Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Bel's thoughts
Quote from Bel on October 29, 2023, 9:55 amBella: What I was really looking for, was for you to say something like "Don't worry, it's just this store that has nothing good. Let's get out of here".
This got me thinking.
While her question to me was "Do you like this? Or this?", the real question was "Can you hold a higher-level frame for me where you take charge of this situation?"
There was another even larger unspoken frame there.
And it was:
Who adapts to whom?
In that even higher frame, you accepted her indirect, "read the subtext mode of communication" as the standard to adhere to, and failed to adapt to it.
But here's the question for you:
Who says that it was you who had to be good at "decoding", and not her who had to communicate more clearly (straight)?
By not asking that question and by not challenging that frame, you accepted her mode of communication as the de-facto standard.
Common for men in relationships, but doesn't necessarily make it good -it's the lower value / lower power party that adapts-.
A frame I'd have liked more:
You: Hey, look, I don't read minds and I'm not going to become a mind-reader any time soon. So I expect you to communicate to me clearly
Of course in parallel, you ALSO want to learn to read sub-communication.
But I wouldn't have accepted that the "read my sub-communication" was a valid or even good approach to communication.
Don't take the blame for the fight and set your own expectations and modes of communication -which, in general, are better since straight talk is faster/more efficient-.
As a matter of fact, when you learn to read sub-communication, then it's an opportunity to surface it and then ask for straight talk instead.
That's also super attractive.
It's the combination of masculine straight talk while also understanding women better than most other men.
That's the mix of high emotional/social intelligence, ladies' man man, masculine high-power, and leadership.
Thank you, Lucio.
It’s an interesting point especially because “I don’t read minds and I expect you to talk straight” is something I said to her sooo many times in the past.
To no big avail.
I suspect that the reason why my exhortation was not met well at the time was, among other things, that back then I was low power myself in so many other areas - so my woman couldn’t really “believe me” at the time, and in any case had no particular reason to adapt to me.
And I also suspect that now the same exhortation on my part would be met very differently.
And now that I get this, that’s for sure the point I’ll work to get to.
Funny you used the expression :).
And yep, that definitely works a lot better when you can also read the subtext.
And, as you say and as we know here, when you're higher power.
The insight that demanding straight talk works (mostly) only when you can in any case read the subcommunication is golden.
Now that I read it in your post, I see it is not limited to “woman talk” but applies also in cases where one person power moves or manipulates:
if I am being covertly disrespected or manipulated but don’t fully understand it, demanding straight talk always backfires. If nothing else, because the other will find a worse way to manipulate.
Now I see this was one of the reasons I had stopped being assertive in the past after trying it many times. Albeit another reason was that I used it with the wrong people (mostly takers).
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on November 1, 2023, 7:54 pmYou: Hey, look, I don't read minds and I'm not going to become a mind-reader any time soon. So I expect you to communicate to me clearly
BOOM! This works. To make what's funny even funnier, this is more or less what I said to my uncle in a family discussion today at lunch (and funny thing, this prompted my uncle to come and have a conversation with me - in friendlier terms - in the exact moment I write this reply).
Uncle (raising his voice, really disempowering): so you didn't get a damn thing of what I said
Kavalier: what didn't I get of you said?
Uncle: XYZ
Kavalier: that's not what you said
Uncle: can't you read between the lines?
Kavalier: look, uncle. Honest people don't speak "between the lines". You can talk straight if you want to communicate anything
This escalated (perhaps the wording was not the best, plus my uncle is too dominant, any perceived defiance would have escalated). But as I've just come to learn, all is good now.
Bel, I don't mean to hijack your journal (sorry if this was inappropriate), but I thought this was on topic and confirms Lucio's advice (although not the best wording from my part) I still want to make a thread about it as soon as I can rationalize what happened.
Hey Kavalier,
no hijacking at all, and plus what you relate is very interesting and helpful.
if I am being covertly disrespected or manipulated but don’t fully understand it, demanding straight talk always backfires. If nothing else, because the other will find a worse way to manipulate.
Now I see this was one of the reasons I had stopped being assertive in the past after trying it many times. Albeit another reason was that I used it with the wrong people (mostly takers).
I find this interesting, had similar experiences in regards to this.
Right after being assertive the other party always found a way to change the frame in sneaky ways. (E.g: apologizing and then framing me as easily offended/pulling teacher frames/etc. "If you feel that way then it must be a big deal for you") in a very covert way.) Still in part the assertiveness kept them at bay.
The worst manipulators accuse you back later of doing worse than them
From this post:
Quote from Bel on November 6, 2023, 7:24 pm...another reneging back technique is "manipulatively framing the mark as worse than the abuser".
Example
If an abuser is confronted by a mark on something bad he did, for instance if the abuser is shamed publicly for not being "straight", what better occasion to "manipulatively renege back" than:
- make the mark think he has "learned the lesson"...
- then, waiting some time...
- then, appearing cooperative and high-warmth...
- then, wating for the mark to say or do something that can be misinterpreted as "not being straight"...
- and then BOOM - accuse the mark back.
Assuming the mark falls for it, this obtains "public renegotiation" without any explicit words being said.
The worst manipulators:
- wait...
- fake warmth...
- wait to see if you do something that can be misinterpreted as "worse than they did"...
- and then finally accuse you publicly back.
Being complimented on a clothing piece one wears may mean that the outfit is probably unbalanced as a whole
This is a stub post to sketch a tentive idea.
I was watching a Youtube video by Alpha M where he says that, unexpectedly, he "gets more compliments" on his "brown leather jacket" (that he likes least) than on his "black matte leather jacket" (which is his favorite):
Him: honestly I get more compliments on the brown jackets that I own than the black ones
Then I had an epiphany: getting a compliment on one piece of clothing may mean that the whole outfit is unbalanced.
If it's true that:
- dressing well produces unconscious positive reactions in others
- the compliment means that something "stands out" from the whole
- if the whole outfit were balanced and equally "good", there would be no way for someone to isolate a specific piece of clothing from it
Then it follows that a compliment on a specific piece of clothing may be an indication that one has to resolve other "issues" in the global image he or she is projecting via his clothes.
EDIT ON THE ABOVE POST:
Probably just a far-fetched idea limited to a very small percentage of cases. In most cases, compliments are probably because the other person is thinking to buy the same piece.
Still, I wouldn’t exclude the possibility that in some cases compliments may be because something “stands out” from the rest.
This is not limited to clothes.
For instance, compliments to a person for being “intelligent” could be just a way to frame in a socially acceptable way the feeling that the person has not developed his other traits.
Otherwise the “whole” would be so balanced that a single trait would not be “complimented”.
