Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Definitive dictionary of power

Thank you Ali!

Added:

  • Value presupposing: somewhat more intuitive than "credit presupposing"
  • Social hit and run
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Added "Trojan Horse Value" as well, good one!

I'm not sure about:

  • Frame charging: did we talk about this one before? It sounds overlapping with power borrowing, albeit it does seem a potentially good definition to add
    (= a technique against frame individualization commonly used by your typical smart alec. It involves casually turbocharging your frame with sentences like 'the consensus is…', 'research proves', etc. etc. in order to frame your original frame as the ultimate scientific fact.)

 

Ali Scarlett has reacted to this post.
Ali Scarlett
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Awesome and, totally agree with you on the "value presupposing" over "credit".

The frame charging one was actually your idea, Lucio.

In this blog post underneath "6. Undermine Their Frame’s Authority (AKA: 'The Judge Frame')", you said:

Lucio: "In our era that reveres science, the “judge frame” can also leverage science. Your typical smart Alec will casually turbocharge his frame with sentences like “the consensus is… “, “research proves”, etc. etc. To handle that frame effectively, before even replying, you need to reframe their original frame as NOT the ultimate scientific fact. For example, you could say it’s just an opinion of theirs, and not science."

So, frame stealing is a means to achieve frame blocking. And, similarly, frame charging is a means to achieve power borrowing.

Frame charging focuses on what their move does for the frame. Power borrowing focuses on what their move does for the person.

Together, I think they complete the strategy.

The real overlap I see here would be between "frame charging" and "judge framing". I think they should be separate—frame charging specific to science-based power borrowing. And, judge framing specific to ethics-based power-taking.

Not only would that expand the dictionary fairly, I think distinguishing between the two would also provide clarity for anyone looking to use these terms in analyses of their own social situations.

What are your thoughts, Lucio?

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano

I see.

It seems like the "turbocharging is used there is more as a verb than a proper definition.

But I think it could also be turned into a definition, to describe the "added units of frame-reinforcement".

For example, if one were to say

"you are wrong, because I proved it to you, because I asked my friend and they think the same, because you have a history of lies and that makes you unreliable, and because I know about XYZ, and you know shit about it".

That might be called "frame charging" and each of those "reasons" adds a unit of charging/reinforcement.

Ali Scarlett has reacted to this post.
Ali Scarlett
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Had an idea, this does NOT need to be an official definition.

Pulling from Lucio's post in the WIIFT thread:

Lucio: "...there should be a reason for asking so directly to buy your stuff...Without any reason for the ask...he rubbed people off the wrong way."

In other words, this seller failed to use the persuasive power of "because" to get people to buy his product.

Chris Voss has a negotiation technique for social exchange negotiations called "Ask Legitimate Questions" which he uses to avoid triggering reciprocity.

Voss: “Reciprocity [the law of social exchange] is a natural human dynamic that exists in us because we’re humans and some people are very guarded about it. So, we have to be careful about how we trigger it. If we ask, we tend to owe. People are often worried about asking us because they don’t want to owe. So, it’s a common dynamic that people are more or less sensitive to at all times.”

“In a hostage negotiation, instead of saying, ‘I want proof of life,’ which would trigger reciprocity [increase his social capital if he provides that value], he says, ‘How do I know she’s alright (i.e. asks legitimate question)?’ And, the kidnapper spontaneously does what he wants [he puts the girl on the phone, providing proof of life] because he did it on his own and feels like it was his idea.”

In Voss's example above, the legitimate question is, "How do I know she's alright?"

So, similar to the legitimate question, instead of saying "they didn't use the persuasive power of 'because", from this point forward I'll likely say, "they didn't provide a legitimate reason."

For distinguishability, an example that would fail to be a "legitimate reason" would be the case of tasking someone with carrying a pack of corn because you have to go to the bathroom (when they can just take it with them or leave it and take it back later).

I'm thinking of a new concept.

And a potential new category and measuring stick for social strategies:

  • Social ROI (Return on Investment)

Social dynamics have a lot to do with investment and returns.

Most people already naturally process "ROI assessments".
This new term/category helps to improve on that natural tendency.

EXAMPLE OF SOCIAL ROI

I realized how helpful this concept can be while critiquing the maxim "avoid the unlucky" from "The 48 Laws of Power" -which was copied from "the Art of Worldy Wisdom-.

That law is BS as a generalization because there can be plenty of high-quality, great people who are down on their luck.

And helping them up has a huge social ROI.

Why?

Because with relatively little effort, or at least with the same effort you'd put onto a less worthy individual, you can provide a huge uplift to someone who has huge potential of repaying.
And if he's a high quality person, he will remember who was there for him when he was on his ass.

So it's win-win, too.

Matthew Whitewood has reacted to this post.
Matthew Whitewood
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

I think it's a very useful term.
For example, I am training myself to get better at assessing social ROI, especially in business.
Though I realised a high-quality individual is high-quality in the business world as well, especially with the trust factor too.

I don't find it easy to accurately evaluate people in many situations.
Especially for the deeper character traits like conscientiousness and trustworthiness.

Like you advised before, the "good" people who don't play a lot of power moves and are less calculative may not be the best people to surround with as well.
They may not have the drive to return the favour or work on themselves to be in a position to give value back.

Your advice on giving tough feedback as a screening mechanism is an effective manner of screening deeper.

That law is BS as a generalization because there can be plenty of high-quality, great people who are down on their luck.

And helping them up has a huge social ROI.

Why?

Because with relatively little effort, or at least with the same effort you'd put onto a less worthy individual, you can provide a huge uplift to someone who has huge potential of repaying.
And if he's a high quality person, he will remember who was there for him when he was on his ass.

So it's win-win, too.

I resonate with this a lot.
I believe helping high-quality people down on their luck is good for yourself and achieving a more meritocratic society.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano

Thank you for the feedback, Matthew!

I agree with you, it's an important aspect of social strategy/effectiveness.

I guess it can sound "cold" to some, but those "cold" mechanisms are already in large part inborn in most people. That means that they're just hidden, but no less real.

Also, as you very acutely note, focusing help on those who are more capable and willing to repay is also a far bigger win for society at large.

Finally, I care to specify that this concept doesn't mean one should necessarily only help those with high ROI and avoid those with low ROI.
ROI doesn't mean one should base all his action on ROI -I personally most certainly don't always do that-.
But understanding the concept can help people achieve their goals more easily when effectiveness is important, and can help people develop a better and stronger social network while also avoiding manipulation -which in this concept could be defined as "low ROI" personal investment-.

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

I started out having mixed feelings about this one, I think it's interesting.

On one hand, I agree it's great for assessing what one might get out of a collaboration/giving value, so I think it's great there.

On the other hand, I feel like this social ROI concept has a lot of overlap with the social capital concept.

Lucio: "You can gain social capital by giving value to others, or simply being a high-value person (“passive social capital” based on the potential for giving)."

In other words, by simply being a high-value individual one can start with a higher social capital in certain social exchanges.

So, when you meet that high-value individual (and, as a result, they have passive social capital), more often than not, it seems like it would be obvious what you get out of collaborating with them. One doesn't need to think "social ROI" to figure out that they'd get a large return from getting value from this person (especially, since if they give as a high-value person, their giving is often even more valuable).

WHY WE SHOULD INCLUDE THE "SOCIAL ROI" DEFINITION

#1. THE MORE COMMON SOCIAL EXCHANGES

Well, for one, it would be great for the situations where one is considering collaborating with a person who is of equal or lower value to them. Those are the more common social exchanges.

Another reason is because of...

#2. THE QUALITY OF THE GIVER

In my opinion, receiving gratitude—a social IOU—from a high-quality person is almost always a great idea regardless of their current value, so I agree with Lucio there.

Another reason why I think we should add the social ROI definition is because I believe that:

Ali: "You're not as high-value as your social currencies allow. You're only as high-value as your ability and willingness to give."

So, let's take this as an example:

 

 

This man, Alex Roland, is "technically" high-value. The guy has over $280 million dollars. So, he checks all of the major boxes:

  • Low-opacity currency: the value of money is immediately visible (no having to "market" what one would get out of receiving some money, it's money)
  • Environment relativity positive currency: it's often valuable regardless of your environment
  • Individual variance relativity positive currency: it's a large appeal currency (pretty much everyone wants money)

The only problem is that he's unable to give that value because he doesn't have access to it. And, that's where his social capital and value drops as well as anyone's social ROI who wants to collaborate with him for that value. Even though, technically, he still has that social currency that checks all of the right boxes.

That means that including this concept would help individuals strategize for the unique social exchange exceptions (such as the example above).

The bigger picture here is that, in social exchanges, one can come across people who are unable to give and people who are simply unwilling to give, both of which affect your social ROI. It can be especially difficult to get back your fair share when you're dealing with either type of person, so including this concept may help people consider this in their own social exchanges moving forward.

Since TPM teaches and encourages being a "fair value social marketer", I think that this social ROI concept helps individuals do more than assess what they might get back, it also encapsulates the potential ROI downsides of collaborating with a selfish, low-quality, ungrateful, manipulative, or overly competitive person.

That's where I think this could be a great addition to the dictionary.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano

Thank you for the feedback, Ali!

Quote from Ali Scarlett on May 15, 2021, 5:55 pm

I started out having mixed feelings about this one, I think it's interesting.

On one hand, I agree it's great for assessing what one might get out of a collaboration/giving value, so I think it's great there.

On the other hand, I feel like this social ROI concept has a lot of overlap with the social capital concept.

Lucio: "You can gain social capital by giving value to others, or simply being a high-value person (“passive social capital” based on the potential for giving)."

In other words, by simply being a high-value individual one can start with a higher social capital in certain social exchanges.

So, when you meet that high-value individual (and, as a result, they have passive social capital), more often than not, it seems like it would be obvious what you get out of collaborating with them. One doesn't need to think "social ROI" to figure out that they'd get a large return from getting value from this person (especially, since if they give as a high-value person, their giving is often even more valuable).

Yes, there is an overlap indeed.

Yet, I see them as separate concepts (as you also noted later in your reply).
Social capital is what you already have, it's a balance that can go up and down.

In stock market exchanges, that would be your portfolio.
And in accountancy, that would be your balance.

The ROI is what you can get -or lose- with a new transaction.

High Value & ROI

A high-value individual does start with a higher social capital indeed.

And he presents higher potential ROI than non high-value individuals indeed.
That's why people naturally prefer to engage with them.

Still, whether that ROI turns out to be "real" also depends on the individual. There are plenty of high-value people who expect to be treated well and that they are owed effort from others, but give back nothing -especially to those whom they consider lower value-.

So they can easily turn out to be negative ROI.

Little off-topic, but in dating terms, that's why some men say it's best to marry cute girls, but not super attractive. Because they think that some very attractive women expect to be treated like queens, without giving anything back -their beauty suffice, they think-.

Quote from Ali Scarlett on May 15, 2021, 5:55 pm

The bigger picture here is that, in social exchanges, one can come across people who are unable to give and people who are simply unwilling to give, both of which affect your social ROI. It can be especially difficult to get back your fair share when you're dealing with either type of person, so including this concept may help people consider this in their own social exchanges moving forward.

Since TPM teaches and encourages being a "fair value social marketer", I think that this social ROI concept helps individuals do more than assess what they might get back, it also encapsulates the potential ROI downsides of collaborating with a selfish, low-quality, ungrateful, manipulative, or overly competitive person.

That's where I think this could be a great addition to the dictionary.

Exactly, well put it, yes to both of them.

Ali Scarlett, Matthew Whitewood and selffriend have reacted to this post.
Ali ScarlettMatthew Whitewoodselffriend
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?