Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Bel's thoughts
- she apologized and said she "had forgotten the time she mentioned";
- she asked me again for one call, and said she would "set the timer" (!) at the time I specified.
So my moves were successful. She stopped disrespecting me and this time called me at the minute I set for the call.
On the call, she basically started talking about how she had learned from some people that her counterparty was "going around manipulating people" about "their inheritances". (!)
She told me that "the fact the counterparty is a manipulator could be useful for our potential lawsuit".
I was internally very annoyed at the uselessness of this call. The person she was speaking about is not even a real counterparty, just an acquaintance.
And she herself was power moving on me all the time.
It reinforced in me the idea that she was very consciously trying to power move on me, and that was all.
I basically replied to her that lawyers unfortunately deal with manipulators all the time, and that what she told me was unfortuntaly nothing new, and that what counts are laws, actions and facts:
Me: If there weren't manipulators in this world, there there wouldn't be counterparties or clients. And lawyers would have no work.
And then I told her I am very busy, I cut the call short and said goodbye to her.
Anyways, the important part is that my way of handling her behavior (ie missing her "off-time" calls) has worked in making her more respectful and punctual with my time.
Also, while in the past she would keep me on the phone for long, this time I cut her short after 5 minutes.
You gotta love manipulators who call others manipulators, eh? :).
Quote from Bel on October 4, 2023, 11:14 amAlso, while in the past she would keep me on the phone for long, this time I cut her short after 5 minutes.
Nice!
Men are a bit like peacocks.
But, we don't do it with tails, muscles, or even clothes.
It's just plain power dynamics.
We're much more animal that we would like to think - and more than I used to think for sure.
Cheers Bel.
We're much more animal that we would like to think - and more than I used to think for sure.
Agree. Im not sure if I've read it here, but since I got here in TPM I've been thinking exactly that. Even with the same words.
Nothing new but, fortunately we can realize about our psychological mechanism and trascend our instincts and "biological programming" as IÂ call it. In certain areas of course, wanting to "trascend" your nature when someone is pulling moves could go wrong, lol.
This question could be a bit more personal so feel free to ignore: why did you decide to post that, today? Just curious.
Hey Power Duck,
nice that we're getting to the same conclusions.
The reason I posted that was that I was reflecting on several overlapping power dynamics I witnessed recently:
- people trying to "hit" on my partner in front of me by trying to "dominate" me covertly.
These men are doing something that, at least in some cases, worked for them.
In turn, this reinforces the concept that women are attracted to men who "know how to use power dynamics correctly" - which is different from "dominant men", although it overlaps.
The main idea is that a woman wants a man who can use power dynamics to "defend" and "come out as the more balanced person" - not necessarily to "attack".
- clients going to the professional that is more versed in "power dynamics".
In other words, if a client has to select between me and another lawyer, he will likely choose the one who, again, "knows how to use power dynamics correctly".
It's the main selection criteria, because it underscores all others - technical competence, determination, care, etc.
Again, what counts is not exactly "being the more dominant" - just being "able to defend".
- in general, now I notice very much when people try to task me, or alter power dynamics in their favor, and I see them as "peacocking".
One example is the former client in the posts above.
It's not "indifference", but "wanting it a little less" (than the other person)
I had been writing here of how I felt that "indifference" is what attracts opportunities (dates, sex, work, friends, etc.).
Now I see that the real idea is that what attracts others is:
Wanting it, but wanting it just a little less than the other person.
This works because, if you want it "more than the other person", it subcommunicates that the thing you want is more important for you than it is to them.
In turn, this has some really counterproductive effects on power dynamics, because it subcommunicates that:
a) I don't want it, I just need it (thus my choice is not a real choice, but a necessity - I would take whatever); b) the other person is "not free to decide", since I need it; c) I could probably not get it elsewhere with time - so the other person feels pressured, and is going to automatically react by getting distance, since no one likes pressure; d) I probably have a secondary, manipulative, undisclosed gain behind my need.
Examples:
- if I, as a lawyer, subcommunicate I am more interested in "getting justice done for my client" than the client is "interested in redressing his own situation", the client is not going to get that. What the client is going to get is that I am pushing him for my own (economic and work) benefit, whether that is true or not.
- if I, as a man, subcommunicate I want sex more than my woman, this subcommunicates to the woman I am "using her" to "get sex", and that she is not valued as a person.
- if I, as a man, subcommunicate to woman that getting a date with her would make me overjoyed, this subcommunicates her that I am starving for dates, and that she could do better.
On the other hand, if you want it just a little less than the other person, than the subcommunication is that this thing is important to me, but only if you really want it - ie the most important thing is your free decision as to whether you are on board or not.
So the subcommunication is: a) it is still important for me, but not a need - ie I really choose you, not whatever; b) the other person is "free to get on board or not"; c) I could probably still get it elsewhere with time - so no pressure, free to decide; d) I don't have any secondary gains behind it.
Examples:
- if I, as a lawyer, subcommunicate I am interested in "getting justice done for my client", but only if the clients "pushes to proceed", than it is clear that the client is the main decider, and I will support him fully, and I do not have a need behind my support.
- if I, as a man, subcommunicate I want sex just a little less than my woman, this subcommunicates to the woman I really want "her", as she is, and that she is valued as a person, even when she's not in the mood.
- if I, as a man, subcommunicate to woman that getting a date with her would make me happy, but not drastically change my life, this subcommunicates I'm a happy person, and don't need her - thus making her more likely to get on board.
In summary, "wanting it just a little less" than the other person makes it more likely that we will both get what we want.
Pointing the finger
I saw this move in Saltbae’s videos on TPM but did not understand what was its purpose.
Reading the latest TPM article on manipulation makes me understand that pointing the finger at someone sets up a frame where the pointer is inherently higher power and more dominant, and possibly coming across to third parties as teaching things.
All the more important to at the very least check the move by doing it back.
Thank you, Bel!
I even added it to the article now.
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on October 21, 2023, 9:45 amThank you, Bel!
I even added it to the article now.
Thank you, Lucio!
I finished the article which was awesome.
I was looking at the shorts in the Youtube channel and I also noticed how more and more "awesomer" it has become.
The level of insight in those shorts is just BOOM.
I went to dinner with Bella, and with the two owners of the house I rent (who are husband and wife).
The husband, who I'll call Jim, is a manipulator and a bad person who always tried to create havoc between Bella and me.
Soon after the start of the dinner this starts:
Me: (to Bella) Look, this pizza is named Bella. It's with pumpkin!
Jim: (to Bella) Please excuse him for saying that. (manipulative thread expanding)
Me: You're not very nice to say that Jim.
Jim: You neither.
Me: I wasn't intending it as you did. You twisted my meaning.
I felt a bit out of place, but I suppose I checked this correctly.
Later I ordered a glass of wine.
Jim: (to the waitress) Make sure to bring a straw with that also.
Me: It won't be necessary.
Later again, after some time, we had to decide dessert.
I said to Bella:
Me: Let's get this.
Bella: But I want this.
Me: It's with lactose (I'm lactose intolerant). Don't order that, let's order this and share. [it's possible I said this bluntly, but I was on guard due to the asshole being present]
Bella: I want this.
While we were talking, Jim took the opportunity:
Jim: (to the waitress): Don't worry, they only argue like this for half an hour usually. Soon they'll be finished and we'll give you the order.
I heard this with one ear while I was talking with Bella about our choice, and did not have the possibility (or the capacity) to respond.
He took the one moment where he knew I would have to be focused on talking with Bella to power move.
The discussion was going nowhere. Bella seemed entrenched in her choice since I probably had spoken bluntly, and I don't really remember what I said.
I remember what the asshole was saying to the waitress enraged me, and I probably started speaking with a slight angry tone which was really not directed to Bella, even though it may have come across that way.
At one point, Bella seemed to be changing her mind. I said to the waitress:
Me: Ok, we'll order this [my choice].
Waitress: (to Bella) What did you want, dear?
Bella: I'd like this other choice.
Me: (sensing this was going downhill fast): Ok, let's get what you want. I won't have dessert since I'm lactose intolerant.
Bella: No, let's get what you want and we'll share.
After desserts were served, the waitress apparently insisted:
Waitress: Here the dessert. But next time I'll make sure she (pointing to Bella) gets what she wants.
Me: Yes, like the previous time: since we come here often, and my partner always gets what she wants.
Jim: That's why she's with you.
I didn't respond to Jim at this point.
This is all I remember.
I suppose I initially handled it well but later started falling for this asshole's thread expanding.
Happy to read any comments on how it went and what I could have done better.
