Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumResources: Researches, Studies, TheoriesLearningFeedbacks & clarifications

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Feedbacks & clarifications

#121 · February 16, 2021, 3:07 pm

Hello Matthew,

thank you for your offer. I would like an external opinion first in this case if you don't mind?

Matthew Whitewood has reacted to this post.

#122 · February 16, 2021, 3:10 pm

Sure, let's for the external feedback.
I thank Lucio for his time and attention.

I believe that the issue could be how I express my discomfort.

Lucio Buffalmano and Sam Wellington have reacted to this post.

#123 · February 16, 2021, 3:14 pm

Alright, I'll get to it, give me some time to read the exchanges and formulate the response.

Matthew Whitewood, John Freeman and 2 other users have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#124 · February 17, 2021, 8:57 am

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 17, 2021, 8:57 am
I just realize I ended up posting in the wrong thread.
Here it is for future reference:
This is my personal view.
I quote pieces that allowed me to make a point.
It's not an analysis as to who's right, but an analysis of what both can do better going forward (always in my opinion).
Pardon potential mistakes, it's a long text, so proof-reading was spotty.
The Beginning
Personally, I’d have felt the original statement, in that context, was direct and “making no bones about it”, but not particularly impolite.
And neither would have I felt it was exceptionally polite.
Maybe a grey area closer to white.
That being said, I don't think it was a smart social strategy, and could have been worded better to avoid negative interpretations (see later in “protecting power”).
Summary: Matthew might have adopted more detachment, John can stick to direct talk, which works well in many situations, but adopting "power protecting" can make him a far smoother, refined social operator.
Raising The Issue: More Specificity Helps
Matthew: John, I don't feel that this is polite.
I am offering suggestions, and this is a demanding statement for me to re-read your post again.
The initial request for clarification could have been more specific about what was it that made it impolite.
Accepting Other People’s Reality Once The Issue Is Raised: Always A Good Idea
Once Matthew raised the issue on this post, there was no validation.
I'd have validated his interpretation. Even if I disagreed.
Because:
Interpretations are (their) reality
Not validating their reality is the best way to escalate -while going nowhere-
Validating their reality is the best way to move towards resolution -and the first step towards persuasion-
See how I approached it in this same thread, on a previous clarification:
Me: Matthew, I think your (sic) raise very valid points (validation)
And:
Me: To clarify some of the possible misunderstandings: (“misunderstanding” frames the issue as shared, now Matthew is more likely to listen non-defensiely)
And:
Me: That's a great point (it's always great to give points to others. And never it is as important as during disagreements and clarification)
After the discussion was reaching a better:
Me: Also, I recognize I'm personally biased on the topic. (takes more of the blame, "cements" the agreement and resolution with some more giving)
So by using the same strategy, this:
John original: I think my statement might have been taken personally. Here is my perspective:
Could have become:
John validating: I can see how it might be perceived that way, that wasn’t my intention (and I’m sorry if you felt that way)
Let me clarify
Then you can go on and say the exact same things.
Of course, it can happen that you truly don’t see their point of view, and you can be very honest about it, I’ve done it many times over, and it sounds like this:
Validation disagreement: I disagree with that, I think you might have taken something that was meant in a factual way, at a personal level.
BUT, if you felt that way, that’s your reality, and it’s true and valid (= I disagree, but still respect and take your point of view seriously)
Then go on and clarify your point.
Power protecting: how to word sensitive feedback / rejections / denials / criticims
Woridng is where the “status-protecting”, and “power protecting” kicks in.
As a rule of thumb, the more driven and high-power/status the individuals, the more important power-protecting becomes.
In a place where people are learning power dynamics and social strategies to achieve goals, we’re likely to be dealing with people where power-protecting is a good strategy.
Matthew: John, I don't feel that this is polite.
I am offering suggestions, and this is a demanding statement for me to re-read your post again.
A more power-protecting way of phrasing it:
Matthew Power Protecting: John, I get your point, and I get my advice wasn’t useful to you.
Fair enough.
That being said, the way it was phrased, it felt impolite to me.
On John’s side, a power-protecting way of rejecting the initial advice:
John Power Protecting: Matthew, thank you for the advice.
As per the dynamics above, I don’t think it would work in this case…
Even more power protecting:
John Power Protecting: That could work if… But not in this case
Any of the two above would have prevented this escalation.
In most situations in life you won't get a feedback though.
So John would have instead lost some rapport, connection, and friendship.
Power protecting in these scenarios is a generally smart strategy at different levels:
More likely to preserve and improve the relationship
More likely to get more present and future contribution from the same person
More likely to get more present and future contribution from others
Why?
Because when people see that contributions are met with value and appreciation, no matter what the contribution is, it encourages more people to chip in.
Yes, you will also get advice that does not apply, but with quantity often comes quality as well.
Clarifying VS winning the argument
Once an issue has been raised, there are two different roads:
Clarifying
Proving we’re right
The two aren’t always and necessarily mutually exclusive, but they often are.
A sentence like this:
I think it was clear to Lucio but not to you.
It’s showing the other wrong (winning the argument).
Even if we think we're right, I’d be careful with this approach.
It moves us away from resolution, and can get people very emotional, since it’s a way of saying “the problem was with you, and the proof is that this other person understood it”.
Specificity VS criticism
I noticed it a few times already: sometimes something is not clear to you (...)
It’s best to either provide a clear example here, or stick to the specif situation.
Otherwise it can be perceived as criticism, even if we don't mean it as criticism (criticism = global attack towards the person).
Criticism tends to move away from resolution, and into either escalation or endless discussions.
A finessing move to avoid raising people’s defenses and to move more smoothly towards quick resolution is to avoidthe word “you”.
I might sometimes go philosopher here and say something like:
It’s normal sometimes for people to feel...
Imagine power-protection on a scale, from worst to best (don’t make too much of it, I just jotted it down, but it can serve t give you an idea):
You are, you did, because you are…
You did this, you did that, you did this and that
You did this (once, but still with finger-pointing feel to it)
You did this, and I get it
You did this, and I get it, it’s normal,
You did this, and people sometimes do that…
Look, it’s normal that people do this thing that you did here…
Here, I am explaining to you twice why (…)
I’d avoid this wording, it can feel condescending to the receiver.
Some people use this format to increase the “pressure” on the receiver.
It's as if to say “I’ve already done this several times (most people would get it, so the problem is you), and I’m getting exasperated.
That puts pressure on the other individual to “drop it”, but if they drop it, they only drop it externally, while they’ll still feel internally it was unfair
To keep the same wording, equally factual:
I explained twice why it’s not an optimal strategy, so when you accuse me of being impolite, I feel….
Frame Imposing
Matthew, for the last time: this statement is NOT impolite.
This is frame imposing.
I'd keep frame imposing only for fringe cases in which we need to defend crucial boundaries of basic respect, and I'd avoid it during clarifications.
When the focus is on winning, there is only one resolution: total victory on one side, and capitulation on the other side.
Albeit that's OK, and even great in some limited situations, in more cases, those are poor resolutions -in friendships, they tend to dissolve friendships. And in relationships, it starts tipping relationships into toxic ones-.

Summary: When the discussion moved on this thread, I think John could have focused (far) less on "proving right", and more on understanding and/or resolving.
There was no understanding, and little to no resolving, and some sentences provided hooks for fruitless, lose-lose escalation.
Keep it short and simple
Matthew, I’d personally try to keep the texts shorter, and focused on a single issue.
When we quote many different parts of an original message, we also open different threads going in a lot of different directions.
The receiver can feel overwhelmed and start wondering “what was the point, and what am I supposed to answer?”.
Then, the receiver is not sure what to answer, and that can be irritating for them.
It feels like “wait, why are we going on a detour, with 3 different paths to it? I thought were discussing a simple issue”.
That might even feel manipulative and covert aggressive in a twisted way.
They thought it was a simple issue, and now they feel like they’re being overwhelmed by the complexity and a form of “word salad”, and they lash out.
When they reply, they go back to the main issue they thought it was all about, which in this case was: polite or not?
But they might do it more aggressively, or angry, because they feel they’re losing control of the narrative.
Social chameleon: moving towards the middle
This was also a case where, in my opinion, social chameleon-ining was going to be helpful.
Matthew could have been more direct, briefer, and maybe replicate with frame-dominance of his own: "you say it's not impolite, but that's exactly what it felt to me".
John could have adopted more of Matthew's pleasantries, validated his point of view, and mirror his frame of "nothing personal towards you".
Being a social chameleon at the more advanced level is about understanding the other person, their style of communication, their psychological make-up, and adapting in a way that reaches goals quicker and more effectively.

I just realize I ended up posting in the wrong thread.

Here it is for future reference:

This is my personal view.

I quote pieces that allowed me to make a point.

It's not an analysis as to who's right, but an analysis of what both can do better going forward (always in my opinion).

Pardon potential mistakes, it's a long text, so proof-reading was spotty.

The Beginning

Personally, I’d have felt the original statement, in that context, was direct and “making no bones about it”, but not particularly impolite.

And neither would have I felt it was exceptionally polite.

Maybe a grey area closer to white.

That being said, I don't think it was a smart social strategy, and could have been worded better to avoid negative interpretations (see later in “protecting power”).

Summary: Matthew might have adopted more detachment, John can stick to direct talk, which works well in many situations, but adopting "power protecting" can make him a far smoother, refined social operator.

Raising The Issue: More Specificity Helps

Matthew: John, I don't feel that this is polite.
I am offering suggestions, and this is a demanding statement for me to re-read your post again.

The initial request for clarification could have been more specific about what was it that made it impolite.

Accepting Other People’s Reality Once The Issue Is Raised: Always A Good Idea

Once Matthew raised the issue on this post, there was no validation.

I'd have validated his interpretation. Even if I disagreed.
Because:

Interpretations are (their) reality
Not validating their reality is the best way to escalate -while going nowhere-
Validating their reality is the best way to move towards resolution -and the first step towards persuasion-

See how I approached it in this same thread, on a previous clarification:

Me: Matthew, I think your (sic) raise very valid points (validation)

And:

Me: To clarify some of the possible misunderstandings: (“misunderstanding” frames the issue as shared, now Matthew is more likely to listen non-defensiely)

And:

Me: That's a great point (it's always great to give points to others. And never it is as important as during disagreements and clarification)

After the discussion was reaching a better:

Me: Also, I recognize I'm personally biased on the topic. (takes more of the blame, "cements" the agreement and resolution with some more giving)

So by using the same strategy, this:

John original: I think my statement might have been taken personally. Here is my perspective:

Could have become:

John validating: I can see how it might be perceived that way, that wasn’t my intention (and I’m sorry if you felt that way)
Let me clarify

Then you can go on and say the exact same things.

Of course, it can happen that you truly don’t see their point of view, and you can be very honest about it, I’ve done it many times over, and it sounds like this:

Validation disagreement: I disagree with that, I think you might have taken something that was meant in a factual way, at a personal level.
BUT, if you felt that way, that’s your reality, and it’s true and valid (= I disagree, but still respect and take your point of view seriously)

Then go on and clarify your point.

Power protecting: how to word sensitive feedback / rejections / denials / criticims

Woridng is where the “status-protecting”, and “power protecting” kicks in.

As a rule of thumb, the more driven and high-power/status the individuals, the more important power-protecting becomes.

In a place where people are learning power dynamics and social strategies to achieve goals, we’re likely to be dealing with people where power-protecting is a good strategy.

Matthew: John, I don't feel that this is polite.
I am offering suggestions, and this is a demanding statement for me to re-read your post again.

A more power-protecting way of phrasing it:

Matthew Power Protecting: John, I get your point, and I get my advice wasn’t useful to you.
Fair enough.
That being said, the way it was phrased, it felt impolite to me.

On John’s side, a power-protecting way of rejecting the initial advice:

John Power Protecting: Matthew, thank you for the advice.
As per the dynamics above, I don’t think it would work in this case…

Even more power protecting:

John Power Protecting: That could work if… But not in this case

Any of the two above would have prevented this escalation.

In most situations in life you won't get a feedback though.
So John would have instead lost some rapport, connection, and friendship.

Power protecting in these scenarios is a generally smart strategy at different levels:

More likely to preserve and improve the relationship
More likely to get more present and future contribution from the same person
More likely to get more present and future contribution from others

Why?

Because when people see that contributions are met with value and appreciation, no matter what the contribution is, it encourages more people to chip in.
Yes, you will also get advice that does not apply, but with quantity often comes quality as well.

Clarifying VS winning the argument

Once an issue has been raised, there are two different roads:

Clarifying
Proving we’re right

The two aren’t always and necessarily mutually exclusive, but they often are.

A sentence like this:

I think it was clear to Lucio but not to you.

It’s showing the other wrong (winning the argument).

Even if we think we're right, I’d be careful with this approach.

It moves us away from resolution, and can get people very emotional, since it’s a way of saying “the problem was with you, and the proof is that this other person understood it”.

Specificity VS criticism

I noticed it a few times already: sometimes something is not clear to you (...)

It’s best to either provide a clear example here, or stick to the specif situation.
Otherwise it can be perceived as criticism, even if we don't mean it as criticism (criticism = global attack towards the person).

Criticism tends to move away from resolution, and into either escalation or endless discussions.

A finessing move to avoid raising people’s defenses and to move more smoothly towards quick resolution is to avoidthe word “you”.

I might sometimes go philosopher here and say something like:

It’s normal sometimes for people to feel...

Imagine power-protection on a scale, from worst to best (don’t make too much of it, I just jotted it down, but it can serve t give you an idea):

You are, you did, because you are…
You did this, you did that, you did this and that
You did this (once, but still with finger-pointing feel to it)
You did this, and I get it
You did this, and I get it, it’s normal,
You did this, and people sometimes do that…
Look, it’s normal that people do this thing that you did here…

Here, I am explaining to you twice why (…)

I’d avoid this wording, it can feel condescending to the receiver.

Some people use this format to increase the “pressure” on the receiver.
It's as if to say “I’ve already done this several times (most people would get it, so the problem is you), and I’m getting exasperated.

That puts pressure on the other individual to “drop it”, but if they drop it, they only drop it externally, while they’ll still feel internally it was unfair

To keep the same wording, equally factual:

I explained twice why it’s not an optimal strategy, so when you accuse me of being impolite, I feel….

Frame Imposing

Matthew, for the last time: this statement is NOT impolite.

This is frame imposing.

I'd keep frame imposing only for fringe cases in which we need to defend crucial boundaries of basic respect, and I'd avoid it during clarifications.

When the focus is on winning, there is only one resolution: total victory on one side, and capitulation on the other side.
Albeit that's OK, and even great in some limited situations, in more cases, those are poor resolutions -in friendships, they tend to dissolve friendships. And in relationships, it starts tipping relationships into toxic ones-.

Summary: When the discussion moved on this thread, I think John could have focused (far) less on "proving right", and more on understanding and/or resolving.
There was no understanding, and little to no resolving, and some sentences provided hooks for fruitless, lose-lose escalation.

Keep it short and simple

Matthew, I’d personally try to keep the texts shorter, and focused on a single issue.

When we quote many different parts of an original message, we also open different threads going in a lot of different directions.

The receiver can feel overwhelmed and start wondering “what was the point, and what am I supposed to answer?”.

Then, the receiver is not sure what to answer, and that can be irritating for them.
It feels like “wait, why are we going on a detour, with 3 different paths to it? I thought were discussing a simple issue”.

That might even feel manipulative and covert aggressive in a twisted way.
They thought it was a simple issue, and now they feel like they’re being overwhelmed by the complexity and a form of “word salad”, and they lash out.

When they reply, they go back to the main issue they thought it was all about, which in this case was: polite or not?
But they might do it more aggressively, or angry, because they feel they’re losing control of the narrative.

Social chameleon: moving towards the middle

This was also a case where, in my opinion, social chameleon-ining was going to be helpful.

Matthew could have been more direct, briefer, and maybe replicate with frame-dominance of his own: "you say it's not impolite, but that's exactly what it felt to me".

John could have adopted more of Matthew's pleasantries, validated his point of view, and mirror his frame of "nothing personal towards you".

Being a social chameleon at the more advanced level is about understanding the other person, their style of communication, their psychological make-up, and adapting in a way that reaches goals quicker and more effectively.

Stef has reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#125 · February 17, 2021, 9:24 am

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on February 17, 2021, 9:24 am
Lucio, do you think I should re-post mine on this thread as well?
I was thinking that you wanted to post it on the other thread so I posted a reply on the other thread.
Lucio, thank you very much for this detailed feedback.
I really appreciate the time to write this.
There are some areas where I don't completely understand.
I would like to dig further into them if possible.
Social chameleon: moving towards the middle
I have a key issue or blindspot.
Sometimes I view directness as rude.
And it is sometimes not the case.
Matthew: see the group dynamics above. Not at this point.
I was comfortable with the directness of "Not at this point.".
A direct disagreement is comfortable with me.
Because John understands the context and situation best.
I felt uncomfortable with "see the group dynamics above.".
This seemed to be directed at me, and I felt tasked to do something, which is reading the post in this case.
What I can do in the future is to decline.
John: Matthew: see the group dynamics above.
Matthew: Thanks for pointing out the dynamics above.
That being said, I would not like to revisit the post again.
This would be a smoother way of handling this rather than framing the remark as impolite.
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 17, 2021, 3:05 am
Matthew could have been more direct, briefer, and maybe replicate with frame-dominance of his own: "you say it's not impolite, but that's exactly what it felt to me".
I was considering going more direct.
I was afraid that frame-dominance may result in a battle of frames and the conversation would not proceed productively.
Would frame-dominance in this case be stating my perspective more directly and succinctly?
For example, in the following suggestion that Lucio gave
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 17, 2021, 3:05 am
you say it's not impolite, but that's exactly what it felt to me.
In this case, I am not refuting any frame.
I am merely re-asserting my perspective.
That's the subtle difference from what I see.
Keep it short and simple
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 17, 2021, 3:05 am
Matthew, I’d personally try to keep the texts shorter, and focused on a single issue.
The issue here is that I overcompensated.
I felt that I did not give enough context in my first clarification.
And John expanded on my post to give his views.
As such, I wanted to give a detailed post on the various points that he brought up.
I believed that would address a wider context.
However, now I can see how it backfired.
I thought that the following was an important point to address because John brought the following point up:
Quote from John Freeman on February 16, 2021, 12:30 pm
I noticed it a few times already: sometimes something is not clear to you (...)
But now I see how important it is for disagreements to have structure.
Going one point at a time.
If not, perspectives, context and different matters may seem to jumble together.
This makes it potentially annoying and confusing to address.
Last Portion of the Conversation
The last portion of the conversation seemed to come back to a productive stance though.
We brought away the topic from a more personal vibe to an objective disagreement.
This was after Lucio gave the suggestion of providing external feedback.
Does John & Matthew Have Different Styles?
From Lucio's feedback, Lucio seems to be implying that John has in general a more direct style of communication.
While I may have a more indirect style and give more social pleasantries.
Would this be only pertaining to this thread or across most of our conversations?
Quote from John Freeman on February 16, 2021, 12:30 pm
"nothing personal towards you"
This is a great observation.
I do feel that John talks to me rather than about my content quite often.
While my preference is to address the content without the person.
This may be a weird question to ask.
Does this mean I should get more personal with John in discussions?

Lucio, do you think I should re-post mine on this thread as well?
I was thinking that you wanted to post it on the other thread so I posted a reply on the other thread.

Lucio, thank you very much for this detailed feedback.
I really appreciate the time to write this.

There are some areas where I don't completely understand.
I would like to dig further into them if possible.

Social chameleon: moving towards the middle

I have a key issue or blindspot.
Sometimes I view directness as rude.
And it is sometimes not the case.

Matthew: see the group dynamics above. Not at this point.

I was comfortable with the directness of "Not at this point.".
A direct disagreement is comfortable with me.
Because John understands the context and situation best.

I felt uncomfortable with "see the group dynamics above.".
This seemed to be directed at me, and I felt tasked to do something, which is reading the post in this case.
What I can do in the future is to decline.

John: Matthew: see the group dynamics above.
Matthew: Thanks for pointing out the dynamics above.
That being said, I would not like to revisit the post again.

This would be a smoother way of handling this rather than framing the remark as impolite.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 17, 2021, 3:05 am
Matthew could have been more direct, briefer, and maybe replicate with frame-dominance of his own: "you say it's not impolite, but that's exactly what it felt to me".

I was considering going more direct.
I was afraid that frame-dominance may result in a battle of frames and the conversation would not proceed productively.
Would frame-dominance in this case be stating my perspective more directly and succinctly?

For example, in the following suggestion that Lucio gave

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 17, 2021, 3:05 am
you say it's not impolite, but that's exactly what it felt to me.

In this case, I am not refuting any frame.
I am merely re-asserting my perspective.
That's the subtle difference from what I see.

Keep it short and simple

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 17, 2021, 3:05 am
Matthew, I’d personally try to keep the texts shorter, and focused on a single issue.

The issue here is that I overcompensated.
I felt that I did not give enough context in my first clarification.
And John expanded on my post to give his views.
As such, I wanted to give a detailed post on the various points that he brought up.
I believed that would address a wider context.

However, now I can see how it backfired.
I thought that the following was an important point to address because John brought the following point up:

Quote from John Freeman on February 16, 2021, 12:30 pm
I noticed it a few times already: sometimes something is not clear to you (...)

But now I see how important it is for disagreements to have structure.
Going one point at a time.
If not, perspectives, context and different matters may seem to jumble together.
This makes it potentially annoying and confusing to address.

Last Portion of the Conversation

The last portion of the conversation seemed to come back to a productive stance though.
We brought away the topic from a more personal vibe to an objective disagreement.
This was after Lucio gave the suggestion of providing external feedback.

Does John & Matthew Have Different Styles?

From Lucio's feedback, Lucio seems to be implying that John has in general a more direct style of communication.
While I may have a more indirect style and give more social pleasantries.
Would this be only pertaining to this thread or across most of our conversations?

Quote from John Freeman on February 16, 2021, 12:30 pm
"nothing personal towards you"

This is a great observation.
I do feel that John talks to me rather than about my content quite often.
While my preference is to address the content without the person.

This may be a weird question to ask.
Does this mean I should get more personal with John in discussions?

Stef has reacted to this post.

#126 · February 17, 2021, 10:16 am

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 17, 2021, 10:16 am
I'll give some quick replies here, and sticking to strategies and techniques.
A direct disagreement is comfortable with me.
It can be for many.
That's why while it's probably good for you if you to desensitize to it more, it's also good to get into a habit of avoiding overly-direct until we know people are comfortable with it (until then, power-saving is more likely to go smooth and less likely to erode social capital).
What I can do in the future is to decline.
"That being said, I would not like to revisit the post again."
That's not the best strategy.
You're still within the life/reality of the OP, and that frames you as talking without wanting to understand.
You'd harm yourself.
If you want to reply, then this would work better: "the reason why I replied is because I read the post first (defend status as someone who gathers intel before replying), and X seemed a possible option (defend your initial contribution as not total nonsense). But if my idea doesn't apply, then be it (drop it and move on)".
I was afraid that frame-dominance may result in a battle of frames and the conversation would not proceed productively.
It easily could.
But not using it might result in you being out-gunned.
It becomes cannon VS water.
Water is not destroyed by the cannon, and the cannon might look over-aggressive.
So it can be a valid strategic choice to never answer frame-dominance with frame dominance (renamed it "frame imposing" by the way as it seems more descriptive).
If you have a good status for a critical thinker / philosopher style, then you can come out of it ahead.
But if people aren't sure about you, or if the other is doing a good job, you can also look like you're less convinced of your own point, and like you're conceding and/or being too passive.
Also, you can have both.
Re-state your frame once and clear, then do your usual thing.
Would this be only pertaining to this thread or across most of our conversations?
Most conversations.
Does this mean I should get more personal with John in discussions?
It's a strategic choice, depending on goals and situations.
It can start a vicious circle and a potential race to the bottom. And it can move farther away from resolution, and towards "gridlocked conflict", which often means "relationship / friendship broken", so I'd proceed cautiously.
A good alternative instead is to name the behavior: "I feel you're getting personal now, and I don't want to get personal".

I'll give some quick replies here, and sticking to strategies and techniques.

A direct disagreement is comfortable with me.

It can be for many.

That's why while it's probably good for you if you to desensitize to it more, it's also good to get into a habit of avoiding overly-direct until we know people are comfortable with it (until then, power-saving is more likely to go smooth and less likely to erode social capital).

What I can do in the future is to decline.
"That being said, I would not like to revisit the post again."

That's not the best strategy.
You're still within the life/reality of the OP, and that frames you as talking without wanting to understand.
You'd harm yourself.

If you want to reply, then this would work better: "the reason why I replied is because I read the post first (defend status as someone who gathers intel before replying), and X seemed a possible option (defend your initial contribution as not total nonsense). But if my idea doesn't apply, then be it (drop it and move on)".

I was afraid that frame-dominance may result in a battle of frames and the conversation would not proceed productively.

It easily could.

But not using it might result in you being out-gunned.

It becomes cannon VS water.

Water is not destroyed by the cannon, and the cannon might look over-aggressive.
So it can be a valid strategic choice to never answer frame-dominance with frame dominance (renamed it "frame imposing" by the way as it seems more descriptive).
If you have a good status for a critical thinker / philosopher style, then you can come out of it ahead.

But if people aren't sure about you, or if the other is doing a good job, you can also look like you're less convinced of your own point, and like you're conceding and/or being too passive.

Also, you can have both.
Re-state your frame once and clear, then do your usual thing.

Would this be only pertaining to this thread or across most of our conversations?

Most conversations.

Does this mean I should get more personal with John in discussions?

It's a strategic choice, depending on goals and situations.

It can start a vicious circle and a potential race to the bottom. And it can move farther away from resolution, and towards "gridlocked conflict", which often means "relationship / friendship broken", so I'd proceed cautiously.

A good alternative instead is to name the behavior: "I feel you're getting personal now, and I don't want to get personal".

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#127 · February 17, 2021, 11:09 am

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on February 17, 2021, 11:09 am
A direct disagreement is comfortable with me.
It can be for many.
That's why while it's probably good for you if you to desensitize to it more, it's also good to get into a habit of avoiding overly-direct until we know people are comfortable with it (until then, power-saving is more likely to go smooth and less likely to erode social capital).
Thanks for the solid advice.
I am relatively comfortable with direct disagreement.
Though, in some cases, I get flustered from time to time.
What I can do in the future is to decline.
"That being said, I would not like to revisit the post again."
That's not the best strategy.
You're still within the life/reality of the OP, and that frames you as talking without wanting to understand.
You'd harm yourself.
Thanks for sharing this.
It goes back to the concept of collaborative frames.
When a frame is not working out for you, going for a collaborative frame while defending always helps to move the discussion forward productively.
Akin to what you shared here:
If you want to reply, then this would work better: "the reason why I replied is because I read the post first (defend status as someone who gathers intel before replying), and X seemed a possible option (defend your initial contribution as not total nonsense). But if my idea doesn't apply, then be it (drop it and move on)".
It goes back to the collaborative frame that I invested effort and had the best interests in mind to contribute.
While keeping the discussion open-ended for everyone to chip in.
And it also defends my status.
Does this mean I should get more personal with John in discussions?
It's a strategic choice, depending on goals and situations.
It can start a vicious circle and a potential race to the bottom. And it can move farther away from resolution, and towards "gridlocked conflict", which often means "relationship / friendship broken", so I'd proceed cautiously.
A good alternative instead is to name the behavior: "I feel you're getting personal now, and I don't want to get personal".
I have a tendency to go for polite, formal, detached conversation style during disagreements.
And more warm, personal styles during building rapport.
I can see how it may be useful to add in some vulnerability during disagreements and go for a personal approach sometimes.
It needs to be personal in the right direction as you said.
If not, it may become a race to the bottom.
So it's a tricky thing to manage.
FRAME DOMINANCE
But if people aren't sure about you, or if the other is doing a good job, you can also look like you're less convinced of your own point, and like you're conceding and/or being too passive.
Also, you can have both.
Re-state your frame once and clear, then do your usual thing.
This is clear. Thanks a lot.
It is part of assertive communication to state my frame clearly and succinctly.
Short and concise, which is what I needed to do.
While getting myself understood efficiently.

A direct disagreement is comfortable with me.
It can be for many.
That's why while it's probably good for you if you to desensitize to it more, it's also good to get into a habit of avoiding overly-direct until we know people are comfortable with it (until then, power-saving is more likely to go smooth and less likely to erode social capital).

Thanks for the solid advice.
I am relatively comfortable with direct disagreement.
Though, in some cases, I get flustered from time to time.

What I can do in the future is to decline.
"That being said, I would not like to revisit the post again."
That's not the best strategy.
You're still within the life/reality of the OP, and that frames you as talking without wanting to understand.
You'd harm yourself.

Thanks for sharing this.
It goes back to the concept of collaborative frames.
When a frame is not working out for you, going for a collaborative frame while defending always helps to move the discussion forward productively.
Akin to what you shared here:

If you want to reply, then this would work better: "the reason why I replied is because I read the post first (defend status as someone who gathers intel before replying), and X seemed a possible option (defend your initial contribution as not total nonsense). But if my idea doesn't apply, then be it (drop it and move on)".

It goes back to the collaborative frame that I invested effort and had the best interests in mind to contribute.
While keeping the discussion open-ended for everyone to chip in.
And it also defends my status.

Does this mean I should get more personal with John in discussions?
It's a strategic choice, depending on goals and situations.
It can start a vicious circle and a potential race to the bottom. And it can move farther away from resolution, and towards "gridlocked conflict", which often means "relationship / friendship broken", so I'd proceed cautiously.
A good alternative instead is to name the behavior: "I feel you're getting personal now, and I don't want to get personal".

I have a tendency to go for polite, formal, detached conversation style during disagreements.
And more warm, personal styles during building rapport.

I can see how it may be useful to add in some vulnerability during disagreements and go for a personal approach sometimes.
It needs to be personal in the right direction as you said.
If not, it may become a race to the bottom.
So it's a tricky thing to manage.

FRAME DOMINANCE

But if people aren't sure about you, or if the other is doing a good job, you can also look like you're less convinced of your own point, and like you're conceding and/or being too passive.
Also, you can have both.
Re-state your frame once and clear, then do your usual thing.

This is clear. Thanks a lot.
It is part of assertive communication to state my frame clearly and succinctly.
Short and concise, which is what I needed to do.
While getting myself understood efficiently.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.

#128 · February 17, 2021, 11:13 am

John, I needed to type out my thoughts to reflect on Lucio's feedback and understand.
The phone call is still open in case reading the above will take up too much of your time.

Personally, all good on my side.
We can work through the main areas that may need further clarification.
Through this forum or any other medium of your preference.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.

#129 · February 17, 2021, 11:55 am

Quote from John Freeman on February 17, 2021, 11:55 am
Hello Lucio,
I want to thank you very much for the time and energy you put to craft this post. In a win-win-win fashion, I see some new concepts (power-protecting, social chameleon) that I think could be used in advanced social strategies in PU. I also want to give you a feed-back on your feed-back. Compared to the conflict I had with Ali, I think your feed-back is more balanced and also includes giving value to the forum. So I think you grew in your leadership abilities and in your feed-back style. I think that in this case your role was of a teacher and a mediator. And from my perspective I think these are the relevant roles in this situation. I think there was no overlap with other roles. So congrats also on this front. True learner! :)
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 17, 2021, 8:57 am
I just realize I ended up posting in the wrong thread.
I'm glad you noticed it. For the sake of readability for other users, to respect the 1 thread-1 topic, and for the original poster, would it be possible to then delete both last answers (yours and Matthew's) in the thread since they pertain here and are present below, please?
Here it is for future reference:
This is my personal view.
I quote pieces that allowed me to make a point.
It's not an analysis as to who's right, but an analysis of what both can do better going forward (always in my opinion).
Pardon potential mistakes, it's a long text, so proof-reading was spotty.
This time, there is no ego here for me. I want to learn. However, I think this disclaimer is a way to make sure that there is none of our egos in the way. I appreciate the value of it.
The Beginning
Personally, I’d have felt the original statement, in that context, was direct and “making no bones about it”, but not particularly impolite.
And neither would have I felt it was exceptionally polite.
Maybe a grey area closer to white.
That being said, I don't think it was a smart social strategy, and could have been worded better to avoid negative interpretations (see later in “protecting power”).
Summary: Matthew might have adopted more detachment, John can stick to direct talk, which works well in many situations, but adopting "power protecting" can make him a far smoother, refined social operator.
Agreed.
Raising The Issue: More Specificity Helps
Matthew: John, I don't feel that this is polite.
I am offering suggestions, and this is a demanding statement for me to re-read your post again.
The initial request for clarification could have been more specific about what was it that made it impolite.
Accepting Other People’s Reality Once The Issue Is Raised: Always A Good Idea
Once Matthew raised the issue on this post, there was no validation.
I'd have validated his interpretation. Even if I disagreed.
Yes, we already talked about that. It's something I'm in the process of learning. Not there yet.
Because:
Interpretations are (their) reality
It's something I tend to forget. And then I put some negative label on the person. What always baffles me is that many people (don't want to re-start the whole thing) have a difficult time considering that it might be their interpretation which makes them suffer (see the stoic quote I posted some time ago). For me, that is very helpful to know. I can go: "Oh, it's my interpretation which is making me acting like that". I don't always think about it, but at some point I will consider it.
Not validating their reality is the best way to escalate -while going nowhere-
I never thought about that. In my job and in real life I usually validate people's reality. It's part of the listening and empathy. On this forum, I'm making sometimes assumptions that people know the "rules" of self-development/growth. That we are here to grow. So I'd rather get down to the truth as fast as possible. And people feel attacked because they think it's about them. That is one of the inconvenient of the direct communication style. It does not allow face-saving nor subtle self-expression. Once more, this allows me to understand why I feel so much at home and understand the dutch culture. It also shows that our communication style reflects our values (and culture have communication styles based on the dominant values). So I think when there is a clash in communication styles it also reflects a clash of values -> going to the Social Chameleon concept.
Validating their reality is the best way to move towards resolution -and the first step towards persuasion-
Definitely. I do this every day. I failed to do it here. I lacked empathy for Matthew. Because I never met him I made assumptions on how he would interpret my intentions. I was wrong. I will take precautions with him just as I do with other people in real life.
See how I approached it in this same thread, on a previous clarification:
Me: Matthew, I think your (sic) raise very valid points (validation)
And:
Me: To clarify some of the possible misunderstandings: (“misunderstanding” frames the issue as shared, now Matthew is more likely to listen non-defensiely)
And:
Me: That's a great point (it's always great to give points to others. And never it is as important as during disagreements and clarification)
True. My emotions got the best of me. I got annoyed because it was not the first time I was repeating myself over and over. I feel like I wasted time and energy for nothing (since in the end Matthew did not understand my point) so I was irritated with him. I will be careful about this in the future.
After the discussion was reaching a better:
Me: Also, I recognize I'm personally biased on the topic. (takes more of the blame, "cements" the agreement and resolution with some more giving)
True.
So by using the same strategy, this:
John original: I think my statement might have been taken personally. Here is my perspective:
Could have become:
John validating: I can see how it might be perceived that way, that wasn’t my intention (and I’m sorry if you felt that way)
Let me clarify
At this moment, I was not detached enough to address Matthew like that (see above).
Then you can go on and say the exact same things.
Of course, it can happen that you truly don’t see their point of view, and you can be very honest about it, I’ve done it many times over, and it sounds like this:
Validation disagreement: I disagree with that, I think you might have taken something that was meant in a factual way, at a personal level.
BUT, if you felt that way, that’s your reality, and it’s true and valid (= I disagree, but still respect and take your point of view seriously)
Then go on and clarify your point.
It's a great way of phrasing it. I was seeing Matthew's point of view. But I felt he was not grasping the issue and it was reflecting in his answer.
Power protecting: how to word sensitive feedback / rejections / denials / criticims
Woridng is where the “status-protecting”, and “power protecting” kicks in.
As a rule of thumb, the more driven and high-power/status the individuals, the more important power-protecting becomes.
In a place where people are learning power dynamics and social strategies to achieve goals, we’re likely to be dealing with people where power-protecting is a good strategy.
I agree.
Matthew: John, I don't feel that this is polite.
I am offering suggestions, and this is a demanding statement for me to re-read your post again.
A more power-protecting way of phrasing it:
Matthew Power Protecting: John, I get your point, and I get my advice wasn’t useful to you.
Fair enough.
That being said, the way it was phrased, it felt impolite to me.
Alright, I agree. However, I have a question for you: in my job, when someone uses their emotions to change my behaviour, I say that I hear them but I don't change my behaviour. I think that it is manipulative sometimes. Example: An abusive mother wants to talk to her suicidal son who's in our protection. She says: "You're the 4th doctor I speak to, I'm very very worried. Can I talk to him? (she cannot) Could you please transmit a message to him? (I will not, my duty is to protect the child)" So I say: Yes, you must be very worried and this must be very difficult for you. Then I go on about the reasons why I cannot and will not do that. So in this case I won't comply. I hear Matthew is uncomfortable but I don't see why I should modify my behaviour. This is why I talked about emotional blackmail. In this case I felt Matthew was guilt-tripping me to accommodate him. And to me this is not honest communication as there was no vulnerability from his part. It was covert aggression as you say it later.
On John’s side, a power-protecting way of rejecting the initial advice:
John Power Protecting: Matthew, thank you for the advice.
As per the dynamics above, I don’t think it would work in this case…
Yes, I might have been a bit blunt with Matthew who is used to more indirect communication. He felt disrespect where there was no intention of disrespect. I'll be more culturally sensitive. I was not enough.
Even more power protecting:
John Power Protecting: That could work if… But not in this case
Any of the two above would have prevented this escalation.
In most situations in life you won't get a feedback though.
So John would have instead lost some rapport, connection, and friendship.
Power protecting in these scenarios is a generally smart strategy at different levels:
More likely to preserve and improve the relationship
More likely to get more present and future contribution from the same person
More likely to get more present and future contribution from others
Why?
Because when people see that contributions are met with value and appreciation, no matter what the contribution is, it encourages more people to chip in.
Yes, you will also get advice that does not apply, but with quantity often comes quality as well.
I agree. So far, I made the choice to value truth over relationship. However, I think there are some subtleties which you underline: the "how". I think I could definitely improve my communication.
Clarifying VS winning the argument
Once an issue has been raised, there are two different roads:
Clarifying
Proving we’re right
The two aren’t always and necessarily mutually exclusive, but they often are.
A sentence like this:
I think it was clear to Lucio but not to you.
It’s showing the other wrong (winning the argument).
Even if we think we're right, I’d be careful with this approach.
It moves us away from resolution, and can get people very emotional, since it’s a way of saying “the problem was with you, and the proof is that this other person understood it”.
I was getting impatient since it was not the first occurrence. Still, it was not helpful. I should have dealt with Matthew as I do with people in real life.
Specificity VS criticism
I noticed it a few times already: sometimes something is not clear to you (...)
It’s best to either provide a clear example here, or stick to the specif situation.
Here is one example. Here is another one. All my reactions stem from a history. In the 2nd example, to ego-protect I lied (which was not smart) by saying that I was sad because I could not give a proper feed-back. The truth is that I was sad from Matthew's reaction, I was disappointed. However, if I would have said the truth, I would have been accused to play the "judge role". But the truth is that I was disappointed. So I was in a double-bind: say the truth or drop it and moved on. I felt like I already spent too much time on this issue so I decided to move on. I also wanted to move on, I took the blame in an extreme ownership way. It was a mistake I will not do. I was emotionally dishonest and it was a mistake. I won't do it again.
Otherwise it can be perceived as criticism, even if we don't mean it as criticism (criticism = global attack towards the person).
Criticism tends to move away from resolution, and into either escalation or endless discussions.
A finessing move to avoid raising people’s defenses and to move more smoothly towards quick resolution is to avoidthe word “you”.
I might sometimes go philosopher here and say something like:
It’s normal sometimes for people to feel...
That's what I do in my job. However, sometimes I feel like in my private life I want to deal with people without using these strategies. That is a mistake. People are people. However, what makes me sad is that there is a very small number of people with whom I can talk without any filter. That is what I'm looking for in life as it makes me feel lonely when I see that there is one more person I have to "take gloves on".
Imagine power-protection on a scale, from worst to best (don’t make too much of it, I just jotted it down, but it can serve t give you an idea):
You are, you did, because you are…
You did this, you did that, you did this and that
You did this (once, but still with finger-pointing feel to it)
You did this, and I get it
You did this, and I get it, it’s normal,
You did this, and people sometimes do that…
Look, it’s normal that people do this thing that you did here…
Here, I am explaining to you twice why (…)
I’d avoid this wording, it can feel condescending to the receiver.
I got impatient. My mistake.
Some people use this format to increase the “pressure” on the receiver.
It's as if to say “I’ve already done this several times (most people would get it, so the problem is you), and I’m getting exasperated.
I was getting exasperated.
That puts pressure on the other individual to “drop it”, but if they drop it, they only drop it externally, while they’ll still feel internally it was unfair
True.
To keep the same wording, equally factual:
I explained twice why it’s not an optimal strategy, so when you accuse me of being impolite, I feel….
Frame Imposing
Matthew, for the last time: this statement is NOT impolite.
This is frame imposing.
In this case, I felt that it was Matthew which was insisting with his frame of impoliteness. He brought it up. I defended this disempowering frame. No way, I was going to accept this frame.
I'd keep frame imposing only for fringe cases in which we need to defend crucial boundaries of basic respect, and I'd avoid it during clarifications.
For me that was the case here. Accusing somebody of something that if false is disrespectful in my perspective. I felt disrespected. In a sense, to him I started the conflict. Whereas for me, he started the conflict with this accusation.
When the focus is on winning, there is only one resolution: total victory on one side, and capitulation on the other side.
Albeit that's OK, and even great in some limited situations, in more cases, those are poor resolutions -in friendships, they tend to dissolve friendships. And in relationships, it starts tipping relationships into toxic ones-.
Summary: When the discussion moved on this thread, I think John could have focused (far) less on "proving right", and more on understanding and/or resolving.
There was no understanding, and little to no resolving, and some sentences provided hooks for fruitless, lose-lose escalation.
It's true I could have asked more questions. I agree. I let my emotions control my behavior. I should have waited a bit to let it cool down instead of going "frontal force".
Keep it short and simple
Matthew, I’d personally try to keep the texts shorter, and focused on a single issue.
When we quote many different parts of an original message, we also open different threads going in a lot of different directions.
The receiver can feel overwhelmed and start wondering “what was the point, and what am I supposed to answer?”.
That's how I feel many times. It makes me not read the whole posts because I don't understand the point many times. That is why sometimes I don't answer. I don't even understand what it is about. Then I see Lucio's answer and I think: "Wow, he actually understood his points". So it made me re-think that the effort in understanding others makes them feel respected and valued. Once again, great leadership. I understand it's better for the forum as well.
Then, the receiver is not sure what to answer, and that can be irritating for them.
It feels like “wait, why are we going on a detour, with 3 different paths to it? I thought were discussing a simple issue”.
Yes.
That might even feel manipulative and covert aggressive in a twisted way.
Yes.
They thought it was a simple issue, and now they feel like they’re being overwhelmed by the complexity and a form of “word salad”, and they lash out.
Yes, exactly like as with Ali. And I had the same reaction. That is why I asked you feed-back this time. There was something I was not perceiving.
When they reply, they go back to the main issue they thought it was all about, which in this case was: polite or not?
But they might do it more aggressively, or angry, because they feel they’re losing control of the narrative.
In my case, it is because when I feel it is manipulative, I feel it's disrespectful. So it provokes anger. I will re-wire this neural network coming from my past. Thanks for pointing out to me. That is what happened with Ali. Because of my past with manipulation and covert-aggression, I over-react to it.
Social chameleon: moving towards the middle
This was also a case where, in my opinion, social chameleon-ining was going to be helpful.
100%
Matthew could have been more direct, briefer, and maybe replicate with frame-dominance of his own: "you say it's not impolite, but that's exactly what it felt to me".
John could have adopted more of Matthew's pleasantries, validated his point of view, and mirror his frame of "nothing personal towards you".
When he said: "I value our friendship, by the way, here is my email let's talk about it over the phone". Just 1 minute after I accept your offer to step-in (see timestamp). So to me, this was even more manipulative as just when an authority was going to step in (you in this case), an olive branch was given. So for me, emotionally I felt disrespected and manipulated, which angered me. So emotionally, no way I would have done that. So I got triggered by Matthew and learned my lesson.
Being a social chameleon at the more advanced level is about understanding the other person, their style of communication, their psychological make-up, and adapting in a way that reaches goals quicker and more effectively.
Definitely, I failed to do that with Matthew. Please excuse me both. I will be more careful in my communication in the future.
Matthew: I learned a lot and I hope you did as well. You might not like what you have read in the thread but this is called "feed-back and clarifications". So this is my perspective. It might sound harsh and if that is the case I apologize. However, the idea is to bring in a 3rd person so the two persons could understand each other. I feel this has been the case. Thank you for sharing your perspective.
Right now, I spent a lot of time on this issue. I have tons of work to do. I have to get back to work and to my priorities. Thank you, I learned a lot from this conflict. Thank you for your offer of a conversation over the phone. Please understand that for the moment, I don't feel like having more conversation on this topic. I'm not closed to the idea, but not for now. I hope you will understand.
All the best to you both! Sincerely!
Edit: I misunderstood « pleasantries », I thought it had the same meaning in French (small jokes). Alright, so I would have reciprocated his pleasantries IF they would not have felt manipulative. That is, if it was not beginning by a pleasantries and a lot of deference (a lot (too many?) thank yous) and then going to cover aggression. So to me these pleasantries were not part of a normal rapport-building conversation but as a means to an end (winning). So it felt like honey to sweeten the blow that was coming. Like the same technique that manipulators use (for instance the actress playing captain Marvel): getting you to open your defenses or waiting you to open your defenses to hit you harder. That is using flattery to come out on top.

Hello Lucio,

I want to thank you very much for the time and energy you put to craft this post. In a win-win-win fashion, I see some new concepts (power-protecting, social chameleon) that I think could be used in advanced social strategies in PU. I also want to give you a feed-back on your feed-back. Compared to the conflict I had with Ali, I think your feed-back is more balanced and also includes giving value to the forum. So I think you grew in your leadership abilities and in your feed-back style. I think that in this case your role was of a teacher and a mediator. And from my perspective I think these are the relevant roles in this situation. I think there was no overlap with other roles. So congrats also on this front. True learner! :)

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 17, 2021, 8:57 am
I just realize I ended up posting in the wrong thread.

I'm glad you noticed it. For the sake of readability for other users, to respect the 1 thread-1 topic, and for the original poster, would it be possible to then delete both last answers (yours and Matthew's) in the thread since they pertain here and are present below, please?

Here it is for future reference:
This is my personal view.
I quote pieces that allowed me to make a point.
It's not an analysis as to who's right, but an analysis of what both can do better going forward (always in my opinion).
Pardon potential mistakes, it's a long text, so proof-reading was spotty.

This time, there is no ego here for me. I want to learn. However, I think this disclaimer is a way to make sure that there is none of our egos in the way. I appreciate the value of it.

The Beginning
Personally, I’d have felt the original statement, in that context, was direct and “making no bones about it”, but not particularly impolite.
And neither would have I felt it was exceptionally polite.
Maybe a grey area closer to white.
That being said, I don't think it was a smart social strategy, and could have been worded better to avoid negative interpretations (see later in “protecting power”).
Summary: Matthew might have adopted more detachment, John can stick to direct talk, which works well in many situations, but adopting "power protecting" can make him a far smoother, refined social operator.

Agreed.

Raising The Issue: More Specificity Helps
Matthew: John, I don't feel that this is polite.
I am offering suggestions, and this is a demanding statement for me to re-read your post again.
The initial request for clarification could have been more specific about what was it that made it impolite.
Accepting Other People’s Reality Once The Issue Is Raised: Always A Good Idea
Once Matthew raised the issue on this post, there was no validation.
I'd have validated his interpretation. Even if I disagreed.

Yes, we already talked about that. It's something I'm in the process of learning. Not there yet.

Because:
Interpretations are (their) reality

It's something I tend to forget. And then I put some negative label on the person. What always baffles me is that many people (don't want to re-start the whole thing) have a difficult time considering that it might be their interpretation which makes them suffer (see the stoic quote I posted some time ago). For me, that is very helpful to know. I can go: "Oh, it's my interpretation which is making me acting like that". I don't always think about it, but at some point I will consider it.

Not validating their reality is the best way to escalate -while going nowhere-

I never thought about that. In my job and in real life I usually validate people's reality. It's part of the listening and empathy. On this forum, I'm making sometimes assumptions that people know the "rules" of self-development/growth. That we are here to grow. So I'd rather get down to the truth as fast as possible. And people feel attacked because they think it's about them. That is one of the inconvenient of the direct communication style. It does not allow face-saving nor subtle self-expression. Once more, this allows me to understand why I feel so much at home and understand the dutch culture. It also shows that our communication style reflects our values (and culture have communication styles based on the dominant values). So I think when there is a clash in communication styles it also reflects a clash of values -> going to the Social Chameleon concept.

Validating their reality is the best way to move towards resolution -and the first step towards persuasion-

Definitely. I do this every day. I failed to do it here. I lacked empathy for Matthew. Because I never met him I made assumptions on how he would interpret my intentions. I was wrong. I will take precautions with him just as I do with other people in real life.

See how I approached it in this same thread, on a previous clarification:
Me: Matthew, I think your (sic) raise very valid points (validation)
And:
Me: To clarify some of the possible misunderstandings: (“misunderstanding” frames the issue as shared, now Matthew is more likely to listen non-defensiely)
And:
Me: That's a great point (it's always great to give points to others. And never it is as important as during disagreements and clarification)

True. My emotions got the best of me. I got annoyed because it was not the first time I was repeating myself over and over. I feel like I wasted time and energy for nothing (since in the end Matthew did not understand my point) so I was irritated with him. I will be careful about this in the future.

After the discussion was reaching a better:
Me: Also, I recognize I'm personally biased on the topic. (takes more of the blame, "cements" the agreement and resolution with some more giving)

True.

So by using the same strategy, this:
John original: I think my statement might have been taken personally. Here is my perspective:
Could have become:
John validating: I can see how it might be perceived that way, that wasn’t my intention (and I’m sorry if you felt that way)
Let me clarify

At this moment, I was not detached enough to address Matthew like that (see above).

Then you can go on and say the exact same things.
Of course, it can happen that you truly don’t see their point of view, and you can be very honest about it, I’ve done it many times over, and it sounds like this:
Validation disagreement: I disagree with that, I think you might have taken something that was meant in a factual way, at a personal level.
BUT, if you felt that way, that’s your reality, and it’s true and valid (= I disagree, but still respect and take your point of view seriously)
Then go on and clarify your point.

It's a great way of phrasing it. I was seeing Matthew's point of view. But I felt he was not grasping the issue and it was reflecting in his answer.

Power protecting: how to word sensitive feedback / rejections / denials / criticims
Woridng is where the “status-protecting”, and “power protecting” kicks in.
As a rule of thumb, the more driven and high-power/status the individuals, the more important power-protecting becomes.
In a place where people are learning power dynamics and social strategies to achieve goals, we’re likely to be dealing with people where power-protecting is a good strategy.

I agree.

Matthew: John, I don't feel that this is polite.
I am offering suggestions, and this is a demanding statement for me to re-read your post again.
A more power-protecting way of phrasing it:
Matthew Power Protecting: John, I get your point, and I get my advice wasn’t useful to you.
Fair enough.
That being said, the way it was phrased, it felt impolite to me.

Alright, I agree. However, I have a question for you: in my job, when someone uses their emotions to change my behaviour, I say that I hear them but I don't change my behaviour. I think that it is manipulative sometimes. Example: An abusive mother wants to talk to her suicidal son who's in our protection. She says: "You're the 4th doctor I speak to, I'm very very worried. Can I talk to him? (she cannot) Could you please transmit a message to him? (I will not, my duty is to protect the child)" So I say: Yes, you must be very worried and this must be very difficult for you. Then I go on about the reasons why I cannot and will not do that. So in this case I won't comply. I hear Matthew is uncomfortable but I don't see why I should modify my behaviour. This is why I talked about emotional blackmail. In this case I felt Matthew was guilt-tripping me to accommodate him. And to me this is not honest communication as there was no vulnerability from his part. It was covert aggression as you say it later.

On John’s side, a power-protecting way of rejecting the initial advice:
John Power Protecting: Matthew, thank you for the advice.
As per the dynamics above, I don’t think it would work in this case…

Yes, I might have been a bit blunt with Matthew who is used to more indirect communication. He felt disrespect where there was no intention of disrespect. I'll be more culturally sensitive. I was not enough.

Even more power protecting:
John Power Protecting: That could work if… But not in this case
Any of the two above would have prevented this escalation.
In most situations in life you won't get a feedback though.
So John would have instead lost some rapport, connection, and friendship.
Power protecting in these scenarios is a generally smart strategy at different levels:
More likely to preserve and improve the relationship
More likely to get more present and future contribution from the same person
More likely to get more present and future contribution from others
Why?
Because when people see that contributions are met with value and appreciation, no matter what the contribution is, it encourages more people to chip in.
Yes, you will also get advice that does not apply, but with quantity often comes quality as well.

I agree. So far, I made the choice to value truth over relationship. However, I think there are some subtleties which you underline: the "how". I think I could definitely improve my communication.

Clarifying VS winning the argument
Once an issue has been raised, there are two different roads:
Clarifying
Proving we’re right
The two aren’t always and necessarily mutually exclusive, but they often are.
A sentence like this:
I think it was clear to Lucio but not to you.
It’s showing the other wrong (winning the argument).
Even if we think we're right, I’d be careful with this approach.
It moves us away from resolution, and can get people very emotional, since it’s a way of saying “the problem was with you, and the proof is that this other person understood it”.

I was getting impatient since it was not the first occurrence. Still, it was not helpful. I should have dealt with Matthew as I do with people in real life.

Specificity VS criticism
I noticed it a few times already: sometimes something is not clear to you (...)
It’s best to either provide a clear example here, or stick to the specif situation.

Here is one example. Here is another one. All my reactions stem from a history. In the 2nd example, to ego-protect I lied (which was not smart) by saying that I was sad because I could not give a proper feed-back. The truth is that I was sad from Matthew's reaction, I was disappointed. However, if I would have said the truth, I would have been accused to play the "judge role". But the truth is that I was disappointed. So I was in a double-bind: say the truth or drop it and moved on. I felt like I already spent too much time on this issue so I decided to move on. I also wanted to move on, I took the blame in an extreme ownership way. It was a mistake I will not do. I was emotionally dishonest and it was a mistake. I won't do it again.

Otherwise it can be perceived as criticism, even if we don't mean it as criticism (criticism = global attack towards the person).
Criticism tends to move away from resolution, and into either escalation or endless discussions.
A finessing move to avoid raising people’s defenses and to move more smoothly towards quick resolution is to avoidthe word “you”.
I might sometimes go philosopher here and say something like:
It’s normal sometimes for people to feel...

That's what I do in my job. However, sometimes I feel like in my private life I want to deal with people without using these strategies. That is a mistake. People are people. However, what makes me sad is that there is a very small number of people with whom I can talk without any filter. That is what I'm looking for in life as it makes me feel lonely when I see that there is one more person I have to "take gloves on".

Imagine power-protection on a scale, from worst to best (don’t make too much of it, I just jotted it down, but it can serve t give you an idea):
You are, you did, because you are…
You did this, you did that, you did this and that
You did this (once, but still with finger-pointing feel to it)
You did this, and I get it
You did this, and I get it, it’s normal,
You did this, and people sometimes do that…
Look, it’s normal that people do this thing that you did here…
Here, I am explaining to you twice why (…)
I’d avoid this wording, it can feel condescending to the receiver.

I got impatient. My mistake.

Some people use this format to increase the “pressure” on the receiver.
It's as if to say “I’ve already done this several times (most people would get it, so the problem is you), and I’m getting exasperated.

I was getting exasperated.

That puts pressure on the other individual to “drop it”, but if they drop it, they only drop it externally, while they’ll still feel internally it was unfair

True.

To keep the same wording, equally factual:
I explained twice why it’s not an optimal strategy, so when you accuse me of being impolite, I feel….
Frame Imposing
Matthew, for the last time: this statement is NOT impolite.

This is frame imposing.

In this case, I felt that it was Matthew which was insisting with his frame of impoliteness. He brought it up. I defended this disempowering frame. No way, I was going to accept this frame.

I'd keep frame imposing only for fringe cases in which we need to defend crucial boundaries of basic respect, and I'd avoid it during clarifications.

For me that was the case here. Accusing somebody of something that if false is disrespectful in my perspective. I felt disrespected. In a sense, to him I started the conflict. Whereas for me, he started the conflict with this accusation.

When the focus is on winning, there is only one resolution: total victory on one side, and capitulation on the other side.
Albeit that's OK, and even great in some limited situations, in more cases, those are poor resolutions -in friendships, they tend to dissolve friendships. And in relationships, it starts tipping relationships into toxic ones-.
Summary: When the discussion moved on this thread, I think John could have focused (far) less on "proving right", and more on understanding and/or resolving.
There was no understanding, and little to no resolving, and some sentences provided hooks for fruitless, lose-lose escalation.

It's true I could have asked more questions. I agree. I let my emotions control my behavior. I should have waited a bit to let it cool down instead of going "frontal force".

Keep it short and simple
Matthew, I’d personally try to keep the texts shorter, and focused on a single issue.
When we quote many different parts of an original message, we also open different threads going in a lot of different directions.
The receiver can feel overwhelmed and start wondering “what was the point, and what am I supposed to answer?”.

That's how I feel many times. It makes me not read the whole posts because I don't understand the point many times. That is why sometimes I don't answer. I don't even understand what it is about. Then I see Lucio's answer and I think: "Wow, he actually understood his points". So it made me re-think that the effort in understanding others makes them feel respected and valued. Once again, great leadership. I understand it's better for the forum as well.

Then, the receiver is not sure what to answer, and that can be irritating for them.
It feels like “wait, why are we going on a detour, with 3 different paths to it? I thought were discussing a simple issue”.

Yes.

That might even feel manipulative and covert aggressive in a twisted way.

Yes.

They thought it was a simple issue, and now they feel like they’re being overwhelmed by the complexity and a form of “word salad”, and they lash out.

Yes, exactly like as with Ali. And I had the same reaction. That is why I asked you feed-back this time. There was something I was not perceiving.

When they reply, they go back to the main issue they thought it was all about, which in this case was: polite or not?
But they might do it more aggressively, or angry, because they feel they’re losing control of the narrative.

In my case, it is because when I feel it is manipulative, I feel it's disrespectful. So it provokes anger. I will re-wire this neural network coming from my past. Thanks for pointing out to me. That is what happened with Ali. Because of my past with manipulation and covert-aggression, I over-react to it.

Social chameleon: moving towards the middle
This was also a case where, in my opinion, social chameleon-ining was going to be helpful.

100%

Matthew could have been more direct, briefer, and maybe replicate with frame-dominance of his own: "you say it's not impolite, but that's exactly what it felt to me".
John could have adopted more of Matthew's pleasantries, validated his point of view, and mirror his frame of "nothing personal towards you".

When he said: "I value our friendship, by the way, here is my email let's talk about it over the phone". Just 1 minute after I accept your offer to step-in (see timestamp). So to me, this was even more manipulative as just when an authority was going to step in (you in this case), an olive branch was given. So for me, emotionally I felt disrespected and manipulated, which angered me. So emotionally, no way I would have done that. So I got triggered by Matthew and learned my lesson.

Being a social chameleon at the more advanced level is about understanding the other person, their style of communication, their psychological make-up, and adapting in a way that reaches goals quicker and more effectively.

Definitely, I failed to do that with Matthew. Please excuse me both. I will be more careful in my communication in the future.

Matthew: I learned a lot and I hope you did as well. You might not like what you have read in the thread but this is called "feed-back and clarifications". So this is my perspective. It might sound harsh and if that is the case I apologize. However, the idea is to bring in a 3rd person so the two persons could understand each other. I feel this has been the case. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

Right now, I spent a lot of time on this issue. I have tons of work to do. I have to get back to work and to my priorities. Thank you, I learned a lot from this conflict. Thank you for your offer of a conversation over the phone. Please understand that for the moment, I don't feel like having more conversation on this topic. I'm not closed to the idea, but not for now. I hope you will understand.

All the best to you both! Sincerely!

Edit: I misunderstood « pleasantries », I thought it had the same meaning in French (small jokes). Alright, so I would have reciprocated his pleasantries IF they would not have felt manipulative. That is, if it was not beginning by a pleasantries and a lot of deference (a lot (too many?) thank yous) and then going to cover aggression. So to me these pleasantries were not part of a normal rapport-building conversation but as a means to an end (winning). So it felt like honey to sweeten the blow that was coming. Like the same technique that manipulators use (for instance the actress playing captain Marvel): getting you to open your defenses or waiting you to open your defenses to hit you harder. That is using flattery to come out on top.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.

#130 · February 17, 2021, 2:54 pm

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on February 17, 2021, 2:54 pm
I do think we should talk further to iron out our understanding.
Just 1 minute after I accept your offer to step-in (see timestamp). So to me, this was even more manipulative as just when an authority was going to step in (you in this case), an olive branch was given.
As I was typing this post, Lucio posted his offer for third-party feedback.
That was why it was spaced away at a minute.
As such, it seemed like that was the case of me offering an olive branch after Lucio stepped in.
This happened between me and Lucio previously as well.
Sometimes I type a post replying to an earlier post.
But another post was posted before I could finish my post.
Summary: This was an unintentional portrayal of what went on.
So it felt like honey to sweeten the blow that was coming. Like the same technique that manipulators use (for instance the actress playing captain Marvel): getting you to open your defenses or waiting you to open your defenses to hit you harder. That is using flattery to come out on top.
We have different social styles of giving feedback and clarification.
I prefaced it with pleasantries to acknowledge your time and effort to type out the post.
This was not to lower your defences.
I can go more direct in the future.
This is a matter when direct and indirect people talk
The direct person thinks that the indirect person is not being upfront
The indirect person think that the direct person is being blunt
Here is one example. Here is another one. All my reactions stem from a history. In the 2nd example, to ego-protect I lied (which was not smart) by saying that I was sad because I could not give a proper feed-back. The truth is that I was sad from Matthew's reaction, I was disappointed. However, if I would have said the truth, I would have been accused to play the "judge role".
From this Post
I did it on purpose to desensitize you. So you can see that it's not meant to dominate you. It can be said as a compliment. In communication, there is what is said and the intention of what is said. That is why between friends you can tease one another. Consider this as a friendly tease, if you want. In real life, I would have pushed you with my elbow, a smile and a wink as in: "Come on, my friend, don't take it this way, it's not that serious". But on the forum, more challenging to communicate this.
What I wish for you is that next time a co-worker says this to you, it does not register on an emotional level.
To remove the trigger. This is what will make you a "teflon rhino" I believe.
You told me that you did this on purpose to desensitise me.
How should I feel and respond to that?
I did not make any accusations for this.
I expressed my emotion of being uncomfortable.
I view this as assertiveness.
I felt that it was Matthew which was insisting with his frame of impoliteness.
I have to admit that I did not use the best phrasing to show my discomfort.
In the second post, I gave a more detailed breakdown because I thought I was not being clear in my first post.
That being said, as Lucio says, I should be more concise and to the point.
It's easier for everyone to understand what is going on and reply.

I do think we should talk further to iron out our understanding.

Just 1 minute after I accept your offer to step-in (see timestamp). So to me, this was even more manipulative as just when an authority was going to step in (you in this case), an olive branch was given.

As I was typing this post, Lucio posted his offer for third-party feedback.
That was why it was spaced away at a minute.
As such, it seemed like that was the case of me offering an olive branch after Lucio stepped in.

This happened between me and Lucio previously as well.
Sometimes I type a post replying to an earlier post.
But another post was posted before I could finish my post.

Summary: This was an unintentional portrayal of what went on.

So it felt like honey to sweeten the blow that was coming. Like the same technique that manipulators use (for instance the actress playing captain Marvel): getting you to open your defenses or waiting you to open your defenses to hit you harder. That is using flattery to come out on top.

We have different social styles of giving feedback and clarification.
I prefaced it with pleasantries to acknowledge your time and effort to type out the post.

This was not to lower your defences.
I can go more direct in the future.

This is a matter when direct and indirect people talk

The direct person thinks that the indirect person is not being upfront
The indirect person think that the direct person is being blunt

Here is one example. Here is another one. All my reactions stem from a history. In the 2nd example, to ego-protect I lied (which was not smart) by saying that I was sad because I could not give a proper feed-back. The truth is that I was sad from Matthew's reaction, I was disappointed. However, if I would have said the truth, I would have been accused to play the "judge role".
From this Post
I did it on purpose to desensitize you. So you can see that it's not meant to dominate you. It can be said as a compliment. In communication, there is what is said and the intention of what is said. That is why between friends you can tease one another. Consider this as a friendly tease, if you want. In real life, I would have pushed you with my elbow, a smile and a wink as in: "Come on, my friend, don't take it this way, it's not that serious". But on the forum, more challenging to communicate this.
What I wish for you is that next time a co-worker says this to you, it does not register on an emotional level.
To remove the trigger. This is what will make you a "teflon rhino" I believe.

You told me that you did this on purpose to desensitise me.
How should I feel and respond to that?

I did not make any accusations for this.
I expressed my emotion of being uncomfortable.
I view this as assertiveness.

I felt that it was Matthew which was insisting with his frame of impoliteness.

I have to admit that I did not use the best phrasing to show my discomfort.
In the second post, I gave a more detailed breakdown because I thought I was not being clear in my first post.
That being said, as Lucio says, I should be more concise and to the point.
It's easier for everyone to understand what is going on and reply.