Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Ben re-empower himsels with assertive frame-imposing VS value-taking passive-aggression
Ben: (...) so it makes me think... Perhaps this question is about a friend's group
Charlie: (laughing) we can't answer every single question (laughing even more and letting his laughter make his point, rather than his words. That's what makes it covertly aggressive and generally a type of behavior you want to avoid. Say it clearly, or don't laugh about your friends)
Ben: nonono, I'm just (notice how he adds "just" to take the edge off his dominance frame imposing. That power-protects Charlie) thinking (goes on with his original thread), I'm just thinking (repeats himself to defend his speaking time and further re-impose his frame. Very well done: it's a great technique to repeat yourself to defend speaking time and re-assert yourself. Also see PU with Theresa May)
Yes, it's true that Ben was going too far off into a tangent.
He was also building his theory and advice around too many assumptions, which made it more and more theoretical, and less and less useful.
BUT, Charlie's answer to bringing back Ben on topic was passive-aggressive / covert-aggressive.
His words wanted to say:
Now you're going way too deep into a tangent, let's keep this answer concise and end it here
But because he laughs about it, the sub-communication is also:
You're being ridiculous Ben to the point that it makes me laugh
It's a smart-alec, "better than you" approach that disempowers Ben quite a bit (yellow, maybe even early-orange level).
Ben handles it great.
I like both.
I like Charlie, I'm learning a lot from him and his philosophical approach.
When it comes to assertive, high-power behavior, there might be more to learn from Ben.
I think I used to respond to this quite confrontationally because I found it annoying:
Person: (laughs)
Me: Do you think this is funny?
And a few discussions escalated from there.
I feel that when people say "LOL" in text messaging, it conveys the same dynamic.
And especially when they say "LOL" as a reply on its own.
I find "yeah" to be more natural than "no" but maybe "no" is better here because one needs to refute Charlie's frame for re-empowerment:
Ben: Yeah, I'm just thinking
What do you think?
Quote from Matthew Whitewood on August 27, 2021, 7:11 pmI think I used to respond to this quite confrontationally because I found it annoying:
Person: (laughs)
Me: Do you think this is funny?
And a few discussions escalated from there.
This can be perfect.
If it's done in a type of "shock and awe" approach to teaching people better behavior.
Let me further expand in a few mins after I'm done with the exercises / shower :).
If in the meanwhile anyone wants to weigh in how it can be done well, or how it can backfire and make you look touchy, feel free to jump in.
To continue on that:
I think the reason why Charlie still does that on Ben sometimes it's exactly that Ben:
- Never went meta against covert-aggression / smart-alecky behavior
- Never escalated it
- Never focused on the tone
When he says "nononono", he's being effective at re-empowering himself and rolling with the punches.
It's very smooth.
The only issue with smooth is exactly its own strength: by smoothly moving on, it doesn't address the root causes.
So because it was a recorded interaction and you don't want to air your dirty laundry in public, smooth was the name of the game and it was perfect.
But when they're talking between themselves, Ben should address it with Charlie more directly.
I'm positive Charlie would understand and drop it.
And he'd become an even better, more assertive, higher-quality communicator (not to mention, better friend).
Quote from Matthew Whitewood on August 27, 2021, 7:11 pmI find "yeah" to be more natural than "no" but maybe "no" is better here because one needs to refute Charlie's frame for re-empowerment:
Ben: Yeah, I'm just thinking
What do you think?
"Yeah" without "nononono" would have been higher in smoothness, lower in power.
But without "nononono" Charlie's framed would have expanded even further.
One because Charlie would have probably laughed even longer.
And two, because there wouldn't have been as much contrast and push-back from Ben.
But if he had been equally high-power in sticking to his guns without giving an inch, then it would have worked just fine.
I think I have this issue.
I like social conversations to be smooth.
It feels good.
And I'm not completely comfortable with confrontations yet.
As such, I have some way to go in improving my assertiveness.
Although, in the corporate world and business, I feel that smoothness is usually the right course of action.
Assertiveness can be riskier.
But I do realise sometimes assertiveness has its time and place in professional settings too.
Especially for repeated behaviour.
Quote from Matthew Whitewood on August 27, 2021, 8:42 pmAlthough, in the corporate world and business, I feel that smoothness is usually the right course of action.
Assertiveness can be riskier.But I do realise sometimes assertiveness has its time and place in professional settings too.
Especially for repeated behaviour.
If one had to pick between:
- Always escalate it
- Always smooth it over
Smooth it over would be the superior approach 80 times out of 100.
Especially if the "smooth it over" approach includes re-empowering elements.
In close relationships or intimate relationships though it might be the other way around as you want to hold -and nudge- the people closest to you to a higher standard.
Obviously you can't do it on text but in person I'm wondering if a 1 cross might be ok?
Looking at them like your weighing them up for a second smile and say. "You really find a lot of things amusing."
My thinking is it's neutral but your addressing the condescending laughing not the words and you are judging them a bit.
What do people think? And what would a good response to the LOL on text be?
A lot of women are addicted to the low investment lol text.
Quote from Transitioned on August 28, 2021, 7:30 amObviously you can't do it on text but in person I'm wondering if a 1 cross might be ok?
Looking at them like your weighing them up for a second smile and say. "You really find a lot of things amusing."
My thinking is it's neutral but your addressing the condescending laughing not the words and you are judging them a bit.
What do people think? And what would a good response to the LOL on text be?
A lot of women are addicted to the low investment lol text.
You have to say it with a smile though, like you are looking at a kid who is doing silly things.
Saying it in a very serious or annoyed tone will make you look hurt and reactive.
On text put a "😂" Emoji.
Quote from Transitioned on August 28, 2021, 7:30 amObviously you can't do it on text but in person I'm wondering if a 1 cross might be ok?
Looking at them like your weighing them up for a second smile and say. "You really find a lot of things amusing."
My thinking is it's neutral but your addressing the condescending laughing not the words and you are judging them a bit.
What do people think?
I think it's really good.
Very neutral, you simply cannot come across as overly aggressive or overly touchy.
And that covers your bases: even if things were to escalate later on you're still beyond reproach.
After that, it's up to the speaker to either justify or explain.
And if he doesn't get it and doesn't reply -or if he gets and doesn't reply because he was consciously playing a game- , you still sent your message that sub-communicates "I noticed, and it wasn't really cool".
Which also serves as a warning, as in "stop that game man".
It reminds me a bit of a funny scene in "How I Met Your Mother".
Not to be copied as she's not high-power or any "cool", but it shows how one-crosses can work to sub-communicate disapproval and thread-expand on a bad joke to make the joker look poor:
Guy: looks like hotness runs in the family
Robin: oooh, you said that
(...)
Robin: this is my friend Lilly
Guy: (points at the two of them) hot
Robin: you say things!
