Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Definitive dictionary of power
Thank you, Anon!
From John's journal:
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on May 14, 2022, 4:35 pmOr, alternatively, "yeah, that's our early time".
Very high power, without being confrontational or gamey.
The second even agrees with him, thus briding and maintaining rapport, but form a position of equal -or even higher- power.Sub-communication being:
it is what it is, your thoughts about it won't change it (and don't matter)
I'm not sure if it's PU that lists it now under the high-dominance behavior, or if it's in the negotiating lesson spun-off in Business University.
But it's listed as a high-power approach that some negotiators adopt when they have all the leverage.
I'm thinking of coming up with a name for this approach.
It's a form of "take it or leave it", but it's more rapport-preserving.
So maybe something like:
- Friendly TIOLI
- Power-protecting TIOLI
- Rapport-preserving TIOLI
I also see it as a way of surfacing the request hidden in the remark by the other person. He said something like: “But it’s too early!”; however, he didn’t ask to postpone the time.
So it was fair to restate the original time. Had he asked, the answer could have been different.
Quote from Bel on May 18, 2022, 11:35 amI also see it as a way of surfacing the request hidden in the remark by the other person. He said something like: “But it’s too early!”; however, he didn’t ask to postpone the time.
So it was fair to restate the original time. Had he asked, the answer could have been different.
Hmmm I didn't see it much as surfacing.
The original comment was more of an empty complaint and a rebuke for poor planning.
It's possible that it will later lead to surfacing IF the original complainer then asks to change the time, but that is all up to him and it's not heavily prompted by your comment.
I see it as more of an end statement / technique, rather than anything leading to anything else.
It might lead somewhere else, but you're totally happy to end it there.
The sub-communication is:
It is what it is, and won't change. Adapt if you wanna join, or see you.
Hello folks,
I'm looking to choose the best name for a new concept from the upcoming article "naive self-help".
The concept is simple:
Many traits are good, effective, or beneficial at certain doses but turn bad, ineffective, or harmful at extreme levels of either total lack, or oversupply.
That concept serves to address a large chunk of self-help that promotes the development of certain (good) traits on a "as much as possible" basis, without realizing that, at the extreme, they're not so good or effective anymore.
For example:
- Authenticity for leaders, a trait that is instead contextual and there is such a thing as "too authentic" (ie.: speaking your mind too curtly, offending superiors or "touchy" subordinates that are important for your final goal, etc.)
- Open-mindedness, a generally good trait that becomes "stupid" when open-minded means not discerning between information or people, or refusing to judge in fear of being "close-minded"
- Machiavellianism / cynicism: fundamental in life, but with many drawbacks when taken to an extreme in both in quality of life and effectiveness as one fails to collaborate and earn long-term trust
- Drive, as in Goggins' "Can't Hurt Me", where he basically hurts himself
- .... Many more
The names I thought of are:
Option 1: Law of Moderation
As you can see from that draft infographic that was the first interim name.
Problem is, the name is super unsexy and uncatchy, since "moderation" is associated with not-so-cool mental representations.
So, I scratched it in favor of...
Option 2: Law of he Sweet Spot
An easy to remember name, only con is that it may not sound authoritative and "serious" enough.
Option 3: Law of Optimum Balance
Maybe a more appropriate name, and sounds more authoritative and thought out.
Option 4: Law of Optimum Balance (AKA Law of The Sweet Spot)
This option combines both of the above.
Thoughts and ideas?
Agree with everything you said...Moderation is super boring id probably scroll past, Sweet spot is my favourite it would help me remember/think about it more often but can see how it kind of sounds stupid
Optimum balance is probably the best way to go (the optimum balance of the 3 lol)
I'd go simply with "balance", as to me it includes the concept of "optimum".
"Law of Optimum Balance" is my favorite so far.
There might also be some more options to explore based on the reverse approach as well.
For example, the "Law of Self-Defeating Imbalance".
Happy to read more thoughts.
Mitch, Bel, Ali, thank you so much!
Super helpful.
I like 'law of sweet spot', or if you want to get fancy, 'Procrustes virtue law'.
Among the robbers whom Theseus defeated by forcing them to suffer the end they imposed on others, was Damastis, the so-called Procrustes, who was unique in inspiring a deadly martyrdom. He made a bed of a certain size, on which he laid the people, and according to their size, he pulled or slashed them.
Apollodorus writes that he had two beds, one small and one large. He placed the short ones on the large bed and pounded them to stretch them, and the tall ones on the small one to cut off the superfluous parts.
https://www.greecehighdefinition.com/blog/the-myth-of-procrustes-bed-the-absurdity-of-equality
But the name is not as important as the concept, which I think is spot on.
Another example virtue that fits this law is 'ambition' (perhaps similar to drive).
For ambition, I have one idea: It only makes sense to be ambitious if you have leverage. If you don't (ie most people), ambition will hurt you and make you feel miserable.
That dependency on a different variable to make a virtue 'valid or invalid' may generalize to other cases. Happy to hear your thoughts on this. Which other virtues depend on something else to be virtues?
