Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Bel's thoughts
Quote from Bel on November 12, 2023, 10:36 pmBeing 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.
I feel this might be a little bit of a stretch if I'm honest, although I see the merit of the thought process.
Just because a specific piece of clothing may be standing out, doesn't mean its necessarily out of place. If its the main pièce de résistance of an outfit and you get complimented on it, that's a good thing.
Thinking of a lady with a gorgeous, well fitting dress, and nice shoes vs. the same but with a classy sparkly neckless - you can see why the neckless would get more attention - even though its a solid outfit overall.
Open to thoughts on this one though...
We don't owe them more kindness than they give to us
I know I'm saying something already discussed many times, but now it's starting to really sink in for me:
When people criticize, or try to manipulate, or try to frame control, or try to show their superiority, especially in public, a frequent mistake I used to fall into, was to always try to combine maintaining a "friendly and polite attitude" with "enforcing my boundary".
However, people who power move have no qualms being low warmth themselves to power move effectively: if they need be "impolite", or "not kind", or even downright nasty all the way to evil, they will not lose their sleep.
Following common advice on "how to enforce boundaries" translates into "always paying respect" to people who don't respect others in the slightest.
So - if the occasion calls for it and it pays to follow this strategy (that is, if remaining "higher warmth" is not done strategically) - don't necessarily refrain from going even lower warmth than them, as needed. All the way down to "nasty as fuck, if needed and appropriate.
Treating them "lower warmth" in response to their power moves also rightly subcommunicates "I can afford to treat you even more rudely than you do to me, because I have more power than you".
They only stop when they start experiencing consequences.
When the professional work may consist of more than one step/action (eg, mediation + lawsuit if mediation is unsuccessful), always limit the first fee quote to only the first step/action
This is a genius insight that I just got from an online course for lawyers' education:
As per the title.
If a lawyer instead presents to the client a fee quote comprising all possible actions/steps, then the client is likely going to infer that the lawyer is despairing about the possibility that just the first step will solve the issue.
Which a lawyer can't be really be sure of anyway!
The interesting thing is that I had already started to limit my fee quotes as per this guideline, without really understanding why. I thought it was best to make the client "focus" on one issue at hand.
Genius, truly genius insight.
I think it may possibly extend to all service providers that offer solutions based on "progressive steps".
Quote from Bel on November 17, 2023, 1:40 pmWhen the professional work may consist of more than one step/action (eg, mediation + lawsuit if mediation is unsuccessful), always limit the first fee quote to only the first step/action
This is a genius insight that I just got from an online course for lawyers' education:
As per the title.
If a lawyer instead presents to the client a fee quote comprising all possible actions/steps, then the client is likely going to infer that the lawyer is despairing about the possibility that just the first step will solve the issue.
Which a lawyer can't be really be sure of anyway!
The interesting thing is that I had already started to limit my fee quotes as per this guideline, without really understanding why. I thought it was best to make the client "focus" on one issue at hand.
Genius, truly genius insight.
I think it may possibly extend to all service providers that offer solutions based on "progressive steps".
Hello, Bel! From the point of view of someone who recently needed a lawyer, I can confirm that this does indeed make a difference. Recently I had a problem in a civil service entrance examination, and I would have been happy to pay a fee for a mandamus, even it it were not successful. If down the road the situation proved more complex, than I'd have the choice to pay other fees for the lawsuit, or drop the case alltogether.
But when the lawyers (I consulted with three of them) started talking about 2 years-long lawsuit expenses, I thought "forget it, it's easier to do another examination".
All ended up losing: me, because the opportunity was a very good one (but not a life or death matter). The lawyers, because they lost the opportunity of gaining some amount of money PLUS having a case in their portfolio that could have advanced their office's name, if we succeeded.
Thank you, Kavalier!
Really helpful to read this.
During the lawyers education course, a senior lawyer who was there also has an “aha” reaction to hearing that suggestion, so I would surmise this is one of the counterintuitive behaviors that only top lawyers know and use.
Two power moves I recognize now:
- my former boss entering my room and saying to another senior lawyer, in front of me, that he (my boss) had obtain a big successful result in a law matter I had followed, without mentioning my involvement at all (to rub it in my face and reinforce the idea that I was powerless)
- a "friend" sending me "fake customers", meaning people who had "inexistent" legal problems and just wanted a lawyer to create havoc to "not pay debts".
I see now that, as to power move 1, I could have responded by making a passing remark to how glad I was that the work we had done together had obtained this big result.
As to power move 2, my "friend" would gain doubly from this: he would position himself as a "connector" to these people, who were his clients as he "sold mortgages", and he created a fake credit toward me that he then used to request legal assitance to me for free.
My "friend" was a really bad person. I now count in the dozens the power moves he used on me in various situations before TPM without me being aware, including love bombing and fake compliments, creating fake "issues" with my work to not pay, not updating me on the results to avoid the risk that I would ask for payment.
In the end he wanted to connect me to one of this "clients" who, according to him, had a "big lawsuit problem" with a bank for "using just 1 dollar more than the loan he had received", and I told him I was "too busy to assist new clients".
He then completely disappeared. Now I realize he likely disappeared because he feared I had finally connected the dots and seen that he was bad, as I do now.
I now realize that I have gotten really good to sniffing out "bad prospective clients" thanks to all this exposure to manipulators.
Leaving "potential social issues" open to ensure more consideration/compliance by the other person
I was at a restaurant. The waiter got our order, then said:
Waiter: Do you want to order a starter before that? Because we're a bit busy and there will be some time to wait for the mains.
Me: No, let's just go with the mains.
Waiter: Ok, there'll be a slight wait.
Me: How long will the wait be?
Waiter: I'm not sure but we have this room and the other full...
Me: (I look at him and nod upwards a bit).
* click on blockquote to expand
The waiter later went to another table and said the same thing:
Waiter: Do you want to order a starter before that? Because we're a bit busy and there will be some time to wait for the mains.
Other guy: It's ok, don't worry.
When I heard that, I realized that the reason I had asked the question "How long will the wait be?" was to give the waiter the feeling that I wasn't necessarily ok with waiting, even though I didn't verbalize it.
That may have had the effect of implicitly pushing for quicker service, compared to what the other guy had said.
The point is that leaving other people "in doubt", as to whether we are "ok or not" with something, may not necessarily be a bad thing.
Sometimes, getting quick service or more consideration may rest precisely in not giving the other the "social closure" that he or she seeks.
EDIT: And, compared to openly verbalizing the problem, this has the benefit of not "going to overt conflict", but still conveying the message. It avoids any possibility that the other may frame one's assertiveness as the "issue".
Yep, nice little, smooth tool there.
Now that you mention it, I also do it often.
It's a great thread to open because the fault is on them, so they "owe you".
Whatever they reply, you got the power.
If they apologize and show they willingness to own it, great. They re-empowered you, showed a good green flag, and you can display your good quality saying "it's all good, I can see it's quite full".
If they say it's a really long, or they don't treat you well, you can then take it from there (including leaving, ask your guest, etc. etc.)
I went to a meeting with a group of clients who had received an injunction for a high amount of money.
They asked me to go there to help as lawyer and take the case.
When I submitted my fee quote, they did two things that struck out as a learning for me:
- They basically started framing the work I had to do as "very easy", since "the counterparty was in the wrong", and "they had already all the proof" of this.
I immediately challenged this, and basically reframed everything the correct way: the case is complex and things are not as easy.
When they challenged my view on this, I stood firm. I told them I do not agree with you, and that is that. If you want a lawyer that sees things as you do, maybe I'm not it.
Silence. Nobody said anything more on this.
I then realized instantly that the people in the group who had been involved in the facts of the case were basically trying to position themselves as "having already done well" at my expense - so that if I lost the case, I would have been the "fall guy".
2. When I submitted my fee quote, including a success fee in case of a "win", one of them strongly challenged me on this and told me I had to waive it.
I, instead, stood firm.
I told him I was not willing to waive the success fee since the case, as I had said, was very difficult and if they didn't want to give it to me I would gain in peacefulness.
Then he told me that the success fee was "too undetermined", and told me that it was then better for me to "directly ask for 5,000 more".
I again stood firm, and moreover I included in the wording of my fee quote that "win" meant (not that they would go exempt from any payment, but) that they would have to pay the reasonable amount that our technical consultant would state.
So as a result of challenging this guy, I protected myself from their reframing the outcome of the case as "my fault".
The learning: when he said he preferred for me to ask directly for "5,000 more", I instantly got the realization he was trying to frame me as the fall guy, consciously.
His request only makes sense if we assume he didn't want the success fee to be there, because it being there meant I could also lose the case.
This guy is not my friend anymore. No more interactions with him alone. No more happy birthdays and happy Christmas.
The outcome
Unfortunately, after this undeserving charade, and after I stood firm to the point of looking at this guy in the eye and telling him to go find another lawyer, the whole group - including him - voted to give me the work.
I must say that the biggest part of me really wanted to lose these people. But I got the work, for better or for worse, and now I got to do it.
Tagline:
When your skills advanced so much that you win more than you even want :).
Great great going, Bel.
Even if you didn't want it, you can look at yourself in the mirror and be proud thinking "my man, you've come really far".
Who's to say that's not more valuable than a case you didn't want :)
