Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Bel's thoughts
Subcommunicating you "deserve the help/service" by modulating the "thank yous"
Just a quick note here about this:
I went to the (still same) restaurant tonight, and all the servers were extraordinarily polite with me and Bella, and even thanked us more than once.
Never happened so much before.
I then reflected on the difference with respect to prior visits in my behavior, and it dawned on me:
This time, I didn't thank the servers more than once, at the very first act of serving they did.
Then, I never thanked the same server again.
I think the concept I'm thinking about is that:
Thanking people, in situations where they are supposed to serve or help you, subcommunicates you feel you don't deserve it
On the other hand:
Not thanking people verbally, in situations where they are supposed to help you, subcommunicates you deserve it
This explains so much of the "waiter" behavior I attracted prior times. The more I "thanked" waiters, the more they subconsciously picked up I didn't "feel" I "deserved to be served by them". As if their service was "extraordinary" for me.
There may be something there.
But more about "general grateful" behavior, than exact words and quantity.
My usual comment, same as in the other thread, is that I wouldn't link the simple quantity of "thank yous", to aggressive behavior / power moves.
In my opinion, it's more about how you say thank you, and your overall demeanor.
As a matter of fact, I take people who say "thank you" as a good sign of character (I say it often, and haven't recorded that many power moves with servers).
You are right, in fact this time I was more “distant” in general.
Not looking at the waiters too much, less “reactive”, less “eager”.
Probably, with respect to prior visits, I also tended to continue talking to Bella even when the waiters were approaching the table, while in prior visits I tended to interrupt the talking much before…
Quote from Bel on September 21, 2023, 11:02 pmYou are right, in fact this time I was more “distant” in general.
Not looking at the waiters too much, less “reactive”, less “eager”.
Probably, with respect to prior visits, I also tended to continue talking to Bella even when the waiters were approaching the table, while in prior visits I tended to interrupt the talking much before…
Yep, great observations.
Especially that last one.
When you let the external party jump in (for too long), you're indirectly placing him/her above your dinner partner.
A brief and neutral "thank you" while you keep your focus on your dinner partner and quickly resume the conversation is a good mix of power/warmth.
Exceptions always apply, of course.
If you're just out chilling and not engrossed in any conversation or are more interested in the menu, then focusing on the waiter is nowhere as bad since he can serve as a welcome distraction or add value with menu-relate info.
Another tentative thought:
- in a couple, it’s better if the more “thankful person” (meaning, thankful - or maybe “open to interacting with, thoughtful - to third parties) is the woman.
That’s because the man being more thankful to third parties (eg to restaurant waiters) than the woman, subcommunicates that the man is more submissive than the woman.
It leads third parties to think the couple dynamics are not solid. Maybe this explains why waiters tended to try and “crack” my relationship subconsciously.
I’m not sure, but I felt the waiters tonight respected my “relationship” much more.
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 21, 2023, 11:07 pmQuote from Bel on September 21, 2023, 11:02 pmYou are right, in fact this time I was more “distant” in general.
Not looking at the waiters too much, less “reactive”, less “eager”.
Probably, with respect to prior visits, I also tended to continue talking to Bella even when the waiters were approaching the table, while in prior visits I tended to interrupt the talking much before…
Yep, great observations.
Especially that last one.
When you let the external party jump in (for too long), you're indirectly placing him/her above your dinner partner.
A brief and neutral "thank you" while you keep your focus on your dinner partner and quickly resume the conversation is a good mix of power/warmth.
Exceptions always apply, of course.
If you're just out chilling and not engrossed in any conversation or are more interested in the menu, then focusing on the waiter is nowhere as bad since he can serve as a welcome distraction or add value with menu-relate info.
Boom!
Thank you, Lucio.
This totally explains one the main points of my prior behavior that tended to engender disrespect from waiters.
Quote from Bel on September 21, 2023, 11:12 pmBoom!Thank you, Lucio.
This totally explains one the main points of my prior behavior that tended to engender disrespect from waiters.
Cheers, "little but not so little" and important concept of power dynamics, and probably a good example of what mixing power and warmth looks like in real life.
I was reading this interesting article about marmots' life: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/28/they-kill-their-own-parents-children-and-neighbours-now-life-is-even-worse-for-the-vicious-alpine-marmot-aoe
Here is the interesting part (Courtesy of Guardian News & Media Ltd):
The rodents live in family groups with one dominant couple and a clutch of subordinate offspring who help with raising young and providing much-needed body warmth during the long winter hibernation.
Only the dominant pair may reproduce: they bully the other family members into sterility, the youngsters’ stress hormones maintained at too high a level to bear young of their own. If a subordinate of either sex wishes to reproduce, they must leave their family group...
To me, just as it is written, it impressively explains much of what goes on in manipulative human families, and consequent effects, and underlying reasons.
But the quote may even apply in toxic workplaces, if one substitutes the words as follows:
...a clutch of subordinate workers who help increasing the business...
Only the dominant bosses may have clients: they bully the other workers into total subservience, the workers’ stress hormones maintained at too high a level to bear clients of their own...
I would even surmise that all social climbing has a similar "evolutionary function" of "keeping stress hormones high" to lower the "risk" of personal growth in the bullied individual.
Former client asks me to speak with her, then doesn't call me; then she again asks me to speak and sets the time, and calls late
This is a former client; the last interaction I had with her was detailed here.
Last week I received this text from her:
Her: Hi Attorney, something very peculiar and outrageous happened to me. I don't know with whom to talk, but I must and the only person I can speak with is you. Can we talk at the usual time?
Me: Goodday Madam, yes. Let's speak in the afternoon, do call me directly when you can after 6 pm.
Then, she didn't call.
And, she sent me this text the same evening:
Her: Pardon me me but I worked until now and couldn't call, I'll call you next Monday afternoon if ok for you. A good weekend!
I did not respond.
Today, she sends me this text:
Her: Good afternoon, is it ok if I call at 5?
Me: Good afternoon, yes it's ok
5 pm comes and... no call.
I was almost expecting it.
She, instead, calls me exactly half an hour later.
I do not respond.
She tries to reach me again in rapid fire, I do not respond.
She then immediately sends me this text:
Her: I tried to reach you several times both landline and cellphone, but no problem. We will speak at the first occasion. Good evening.
At this point, I start getting the feeling that everything was very deliberately planned on her part.
Because: she didn't even wait to see if I would have called her back.
She just assumed I wouldn't.
Which, to me, is a strong indication that she knew what she was doing.
In other words, her "having the last word" and trying to frame me as "not responding for no reason" via text, to me, is a strong signal she is deliberately trying to power move on me with all these moves.
Probably to reestablish a favorable (to her) power dynamic.
Also: when I first indicated her she could call me in the afternoon without setting a definite time, she didn't call at all.
Today, she asked my availability at a specific time (which she had no reason to), and then called me later then the time she herself asked for.
No coincidence.
After realizing this, I waited three hours, then responded as follows:
Me: Pardon me but I awaited your call for 5 pm, and when you called later I was already with a person. We'll try to speak again in the next days, good evening
Now, I memorialized in writing that she called me late. And that she's the one playing games.
Though, at this point I am on the verge of just not responding anymore, since thank God I don't have any ongoing open work with her and I am under no obligation to accept any.
Hello Bel,
thanks for sharing. I'm a bit confused: why did you not respond when she called?
