Community Moving

Official community with Confidence University here and alumni’s Discord here.
👉 Use Google to search this forum.

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Enlightened collaborator mindset: setting your mind right for win-win & life success

The mindset precedes the strategy.

The Enlightened collaborator mindset is the belief that win-win is possible.

The enlightned mindset is what makes you consider that a win-win strategy or solution should be considered.
That doesn't necessarily mean that win-win is always possible, or that you must always go for it whenever possible, no matter what.

The enlightened mindset makes a win-win strategy possible, and allows you to turn that possibility into a win-win reality.

Cynicism Makes You Bitter: Enlightenment to The Rescue

To say that cynicism is not an optimal approach might seem obvious.

But it bears repeating these days.

The popular literature on power -see "The 48 Laws of Power"- has bred a small wave of cynic thinking.
And if you look at the hugely popular movements of feminism and the red pill, they are both based on a win-lose view of relationships, and the belief that win-win is hardly possible, or outright impossible.

The tragedy of those ultra-cynic views is that they color your reality ("self-fulfilling prophecy").

When you believe that everyone else is out to cheat you, you develop your own world of dog-eat-dog.
Trump is a great example of this self-fulfilling prophecy -I'm almost glad the Trump phenomenon happened, provides a great case study-.

Proving The Ultra-Cynicism False: The Win-Lose Failure

I am reading "Who's Pulling Your Strings".

It's a book on manipulation and manipulators, including their mindsets (and soon to become one of the central books for this website's philosophy).

The "manipulator's mindset" that the author describes is the same as the win-lose mindset -let's call it "dog eat dog mindset".
Conversely to the enlightened-win mindset, the dog-eat-dog mindset believes that win-win is neither possible, nor ideal.

The dog-eat-dog player sees the world as "you either play, or you get played".
And that prevents him to even consider a win-win.

Let's now review what Braiker says.

From my own review of her book (soon to publish):

Here is how it's experimentally tested.
Take this variation of the prisoner's dilemma:

prisoner dilemma matrix

  • Win-win: When they both cooperate, they both get $10
  • Win-lose: when one cooperate and the other defects, the defector gets $20 and the other gets nothing (cheating)
  • Lose-lose: and when they both defect, they both get $1

It's a simplistic game, but it can well-reflect many real-life situations.
After all, we all know that cheating sometimes could make us win big, but it can ruin relationships in the long term, so it makes sense.

The cheater will "win big" the first time.
But as soon as the game is repeated, the collaborator will most likely adjust his strategy to defect as well -it would probably take 2 rounds top for any rational collaborator to adjust his strategy-.
And then the game turns into a lose-lose for both. If you run this game for 3-4 times or more the defector strategy is a losing one.

And the more you run that game, the bigger the opportunity loss.
In any long-term game, collaboration maximizes gains, but the cheater misses out on the gains because of his mindset.

Post-interviews confirm the two different mindsets.
Cooperators who played against defectors may say that, I quote the author:

"it is just like life: There are all different sorts of people".

The manipulators' warped mindset instead creates his own lose-lose reality, and then, says Braiker, uses that own reality of his own making to justify his own strategy and life approach.

Says the author:

Their life experience will wind up confirming their belief system, although they typically do not understand how their own distrusting behavior creates distrust, competition, and rivalry in others.

And this bit, which is crucial to this website's philosophy:

Think how this mindset can affect and poison an interpersonal relationship.
Trusting people who allow for the possibility that others can, on occasion, choose to behave altruistically and/or generously can choose to cooperate because it is rational and adaptive will be open to the possibility of trusting relationships.
If you approach the world with an open but realistic attitude that allows for both kinds of people—trusting souls and self-promoting competitors—your experiences will mirror your expectations. You likely will meet both kinds of people and have the opportunity to form relationships in which mutual trust and cooperation exist and are cherished by both participants.

A Final Note: The Power Moves' Approach

If you're reading here, you know this.

But just to be sure: an enlightened collaborator mindset does NOT guarantee win-win.

That would be a naive way of looking at life ("naive cooperator").

But an enlightened collaborator mindset allows for win-win. You still need to find, assess, and filter through for other cooperative individuals with whom to play/enter into win-win relationships.
And that's where some psychology and people's reading skills will help.

And you still need sometimes to "adjust" or "reset expectations", since many people aren't used to the possibility of win-win but could play win-win, if well lead.
See for example "collaborative frames", "collaborative shaming", and other TPM techniques to increase the scope of win-win.

Then, it's about keeping those people in your life, and cutting out the rest.

On a larger scale...

Becoming a higher value person allows you to enter into win-win with other high-value folks.

And upgrading your networking/dating/social skills allows you to meet more of those folks, and better showcase your value, which increases the odds you'll enter and maintain those relationships.

But it all starts with the "enlightened collaborator" mindset.

John Freeman, Stef and Jimmy Glasscock have reacted to this post.
John FreemanStefJimmy Glasscock
Community, new content and Charisma University moved here.

Ouch, this was long :D.

OK, I will turn into a post soon.
We needed something on "enlightened collaboration" after all.

If you guys got any feedback or something else to be considered, let me know.

John Freeman, Stef and Jimmy Glasscock have reacted to this post.
John FreemanStefJimmy Glasscock
Community, new content and Charisma University moved here.

After all, we all know that cheating sometimes could make us win big, but it can ruin relationships in the long term, so it makes sense.

you mean that it might make sense in the short term (e.g. if high present preference/with people you will not see again) but do not make sense in the long term or in relationships that shall be continuated into the future?

That would be a naive way of looking at life ("naive cooperator").

But ab enlightened

  • Long or short your post are always appreciated. I think I preffer the long ones since I enjoy knowing I have something interesting to read for the next couple of hours...

Thank you, Stef!

What I wanted to convey with "it makes sense" is that using an experiment from game theory to understand the real world "makes sense" in this case because, albeit simplistic, it's a good approximation of many real-life relationships.

Plus, the experiment's follow-up is even more interesting, as it shows the link and reinforcing cycles between mindset, real-life results, and back to (strengthened) mindset.
That cycle, plus probably some good confirmation bias, traps the dog-eat-dog into his own worldview since he will use the real-world results to confirm his warped mindset.

Many laboratory experiments are not this good or enlightening when it comes to real-world predictions (external validity), so I wanted to make a note that this one, was.

Obviously I need to reword it to make it clearer, thank you for flagging that!

Stef has reacted to this post.
Community, new content and Charisma University moved here.

Who Broke My Vase, Analysis of Win-Win

Here’s a real life TikTok example of the Prisoner’s Dilemna- in this case it was Win - Lose after Chum (the kid with the afro fade, who says in the end that he didn’t know the mom was going to take the PS5 away- admits his Sister Sakai broke the vase)

Here’s my two cents of how Chum (the boy who told on his sister Sakai) could have made the situation Win Win.

Sakai: Girl who, at the start of the video, was doing in her in the mirror

Chum: Boy holding nutcracker (lol) in the kitchen. Has the afro taper fade.

He could have said: Listen, I know breaking moms vase was a bad thing to do, but I am not going to lie for you just so you can save face. (Asserting Himself)

(After all- she will eventually find out who broke it- in the end!) (Identifying worse case scenario)

Maybe you should admit you broke the vase and then plead for forgiveness- after all; Mom will see that  see you understand she liked that vase very much. And your being honest with her will take the pressure off of admitting you broke her vase and could grant you extra Brownie points.

The last part is a tip from Ultimate Power - be outcome independent 😉

Ahaha good one Oli, I'm impressed at how you got all the names right.

Listen, I know breaking moms vase was a bad thing to do, but I am not going to lie for you just so you can save face.

Yeah, that would have been the best way to nip all the games in the bud.
Next best thing, if you feel like you can't take that stand, you can refuse to answer to your mother saying "I can't answer this one".

The mother could also take some steps to promote more honesty in the house, rewarding honesty and punishing games and lies (emotional reward/punishments more important than material / physical ones).

Matthew Whitewood has reacted to this post.
Matthew Whitewood
Community, new content and Charisma University moved here.

Scroll to Top