to really, deeply understand until now.
The concept is this:
Power-unawareness begets most of the "system" anger and power moves, if only because other power players see the power-unaware person as the EASIEST OUTLET and as the FASTEST AND MOST OPEN PATH TO TRIANGULATION
In other words:
If A and B are power-aware, and engaged in a power struggle, they both know subconsciously that openly power moving or projecting anger against each other is a losing proposition.
Each of them subconsciously understands that there will be a price to pay for that.
The reasoning is the same behind the concept that revenge is usually costly, and that it is better to "resume playing the game" than "focusing on revenge" after becoming power aware.
For example, if A power moves on B, B can check the power move and gain power at the expense of A.
Or, B could go meta. Or, B could retaliate.
But if A and B both work with the young trainee C, and C is power UNaware, then it is obvious that any power struggle between A and B is going to be played mostly through attacking C.
C, after all, is unaware by definition. This means that:
C will not retaliate. C will not check power moves. The risks inherent in power moving on C, projecting anger at C, demeaning C, humiliating C, are much much lower.
And, if A wants to cause damage to B, and C is working for B at that moment, attacking C has the bonus of triangulating and damaging B by proxy.
That explains why I got the brunt of power moves, anger and all the rest of the shit by these bastards while I was power unaware.
Including in cases where I was not responsible of anything in the slightest.
This is key, and finally solves a big conundrum in my head.
I simply could not understand why so many people had ill-will toward me even though I always tried to "do as they wanted".
Well, it was precisely because of this that they behaved so dastardly toward me.
Incidentally, this is one dynamic that thoroughly, finally explains both my family's, and my former workplace's behavior.
I got the brunt of everything that was going on between others.
I believe this is tied to what is colloquially known as "being the scapegoat" (ie the one who is always blamed, punished, etc. for nothing).
The scapegoat is the weakest link, and power moving on him, projecting anger on him, maintains the homeostasis of the system while costing "less" than any other solution.
Now we have an explanation for this based purely on power dynamics.
Interesting proposition, Bel.
I think there are a few other dynamics at play on the topic of "why power-unaware and more passive people get more cr@p".
for example, I sometimes find my own anger mounting in the presence of people who are very passive and cannot manage to speak up and speak clearly even when I have no beef with anyone else.
Not saying any of these apply to you -indeed, from the story you related, you never came across as overly passive to me-.
But in general, I think the other reasons include:
The passive type feels slimy. He/she wants something from you, but doesn't ask clearly, which feels slimy (social manipulation)
The anger for "not being man enough": some men don't respect people who are too weak. The passive and power unaware not only doesn't gain respect, but gains the "opposite" of respect, anger and disgust
The passive type is like a black hole that attracts higher emotions. A normal conversation should be a two-way street. But when one party "says less than necessary", they end up forcing you to give more. And that includes the anger that, while in a normal person it would be checked and traded, with them goes one way only
The "being cheated" feeling: when you feel like you're the only one with the courage, assertiveness, and even honesty to speak up, you feel cheated for not getting anything back. In a way, it's a lose-win proposition

Quote from Bel on September 16, 2023, 11:09 am
The power-unaware person is the EASY OUTLET: he or she gets most of the anger and power moves going on between other power-aware people
The above story contains a concept which I frequently used to experience, but that I never was able to really, deeply understand until now.
The concept is this:
Power-unawareness begets most of the "system" anger and power moves, if only because other power players see the power-unaware person as the EASIEST OUTLET and as the FASTEST AND MOST OPEN PATH TO TRIANGULATION
In other words:
If A and B are power-aware, and engaged in a power struggle, they both know subconsciously that openly power moving or projecting anger against each other is a losing proposition.
Each of them subconsciously understands that there will be a price to pay for that.
The reasoning is the same behind the concept that revenge is usually costly, and that it is better to "resume playing the game" than "focusing on revenge" after becoming power aware.
For example, if A power moves on B, B can check the power move and gain power at the expense of A.
Or, B could go meta. Or, B could retaliate.
But if A and B both work with the young trainee C, and C is power UNaware, then it is obvious that any power struggle between A and B is going to be played mostly through attacking C.
C, after all, is unaware by definition. This means that:
C will not retaliate. C will not check power moves. The risks inherent in power moving on C, projecting anger at C, demeaning C, humiliating C, are much much lower.
And, if A wants to cause damage to B, and C is working for B at that moment, attacking C has the bonus of triangulating and damaging B by proxy.
That explains why I got the brunt of power moves, anger and all the rest of the shit by these bastards while I was power unaware.
Including in cases where I was not responsible of anything in the slightest.
This is key, and finally solves a big conundrum in my head.
I simply could not understand why so many people had ill-will toward me even though I always tried to "do as they wanted".
Well, it was precisely because of this that they behaved so dastardly toward me.
Incidentally, this is one dynamic that thoroughly, finally explains both my family's, and my former workplace's behavior.
I got the brunt of everything that was going on between others.
I believe this is tied to what is colloquially known as "being the scapegoat" (ie the one who is always blamed, punished, etc. for nothing).
The scapegoat is the weakest link, and power moving on him, projecting anger on him, maintains the homeostasis of the system while costing "less" than any other solution.
Now we have an explanation for this based purely on power dynamics.

Interesting proposition, Bel.

I think there are a few other dynamics at play on the topic of "why power-unaware and more passive people get more cr@p".

for example, I sometimes find my own anger mounting in the presence of people who are very passive and cannot manage to speak up and speak clearly even when I have no beef with anyone else.

Not saying any of these apply to you -indeed, from the story you related, you never came across as overly passive to me-.

But in general, I think the other reasons include:

The passive type feels slimy. He/she wants something from you, but doesn't ask clearly, which feels slimy (social manipulation)
The anger for "not being man enough": some men don't respect people who are too weak. The passive and power unaware not only doesn't gain respect, but gains the "opposite" of respect, anger and disgust
The passive type is like a black hole that attracts higher emotions. A normal conversation should be a two-way street. But when one party "says less than necessary", they end up forcing you to give more. And that includes the anger that, while in a normal person it would be checked and traded, with them goes one way only
The "being cheated" feeling: when you feel like you're the only one with the courage, assertiveness, and even honesty to speak up, you feel cheated for not getting anything back. In a way, it's a lose-win proposition

Mats G, B and Power Duck have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.