Quote from John Freeman on July 2, 2022, 1:45 pm

Great example, Emily. Thanks for sharing.

Honestly, I was getting a bit annoyed at his "not getting it", as it was pretty clear to me.

It's not that he's not getting it. He's totally getting it. He just does not want to buy into your frame and justifying himself which would give you the judge power. So he's power aware. The problem here is that there is not enough transparency here to call your relationship a friendly relationship to me. This is the moment where he could be vulnerable about how he felt. However he's not willing/not able to do so.

Me: That was the last known interaction to me. And that's why I am asking what happened, which you refused to clarify. In a social circle, there is your needs/feelings and also those of everyone else's. It is not only your feelings that matter. I'll stop there.

Him:Good. Stop there.

Here he's tasking you. I think you could re-empower yourself while staying collaborative (I learned this here):

Me: That was the last known interaction to me. And that's why I am asking what happened, which you refused to clarify. In a social circle, there is your needs/feelings and also those of everyone else's. It is not only your feelings that matter. I'll stop there.

Him:Good. Stop there. (yes it's true he's taking the judge role AND tasking you)

Me: Yes (stay collaborative), that's what I said (rejecting the empty tasking as you already said what you were going to do). Anyway (moving on).

I don't think all of these are all attacks:

Him:I don't understand this.

Not an attack in itself, but asks you to justify yourself, pushing you to invest and empowering him.

Him:Just because you say all of this doesn't make it true.

Not an attack by itself. More a defense using a Philosopher's frame.

Him:I don't know why you are coming out of nowhere to pick fights:

This is clearly an attack, framing you as the attacker.

Him:What is wrong with you

This is clearly an attack, framing you as something who has mental issues.

In hindsight, I could see that this person was constantly firing attacks at me in this conversation and I should have stopped when he started with the "a lot of people don't like each other" statement and leave at it to prevent further negativity from him.

I agree. These people are masters at manipulation. They're not willing to take responsibility of their actions, so this is not a conversation where people exchange their perspectives. But more a debate where people try to convince one another since there is no common ground of basic facts the person is not willing to acknowledge.

I think with manipulators, the best strategy is to defend oneself. A draw is a win with these people. If you see they're not willing to admit, you pushing for them to admit will only bring you to a dead-end.

Generally speaking, there are many red flags. I would also slowly fade this person away if you don't need anything specific from this person. If you do (connections, material stuff, etc.). I would change my strategy (machiavellian) and be hypocritical on purpose: be warm and smiley when you see him on rare occasions to be able to still get some value from this person. Make him believe you like him (if you need him). Otherwise, slowly fade him away and enjoy your new better life without a toxic person.

Quote from Kavalier on July 2, 2022, 3:36 pm

Hello, Emily

Quote from Rwy on July 2, 2022, 1:13 pm

1. Extreme/out of proportion emotions (generally low power according to PU);
2. Drill sergeant attitude in group activities (could be good but he puts himself as judge a lot regardless if he is in position);
3. Weird/eccentric taste towards women (whereas no one else thinks the girls he was so attracted to were really that attractive);
4. Dissatisfaction with dating in general with many dating experiences where he was sucking up to the date, and then got rejected/dumped;
5. Career trajectory where he downgraded his financial earnings by more than 50%, albeit he said he has been happier.

1 and 2 are major red flags.

4 maybe. It is something to keep in mind but maybe more of a sign that he's not very effective with women. It's quite common for guys who seek dating advice to put women they like in a pedestal (films and books could be partially blamed for that, as well as low self-esteem); his attitudes towards women - and how he speaks about those women he dated -, in contrast, would be very telling. You are right that it's not a sign of high value though.

5 maybe but it also depends. I did this myself. I was at a job where I was gaining a lot, but the workload was insane and I was lacking time/energy for social interactions and side projects.

3 I would discount from the list. Tastes may be very subjective.

In the whole, even the "maybes" weight against him in this particular case (though I wouldn't take them as a bad sign if they were a standalone in a generally well adjusted person).

Being at odds with someone also happens. I think it's actually okay if two people don't get along, though it's something to be avoided. In PU there was an example of two very high value guys - they were I think Motocross pilots but I don't remember their names - who wouldn't shake hands even under social pressure (in public).

That said, if it got to the point where you have to choose between them, it's fair for you to choose. And the way he handles is indeed very, very red flag:

• Blaming someone else for one's own problems
• Labelling someone a "toxic personality" when nobody else can relate (still, it it were a standalone, I would take this with a grain of salt. I had a "friend" who singled me out and was constantly passive-agressive towards me. I learned later that the reason was a girl I used to date and whom he had been involved with in the past - now, he had absolutely no reason for that, especially when it had already ended and I couldn't possibly have known of their affair. The grudge also lasted disproportionately long - still, he was generally well-liked and pretty high status in the group.
•  And this also tells me your friend was talking about the other fellow behind his back. Big, big one

The fact that you decided to take the matters into your own hands was also very eagle like!

But to me it seemed a little abrupt.

Me: So what made you think that A (common friend) is a toxic person?

Him: Why are you asking?

It looked confrontational and somewhat dismissive of him/his feelings, so it set up the structure for his defensiveness. It gave me the impression that you put your feelings to the forefront, so it was actually fair to him to question what you had to do with their problems. Then, later, when you further interrogated him, he felt cornered against the wall. Still, the way he handled it totally proves you are right. He overreacted again.

But perhaps if you tried something like

You: Bob, I don't mean to interfere in you and Mike's affairs. But I noticed you guys are not getting along, and for me it's been very difficult because I care a lot about you and want to spend time with you two, ant it pains me when two people I like are at odds with each other. I believe you have a good reason for not talking to him, and would like to understand better what happened if you'd be willing to share it with me.

He might be better willing to open up. If he doesn't, you just acknowledge that you understand if he wants to keep it among themselves, and move on.

 

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 2, 2022, 4:38 pm

Great case study again.

I second Kavalier almost word for word on what I'd consider red flags, and what not.

What's not a red flag but more of a fact is that he comes across as rather testy and confrontational in the exchanges you posted, and seems more focused on power and winning than on anything else -now that's another big red flag-.

And I second John that was was the worst:

Him: What is wrong with you

When uncalled for, that's often a nasty power.
It's akin to "you're weird / not normal". There was a thread once on this and can't find it now, but basically it seeks to sub-communicate that one is not fit to socialize with others and deserving to be ostracized.

Overall, I think you did great in the beginning.
And OK at self-defense.

But lost track of your initial superior frame.

Here's where it started great:

Quote from Rwy on July 2, 2022, 1:13 pm

Me: Imagine if you have two friends who don't talk to each other, it's not a good feeling. I don't need to be involved and I don't intend to take sides, but it's affecting me nonetheless.

Perfect so far.

You're giving valid reasons for inquiring: it's because there's something in it for you, you're not being nosy, you want to know because both are your friends, both important to your social life, and because the situation affects you and want to know how to behave properly going forward.

Until now you're in the "right" because your inquiry is supported by your rights as a common friend: there's something at stake for you.

Plus, it's what any high-quality person would do: find out about the people close them (something you could also say BTW, albeit a bit more advanced).

However, you lose that good frame here:

Quote from Rwy on July 2, 2022, 1:13 pm

Him: I have a lot of friends who don't like each other, it happens. Not everyone has to like each other. I also don't see how it's affecting you.

Me: I don't know about others. (<--- fantastic)
If you guys never liked each other that's a different story. (<--- Ok-ish)
Isn't it a bit dramatic when it got so hostile this quickly? (<--- unneeded, and feels judgmental)
.... (<---where's your reason for asking? Keep your WIIFM and you're justified to ask. Lose it, and it can feel invasive)

Him: It's hostile? I don't think I'm hostile towards him, I just want to be acquaintances. (<---goes off a tangent, and you'll never get back on track from here)

You went from:

• Inquiring to better understand the situation as it affects you

To:

• Inquiring out of... What? There's no strong "why" anymore

And the second part of the sentence also feels judgmental.

From then on, it devolved into power moves and one-upping.

Don't get me wrong: it seems like this person was hostile from the beginning and probably would have gone poorly anyway.
But you still had to stick to your initial frame of :

"two friends in common suddenly don't want to see each other, and since I'm friends with both and since that also affects me, then that's why I need to know more".

Stick to your initial frame, lead that interaction, don't allow the turkey to pull you down into go-nowhere nastiness and power moves.

Makes sense?

Quote from Kavalier on July 2, 2022, 5:15 pm

Him: What is wrong with you

I missed this one (had to tap on the box to expand it and show it)

But yeah, this one was nasty. I would also be inclined to distance myself from that person if I heard this.

Quote from MMC on July 2, 2022, 7:13 pm

Hi, I wonder if you could give me permission to be frank. I see that his is highly emotional person. Besides that, I think everyone has the freedom of choosing his/her own friends.

“Drill sergeant attitude”: I think this heavily depends on the content and context. Is his advice useful or just useless complaints? If the former, then I cannot conclude that he is negative.

"Weird taste of girls": I see nothing wrong with it. It is his personal business. If someone believes that everyone should have the same taste, either s/he has a problem, or s/he is trying to be the social judge.

"Dissatisfaction with dating in general with many dating experiences": Is he complaining with negative emotions? If not, then I don't personally judge a person based on his dating successfulness; for example, many high functioning autistic men remain virgins, and I don't think it is their mistake.

"Career trajectory": I see nothing wrong with it. It is his personal choices. Unless you (or he) are looking for business partners or providers (which are neutral words), his career is his own business not yours. I personally don't judge a person by his personal wealth, i.e. I won't say Elon Musk is more successful or less successful than a random ascetic.

"Refuse to be friend with someone": it is his freedom. No one can legally or ethically force someone to be friend with someone else. Of course, you are also free to be friend/unfriend anyone.

To be honest, the following quote seems to be the "drill sergeant attitude", "teacher-student frame", or "police-criminal frame" to me: you seem to trying to position yourself as the high-leader of the social circle, with all the power of interrogation and investigation.

That was the last known interaction to me. And that's why I am asking what happened, which you refused to clarify. In a social circle, there is your needs/feelings and also those of everyone else's. It is not only your feelings that matter.

He has no responsible to clarify anything, unless you are the investigator and he is the suspect in an interrogation chamber.

---

 

Of course, his words do seem to be not friendly:

Him: Just because you say all of this doesn't make it true.

Him: I don't know why you are coming out of nowhere to pick fights.

Him: What is wrong with you.

 

But they should not be taken out of context. I guess you hand-picked those sentences from the whole conversation. To better understand the whole interaction, we need to know what you said before he expressed those negative emotions. From his angle, you were the one who fabricated some claims and picked up these fight (which are not necessarily true). We need to know the whole picture to understand more.

From your description, the story seems to go like this: he decided to have a unique taste of girls, career, and friends. You disagree with his tastes and want him to be friend with someone he hates; then he gets highly emotional. You think "you lost power" and ask for help here.

To sum up, I agree that he is highly emotional, which is usually bad in most professional settings. However, I believe that everyone (possibly except ascetic) can get emotional. Emotion is a human nature, and strong emotion is often caused by a strong reason.

At the same time, you did not loss any power. You are still free to unfriend anyone you don't like.

Quote from Emily on July 3, 2022, 12:27 am

Quote from John Freeman on July 2, 2022, 1:45 pm

Great example, Emily. Thanks for sharing.

Honestly, I was getting a bit annoyed at his "not getting it", as it was pretty clear to me.

It's not that he's not getting it. He's totally getting it. He just does not want to buy into your frame and justifying himself which would give you the judge power. So he's power aware. The problem here is that there is not enough transparency here to call your relationship a friendly relationship to me. This is the moment where he could be vulnerable about how he felt. However he's not willing/not able to do so.

Me: That was the last known interaction to me. And that's why I am asking what happened, which you refused to clarify. In a social circle, there is your needs/feelings and also those of everyone else's. It is not only your feelings that matter. I'll stop there.

Him:Good. Stop there.

Here he's tasking you. I think you could re-empower yourself while staying collaborative (I learned this here):

Me: That was the last known interaction to me. And that's why I am asking what happened, which you refused to clarify. In a social circle, there is your needs/feelings and also those of everyone else's. It is not only your feelings that matter. I'll stop there.

Him:Good. Stop there. (yes it's true he's taking the judge role AND tasking you)

Me: Yes (stay collaborative), that's what I said (rejecting the empty tasking as you already said what you were going to do). Anyway (moving on).

I don't think all of these are all attacks:

Him:I don't understand this.

Not an attack in itself, but asks you to justify yourself, pushing you to invest and empowering him.

Him:Just because you say all of this doesn't make it true.

Not an attack by itself. More a defense using a Philosopher's frame.

Him:I don't know why you are coming out of nowhere to pick fights:

This is clearly an attack, framing you as the attacker.

Him:What is wrong with you

This is clearly an attack, framing you as something who has mental issues.

In hindsight, I could see that this person was constantly firing attacks at me in this conversation and I should have stopped when he started with the "a lot of people don't like each other" statement and leave at it to prevent further negativity from him.

I agree. These people are masters at manipulation. They're not willing to take responsibility of their actions, so this is not a conversation where people exchange their perspectives. But more a debate where people try to convince one another since there is no common ground of basic facts the person is not willing to acknowledge.

I think with manipulators, the best strategy is to defend oneself. A draw is a win with these people. If you see they're not willing to admit, you pushing for them to admit will only bring you to a dead-end.

Generally speaking, there are many red flags. I would also slowly fade this person away if you don't need anything specific from this person. If you do (connections, material stuff, etc.). I would change my strategy (machiavellian) and be hypocritical on purpose: be warm and smiley when you see him on rare occasions to be able to still get some value from this person. Make him believe you like him (if you need him). Otherwise, slowly fade him away and enjoy your new better life without a toxic person.

Yeah I agree that he is power-aware, John. It didn't come to me first, since I thought we were friends and he wouldn't be in that kind of mindset (me being naive). I resonate with your statement, as I did learn from my past experience that abusive people know exactly what they are doing.

I also agree that not all of them were attacks, I was emotionally frazzled when I wrote this (practicing to be emotionally detached). What I meant was every one of his responses was value-taking, as for the ones that were not attacks he either tasked me or asked me to expend more effort.

And yes, I also had the inkling that the exit from me needs to be strategic, and share the thoughts you had on slow fade or being more covert.

 

Quote from Kavalier on July 2, 2022, 3:36 pm

Hello, Emily

Quote from Rwy on July 2, 2022, 1:13 pm

1. Extreme/out of proportion emotions (generally low power according to PU);
2. Drill sergeant attitude in group activities (could be good but he puts himself as judge a lot regardless if he is in position);
3. Weird/eccentric taste towards women (whereas no one else thinks the girls he was so attracted to were really that attractive);
4. Dissatisfaction with dating in general with many dating experiences where he was sucking up to the date, and then got rejected/dumped;
5. Career trajectory where he downgraded his financial earnings by more than 50%, albeit he said he has been happier.

1 and 2 are major red flags.

4 maybe. It is something to keep in mind but maybe more of a sign that he's not very effective with women. It's quite common for guys who seek dating advice to put women they like in a pedestal (films and books could be partially blamed for that, as well as low self-esteem); his attitudes towards women - and how he speaks about those women he dated -, in contrast, would be very telling. You are right that it's not a sign of high value though.

5 maybe but it also depends. I did this myself. I was at a job where I was gaining a lot, but the workload was insane and I was lacking time/energy for social interactions and side projects.

3 I would discount from the list. Tastes may be very subjective.

In the whole, even the "maybes" weight against him in this particular case (though I wouldn't take them as a bad sign if they were a standalone in a generally well adjusted person).

Being at odds with someone also happens. I think it's actually okay if two people don't get along, though it's something to be avoided. In PU there was an example of two very high value guys - they were I think Motocross pilots but I don't remember their names - who wouldn't shake hands even under social pressure (in public).

That said, if it got to the point where you have to choose between them, it's fair for you to choose. And the way he handles is indeed very, very red flag:

• Blaming someone else for one's own problems
• Labelling someone a "toxic personality" when nobody else can relate (still, it it were a standalone, I would take this with a grain of salt. I had a "friend" who singled me out and was constantly passive-agressive towards me. I learned later that the reason was a girl I used to date and whom he had been involved with in the past - now, he had absolutely no reason for that, especially when it had already ended and I couldn't possibly have known of their affair. The grudge also lasted disproportionately long - still, he was generally well-liked and pretty high status in the group.
•  And this also tells me your friend was talking about the other fellow behind his back. Big, big one

The fact that you decided to take the matters into your own hands was also very eagle like!

But to me it seemed a little abrupt.

Me: So what made you think that A (common friend) is a toxic person?

Him: Why are you asking?

It looked confrontational and somewhat dismissive of him/his feelings, so it set up the structure for his defensiveness. It gave me the impression that you put your feelings to the forefront, so it was actually fair to him to question what you had to do with their problems. Then, later, when you further interrogated him, he felt cornered against the wall. Still, the way he handled it totally proves you are right. He overreacted again.

But perhaps if you tried something like

You: Bob, I don't mean to interfere in you and Mike's affairs. But I noticed you guys are not getting along, and for me it's been very difficult because I care a lot about you and want to spend time with you two, ant it pains me when two people I like are at odds with each other. I believe you have a good reason for not talking to him, and would like to understand better what happened if you'd be willing to share it with me.

He might be better willing to open up. If he doesn't, you just acknowledge that you understand if he wants to keep it among themselves, and move on.

 

Kavalier, I agree that I wasn't being clear about the pre-context points since I personally had emotions attached to those. Those do seem like judgements without me providing emotional context.

So to clarify, for points 3-4, it was his behaviors of either talking incessantly about how those women were perfect, and the ones who dumped him as bitches etc. He is the type of guy who would talk about what excites him 10 times with his loudest enthusiasm. I don't really like that, and he didn't care, and this forces us to all accept who he is because he can (self-centered).

For 5, it was his negative attitude about his work, and then with this change how he wouldn't be able to afford things and stuff in our city (cost of living is high), and he might move away soon (never happened), again the same rambling issue.

I appreciate the point about the opening being confrontational, my attempt in this conversation was by no means perfect. I just got to the frame control section and eager to learn more.

 

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 2, 2022, 4:38 pm

Great case study again.

I second Kavalier almost word for word on what I'd consider red flags, and what not.

What's not a red flag but more of a fact is that he comes across as rather testy and confrontational in the exchanges you posted, and seems more focused on power and winning than on anything else -now that's another big red flag-.

And I second John that was was the worst:

Him: What is wrong with you

When uncalled for, that's often a nasty power.
It's akin to "you're weird / not normal". There was a thread once on this and can't find it now, but basically it seeks to sub-communicate that one is not fit to socialize with others and deserving to be ostracized.

Overall, I think you did great in the beginning.
And OK at self-defense.

But lost track of your initial superior frame.

Here's where it started great:

Quote from Rwy on July 2, 2022, 1:13 pm

Me: Imagine if you have two friends who don't talk to each other, it's not a good feeling. I don't need to be involved and I don't intend to take sides, but it's affecting me nonetheless.

Perfect so far.

You're giving valid reasons for inquiring: it's because there's something in it for you, you're not being nosy, you want to know because both are your friends, both important to your social life, and because the situation affects you and want to know how to behave properly going forward.

Until now you're in the "right" because your inquiry is supported by your rights as a common friend: there's something at stake for you.

Plus, it's what any high-quality person would do: find out about the people close them (something you could also say BTW, albeit a bit more advanced).

However, you lose that good frame here:

Quote from Rwy on July 2, 2022, 1:13 pm

Him: I have a lot of friends who don't like each other, it happens. Not everyone has to like each other. I also don't see how it's affecting you.

Me: I don't know about others. (<--- fantastic)
If you guys never liked each other that's a different story. (<--- Ok-ish)
Isn't it a bit dramatic when it got so hostile this quickly? (<--- unneeded, and feels judgmental)
.... (<---where's your reason for asking? Keep your WIIFM and you're justified to ask. Lose it, and it can feel invasive)

Him: It's hostile? I don't think I'm hostile towards him, I just want to be acquaintances. (<---goes off a tangent, and you'll never get back on track from here)

You went from:

• Inquiring to better understand the situation as it affects you

To:

• Inquiring out of... What? There's no strong "why" anymore

And the second part of the sentence also feels judgmental.

From then on, it devolved into power moves and one-upping.

Don't get me wrong: it seems like this person was hostile from the beginning and probably would have gone poorly anyway.
But you still had to stick to your initial frame of :

"two friends in common suddenly don't want to see each other, and since I'm friends with both and since that also affects me, then that's why I need to know more".

Stick to your initial frame, lead that interaction, don't allow the turkey to pull you down into go-nowhere nastiness and power moves.

Makes sense?

Yes, makes perfect sense, Lucio.

I realized that I could have been more collaborative especially since this was a very sensitive topic for him.

I just got to the frame control section in PU and totally agree that it's better to seek win-win in how things are phrased. Looking forward to deepening my knowledge in this.

 

 

Quote from MMC on July 2, 2022, 7:13 pm

Hi, I wonder if you could give me permission to be frank. I see that his is highly emotional person. Besides that, I think everyone has the freedom of choosing his/her own friends.

“Drill sergeant attitude”: I think this heavily depends on the content and context. Is his advice useful or just useless complaints? If the former, then I cannot conclude that he is negative.

"Weird taste of girls": I see nothing wrong with it. It is his personal business. If someone believes that everyone should have the same taste, either s/he has a problem, or s/he is trying to be the social judge.

"Dissatisfaction with dating in general with many dating experiences": Is he complaining with negative emotions? If not, then I don't personally judge a person based on his dating successfulness; for example, many high functioning autistic men remain virgins, and I don't think it is their mistake.

"Career trajectory": I see nothing wrong with it. It is his personal choices. Unless you (or he) are looking for business partners or providers (which are neutral words), his career is his own business not yours. I personally don't judge a person by his personal wealth, i.e. I won't say Elon Musk is more successful or less successful than a random ascetic.

"Refuse to be friend with someone": it is his freedom. No one can legally or ethically force someone to be friend with someone else. Of course, you are also free to be friend/unfriend anyone.

To be honest, the following quote seems to be the "drill sergeant attitude", "teacher-student frame", or "police-criminal frame" to me: you seem to trying to position yourself as the high-leader of the social circle, with all the power of interrogation and investigation.

That was the last known interaction to me. And that's why I am asking what happened, which you refused to clarify. In a social circle, there is your needs/feelings and also those of everyone else's. It is not only your feelings that matter.

He has no responsible to clarify anything, unless you are the investigator and he is the suspect in an interrogation chamber.

---

 

Of course, his words do seem to be not friendly:

Him: Just because you say all of this doesn't make it true.

Him: I don't know why you are coming out of nowhere to pick fights.

Him: What is wrong with you.

 

But they should not be taken out of context. I guess you hand-picked those sentences from the whole conversation. To better understand the whole interaction, we need to know what you said before he expressed those negative emotions. From his angle, you were the one who fabricated some claims and picked up these fight (which are not necessarily true). We need to know the whole picture to understand more.

From your description, the story seems to go like this: he decided to have a unique taste of girls, career, and friends. You disagree with his tastes and want him to be friend with someone he hates; then he gets highly emotional. You think "you lost power" and ask for help here.

To sum up, I agree that he is highly emotional, which is usually bad in most professional settings. However, I believe that everyone (possibly except ascetic) can get emotional. Emotion is a human nature, and strong emotion is often caused by a strong reason.

At the same time, you did not loss any power. You are still free to unfriend anyone you don't like.

 

Whoa whoa whoa, please let's not get into this too quickly. With limited information, I would usually ask more questions without judging the person who's posting first, no? I am far from a judgmental person and was being lenient to him for a long time (a couple years). And some of your statements went too far. By taking side with my non-present frenemy and judging me, it doesn't seem a good move :). I admit that I did not provide enough context to those pre-context statements, and I will explain below. For your questions:

“Drill sergeant attitude”: I think this heavily depends on the content and context. Is his advice useful or just useless complaints? If the former, then I cannot conclude that he is negative.

I would say probably 30% of his advice is useful, and the remaining are "do as what I say"/"my way or the highway" type of statements.

"Weird taste of girls": I see nothing wrong with it. It is his personal business. If someone believes that everyone should have the same taste, either s/he has a problem, or s/he is trying to be the social judge.

I don't care what other people do as long as they sort themselves out. But I don't like someone constantly in my space talking about a thing that's so exciting to him incessantly. It is his constant talking about what he likes about a girl in what way, and it's really getting to the point of TMI for all of us. I talked to multiple friends about it and they all notice it, some just tolerate it.

"Dissatisfaction with dating in general with many dating experiences": Is he complaining with negative emotions? If not, then I don't personally judge a person based on his dating successfulness; for example, many high functioning autistic men remain virgins, and I don't think it is their mistake.

Yes, complaining a lot about people who ghosted or dumped him. I wouldn't think that everyone of them was an abuser, sometimes things just didn't work out.

"Career trajectory": I see nothing wrong with it. It is his personal choices. Unless you (or he) are looking for business partners or providers (which are neutral words), his career is his own business not yours. I personally don't judge a person by his personal wealth, i.e. I won't say Elon Musk is more successful or less successful than a random ascetic.

I have the same attitude as you. It is how emotionally reactive he is about this whole change, as well as being pessimistic about the dating scene here since we live in an expensive city, and city dating is also hard. And he said many times that he was going to leave but with no clear follow-up. Certainly as a friend I didn't feel he cared about any of us when he said that, because you don't just leave your social circle like that.

"Refuse to be friend with someone": it is his freedom. No one can legally or ethically force someone to be friend with someone else. Of course, you are also free to be friend/unfriend anyone.

This person he now says is toxic, he remained close friends with for 5 years. He CHOSE to be his friend. I did not force him to be friends with him. I came into this circle with them already being friends in the first place and had a much closer relationship with each other than either of them with me.

To be honest, the following quote seems to be the "drill sergeant attitude", "teacher-student frame", or "police-criminal frame" to me: you seem to trying to position yourself as the high-leader of the social circle, with all the power of interrogation and investigation.

That was the last known interaction to me. And that's why I am asking what happened, which you refused to clarify. In a social circle, there is your needs/feelings and also those of everyone else's. It is not only your feelings that matter.

He has no responsible to clarify anything, unless you are the investigator and he is the suspect in an interrogation chamber.

I went meta on him. And I don't see that this is real attack, and with some aggression but definitely not nearly at the same level as what he did to me. I was super annoyed by this point, and I still provided context and explanation. The thing that is confrontational is "you refused to...". Because if he says it's only his feelings that matter, then he is self-centered.

But they should not be taken out of context. I guess you hand-picked those sentences from the whole conversation. To better understand the whole interaction, we need to know what you said before he expressed those negative emotions. From his angle, you were the one who fabricated some claims and picked up these fight (which are not necessarily true). We need to know the whole picture to understand more.

Please, here it is from your own imagination. How do you know I "hand-picked" the sentences? I omitted a long message I sent him before (with more specific personal information that isn't relevant to the dynamic) he went with multiple questions and attacks with me in the end.

At the same time, you did not loss any power. You are still free to unfriend anyone you don't like.

I don't know how you arrived on this conclusion. Do I deserve to be attacked like that? Being attacked like that is power loss to me. In my world those statements he made were just nasty and unnecessary. It crossed a line. I wasn't being the coolest of myself but I did not attack him, I did not demand him to do a single thing, as I stated my feelings and wishes only.

 

Quote from Transitioned on July 3, 2022, 1:26 am

I feel like there was a lot of history.

Trying to mediate is tough and needs caution.  You can end up being shot by both sides.

On this exchange what came before?  Did he say they were toxic?

Me: So what made you think that A (common friend) is a toxic person?

Him: Why are you asking?

On his comments.  Yea they do seem quite argumentative.  If this is a repeated pattern I would cut him out.

Quote from MMC on July 3, 2022, 5:43 am

Quote from Rwy on July 3, 2022, 12:27 am

Quote from John Freeman on July 2, 2022, 1:45 pm

Great example, Emily. Thanks for sharing.

Honestly, I was getting a bit annoyed at his "not getting it", as it was pretty clear to me.

It's not that he's not getting it. He's totally getting it. He just does not want to buy into your frame and justifying himself which would give you the judge power. So he's power aware. The problem here is that there is not enough transparency here to call your relationship a friendly relationship to me. This is the moment where he could be vulnerable about how he felt. However he's not willing/not able to do so.

Me: That was the last known interaction to me. And that's why I am asking what happened, which you refused to clarify. In a social circle, there is your needs/feelings and also those of everyone else's. It is not only your feelings that matter. I'll stop there.

Him:Good. Stop there.

Here he's tasking you. I think you could re-empower yourself while staying collaborative (I learned this here):

Me: That was the last known interaction to me. And that's why I am asking what happened, which you refused to clarify. In a social circle, there is your needs/feelings and also those of everyone else's. It is not only your feelings that matter. I'll stop there.

Him:Good. Stop there. (yes it's true he's taking the judge role AND tasking you)

Me: Yes (stay collaborative), that's what I said (rejecting the empty tasking as you already said what you were going to do). Anyway (moving on).

I don't think all of these are all attacks:

Him:I don't understand this.

Not an attack in itself, but asks you to justify yourself, pushing you to invest and empowering him.

Him:Just because you say all of this doesn't make it true.

Not an attack by itself. More a defense using a Philosopher's frame.

Him:I don't know why you are coming out of nowhere to pick fights:

This is clearly an attack, framing you as the attacker.

Him:What is wrong with you

This is clearly an attack, framing you as something who has mental issues.

In hindsight, I could see that this person was constantly firing attacks at me in this conversation and I should have stopped when he started with the "a lot of people don't like each other" statement and leave at it to prevent further negativity from him.

I agree. These people are masters at manipulation. They're not willing to take responsibility of their actions, so this is not a conversation where people exchange their perspectives. But more a debate where people try to convince one another since there is no common ground of basic facts the person is not willing to acknowledge.

I think with manipulators, the best strategy is to defend oneself. A draw is a win with these people. If you see they're not willing to admit, you pushing for them to admit will only bring you to a dead-end.

Generally speaking, there are many red flags. I would also slowly fade this person away if you don't need anything specific from this person. If you do (connections, material stuff, etc.). I would change my strategy (machiavellian) and be hypocritical on purpose: be warm and smiley when you see him on rare occasions to be able to still get some value from this person. Make him believe you like him (if you need him). Otherwise, slowly fade him away and enjoy your new better life without a toxic person.

Yeah I agree that he is power-aware, John. It didn't come to me first, since I thought we were friends and he wouldn't be in that kind of mindset (me being naive). I resonate with your statement, as I did learn from my past experience that abusive people know exactly what they are doing.

I also agree that not all of them were attacks, I was emotionally frazzled when I wrote this (practicing to be emotionally detached). What I meant was every one of his responses was value-taking, as for the ones that were not attacks he either tasked me or asked me to expend more effort.

And yes, I also had the inkling that the exit from me needs to be strategic, and share the thoughts you had on slow fade or being more covert.

 

Quote from Kavalier on July 2, 2022, 3:36 pm

Hello, Emily

Quote from Rwy on July 2, 2022, 1:13 pm

1. Extreme/out of proportion emotions (generally low power according to PU);
2. Drill sergeant attitude in group activities (could be good but he puts himself as judge a lot regardless if he is in position);
3. Weird/eccentric taste towards women (whereas no one else thinks the girls he was so attracted to were really that attractive);
4. Dissatisfaction with dating in general with many dating experiences where he was sucking up to the date, and then got rejected/dumped;
5. Career trajectory where he downgraded his financial earnings by more than 50%, albeit he said he has been happier.

1 and 2 are major red flags.

4 maybe. It is something to keep in mind but maybe more of a sign that he's not very effective with women. It's quite common for guys who seek dating advice to put women they like in a pedestal (films and books could be partially blamed for that, as well as low self-esteem); his attitudes towards women - and how he speaks about those women he dated -, in contrast, would be very telling. You are right that it's not a sign of high value though.

5 maybe but it also depends. I did this myself. I was at a job where I was gaining a lot, but the workload was insane and I was lacking time/energy for social interactions and side projects.

3 I would discount from the list. Tastes may be very subjective.

In the whole, even the "maybes" weight against him in this particular case (though I wouldn't take them as a bad sign if they were a standalone in a generally well adjusted person).

Being at odds with someone also happens. I think it's actually okay if two people don't get along, though it's something to be avoided. In PU there was an example of two very high value guys - they were I think Motocross pilots but I don't remember their names - who wouldn't shake hands even under social pressure (in public).

That said, if it got to the point where you have to choose between them, it's fair for you to choose. And the way he handles is indeed very, very red flag:

• Blaming someone else for one's own problems
• Labelling someone a "toxic personality" when nobody else can relate (still, it it were a standalone, I would take this with a grain of salt. I had a "friend" who singled me out and was constantly passive-agressive towards me. I learned later that the reason was a girl I used to date and whom he had been involved with in the past - now, he had absolutely no reason for that, especially when it had already ended and I couldn't possibly have known of their affair. The grudge also lasted disproportionately long - still, he was generally well-liked and pretty high status in the group.
•  And this also tells me your friend was talking about the other fellow behind his back. Big, big one

The fact that you decided to take the matters into your own hands was also very eagle like!

But to me it seemed a little abrupt.

Me: So what made you think that A (common friend) is a toxic person?

Him: Why are you asking?

It looked confrontational and somewhat dismissive of him/his feelings, so it set up the structure for his defensiveness. It gave me the impression that you put your feelings to the forefront, so it was actually fair to him to question what you had to do with their problems. Then, later, when you further interrogated him, he felt cornered against the wall. Still, the way he handled it totally proves you are right. He overreacted again.

But perhaps if you tried something like

You: Bob, I don't mean to interfere in you and Mike's affairs. But I noticed you guys are not getting along, and for me it's been very difficult because I care a lot about you and want to spend time with you two, ant it pains me when two people I like are at odds with each other. I believe you have a good reason for not talking to him, and would like to understand better what happened if you'd be willing to share it with me.

He might be better willing to open up. If he doesn't, you just acknowledge that you understand if he wants to keep it among themselves, and move on.

 

Kavalier, I agree that I wasn't being clear about the pre-context points since I personally had emotions attached to those. Those do seem like judgements without me providing emotional context.

So to clarify, for points 3-4, it was his behaviors of either talking incessantly about how those women were perfect, and the ones who dumped him as bitches etc. He is the type of guy who would talk about what excites him 10 times with his loudest enthusiasm. I don't really like that, and he didn't care, and this forces us to all accept who he is because he can (self-centered).

For 5, it was his negative attitude about his work, and then with this change how he wouldn't be able to afford things and stuff in our city (cost of living is high), and he might move away soon (never happened), again the same rambling issue.

I appreciate the point about the opening being confrontational, my attempt in this conversation was by no means perfect. I just got to the frame control section and eager to learn more.

 

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 2, 2022, 4:38 pm

Great case study again.

I second Kavalier almost word for word on what I'd consider red flags, and what not.

What's not a red flag but more of a fact is that he comes across as rather testy and confrontational in the exchanges you posted, and seems more focused on power and winning than on anything else -now that's another big red flag-.

And I second John that was was the worst:

Him: What is wrong with you

When uncalled for, that's often a nasty power.
It's akin to "you're weird / not normal". There was a thread once on this and can't find it now, but basically it seeks to sub-communicate that one is not fit to socialize with others and deserving to be ostracized.

Overall, I think you did great in the beginning.
And OK at self-defense.

But lost track of your initial superior frame.

Here's where it started great:

Quote from Rwy on July 2, 2022, 1:13 pm

Me: Imagine if you have two friends who don't talk to each other, it's not a good feeling. I don't need to be involved and I don't intend to take sides, but it's affecting me nonetheless.

Perfect so far.

You're giving valid reasons for inquiring: it's because there's something in it for you, you're not being nosy, you want to know because both are your friends, both important to your social life, and because the situation affects you and want to know how to behave properly going forward.

Until now you're in the "right" because your inquiry is supported by your rights as a common friend: there's something at stake for you.

Plus, it's what any high-quality person would do: find out about the people close them (something you could also say BTW, albeit a bit more advanced).

However, you lose that good frame here:

Quote from Rwy on July 2, 2022, 1:13 pm

Him: I have a lot of friends who don't like each other, it happens. Not everyone has to like each other. I also don't see how it's affecting you.

Me: I don't know about others. (<--- fantastic)
If you guys never liked each other that's a different story. (<--- Ok-ish)
Isn't it a bit dramatic when it got so hostile this quickly? (<--- unneeded, and feels judgmental)
.... (<---where's your reason for asking? Keep your WIIFM and you're justified to ask. Lose it, and it can feel invasive)

Him: It's hostile? I don't think I'm hostile towards him, I just want to be acquaintances. (<---goes off a tangent, and you'll never get back on track from here)

You went from:

• Inquiring to better understand the situation as it affects you

To:

• Inquiring out of... What? There's no strong "why" anymore

And the second part of the sentence also feels judgmental.

From then on, it devolved into power moves and one-upping.

Don't get me wrong: it seems like this person was hostile from the beginning and probably would have gone poorly anyway.
But you still had to stick to your initial frame of :

"two friends in common suddenly don't want to see each other, and since I'm friends with both and since that also affects me, then that's why I need to know more".

Stick to your initial frame, lead that interaction, don't allow the turkey to pull you down into go-nowhere nastiness and power moves.

Makes sense?

Yes, makes perfect sense, Lucio.

I realized that I could have been more collaborative especially since this was a very sensitive topic for him.

I just got to the frame control section in PU and totally agree that it's better to seek win-win in how things are phrased. Looking forward to deepening my knowledge in this.

 

 

Quote from MMC on July 2, 2022, 7:13 pm

Hi, I wonder if you could give me permission to be frank. I see that his is highly emotional person. Besides that, I think everyone has the freedom of choosing his/her own friends.

“Drill sergeant attitude”: I think this heavily depends on the content and context. Is his advice useful or just useless complaints? If the former, then I cannot conclude that he is negative.

"Weird taste of girls": I see nothing wrong with it. It is his personal business. If someone believes that everyone should have the same taste, either s/he has a problem, or s/he is trying to be the social judge.

"Dissatisfaction with dating in general with many dating experiences": Is he complaining with negative emotions? If not, then I don't personally judge a person based on his dating successfulness; for example, many high functioning autistic men remain virgins, and I don't think it is their mistake.

"Career trajectory": I see nothing wrong with it. It is his personal choices. Unless you (or he) are looking for business partners or providers (which are neutral words), his career is his own business not yours. I personally don't judge a person by his personal wealth, i.e. I won't say Elon Musk is more successful or less successful than a random ascetic.

"Refuse to be friend with someone": it is his freedom. No one can legally or ethically force someone to be friend with someone else. Of course, you are also free to be friend/unfriend anyone.

To be honest, the following quote seems to be the "drill sergeant attitude", "teacher-student frame", or "police-criminal frame" to me: you seem to trying to position yourself as the high-leader of the social circle, with all the power of interrogation and investigation.

That was the last known interaction to me. And that's why I am asking what happened, which you refused to clarify. In a social circle, there is your needs/feelings and also those of everyone else's. It is not only your feelings that matter.

He has no responsible to clarify anything, unless you are the investigator and he is the suspect in an interrogation chamber.

---

 

Of course, his words do seem to be not friendly:

Him: Just because you say all of this doesn't make it true.

Him: I don't know why you are coming out of nowhere to pick fights.

Him: What is wrong with you.

 

But they should not be taken out of context. I guess you hand-picked those sentences from the whole conversation. To better understand the whole interaction, we need to know what you said before he expressed those negative emotions. From his angle, you were the one who fabricated some claims and picked up these fight (which are not necessarily true). We need to know the whole picture to understand more.

From your description, the story seems to go like this: he decided to have a unique taste of girls, career, and friends. You disagree with his tastes and want him to be friend with someone he hates; then he gets highly emotional. You think "you lost power" and ask for help here.

To sum up, I agree that he is highly emotional, which is usually bad in most professional settings. However, I believe that everyone (possibly except ascetic) can get emotional. Emotion is a human nature, and strong emotion is often caused by a strong reason.

At the same time, you did not loss any power. You are still free to unfriend anyone you don't like.

 

Whoa whoa whoa, please let's not get into this too quickly. With limited information, I would usually ask more questions without judging the person who's posting first, no? I am far from a judgmental person and was being lenient to him for a long time (a couple years). And some of your statements went too far. By taking side with my non-present frenemy and judging me, it doesn't seem a good move :). I admit that I did not provide enough context to those pre-context statements, and I will explain below. For your questions:

“Drill sergeant attitude”: I think this heavily depends on the content and context. Is his advice useful or just useless complaints? If the former, then I cannot conclude that he is negative.

I would say probably 30% of his advice is useful, and the remaining are "do as what I say"/"my way or the highway" type of statements.

"Weird taste of girls": I see nothing wrong with it. It is his personal business. If someone believes that everyone should have the same taste, either s/he has a problem, or s/he is trying to be the social judge.

I don't care what other people do as long as they sort themselves out. But I don't like someone constantly in my space talking about a thing that's so exciting to him incessantly. It is his constant talking about what he likes about a girl in what way, and it's really getting to the point of TMI for all of us. I talked to multiple friends about it and they all notice it, some just tolerate it.

"Dissatisfaction with dating in general with many dating experiences": Is he complaining with negative emotions? If not, then I don't personally judge a person based on his dating successfulness; for example, many high functioning autistic men remain virgins, and I don't think it is their mistake.

Yes, complaining a lot about people who ghosted or dumped him. I wouldn't think that everyone of them was an abuser, sometimes things just didn't work out.

"Career trajectory": I see nothing wrong with it. It is his personal choices. Unless you (or he) are looking for business partners or providers (which are neutral words), his career is his own business not yours. I personally don't judge a person by his personal wealth, i.e. I won't say Elon Musk is more successful or less successful than a random ascetic.

I have the same attitude as you. It is how emotionally reactive he is about this whole change, as well as being pessimistic about the dating scene here since we live in an expensive city, and city dating is also hard. And he said many times that he was going to leave but with no clear follow-up. Certainly as a friend I didn't feel he cared about any of us when he said that, because you don't just leave your social circle like that.

"Refuse to be friend with someone": it is his freedom. No one can legally or ethically force someone to be friend with someone else. Of course, you are also free to be friend/unfriend anyone.

This person he now says is toxic, he remained close friends with for 5 years. He CHOSE to be his friend. I did not force him to be friends with him. I came into this circle with them already being friends in the first place and had a much closer relationship with each other than either of them with me.

To be honest, the following quote seems to be the "drill sergeant attitude", "teacher-student frame", or "police-criminal frame" to me: you seem to trying to position yourself as the high-leader of the social circle, with all the power of interrogation and investigation.

That was the last known interaction to me. And that's why I am asking what happened, which you refused to clarify. In a social circle, there is your needs/feelings and also those of everyone else's. It is not only your feelings that matter.

He has no responsible to clarify anything, unless you are the investigator and he is the suspect in an interrogation chamber.

I went meta on him. And I don't see that this is real attack, and with some aggression but definitely not nearly at the same level as what he did to me. I was super annoyed by this point, and I still provided context and explanation. The thing that is confrontational is "you refused to...". Because if he says it's only his feelings that matter, then he is self-centered.

But they should not be taken out of context. I guess you hand-picked those sentences from the whole conversation. To better understand the whole interaction, we need to know what you said before he expressed those negative emotions. From his angle, you were the one who fabricated some claims and picked up these fight (which are not necessarily true). We need to know the whole picture to understand more.

Please, here it is from your own imagination. How do you know I "hand-picked" the sentences? I omitted a long message I sent him before (with more specific personal information that isn't relevant to the dynamic) he went with multiple questions and attacks with me in the end.

At the same time, you did not loss any power. You are still free to unfriend anyone you don't like.

I don't know how you arrived on this conclusion. Do I deserve to be attacked like that? Being attacked like that is power loss to me. In my world those statements he made were just nasty and unnecessary. It crossed a line. I wasn't being the coolest of myself but I did not attack him, I did not demand him to do a single thing, as I stated my feelings and wishes only.

 

I still believe that you did not lose any power if the conversation is a private one. Let me clarify.

First, he had a good friend. Then, for some reasons, he starts to hate his friend. Then, you ask him to respect the common friend (i.e. "greet each other"). Finally, he gets super emotional, which also makes you bit angry.

You did not lose any power because of three reasons. First, from your description he is just like a crying baby; therefore, any adults don't lose power just because of a baby's emotion. Second, I guess that his primary reason of getting angry is because of the friend he hates, not you. He is angry about that friend and your defensive words for that friend i.e. "How do you know that was our last interaction?"  Last, his angry words stays in private and you did not lose any power in your social circle.

My point is, in most social circles, no one is rightfully the high-judge/police. I expressed my personal preference against social judge/police and clearly I have no side or no WIIFT to take side. Well, if expressing the preference against judging is itself judging, then I am indeed judging ;)

Again, as I don't have the full details, my guesses could be entirely off-track.

Quote from Emily on July 3, 2022, 7:03 am

Quote from MMC on July 3, 2022, 5:43 am

Quote from Rwy on July 3, 2022, 12:27 am

Quote from John Freeman on July 2, 2022, 1:45 pm

Great example, Emily. Thanks for sharing.

Honestly, I was getting a bit annoyed at his "not getting it", as it was pretty clear to me.

It's not that he's not getting it. He's totally getting it. He just does not want to buy into your frame and justifying himself which would give you the judge power. So he's power aware. The problem here is that there is not enough transparency here to call your relationship a friendly relationship to me. This is the moment where he could be vulnerable about how he felt. However he's not willing/not able to do so.

Me: That was the last known interaction to me. And that's why I am asking what happened, which you refused to clarify. In a social circle, there is your needs/feelings and also those of everyone else's. It is not only your feelings that matter. I'll stop there.

Him:Good. Stop there.

Here he's tasking you. I think you could re-empower yourself while staying collaborative (I learned this here):

Me: That was the last known interaction to me. And that's why I am asking what happened, which you refused to clarify. In a social circle, there is your needs/feelings and also those of everyone else's. It is not only your feelings that matter. I'll stop there.

Him:Good. Stop there. (yes it's true he's taking the judge role AND tasking you)

Me: Yes (stay collaborative), that's what I said (rejecting the empty tasking as you already said what you were going to do). Anyway (moving on).

I don't think all of these are all attacks:

Him:I don't understand this.

Not an attack in itself, but asks you to justify yourself, pushing you to invest and empowering him.

Him:Just because you say all of this doesn't make it true.

Not an attack by itself. More a defense using a Philosopher's frame.

Him:I don't know why you are coming out of nowhere to pick fights:

This is clearly an attack, framing you as the attacker.

Him:What is wrong with you

This is clearly an attack, framing you as something who has mental issues.

In hindsight, I could see that this person was constantly firing attacks at me in this conversation and I should have stopped when he started with the "a lot of people don't like each other" statement and leave at it to prevent further negativity from him.

I agree. These people are masters at manipulation. They're not willing to take responsibility of their actions, so this is not a conversation where people exchange their perspectives. But more a debate where people try to convince one another since there is no common ground of basic facts the person is not willing to acknowledge.

I think with manipulators, the best strategy is to defend oneself. A draw is a win with these people. If you see they're not willing to admit, you pushing for them to admit will only bring you to a dead-end.

Generally speaking, there are many red flags. I would also slowly fade this person away if you don't need anything specific from this person. If you do (connections, material stuff, etc.). I would change my strategy (machiavellian) and be hypocritical on purpose: be warm and smiley when you see him on rare occasions to be able to still get some value from this person. Make him believe you like him (if you need him). Otherwise, slowly fade him away and enjoy your new better life without a toxic person.

Yeah I agree that he is power-aware, John. It didn't come to me first, since I thought we were friends and he wouldn't be in that kind of mindset (me being naive). I resonate with your statement, as I did learn from my past experience that abusive people know exactly what they are doing.

I also agree that not all of them were attacks, I was emotionally frazzled when I wrote this (practicing to be emotionally detached). What I meant was every one of his responses was value-taking, as for the ones that were not attacks he either tasked me or asked me to expend more effort.

And yes, I also had the inkling that the exit from me needs to be strategic, and share the thoughts you had on slow fade or being more covert.

 

Quote from Kavalier on July 2, 2022, 3:36 pm

Hello, Emily

Quote from Rwy on July 2, 2022, 1:13 pm

1. Extreme/out of proportion emotions (generally low power according to PU);
2. Drill sergeant attitude in group activities (could be good but he puts himself as judge a lot regardless if he is in position);
3. Weird/eccentric taste towards women (whereas no one else thinks the girls he was so attracted to were really that attractive);
4. Dissatisfaction with dating in general with many dating experiences where he was sucking up to the date, and then got rejected/dumped;
5. Career trajectory where he downgraded his financial earnings by more than 50%, albeit he said he has been happier.

1 and 2 are major red flags.

4 maybe. It is something to keep in mind but maybe more of a sign that he's not very effective with women. It's quite common for guys who seek dating advice to put women they like in a pedestal (films and books could be partially blamed for that, as well as low self-esteem); his attitudes towards women - and how he speaks about those women he dated -, in contrast, would be very telling. You are right that it's not a sign of high value though.

5 maybe but it also depends. I did this myself. I was at a job where I was gaining a lot, but the workload was insane and I was lacking time/energy for social interactions and side projects.

3 I would discount from the list. Tastes may be very subjective.

In the whole, even the "maybes" weight against him in this particular case (though I wouldn't take them as a bad sign if they were a standalone in a generally well adjusted person).

Being at odds with someone also happens. I think it's actually okay if two people don't get along, though it's something to be avoided. In PU there was an example of two very high value guys - they were I think Motocross pilots but I don't remember their names - who wouldn't shake hands even under social pressure (in public).

That said, if it got to the point where you have to choose between them, it's fair for you to choose. And the way he handles is indeed very, very red flag:

• Blaming someone else for one's own problems
• Labelling someone a "toxic personality" when nobody else can relate (still, it it were a standalone, I would take this with a grain of salt. I had a "friend" who singled me out and was constantly passive-agressive towards me. I learned later that the reason was a girl I used to date and whom he had been involved with in the past - now, he had absolutely no reason for that, especially when it had already ended and I couldn't possibly have known of their affair. The grudge also lasted disproportionately long - still, he was generally well-liked and pretty high status in the group.
•  And this also tells me your friend was talking about the other fellow behind his back. Big, big one

The fact that you decided to take the matters into your own hands was also very eagle like!

But to me it seemed a little abrupt.

Me: So what made you think that A (common friend) is a toxic person?

Him: Why are you asking?

It looked confrontational and somewhat dismissive of him/his feelings, so it set up the structure for his defensiveness. It gave me the impression that you put your feelings to the forefront, so it was actually fair to him to question what you had to do with their problems. Then, later, when you further interrogated him, he felt cornered against the wall. Still, the way he handled it totally proves you are right. He overreacted again.

But perhaps if you tried something like

You: Bob, I don't mean to interfere in you and Mike's affairs. But I noticed you guys are not getting along, and for me it's been very difficult because I care a lot about you and want to spend time with you two, ant it pains me when two people I like are at odds with each other. I believe you have a good reason for not talking to him, and would like to understand better what happened if you'd be willing to share it with me.

He might be better willing to open up. If he doesn't, you just acknowledge that you understand if he wants to keep it among themselves, and move on.

 

Kavalier, I agree that I wasn't being clear about the pre-context points since I personally had emotions attached to those. Those do seem like judgements without me providing emotional context.

So to clarify, for points 3-4, it was his behaviors of either talking incessantly about how those women were perfect, and the ones who dumped him as bitches etc. He is the type of guy who would talk about what excites him 10 times with his loudest enthusiasm. I don't really like that, and he didn't care, and this forces us to all accept who he is because he can (self-centered).

For 5, it was his negative attitude about his work, and then with this change how he wouldn't be able to afford things and stuff in our city (cost of living is high), and he might move away soon (never happened), again the same rambling issue.

I appreciate the point about the opening being confrontational, my attempt in this conversation was by no means perfect. I just got to the frame control section and eager to learn more.

 

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 2, 2022, 4:38 pm

Great case study again.

I second Kavalier almost word for word on what I'd consider red flags, and what not.

What's not a red flag but more of a fact is that he comes across as rather testy and confrontational in the exchanges you posted, and seems more focused on power and winning than on anything else -now that's another big red flag-.

And I second John that was was the worst:

Him: What is wrong with you

When uncalled for, that's often a nasty power.
It's akin to "you're weird / not normal". There was a thread once on this and can't find it now, but basically it seeks to sub-communicate that one is not fit to socialize with others and deserving to be ostracized.

Overall, I think you did great in the beginning.
And OK at self-defense.

But lost track of your initial superior frame.

Here's where it started great:

Quote from Rwy on July 2, 2022, 1:13 pm

Me: Imagine if you have two friends who don't talk to each other, it's not a good feeling. I don't need to be involved and I don't intend to take sides, but it's affecting me nonetheless.

Perfect so far.

You're giving valid reasons for inquiring: it's because there's something in it for you, you're not being nosy, you want to know because both are your friends, both important to your social life, and because the situation affects you and want to know how to behave properly going forward.

Until now you're in the "right" because your inquiry is supported by your rights as a common friend: there's something at stake for you.

Plus, it's what any high-quality person would do: find out about the people close them (something you could also say BTW, albeit a bit more advanced).

However, you lose that good frame here:

Quote from Rwy on July 2, 2022, 1:13 pm

Him: I have a lot of friends who don't like each other, it happens. Not everyone has to like each other. I also don't see how it's affecting you.

Me: I don't know about others. (<--- fantastic)
If you guys never liked each other that's a different story. (<--- Ok-ish)
Isn't it a bit dramatic when it got so hostile this quickly? (<--- unneeded, and feels judgmental)
.... (<---where's your reason for asking? Keep your WIIFM and you're justified to ask. Lose it, and it can feel invasive)

Him: It's hostile? I don't think I'm hostile towards him, I just want to be acquaintances. (<---goes off a tangent, and you'll never get back on track from here)

You went from:

• Inquiring to better understand the situation as it affects you

To:

• Inquiring out of... What? There's no strong "why" anymore

And the second part of the sentence also feels judgmental.

From then on, it devolved into power moves and one-upping.

Don't get me wrong: it seems like this person was hostile from the beginning and probably would have gone poorly anyway.
But you still had to stick to your initial frame of :

"two friends in common suddenly don't want to see each other, and since I'm friends with both and since that also affects me, then that's why I need to know more".

Stick to your initial frame, lead that interaction, don't allow the turkey to pull you down into go-nowhere nastiness and power moves.

Makes sense?

Yes, makes perfect sense, Lucio.

I realized that I could have been more collaborative especially since this was a very sensitive topic for him.

I just got to the frame control section in PU and totally agree that it's better to seek win-win in how things are phrased. Looking forward to deepening my knowledge in this.

 

 

Quote from MMC on July 2, 2022, 7:13 pm

Hi, I wonder if you could give me permission to be frank. I see that his is highly emotional person. Besides that, I think everyone has the freedom of choosing his/her own friends.

“Drill sergeant attitude”: I think this heavily depends on the content and context. Is his advice useful or just useless complaints? If the former, then I cannot conclude that he is negative.

"Weird taste of girls": I see nothing wrong with it. It is his personal business. If someone believes that everyone should have the same taste, either s/he has a problem, or s/he is trying to be the social judge.

"Dissatisfaction with dating in general with many dating experiences": Is he complaining with negative emotions? If not, then I don't personally judge a person based on his dating successfulness; for example, many high functioning autistic men remain virgins, and I don't think it is their mistake.

"Career trajectory": I see nothing wrong with it. It is his personal choices. Unless you (or he) are looking for business partners or providers (which are neutral words), his career is his own business not yours. I personally don't judge a person by his personal wealth, i.e. I won't say Elon Musk is more successful or less successful than a random ascetic.

"Refuse to be friend with someone": it is his freedom. No one can legally or ethically force someone to be friend with someone else. Of course, you are also free to be friend/unfriend anyone.

To be honest, the following quote seems to be the "drill sergeant attitude", "teacher-student frame", or "police-criminal frame" to me: you seem to trying to position yourself as the high-leader of the social circle, with all the power of interrogation and investigation.

That was the last known interaction to me. And that's why I am asking what happened, which you refused to clarify. In a social circle, there is your needs/feelings and also those of everyone else's. It is not only your feelings that matter.

He has no responsible to clarify anything, unless you are the investigator and he is the suspect in an interrogation chamber.

---

 

Of course, his words do seem to be not friendly:

Him: Just because you say all of this doesn't make it true.

Him: I don't know why you are coming out of nowhere to pick fights.

Him: What is wrong with you.

 

But they should not be taken out of context. I guess you hand-picked those sentences from the whole conversation. To better understand the whole interaction, we need to know what you said before he expressed those negative emotions. From his angle, you were the one who fabricated some claims and picked up these fight (which are not necessarily true). We need to know the whole picture to understand more.

From your description, the story seems to go like this: he decided to have a unique taste of girls, career, and friends. You disagree with his tastes and want him to be friend with someone he hates; then he gets highly emotional. You think "you lost power" and ask for help here.

To sum up, I agree that he is highly emotional, which is usually bad in most professional settings. However, I believe that everyone (possibly except ascetic) can get emotional. Emotion is a human nature, and strong emotion is often caused by a strong reason.

At the same time, you did not loss any power. You are still free to unfriend anyone you don't like.

 

Whoa whoa whoa, please let's not get into this too quickly. With limited information, I would usually ask more questions without judging the person who's posting first, no? I am far from a judgmental person and was being lenient to him for a long time (a couple years). And some of your statements went too far. By taking side with my non-present frenemy and judging me, it doesn't seem a good move :). I admit that I did not provide enough context to those pre-context statements, and I will explain below. For your questions:

“Drill sergeant attitude”: I think this heavily depends on the content and context. Is his advice useful or just useless complaints? If the former, then I cannot conclude that he is negative.

I would say probably 30% of his advice is useful, and the remaining are "do as what I say"/"my way or the highway" type of statements.

"Weird taste of girls": I see nothing wrong with it. It is his personal business. If someone believes that everyone should have the same taste, either s/he has a problem, or s/he is trying to be the social judge.

I don't care what other people do as long as they sort themselves out. But I don't like someone constantly in my space talking about a thing that's so exciting to him incessantly. It is his constant talking about what he likes about a girl in what way, and it's really getting to the point of TMI for all of us. I talked to multiple friends about it and they all notice it, some just tolerate it.

"Dissatisfaction with dating in general with many dating experiences": Is he complaining with negative emotions? If not, then I don't personally judge a person based on his dating successfulness; for example, many high functioning autistic men remain virgins, and I don't think it is their mistake.

Yes, complaining a lot about people who ghosted or dumped him. I wouldn't think that everyone of them was an abuser, sometimes things just didn't work out.

"Career trajectory": I see nothing wrong with it. It is his personal choices. Unless you (or he) are looking for business partners or providers (which are neutral words), his career is his own business not yours. I personally don't judge a person by his personal wealth, i.e. I won't say Elon Musk is more successful or less successful than a random ascetic.

I have the same attitude as you. It is how emotionally reactive he is about this whole change, as well as being pessimistic about the dating scene here since we live in an expensive city, and city dating is also hard. And he said many times that he was going to leave but with no clear follow-up. Certainly as a friend I didn't feel he cared about any of us when he said that, because you don't just leave your social circle like that.

"Refuse to be friend with someone": it is his freedom. No one can legally or ethically force someone to be friend with someone else. Of course, you are also free to be friend/unfriend anyone.

This person he now says is toxic, he remained close friends with for 5 years. He CHOSE to be his friend. I did not force him to be friends with him. I came into this circle with them already being friends in the first place and had a much closer relationship with each other than either of them with me.

To be honest, the following quote seems to be the "drill sergeant attitude", "teacher-student frame", or "police-criminal frame" to me: you seem to trying to position yourself as the high-leader of the social circle, with all the power of interrogation and investigation.

That was the last known interaction to me. And that's why I am asking what happened, which you refused to clarify. In a social circle, there is your needs/feelings and also those of everyone else's. It is not only your feelings that matter.

He has no responsible to clarify anything, unless you are the investigator and he is the suspect in an interrogation chamber.

I went meta on him. And I don't see that this is real attack, and with some aggression but definitely not nearly at the same level as what he did to me. I was super annoyed by this point, and I still provided context and explanation. The thing that is confrontational is "you refused to...". Because if he says it's only his feelings that matter, then he is self-centered.

But they should not be taken out of context. I guess you hand-picked those sentences from the whole conversation. To better understand the whole interaction, we need to know what you said before he expressed those negative emotions. From his angle, you were the one who fabricated some claims and picked up these fight (which are not necessarily true). We need to know the whole picture to understand more.

Please, here it is from your own imagination. How do you know I "hand-picked" the sentences? I omitted a long message I sent him before (with more specific personal information that isn't relevant to the dynamic) he went with multiple questions and attacks with me in the end.

At the same time, you did not loss any power. You are still free to unfriend anyone you don't like.

I don't know how you arrived on this conclusion. Do I deserve to be attacked like that? Being attacked like that is power loss to me. In my world those statements he made were just nasty and unnecessary. It crossed a line. I wasn't being the coolest of myself but I did not attack him, I did not demand him to do a single thing, as I stated my feelings and wishes only.

 

I still believe that you did not lose any power if the conversation is a private one. Let me clarify.

First, he had a good friend. Then, for some reasons, he starts to hate his friend. Then, you ask him to respect the common friend (i.e. "greet each other"). Finally, he gets super emotional, which also makes you bit angry.

You did not lose any power because of three reasons. First, from your description he is just like a crying baby; therefore, any adults don't lose power just because of a baby's emotion. Second, I guess that his primary reason of getting angry is because of the friend he hates, not you. He is angry about that friend and your defensive words for that friend i.e. "How do you know that was our last interaction?"  Last, his angry words stays in private and you did not lose any power in your social circle.

My point is, in most social circles, no one is rightfully the high-judge/police. I expressed my personal preference against social judge/police and clearly I have no side or no WIIFT to take side. Well, if expressing the preference against judging is itself judging, then I am indeed judging 😉

Again, as I don't have the full details, my guesses could be entirely off-track.

In this specific conversation he attacked me directly, that by itself weakens my power, and I was also not able to correct that. It has nothing to do with whether it was public or not, or whether it was me that triggered him.

I share your root-level perspectives of personal power (reframing him as "a crying baby", and "freedom to choose to friend/unfriend”). What I was uncomfortable with your previous response was, you seemed to give him a lot of benefit of doubt and gave me little. You questioned every statement I made about him (which I had a long history of observations to back up, just I wasn't explaining everything because I wanted to focus on the interaction only), and were framing me as a "judge" person and “drill sergeant”, which I don't think was backed up by good, consistent evidence.