Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Bel's thoughts
These guys (my landlords) have also leveraged, so far, the fact that they are my landlords to behave badly.
They are cowards. I can't believe I let myself be disrespected by these two idiots so far.
I am going to change this. They will pay a price.
Physical "sleight of hand" deception power moves
There's another thing that I now see Saltbae doing in his videos.
He doesn't start by pointing people with his index finger, but by positioning his hands and fingers as if he was just innociously counting/making a point or having a weird finger position remaining from something he was doing before.
Only after starting this way he switches to pointing.
See here:
He's basically faking that his index is being used to count or make a point.
See also here:
He starts by using both his middle and index finger, as if he was just used to a weird finger position, and only later (when the fingers are probably out of the direct sight of the guy, who is focused at looking him in the eyes) he switches to just pointing.
This makes it evident he's doing these things on purpose:Â he is gradually escalating dominance and basically using a "sleight of hand" trick.
Later he may even just cut the initial part of the video, and only post the part of the video where he is pointing at the other person with his index finger.
This makes it more easy that the mark will accept his pointing without countering, and also highlights the need to become able to recognize these sudden "decoy" changes in real life (for example, to respond by taking his hand and shoving it away while laughing).
EDIT: In my real life experiences, people did the same. The waiter who pointed at me didn't start with a full point, and basically faked he was explaining the menu.
Quote from Bel on October 23, 2023, 12:52 pm3. The guy tended to use push-pull dominance behavior in a peculiar way:
he pushed (ie power moved on me) mostly when the waitress approached the table, and then he reverted back to a more "baseline" normal behavior when the waitress was out of sight and we were by ourselves.
His being "friendly" when the waitress was not near made it more difficult for me to switch back and forth from "normal mode" to "check mode" when he restared.
If I think back to all our dinners (more than 10 in almost 10 years), he always did this. Every. Single. Time.
This makes me think I should probably have nipped the behavior in the bud by using the line:
Me: (to the waitress) Please excuse him. He always makes these competitive jokes.
as soon as he first interacted with the waitress.
From now on I'll go this route in case this happens again, at the first "joke" with the waiter of the particular "dinner asshole" I may be having dinner with.
Had I done so, every further joke on his part would have come across as nasty.
But just being able to see the dynamics now, I feel, is starting to make a difference for future interactions. With him or others.
Higher level concept: Power moves may be timed to produce the biggest effect on people who only occasionally get near, and thus they should be checked more strongly in this case.
I suppose that, because the waiter is present at the table for only a small fraction of the time,
if he/she always sees one guy one-upping another guy,
this is bound to make the waiter fill-in the gaps by reconstructing the dinner as being one big one-up on the mark (in this case, me).
I suppose this principle is important to learn why and how to check moves that only happen when someone gets near:
while the status loss of unchecked moves of this kind may be small within the group of people that stay near;
the people who only get near when one is power moved, probably tend to disproportionately lose more respect for the power moved.
Interesting concept, thank you for sharing.
Made a note about it, may find its way into PU on "timing of power moves".
And also made a note on the finger-pointing starting more covertly.
Here's a differnet approach to this:
Quote from Bel on October 23, 2023, 12:52 pmJim: (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: (smirk and small laugh!)
I instantly see she is right here.
I believe it is due to a "too high investment" issue on my side, as if I didn't believe people would notice how much of an ass he was being unless I "explained it".
This reinforces the idea that manipulative thread expanding must not be checked by over-explaining, but by trusting that the group just needs a slight "push" to see the dynamic.
more dominant power move on your own:
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: May we're just two assholes then ahah
Now he can't attack back because you just "took it further" from what it was already stated -ie.: you two not being nice-.
Plus, you put yourself into that category as well.
But it's also an attack power move since you're using a strong word to also cover him.
The cool thing though is that everyone knows that the real asshole is him.
You're just the "good" type of asshole who can be an asshole when the situation calls for it -also call that simply high power-.
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on October 24, 2023, 10:28 pmHere's a differnet approach to this:
more dominant power move on your own:
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: May we're just two assholes then ahah
Now he can't attack back because you just "took it further" from what it was already stated -ie.: you two not being nice-.
Plus, you put yourself into that category as well.
But it's also an attack power move since you're using a strong word to also cover him.
The cool thing though is that everyone knows that the real asshole is him.
You're just the "good" type of asshole who can be an asshole when the situation calls for it -also call that simply high power-.
BOOM! Thank you so much, Lucio!
This "judo" fake-joint-reframing power move is awesome.
I believe this is PU worthy, and in any case will definitely use it next time.
------
On the dinner: I now have processed some anger.
I believe that the anger that came out in me after the dinner was not so much related to the specifics of the dinner, but also to everything this guy had done so far and that I couldn't so far even see.
I now see this is also an opportunity for me to improve.
Better for me to improve in checking this stuff now, by losing the respect of a restaurant waiter in front of these guys, than find this happening later in my career in a high-stakes situation.
I must go out with them again, even though I don't like it in the least. To improve.
I believe my behavior in this dinner was already an improvement related to my past handling of this guy.
In the past, I just couldn't understand nor even "see" what he was doing.
The fact that now I saw everything clearly, and that I started trying checking some of his moves, is a definite improvement already on my side.
Now I need to bridge the gap to where I stop him for good and show who's really the boss here. And it's not going to be him.
Animosity for having been treated badly reduces personal social effectiveness and credibility, and paints a portrait of low power
This is something I've been "guilty" of in my life: showing animosity whenever I am betrayed or mistreated.
From the recent testimony by Michael Cohen, former Trump lawyer, against his former "boss":
Michael Cohen often disparaged Trump (who had used him and betrayed him) by calling him derogatory names, showing his disdain openly, and commenting with contempt on his (Trump's) legal situation.
Then Michael Cohen was called to testify against Trump in his lawsuit for having supposedly inflated the legal value of his properties.
Cohen, who had already lost some credibility due to his public show of animosity:
- anticipated there would be a "reunion" with his former boss by posting on social media;
- during the testimony, when cross-examined, showed additional animosity;
- at the end of the testimony, said it had been a "heck of a reunion".
No doubt all this show of animosity accomplished was painting him as low-power and less credible.
This is even though he may have been in the right at being angry at Trump.
Reasoning
Animosity reduces power by publicly showing one has allowed others to mistreat him.
In addition, animosity inherently subcommunicates that one does not know how to redress the situation.
In contrast, one who does not show animosity even after having been mistreated, betrayed or power moved on, shows:
- that the loss he incurred was not significant relative to his "global life power";
- that he has the means of redressing the situation, if he so wants.
As a higher level example, imagine a real Judge:
he does not get angry when handing down the sentence, he just lays down the law.
The difference with Trump's animosity?
Trump also shows frequent animosity.
However, Trump was very careful to set a higher-level frame of being motivated by animosity against others not for himself having been treated badly, but as a way of "protecting the people from abuse by a corrupt system of power".
(By the way, this is similar to all Trump-like public personalities, eg Berlusconi).
In other words, he leverages the fact that his animosity is supposedly not directed at remedying torts he himself incurred, but torts which are made to the people.
It's possible that showing animosity for others being treated badly, or for a higher level principle, does not reduce social power and credibility, in contrast to showing it for oneself.
The fact that the higher-level frame is real or not doesn't matter much, in the context of the people who believe that frame.
In conclusion: either show animosity for a higher level principle, or remain cool and detached as much as possible when - and after having been - mistreated
Remaining cool and detached subcommunicates power, and works to even reduce the public perception of the loss one incurred, even when that loss has been showcased publicly.
If, during my recent dinner with the landlord, I had started complaining of being power moved on by the guy, I would no doubt have lost even more power than by remaining silent after having incurred some losses.
And going meta must, not by chance, be done with emotional detachment and in the immediacy of the power moves to be effective.
Three/four weeks ago, I went with my parents to the bank for the inheritance matter.
And after I had told my mom on the phone to not play any moves this time, my dad still made a joke to try to provoke me in front of the bank director.
Which I handled by totally ignoring him and continuing to talk.
After we came out of the bank, my dad was crying - no doubt for having "lost control of his son".
It was the second time that this dynamic played out.
--------
My mother phoned me yesterday to invite me to have dinner with her and my dad, after months I didn't talk to them (apart from the "bank episode").
I refused.
I told her "I'm not going to come to dinner with you two. Leave me alone".
And I hung up.
A part of me is proud that, for the first time, I didn't justify, I didn't give a motive, and I didn't plead with them - which in the recent past, only gave way to an onslaught of gaslighting.
But another part of me is very sad.
Quote from Bel on October 25, 2023, 12:16 pmAnimosity for having been treated badly reduces personal social effectiveness and credibility, and paints a portrait of low power
This is something I've been "guilty" of in my life: showing animosity whenever I am betrayed or mistreated.
From the recent testimony by Michael Cohen, former Trump lawyer, against his former "boss":
Michael Cohen often disparaged Trump (who had used him and betrayed him) by calling him derogatory names, showing his disdain openly, and commenting with contempt on his (Trump's) legal situation.
Then Michael Cohen was called to testify against Trump in his lawsuit for having supposedly inflated the legal value of his properties.
Cohen, who had already lost some credibility due to his public show of animosity:
- anticipated there would be a "reunion" with his former boss by posting on social media;
- during the testimony, when cross-examined, showed additional animosity;
- at the end of the testimony, said it had been a "heck of a reunion".
No doubt all this show of animosity accomplished was painting him as low-power and less credible.
This is even though he may have been in the right at being angry at Trump.
Reasoning
Animosity reduces power by publicly showing one has allowed others to mistreat him.
In addition, animosity inherently subcommunicates that one does not know how to redress the situation.
In contrast, one who does not show animosity even after having been mistreated, betrayed or power moved on, shows:
- that the loss he incurred was not significant relative to his "global life power";
- that he has the means of redressing the situation, if he so wants.
As a higher level example, imagine a real Judge:
he does not get angry when handing down the sentence, he just lays down the law.
The difference with Trump's animosity?
Trump also shows frequent animosity.
However, Trump was very careful to set a higher-level frame of being motivated by animosity against others not for himself having been treated badly, but as a way of "protecting the people from abuse by a corrupt system of power".
(By the way, this is similar to all Trump-like public personalities, eg Berlusconi).
In other words, he leverages the fact that his animosity is supposedly not directed at remedying torts he himself incurred, but torts which are made to the people.
It's possible that showing animosity for others being treated badly, or for a higher level principle, does not reduce social power and credibility, in contrast to showing it for oneself.
The fact that the higher-level frame is real or not doesn't matter much, in the context of the people who believe that frame.
In conclusion: either show animosity for a higher level principle, or remain cool and detached as much as possible when - and after having been - mistreated
Remaining cool and detached subcommunicates power, and works to even reduce the public perception of the loss one incurred, even when that loss has been showcased publicly.
If, during my recent dinner with the landlord, I had started complaining of being power moved on by the guy, I would no doubt have lost even more power than by remaining silent after having incurred some losses.
And going meta must, not by chance, be done with emotional detachment and in the immediacy of the power moves to be effective.
Yep, great take!
The anger post-abuse thread expands on:
- ""I expected him to be a good person" = "I was blind"
- "I expect(ed) the world to be fair" = I'm naive
- "I lost" = I'm lower power"
- "I'm angrier than the abuser" = "he's (emotionally) higher power"
Edit:
Plus, there is a limit to how much one can be angry and bitter without starting to feel like "that guy is a bit too bitter. Is he a bad person maybe"?
Quote from Bel on October 25, 2023, 7:58 pmThree/four weeks ago, I went with my parents to the bank for the inheritance matter.
And after I had told my mom on the phone to not play any moves this time, my dad still made a joke to try to provoke me in front of the bank director.
Which I handled by totally ignoring him and continuing to talk.
After we came out of the bank, my dad was crying - no doubt for having "lost control of his son".
It was the second time that this dynamic played out.
--------
My mother phoned me yesterday to invite me to have dinner with her and my dad, after months I didn't talk to them (apart from the "bank episode").
I refused.
I told her "I'm not going to come to dinner with you two. Leave me alone".
And I hung up.
A part of me is proud that, for the first time, I didn't justify, I didn't give a motive, and I didn't plead with them - which in the recent past, only gave way to an onslaught of gaslighting.
But another part of me is very sad.
I cannot tell you how much I resonate with your post.
My father and mother would complain that I don't want to meet them.
But I feel so much healthier without them in my life.
A part of me is proud that, for the first time, I didn't justify, I didn't give a motive, and I didn't plead with them - which in the recent past, only gave way to an onslaught of gaslighting.
But another part of me is very sad.
I think it's healthy to be proud of drawing healthy boundaries to protect our emotional well-being.
I would feel proud in a similar situation as well.
At the same time, sometimes our family members disappoint us.
The flux of emotions can be challenging to handle.
On the topic "real men don't use umbrellas"
A youtube video by Teal Swan speaking about "nice guys" vs "masculine guys".
To showcase a hypothetical "nice guy" in the video, she chose a man with raincoat and umbrella:
The combination to me makes it more clear that, as Lucio said, the dichotomy in women's mind is not "umbrella vs no umbrella".
It may rather be
- man focused on "protecting" himself
vs
- man focused externally, on shaping his world, including protecting others worthy of protection.
In other words, a man too invested in his image and in his "not getting wet" may give a subconscious feeling of being "fearful" and "focused on himself".
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on October 25, 2023, 8:17 pmThe anger post-abuse thread expands on:
- ""I expected him to be a good person" = "I was blind"
- "I expect(ed) the world to be fair" = I'm naive
- "I lost" = I'm lower power"
- "I'm angrier than the abuser" = "he's (emotionally) higher power"
Edit:
Plus, there is a limit to how much one can be angry and bitter without starting to feel like "that guy is a bit too bitter. Is he a bad person maybe"?
Thank you Lucio, it's very helpful for me to understand this.
Could maybe be an addition to the "assertiveness" lesson here; I don't know if I'm the only one, in that I tended to subconsciously assume that a certain amount of "showing anger" was necessary for assertiveness.
