False accusations
I will thank and appreciate the ideas of members on how they would have handled false accusations.
These are the common types of situations and I hereby share my thoughts on how to handle them.
Person A- you are only doing good because of person B.
Reply - You are only jealous. Maybe in the future you will know the experience of mutual growth where you help each other out.
Person A - X action you did was (framed in a negative light)
Reply - I don't know what you are talking about.X action was did for (framed in a positive light)
Person A - You did X only to (someway that harms them, though that wasn't the intention).
Reply - X was did to (someway that helps others). Don't be hard on yourself that everyone is out to get you.
If anyone has encountered any other types of false accusations do share and let's make this discussion fruitful and hopefully a compilation to easily handle such encounters.
All them are good.
1 and 3 go down on it strong.
Sometimes you do want to attack back strongly, but that also means that you let them dictate your mood and behavior. And you let them drag you to turkey behavior.
So if there are no people around, if you have a strong reputation and/or if you have little to fear from the attack, I would rather soar higher and either ignore or quickly dismiss (eagle approach).
I saw Lucio's re-vamped frame control modules on this.
I found those techniques to be very useful against false accusations.
Something like
Person A - X action you did was (framed in a negative light)
You: Please elaborate
Person A: (elaborates)
You: That's false
Person A: No, blah blah blah
You: You need to check your facts.
I think this video of Obama against Romney is relevant:
Good one, Matthew.
I added a few notes to PU now.
Ignore When:
- The attacker has low status: if you engage him head-on, you take too seriously someone who can be safely ignored
- The attack hasn't been heard by anyone: then it doesn't exist. Replying turns something doesn't exist into something real
- You have very good reputation: your reputation is an "always-on" shield. What's the point of a good reputation if you must waste time on idiots?
- The attack is obviously unfounded: if it does no damage, you need not to waste time on it
Take action when:
- The attacker has high-status and is publicly disempowering you
- The attack is damaging: it's well-founded, it's gaining traction, or it hits a known issue that many people agree with (then, address the root causes)
- The frame is up for grabs and you need to set your frame: sometimes setting your frame is important. For example, when you need to persuade, or when the frame is being negotiated. Then you can't just sit back. You need to make your voice be heard and step into the fray
- You'd look weak if you don't react: but watch out, this can be a trap. Most people overreact out ot fear of being weak, when instead it would be far higher power to ignore
What would be the reply for these? (Eagle approach)
Person A- you are only doing good because of person B.
Strong Reply - You are only jealous. Maybe in the future you will know the experience of mutual growth where you help each other out.
Person A - You did X only to (someway that harms them, though that wasn't the intention).
Strong Reply - X was did to (someway that helps others). Don't be hard on yourself that everyone is out to get you.
Also thanks and much appreciation for sharing your thoughts.