Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Defending against judge role: general attitude/frame control?
Hello guys,
I've seen there are a few posts resembling this topic so if this is fitting somewhere else, let me know.
Context:
I was discussing with two friends while going out and we were not agreeing with one another. The third one took the judge position and basically took the power over us by saying something along the line of: "you are more intuitive and you are more analytical". Basically, labelling in the same sentence.
So what would you guys say is the general frame control technique in this case?
I refused the label but later on I agreed with it (stupid of me, I was drunk but still stupid). So do you guys have a general framework to remove the judge frame from someone?
I would say a philosopher's frame + collaborative frame: "it's not about being intuitive or analytical, we have different perspectives on the topic and we can learn from one another."
Thanks!
Hey John,
I'd definitely consider how he said that.
However, it is certainly possible that it was a power move and a judge frame.
I like your solution. It's valid and definitely a good move.
In my case, depending on who this guy was, and how he said it, I might have even gone down stronger on his judge power move.
For example:
You: (smiling) the psychologist in residence here is delivering the results of his ennegream personality test (lightly touch him as if to say "all in jest, we're still friends")
That way, you make it more explicit that he was trying to go above you two, and that it was a bit out of place.
A simpler option if you couldn't think of anything on the fly:
You: Yeah, you're also more on the analytical side
This one is very simple: he judged you and labeled, and you do the exact same thing back. 1-1.
Notice that it's also not confrontational as you first agree "yeah". There is nothing wrong in agreeing with someone's opinion if you feel he was right. What's potentially less cool is the judge frame and the potential one-upping.
Ok, makes sense. Thank you very much. As I'm reading your post I have to add that he later put himself as more analytical because we worked in an analytical field. That's why I agreed later.
And he's a psychiatrist so the first one wouldn't work.
So I think that it was a mix of both in this case: judge frame by putting himself as the judge of us and also correct analysis from his part.
Thanks a lot!
The first one could have still worked with "psychiatrist" int it.
The sub-communication there is this:
"this is a group of friends, not two patients and a doctor assigning labels, so cut that game out and let's act like the equals that we are".
This is just for completeness of information.
But if it was more like a passing comment, or a correct analysis, than all good. Plus, he also later labeled himself, thus moving from judge/doctor, to patient/friend, which is another cue that a stronger one-upping response was unneeded.
