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

#181 · March 30, 2021, 6:57 pm

Quote from selfriend on March 30, 2021, 6:48 pm
I am not disagreeing with anything in that specific sentence; I am just saying that I am not sure what to believe. At the end of the day, you have the full power to explain your own material. I sincerely apologize if you feel that I was disagreeing there.

You can disagree, and should disagree, when you do disagree -on this forum at least, in real life, be more strategic about it as it can piss more powerful people off-.

The point is: either you disagree, or you ask a question.

Keep the two divided, or it sounds like you're hiding your question.
Maybe it wasn't your intention, but that's how it can come across. Straight shooters don't appreciate that, so if you keep the two divided, you'll be more effective in real life, and come across as higher power.

I appreciate your compliments, but still prefer "Lucio" to any honorary leader-like title :).

Cheers!

selffriend has reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#182 · March 31, 2021, 4:20 am

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on March 31, 2021, 4:20 am
John ( @amerok )
Matthew ( @cheeweijie )
My intervention was unrequested.
But I am intervening because:
It escalated with no solution in sight
Some approaches, techniques, and attitudes are not in line with this website’s values and goals (the main reason)
Interaction Review
1. Matthew asked not to be mentioned
I would prefer that my name is left out in quotes of content (...)
John’s initial quote did frame as if Matthew was mistaken/wrong in his interpretation.
Still, it wasn't too bad in my opinion, and I personally wouldn’t have made such a request.
If I were in John’s shoes, I might have felt like it was a misunderstanding, nitpicking, and maybe touchy/sensitive.
Still, Matthew asked in a considerate way.
To show respect to Matthew, it had to be addressed, in my opinion.
John does not address Matthew’s request
For whatever reason.
Matthew asks again
So I was asking if you can leave my name out. Now could be too late. But maybe for future posts if you are comfortable with that.
Matthew takes care to frame the request in a way that is very power-protecting of John.
John minimizes Matthew's request
Hey man, I don't think that writing your name is such an issue (...)
It’s fair to disagree.
But if we want to show respect, it’s best to validate someone's feelings or request.
It’s also fair to refuse to do something, or grant something.
But then it's better to be direct about, without minimizing what for others does seem to matter.
Telling someone “I don’t think it’s an issue… “ feels demeaning to the receiver.
The way I see it, this wasn’t too different from John’s request to remove the link to his journal from PU.
The way I saw it, the link gave John value, as it was framed as “look at how John is doing great, and you can do something similar”.
But I respect John as a person, and since the link was about him, what he felt, was more important than how I felt (and removed the link).
Matthew asks for a compromise
I think we can find a way to make this work for both of us.
John says the post is locked = “quicksand technique”
The issue is that the post is locked.
This avoids addressing the main issue.
It’s safe to assume that Matthew is concerned about:
The general approach, more than the specific situation
Being respected, understood, and valued, as a valued community member
Being “made whole”: if Matthew felt he was slighted, whether that's true or not, it's safe to assume he wants to be re-empowered
John's reply skirts all the above points.
For Matthew, this can feel like a cop-out.
A “quicksand technique” is to willingly move the conversation towards unproductive ends to avoid addressing the main issue.
Quicksand techniques are likely to frustrate the receiver.
Matthew re-states his case
We don't have to do anything in this particular case.
I'm expressing this to you because it's personally important to me.
Our personal understanding is most important because it affects our future interactions.
As expected, Matthew was more concerned about the general approach.
Advice for Matthew: if someone refused to hear you out, you will rarely see a sudden change of tack.
You must change tack.
Go a bit more assertive here, demand to be heard with a bit more power.
John rejects the request: frame imposing technique
I hear you but I'm sorry, I will continue to use your name if I think it's relevant. You won't became the "nameless" ?
Now John addresses the request.
But still no validation for Matthew’s point of view.
In my opinion, the wink can be considered a power move.
It’s also mentioned in PU I think: it's best to avoid winks and real-life equivalents. They're often smart-alecky and condescending.
The "Teacher / pupil" frame: a power move
Within the same message:
The discomfort is not forcibly something bad someone is doing to you. It might be you stepping out of your comfort zone. So it means there is an opportunity for learning. If you see discomfort as something to avoid, then this will be an obstacle to your growth.
This frames Matthew as the one who needs to learn and grow, while it self-frames John as the one who’s right -and wiser-.
Independently of whether that might true or not, from a power dynamics perspective, unless the teacher/pupil is already set and/or accepted, it's a power move to assume it.
From the higher authority position, the teacher talks down to pupils, and leaves them no room to debate.
Matthew calls out the pupil / teacher frame
If you don't agree with what I say, there's no need to use the self-development frame on me.
You can just disagree.
John closes the conversation: premature closing + frame imposing technique
That being said, I want you to know that there are no hard feelings on my part.
Cheers!
It’s fair not to want to talk anymore.
But if the other party hasn't been heard and validated, they can't accept a closure (hence: "premature closing").
The “no hard feelings” can also be considered a power move: the party who refuses to acknowledge others is less likely to have hard feelings than the party who feels slighted.
So this sets a frame of “I don’t have bad feelings, (then probably you shouldn’t have any either?)”.
It's OK to end conversations we feel are not going anywhere, but it's going to damage relationships (so not OK when we want to respect someone).
Matthew refuses the closure
As expected.
John defends the mentor/pupil frame and emjoy + re-closes
Matthew, this emoji is not a form of micro-aggression, it means: "dude, just relax a bit, it's all good". On the rest I don't agree as well. Like I said I don't have anything more to add.
Matthew agrees to disagree
Advice: agreeing to disagree might be too cooperative if you still feel slighted.
“In your shoes, I'd do better” frame (The "empathic one-up")
Well, I'm happy when my friends tell me that I'm taking something too seriously. It helps me to take some distance. So I can learn from their perspective. Being critical of one's perception is helpful to change one's perspective.
This might even be true, but to put ourselves in someone else's shoes just to say "I'd behave better", it feels like yet another "you're (doing it) all wrong" power move.
Call this an "empathic one-up".
"Helpful to change one's perspective" also implies that it's Matthew's perspective only that needs to be changed. Another form of frame imposing.
(…)
Johns posts definitions of assertiveness & complaining: Smart-aleck + covert power move
It felt like a smart-alecky and a covert power move.
When one disagrees and then shares a definition of a positive VS negative behavior, it’s fair to assume that he is also saying “you’re not doing the positive, you’re doing do the poor & low-power behavior”.
In this case, the covert power move suggests that “this is what’s assertive, what you’re not doing (and I’m doing), and this is what’s complaining, which is what you were doing”.
Proposing to move on after that, plus the smiley, was another premature closure power move: how can someone move on after they’ve been covertly-framed as complaining?
Member POV: John had good points, but a very uncooperative attitude
Overall, I think John’s stance of refusing to not mention Matthew in the future was fair.
And it was also fair to suggest Matthew should consider he was too sensitive over a small thing.
I might advise something similar -but with very different approach-.
But the way it was argued and debated, it was not very respectful towards Matthew, and with several unnecessary power moves.
And as this website made the case several times: how you argue is as important as what you argue, and sometimes even more so.
Member Advice: more tact = more social efficiency
It would have been more respectful and prosocial if John had validated Matthew.
No touchy-feely talk was needed.
It would have been both more effective -and quicker- if John had just said something like:
“Got it. I disagree, but I’ll take that into account.
Let me say first it’s nothing personal. It was a quote to make a point, and not to say anyone was wrong or right.
I still think that quoting a previous user or situation might help make a point.
So if you’re cool with it, I might quote you again if it fits and helps the topic, but I am happy to review it with you and edit it or delete if you feel it’s not cool”.
Something like that, maybe even shorter.
Anything that said, “I disagree, but I respect you. And I might quote you again, but I am willing to hear you out if you feel the quote does you a disservice”.
Chances are Matthew would have been happy with that resolution.
Time and effort saved, a better relationship between the two, and a better community.
Admin Intervention
As a forum admin:
Quoting/not quoting in this case: no intervention
As an admin, I don’t see much harm in John’s initial quote.
No intervention in that specific case.
Quoting/not quoting in general: no intervention
As a general approach, no intervention or "rule" on quoting/not quoting other users.
The only rule that applies are those of "basic decency and respect", and "general sensible approach".
If anyone feels that someone is bullying or attacking anyone, please flag it for admin review, and we will review it on a case by case.
So far, this was never necessary, so I think this will almost never happen anyway.
User Lucio might be wrong, the admin decision stands
I might be wrong with my user suggestion, analysis, or point of view, and I’m open to feedback and criticism.
But the admin decision stands: as long as you uphold basic human decency and mutual respect, feel free to quote and mention other members.
In the (very rare) cases when anyone feels slighted, or whenever you reach an impasse, please flag it and we’ll review it on a case by case basis.
Admin Warning: less frame imposing, more negotiation, compromise & win-win
As an admin, I must warn John that over time I’ve seen some over-use of frame-imposing coupled with little willingness to consider other people’s feelings and point of views.
And sometimes some general approaches to debating/communicating that are more about winning and being right, then reaching a win-win understanding.
The use of some techniques, sometimes, went against the values of this website.
So I ask John to adopt a more collaborative/gracious/win-win approach for future clarifications and discussions.

John ( @amerok )

Matthew ( @cheeweijie )

My intervention was unrequested.

But I am intervening because:

It escalated with no solution in sight
Some approaches, techniques, and attitudes are not in line with this website’s values and goals (the main reason)

Interaction Review

1. Matthew asked not to be mentioned

I would prefer that my name is left out in quotes of content (...)

John’s initial quote did frame as if Matthew was mistaken/wrong in his interpretation.

Still, it wasn't too bad in my opinion, and I personally wouldn’t have made such a request.

If I were in John’s shoes, I might have felt like it was a misunderstanding, nitpicking, and maybe touchy/sensitive.

Still, Matthew asked in a considerate way.
To show respect to Matthew, it had to be addressed, in my opinion.

John does not address Matthew’s request

For whatever reason.

Matthew asks again

So I was asking if you can leave my name out. Now could be too late. But maybe for future posts if you are comfortable with that.

Matthew takes care to frame the request in a way that is very power-protecting of John.

John minimizes Matthew's request

Hey man, I don't think that writing your name is such an issue (...)

It’s fair to disagree.
But if we want to show respect, it’s best to validate someone's feelings or request.

It’s also fair to refuse to do something, or grant something.
But then it's better to be direct about, without minimizing what for others does seem to matter.
Telling someone “I don’t think it’s an issue… “ feels demeaning to the receiver.

The way I see it, this wasn’t too different from John’s request to remove the link to his journal from PU.
The way I saw it, the link gave John value, as it was framed as “look at how John is doing great, and you can do something similar”.

But I respect John as a person, and since the link was about him, what he felt, was more important than how I felt (and removed the link).

Matthew asks for a compromise

I think we can find a way to make this work for both of us.

John says the post is locked = “quicksand technique”

The issue is that the post is locked.

This avoids addressing the main issue.

It’s safe to assume that Matthew is concerned about:

The general approach, more than the specific situation
Being respected, understood, and valued, as a valued community member
Being “made whole”: if Matthew felt he was slighted, whether that's true or not, it's safe to assume he wants to be re-empowered

John's reply skirts all the above points.

For Matthew, this can feel like a cop-out.
A “quicksand technique” is to willingly move the conversation towards unproductive ends to avoid addressing the main issue.
Quicksand techniques are likely to frustrate the receiver.

Matthew re-states his case

We don't have to do anything in this particular case.
I'm expressing this to you because it's personally important to me.
Our personal understanding is most important because it affects our future interactions.

As expected, Matthew was more concerned about the general approach.

Advice for Matthew: if someone refused to hear you out, you will rarely see a sudden change of tack.
You must change tack.
Go a bit more assertive here, demand to be heard with a bit more power.

John rejects the request: frame imposing technique

I hear you but I'm sorry, I will continue to use your name if I think it's relevant. You won't became the "nameless" ?

Now John addresses the request.

But still no validation for Matthew’s point of view.

In my opinion, the wink can be considered a power move.
It’s also mentioned in PU I think: it's best to avoid winks and real-life equivalents. They're often smart-alecky and condescending.

The "Teacher / pupil" frame: a power move

Within the same message:

The discomfort is not forcibly something bad someone is doing to you. It might be you stepping out of your comfort zone. So it means there is an opportunity for learning. If you see discomfort as something to avoid, then this will be an obstacle to your growth.

This frames Matthew as the one who needs to learn and grow, while it self-frames John as the one who’s right -and wiser-.

Independently of whether that might true or not, from a power dynamics perspective, unless the teacher/pupil is already set and/or accepted, it's a power move to assume it.
From the higher authority position, the teacher talks down to pupils, and leaves them no room to debate.

Matthew calls out the pupil / teacher frame

If you don't agree with what I say, there's no need to use the self-development frame on me.
You can just disagree.

John closes the conversation: premature closing + frame imposing technique

That being said, I want you to know that there are no hard feelings on my part.
Cheers!

It’s fair not to want to talk anymore.
But if the other party hasn't been heard and validated, they can't accept a closure (hence: "premature closing").

The “no hard feelings” can also be considered a power move: the party who refuses to acknowledge others is less likely to have hard feelings than the party who feels slighted.

So this sets a frame of “I don’t have bad feelings, (then probably you shouldn’t have any either?)”.

It's OK to end conversations we feel are not going anywhere, but it's going to damage relationships (so not OK when we want to respect someone).

Matthew refuses the closure

As expected.

John defends the mentor/pupil frame and emjoy + re-closes

Matthew, this emoji is not a form of micro-aggression, it means: "dude, just relax a bit, it's all good". On the rest I don't agree as well. Like I said I don't have anything more to add.

Matthew agrees to disagree

Advice: agreeing to disagree might be too cooperative if you still feel slighted.

“In your shoes, I'd do better” frame (The "empathic one-up")

Well, I'm happy when my friends tell me that I'm taking something too seriously. It helps me to take some distance. So I can learn from their perspective. Being critical of one's perception is helpful to change one's perspective.

This might even be true, but to put ourselves in someone else's shoes just to say "I'd behave better", it feels like yet another "you're (doing it) all wrong" power move.

Call this an "empathic one-up".

"Helpful to change one's perspective" also implies that it's Matthew's perspective only that needs to be changed. Another form of frame imposing.

(…)

Johns posts definitions of assertiveness & complaining: Smart-aleck + covert power move

It felt like a smart-alecky and a covert power move.

When one disagrees and then shares a definition of a positive VS negative behavior, it’s fair to assume that he is also saying “you’re not doing the positive, you’re doing do the poor & low-power behavior”.

In this case, the covert power move suggests that “this is what’s assertive, what you’re not doing (and I’m doing), and this is what’s complaining, which is what you were doing”.

Proposing to move on after that, plus the smiley, was another premature closure power move: how can someone move on after they’ve been covertly-framed as complaining?

Member POV: John had good points, but a very uncooperative attitude

Overall, I think John’s stance of refusing to not mention Matthew in the future was fair.

And it was also fair to suggest Matthew should consider he was too sensitive over a small thing.

I might advise something similar -but with very different approach-.

But the way it was argued and debated, it was not very respectful towards Matthew, and with several unnecessary power moves.

And as this website made the case several times: how you argue is as important as what you argue, and sometimes even more so.

Member Advice: more tact = more social efficiency

It would have been more respectful and prosocial if John had validated Matthew.

No touchy-feely talk was needed.
It would have been both more effective -and quicker- if John had just said something like:

“Got it. I disagree, but I’ll take that into account.
Let me say first it’s nothing personal. It was a quote to make a point, and not to say anyone was wrong or right.
I still think that quoting a previous user or situation might help make a point.
So if you’re cool with it, I might quote you again if it fits and helps the topic, but I am happy to review it with you and edit it or delete if you feel it’s not cool”.

Something like that, maybe even shorter.
Anything that said, “I disagree, but I respect you. And I might quote you again, but I am willing to hear you out if you feel the quote does you a disservice”.

Chances are Matthew would have been happy with that resolution.
Time and effort saved, a better relationship between the two, and a better community.

Admin Intervention

As a forum admin:

Quoting/not quoting in this case: no intervention

As an admin, I don’t see much harm in John’s initial quote.

No intervention in that specific case.

Quoting/not quoting in general: no intervention

As a general approach, no intervention or "rule" on quoting/not quoting other users.

The only rule that applies are those of "basic decency and respect", and "general sensible approach".

If anyone feels that someone is bullying or attacking anyone, please flag it for admin review, and we will review it on a case by case.
So far, this was never necessary, so I think this will almost never happen anyway.

User Lucio might be wrong, the admin decision stands

I might be wrong with my user suggestion, analysis, or point of view, and I’m open to feedback and criticism.

But the admin decision stands: as long as you uphold basic human decency and mutual respect, feel free to quote and mention other members.
In the (very rare) cases when anyone feels slighted, or whenever you reach an impasse, please flag it and we’ll review it on a case by case basis.

Admin Warning: less frame imposing, more negotiation, compromise & win-win

As an admin, I must warn John that over time I’ve seen some over-use of frame-imposing coupled with little willingness to consider other people’s feelings and point of views.

And sometimes some general approaches to debating/communicating that are more about winning and being right, then reaching a win-win understanding.

The use of some techniques, sometimes, went against the values of this website.

So I ask John to adopt a more collaborative/gracious/win-win approach for future clarifications and discussions.

Stef and selffriend have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#183 · March 31, 2021, 7:18 am

Quote from John Freeman on March 31, 2021, 7:18 am
Hello Lucio,
I have to say that I don't understand your intervention. We agreed to disagree. I also don't understand why you're warning me. It feels like a threat to me. I stated my perspective and Matthew stated his. I think it is fair to disagree on issues on this forum. To me, this feel very authoritative to be honest. I thought this forum was for free-thought and self-expression. I have to say that it bothers me. It feels like someone is monitoring my relationships with the other forum members, once again: a third party.
To clarify, when I said the "post is locked", it is not a technique. It actually was an indirect call to you. I could have been more direct. It means: "I'm totally ok to remove your name from the post. I'm willing to do it but I cannot. Only Lucio can." As I said I could have been more direct. So here it is: Lucio, could you remove Matthew's name from the post and replace it with "a forum member", please?
I knew I was going to be accused of being smart-alec with the definitions, but I did not care. I chose to be honest and I saw a logical flaw in the reasoning so I talked about it. Well, this is another misunderstanding. In my mind, it is totally ok to complain. In my job, patients come with complaints. Complaining means you're voicing an dissatisfaction: I did not like the movie, etc. In my mind (and I can see that you guys have a different perspective), complaining is neutral. That is why it was not something negative nor positive. It was a description of a behaviour, not a judgment of it. Everybody complains from time to time, it's normal and part of life.
From my point of view, we do not share the same approach to self-development with Matthew and it comes up as me trying to one-up him. However, I chose to be honest because as you said yourself on this post, this thread is for anti-fragile ego. Hence, my attitude. I would have validated Matthew if this was in the main post. But here, it was about clarifications.
And as this website made the case several times: how you argue is as important as whatyou argue, and sometimes even more so.
On this point I agree 100%. I admit I have a lot of progress to make. As I said, my intention was to take this opportunity to share with him what I had learn regarding this. So I had to sacrifice equalitarian power dynamics in order to go with self-development. My mistake is that I did not ask him if he was interested in the feed-back (it seems that he was not). For him, this episode was a slight. For me, it was a learning opportunity. This is where I imposed my frame, without asking him if he was interested in learning. I assumed he was. This is where I admit that not taking his perspective into account was lacking respect. (note: I quote definitions all the time, here included for myself. We often talk about words but we're not sure we're sharing the same definitions. So to me, it is one of the basics of debating: "Ok man, let's look at the definition, because here I'm not 100% sure what it means".)
Respect, also called esteem, is a positive feeling or action shown towards someone or something considered important, or held in high esteem or regard. It conveys a sense of admiration for good or valuable qualities. And it is also the process of honoring someone by exhibiting care, concern, or consideration for their needs or feelings.^[1]^[2]
In this case, Matthew had a need to be respected. And I considered like he needed to learn.
“Got it. I disagree, but I’ll take that into account.
Let me say first it’s nothing personal. It was a quote to make a point, and not to say anyone was wrong or right.
I still think that quoting a previous user or situation might help make a point.
So if you’re cool with it, I might quote you again if it fits and helps the topic, but I am happy to review it with you and edit it or delete if you feel it’s not cool”.
Definitely true. For me this was obvious. As I said my attitude was: "Come on, man! Don't take it like that!". It was "tough love" to help another buddy in self-development see another perspective. There was a friendly intention of shocking the other person. My mistake is that I saw Matthew as someone who could be helped. Whereas Matthew did not want to be helped. It is a mistake I did many times over.
As an admin, I must warn John that over time I’ve seen some over-use of frame-imposing coupled with little willingness to consider other people’s feelings and point of views.
This feels like a very general statement. I think that my benevolent intentions have not been taken into account (see what I wrote here). I think I'm being framed as "the bad guy".
The use of some techniques, sometimes, went against the values of this website.
What techniques and what values, please?
So far, this was never necessary, so I think this will almost never happen anyway.
I don't understand why you're writing this and then intervene? I'm confused.
And sometimes some general approaches to debating/communicating that are more about winning and being right, then reaching a win-win understanding.
Here I proposed to remove the name from the thread. What win-win approach would you propose? I also think that my perspective was not taken into account. I don't feel like I'm being treated fairly.
My attitude comes from what I think was an unreasonable request: not quoting a name of a forum member on a forum forever ? Is this a reasonable request? And therefore to me, Matthew's attitude started from win-lose. So I'm all about win-win when the other person is willing to go win-win. If the other person has fixed position, there can be no win-win. So in this case I'm don't see a win-win if the other person has no flexibility in negotiation: if it's "either my way or the highway" ("never quote my name again on the forum or the dispute is not resolved" in this case does not leave me much room for negotiation).
Overall, I really don't understand your attitude. Could you please explain it to me?

Hello Lucio,

I have to say that I don't understand your intervention. We agreed to disagree. I also don't understand why you're warning me. It feels like a threat to me. I stated my perspective and Matthew stated his. I think it is fair to disagree on issues on this forum. To me, this feel very authoritative to be honest. I thought this forum was for free-thought and self-expression. I have to say that it bothers me. It feels like someone is monitoring my relationships with the other forum members, once again: a third party.

To clarify, when I said the "post is locked", it is not a technique. It actually was an indirect call to you. I could have been more direct. It means: "I'm totally ok to remove your name from the post. I'm willing to do it but I cannot. Only Lucio can." As I said I could have been more direct. So here it is: Lucio, could you remove Matthew's name from the post and replace it with "a forum member", please?

I knew I was going to be accused of being smart-alec with the definitions, but I did not care. I chose to be honest and I saw a logical flaw in the reasoning so I talked about it. Well, this is another misunderstanding. In my mind, it is totally ok to complain. In my job, patients come with complaints. Complaining means you're voicing an dissatisfaction: I did not like the movie, etc. In my mind (and I can see that you guys have a different perspective), complaining is neutral. That is why it was not something negative nor positive. It was a description of a behaviour, not a judgment of it. Everybody complains from time to time, it's normal and part of life.

From my point of view, we do not share the same approach to self-development with Matthew and it comes up as me trying to one-up him. However, I chose to be honest because as you said yourself on this post, this thread is for anti-fragile ego. Hence, my attitude. I would have validated Matthew if this was in the main post. But here, it was about clarifications.

And as this website made the case several times: how you argue is as important as whatyou argue, and sometimes even more so.

On this point I agree 100%. I admit I have a lot of progress to make. As I said, my intention was to take this opportunity to share with him what I had learn regarding this. So I had to sacrifice equalitarian power dynamics in order to go with self-development. My mistake is that I did not ask him if he was interested in the feed-back (it seems that he was not). For him, this episode was a slight. For me, it was a learning opportunity. This is where I imposed my frame, without asking him if he was interested in learning. I assumed he was. This is where I admit that not taking his perspective into account was lacking respect. (note: I quote definitions all the time, here included for myself. We often talk about words but we're not sure we're sharing the same definitions. So to me, it is one of the basics of debating: "Ok man, let's look at the definition, because here I'm not 100% sure what it means".)

Respect, also called esteem, is a positive feeling or action shown towards someone or something considered important, or held in high esteem or regard. It conveys a sense of admiration for good or valuable qualities. And it is also the process of honoring someone by exhibiting care, concern, or consideration for their needs or feelings.^[1]^[2]

In this case, Matthew had a need to be respected. And I considered like he needed to learn.

“Got it. I disagree, but I’ll take that into account.
Let me say first it’s nothing personal. It was a quote to make a point, and not to say anyone was wrong or right.
I still think that quoting a previous user or situation might help make a point.
So if you’re cool with it, I might quote you again if it fits and helps the topic, but I am happy to review it with you and edit it or delete if you feel it’s not cool”.

Definitely true. For me this was obvious. As I said my attitude was: "Come on, man! Don't take it like that!". It was "tough love" to help another buddy in self-development see another perspective. There was a friendly intention of shocking the other person. My mistake is that I saw Matthew as someone who could be helped. Whereas Matthew did not want to be helped. It is a mistake I did many times over.

As an admin, I must warn John that over time I’ve seen some over-use of frame-imposing coupled with little willingness to consider other people’s feelings and point of views.

This feels like a very general statement. I think that my benevolent intentions have not been taken into account (see what I wrote here). I think I'm being framed as "the bad guy".

The use of some techniques, sometimes, went against the values of this website.

What techniques and what values, please?

So far, this was never necessary, so I think this will almost never happen anyway.

I don't understand why you're writing this and then intervene? I'm confused.

And sometimes some general approaches to debating/communicating that are more about winning and being right, then reaching a win-win understanding.

Here I proposed to remove the name from the thread. What win-win approach would you propose? I also think that my perspective was not taken into account. I don't feel like I'm being treated fairly.

My attitude comes from what I think was an unreasonable request: not quoting a name of a forum member on a forum forever ? Is this a reasonable request? And therefore to me, Matthew's attitude started from win-lose. So I'm all about win-win when the other person is willing to go win-win. If the other person has fixed position, there can be no win-win. So in this case I'm don't see a win-win if the other person has no flexibility in negotiation: if it's "either my way or the highway" ("never quote my name again on the forum or the dispute is not resolved" in this case does not leave me much room for negotiation).

Overall, I really don't understand your attitude. Could you please explain it to me?

Stef has reacted to this post.

#184 · March 31, 2021, 7:25 am

Quote from selffriend on March 31, 2021, 7:25 am
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on March 31, 2021, 4:20 am
John ( @amerok )
Matthew ( @cheeweijie )
My intervention was unrequested.
But I am intervening because:
It escalated with no solution in sight
Some approaches, techniques, and attitudes are not in line with this website’s values and goals (the main reason)
Interaction Review
1. Matthew asked not to be mentioned
I would prefer that my name is left out in quotes of content (...)
John’s initial quote did frame as if Matthew was mistaken/wrong in his interpretation.
Still, it wasn't too bad in my opinion, and I personally wouldn’t have made such a request.
If I were in John’s shoes, I might have felt like it was a misunderstanding, nitpicking, and maybe touchy/sensitive.
Still, Matthew asked in a considerate way.
To show respect to Matthew, it had to be addressed, in my opinion.
John does not address Matthew’s request
For whatever reason.
Matthew asks again
So I was asking if you can leave my name out. Now could be too late. But maybe for future posts if you are comfortable with that.
Matthew takes care to frame the request in a way that is very power-protecting of John.
John minimizes Matthew's request
Hey man, I don't think that writing your name is such an issue (...)
It’s fair to disagree.
But if we want to show respect, it’s best to validate someone's feelings or request.
It’s also fair to refuse to do something, or grant something.
But then it's better to be direct about, without minimizing what for others does seem to matter.
Telling someone “I don’t think it’s an issue… “ feels demeaning to the receiver.
The way I see it, this wasn’t too different from John’s request to remove the link to his journal from PU.
The way I saw it, the link gave John value, as it was framed as “look at how John is doing great, and you can do something similar”.
But I respect John as a person, and since the link was about him, what he felt, was more important than how I felt (and removed the link).
Matthew asks for a compromise
I think we can find a way to make this work for both of us.
John says the post is locked = “quicksand technique”
The issue is that the post is locked.
This avoids addressing the main issue.
It’s safe to assume that Matthew is concerned about:
The general approach, more than the specific situation
Being respected, understood, and valued, as a valued community member
Being “made whole”: if Matthew felt he was slighted, whether that's true or not, it's safe to assume he wants to be re-empowered
John's reply skirts all the above points.
For Matthew, this can feel like a cop-out.
A “quicksand technique” is to willingly move the conversation towards unproductive ends to avoid addressing the main issue.
Quicksand techniques are likely to frustrate the receiver.
Matthew re-states his case
We don't have to do anything in this particular case.
I'm expressing this to you because it's personally important to me.
Our personal understanding is most important because it affects our future interactions.
As expected, Matthew was more concerned about the general approach.
Advice for Matthew: if someone refused to hear you out, you will rarely see a sudden change of tack.
You must change tack.
Go a bit more assertive here, demand to be heard with a bit more power.
John rejects the request: frame imposing technique
I hear you but I'm sorry, I will continue to use your name if I think it's relevant. You won't became the "nameless" ?
Now John addresses the request.
But still no validation for Matthew’s point of view.
In my opinion, the wink can be considered a power move.
It’s also mentioned in PU I think: it's best to avoid winks and real-life equivalents. They're often smart-alecky and condescending.
The "Teacher / pupil" frame: a power move
Within the same message:
The discomfort is not forcibly something bad someone is doing to you. It might be you stepping out of your comfort zone. So it means there is an opportunity for learning. If you see discomfort as something to avoid, then this will be an obstacle to your growth.
This frames Matthew as the one who needs to learn and grow, while it self-frames John as the one who’s right -and wiser-.
Independently of whether that might true or not, from a power dynamics perspective, unless the teacher/pupil is already set and/or accepted, it's a power move to assume it.
From the higher authority position, the teacher talks down to pupils, and leaves them no room to debate.
Matthew calls out the pupil / teacher frame
If you don't agree with what I say, there's no need to use the self-development frame on me.
You can just disagree.
John closes the conversation: premature closing + frame imposing technique
That being said, I want you to know that there are no hard feelings on my part.
Cheers!
It’s fair not to want to talk anymore.
But if the other party hasn't been heard and validated, they can't accept a closure (hence: "premature closing").
The “no hard feelings” can also be considered a power move: the party who refuses to acknowledge others is less likely to have hard feelings than the party who feels slighted.
So this sets a frame of “I don’t have bad feelings, (then probably you shouldn’t have any either?)”.
It's OK to end conversations we feel are not going anywhere, but it's going to damage relationships (so not OK when we want to respect someone).
Matthew refuses the closure
As expected.
John defends the mentor/pupil frame and emjoy + re-closes
Matthew, this emoji is not a form of micro-aggression, it means: "dude, just relax a bit, it's all good". On the rest I don't agree as well. Like I said I don't have anything more to add.
Matthew agrees to disagree
Advice: agreeing to disagree might be too cooperative if you still feel slighted.
“In your shoes, I'd do better” frame (The "empathic one-up")
Well, I'm happy when my friends tell me that I'm taking something too seriously. It helps me to take some distance. So I can learn from their perspective. Being critical of one's perception is helpful to change one's perspective.
This might even be true, but to put ourselves in someone else's shoes just to say "I'd behave better", it feels like yet another "you're (doing it) all wrong" power move.
Call this an "empathic one-up".
"Helpful to change one's perspective" also implies that it's Matthew's perspective only that needs to be changed. Another form of frame imposing.
(…)
Johns posts definitions of assertiveness & complaining: Smart-aleck + covert power move
It felt like a smart-alecky and a covert power move.
When one disagrees and then shares a definition of a positive VS negative behavior, it’s fair to assume that he is also saying “you’re not doing the positive, you’re doing do the poor & low-power behavior”.
In this case, the covert power move suggests that “this is what’s assertive, what you’re not doing (and I’m doing), and this is what’s complaining, which is what you were doing”.
Proposing to move on after that, plus the smiley, was another premature closure power move: how can someone move on after they’ve been covertly-framed as complaining?
Member POV: John had good points, but a very uncooperative attitude
Overall, I think John’s stance of refusing to not mention Matthew in the future was fair.
And it was also fair to suggest Matthew should consider he was too sensitive over a small thing.
I might advise something similar -but with very different approach-.
But the way it was argued and debated, it was not very respectful towards Matthew, and with several unnecessary power moves.
And as this website made the case several times: how you argue is as important as what you argue, and sometimes even more so.
Member Advice: more tact = more social efficiency
It would have been more respectful and prosocial if John had validated Matthew.
No touchy-feely talk was needed.
It would have been both more effective -and quicker- if John had just said something like:
“Got it. I disagree, but I’ll take that into account.
Let me say first it’s nothing personal. It was a quote to make a point, and not to say anyone was wrong or right.
I still think that quoting a previous user or situation might help make a point.
So if you’re cool with it, I might quote you again if it fits and helps the topic, but I am happy to review it with you and edit it or delete if you feel it’s not cool”.
Something like that, maybe even shorter.
Anything that said, “I disagree, but I respect you. And I might quote you again, but I am willing to hear you out if you feel the quote does you a disservice”.
Chances are Matthew would have been happy with that resolution.
Time and effort saved, a better relationship between the two, and a better community.
Admin Intervention
As a forum admin:
Quoting/not quoting in this case: no intervention
As an admin, I don’t see much harm in John’s initial quote.
No intervention in that specific case.
Quoting/not quoting in general: no intervention
As a general approach, no intervention or "rule" on quoting/not quoting other users.
The only rule that applies are those of "basic decency and respect", and "general sensible approach".
If anyone feels that someone is bullying or attacking anyone, please flag it for admin review, and we will review it on a case by case.
So far, this was never necessary, so I think this will almost never happen anyway.
User Lucio might be wrong, the admin decision stands
I might be wrong with my user suggestion, analysis, or point of view, and I’m open to feedback and criticism.
But the admin decision stands: as long as you uphold basic human decency and mutual respect, feel free to quote and mention other members.
In the (very rare) cases when anyone feels slighted, or whenever you reach an impasse, please flag it and we’ll review it on a case by case basis.
Admin Warning: less frame imposing, more negotiation, compromise & win-win
As an admin, I must warn John that over time I’ve seen some over-use of frame-imposing coupled with little willingness to consider other people’s feelings and point of views.
And sometimes some general approaches to debating/communicating that are more about winning and being right, then reaching a win-win understanding.
The use of some techniques, sometimes, went against the values of this website.
So I ask John to adopt a more collaborative/gracious/win-win approach for future clarifications and discussions.
Agree 100%!
I am not intervening here but I just want express that I learned a lot from all of you guys. Thank you Lucio. Thank you the administrating team.
I guess that, imposing the mentoring frame without permission is kind of one-upping, especially during an disagreement.
Matthew assertively made his points clear and John's intention was also good. I don't think John intentionally played those win-lose power moves.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on March 31, 2021, 4:20 am
John ( @amerok )
Matthew ( @cheeweijie )
My intervention was unrequested.
But I am intervening because:
It escalated with no solution in sight
Some approaches, techniques, and attitudes are not in line with this website’s values and goals (the main reason)
Interaction Review
1. Matthew asked not to be mentioned
I would prefer that my name is left out in quotes of content (...)
John’s initial quote did frame as if Matthew was mistaken/wrong in his interpretation.
Still, it wasn't too bad in my opinion, and I personally wouldn’t have made such a request.
If I were in John’s shoes, I might have felt like it was a misunderstanding, nitpicking, and maybe touchy/sensitive.
Still, Matthew asked in a considerate way.
To show respect to Matthew, it had to be addressed, in my opinion.
John does not address Matthew’s request
For whatever reason.
Matthew asks again
So I was asking if you can leave my name out. Now could be too late. But maybe for future posts if you are comfortable with that.
Matthew takes care to frame the request in a way that is very power-protecting of John.
John minimizes Matthew's request
Hey man, I don't think that writing your name is such an issue (...)
It’s fair to disagree.
But if we want to show respect, it’s best to validate someone's feelings or request.
It’s also fair to refuse to do something, or grant something.
But then it's better to be direct about, without minimizing what for others does seem to matter.
Telling someone “I don’t think it’s an issue… “ feels demeaning to the receiver.
The way I see it, this wasn’t too different from John’s request to remove the link to his journal from PU.
The way I saw it, the link gave John value, as it was framed as “look at how John is doing great, and you can do something similar”.
But I respect John as a person, and since the link was about him, what he felt, was more important than how I felt (and removed the link).
Matthew asks for a compromise
I think we can find a way to make this work for both of us.
John says the post is locked = “quicksand technique”
The issue is that the post is locked.
This avoids addressing the main issue.
It’s safe to assume that Matthew is concerned about:
The general approach, more than the specific situation
Being respected, understood, and valued, as a valued community member
Being “made whole”: if Matthew felt he was slighted, whether that's true or not, it's safe to assume he wants to be re-empowered
John's reply skirts all the above points.
For Matthew, this can feel like a cop-out.
A “quicksand technique” is to willingly move the conversation towards unproductive ends to avoid addressing the main issue.
Quicksand techniques are likely to frustrate the receiver.
Matthew re-states his case
We don't have to do anything in this particular case.
I'm expressing this to you because it's personally important to me.
Our personal understanding is most important because it affects our future interactions.
As expected, Matthew was more concerned about the general approach.
Advice for Matthew: if someone refused to hear you out, you will rarely see a sudden change of tack.
You must change tack.
Go a bit more assertive here, demand to be heard with a bit more power.
John rejects the request: frame imposing technique
I hear you but I'm sorry, I will continue to use your name if I think it's relevant. You won't became the "nameless" ?
Now John addresses the request.
But still no validation for Matthew’s point of view.
In my opinion, the wink can be considered a power move.
It’s also mentioned in PU I think: it's best to avoid winks and real-life equivalents. They're often smart-alecky and condescending.
The "Teacher / pupil" frame: a power move
Within the same message:
The discomfort is not forcibly something bad someone is doing to you. It might be you stepping out of your comfort zone. So it means there is an opportunity for learning. If you see discomfort as something to avoid, then this will be an obstacle to your growth.
This frames Matthew as the one who needs to learn and grow, while it self-frames John as the one who’s right -and wiser-.
Independently of whether that might true or not, from a power dynamics perspective, unless the teacher/pupil is already set and/or accepted, it's a power move to assume it.
From the higher authority position, the teacher talks down to pupils, and leaves them no room to debate.
Matthew calls out the pupil / teacher frame
If you don't agree with what I say, there's no need to use the self-development frame on me.
You can just disagree.
John closes the conversation: premature closing + frame imposing technique
That being said, I want you to know that there are no hard feelings on my part.
Cheers!
It’s fair not to want to talk anymore.
But if the other party hasn't been heard and validated, they can't accept a closure (hence: "premature closing").
The “no hard feelings” can also be considered a power move: the party who refuses to acknowledge others is less likely to have hard feelings than the party who feels slighted.
So this sets a frame of “I don’t have bad feelings, (then probably you shouldn’t have any either?)”.
It's OK to end conversations we feel are not going anywhere, but it's going to damage relationships (so not OK when we want to respect someone).
Matthew refuses the closure
As expected.
John defends the mentor/pupil frame and emjoy + re-closes
Matthew, this emoji is not a form of micro-aggression, it means: "dude, just relax a bit, it's all good". On the rest I don't agree as well. Like I said I don't have anything more to add.
Matthew agrees to disagree
Advice: agreeing to disagree might be too cooperative if you still feel slighted.
“In your shoes, I'd do better” frame (The "empathic one-up")
Well, I'm happy when my friends tell me that I'm taking something too seriously. It helps me to take some distance. So I can learn from their perspective. Being critical of one's perception is helpful to change one's perspective.
This might even be true, but to put ourselves in someone else's shoes just to say "I'd behave better", it feels like yet another "you're (doing it) all wrong" power move.
Call this an "empathic one-up".
"Helpful to change one's perspective" also implies that it's Matthew's perspective only that needs to be changed. Another form of frame imposing.
(…)
Johns posts definitions of assertiveness & complaining: Smart-aleck + covert power move
It felt like a smart-alecky and a covert power move.
When one disagrees and then shares a definition of a positive VS negative behavior, it’s fair to assume that he is also saying “you’re not doing the positive, you’re doing do the poor & low-power behavior”.
In this case, the covert power move suggests that “this is what’s assertive, what you’re not doing (and I’m doing), and this is what’s complaining, which is what you were doing”.
Proposing to move on after that, plus the smiley, was another premature closure power move: how can someone move on after they’ve been covertly-framed as complaining?
Member POV: John had good points, but a very uncooperative attitude
Overall, I think John’s stance of refusing to not mention Matthew in the future was fair.
And it was also fair to suggest Matthew should consider he was too sensitive over a small thing.
I might advise something similar -but with very different approach-.
But the way it was argued and debated, it was not very respectful towards Matthew, and with several unnecessary power moves.
And as this website made the case several times: how you argue is as important as what you argue, and sometimes even more so.
Member Advice: more tact = more social efficiency
It would have been more respectful and prosocial if John had validated Matthew.
No touchy-feely talk was needed.
It would have been both more effective -and quicker- if John had just said something like:
“Got it. I disagree, but I’ll take that into account.
Let me say first it’s nothing personal. It was a quote to make a point, and not to say anyone was wrong or right.
I still think that quoting a previous user or situation might help make a point.
So if you’re cool with it, I might quote you again if it fits and helps the topic, but I am happy to review it with you and edit it or delete if you feel it’s not cool”.
Something like that, maybe even shorter.
Anything that said, “I disagree, but I respect you. And I might quote you again, but I am willing to hear you out if you feel the quote does you a disservice”.
Chances are Matthew would have been happy with that resolution.
Time and effort saved, a better relationship between the two, and a better community.
Admin Intervention
As a forum admin:
Quoting/not quoting in this case: no intervention
As an admin, I don’t see much harm in John’s initial quote.
No intervention in that specific case.
Quoting/not quoting in general: no intervention
As a general approach, no intervention or "rule" on quoting/not quoting other users.
The only rule that applies are those of "basic decency and respect", and "general sensible approach".
If anyone feels that someone is bullying or attacking anyone, please flag it for admin review, and we will review it on a case by case.
So far, this was never necessary, so I think this will almost never happen anyway.
User Lucio might be wrong, the admin decision stands
I might be wrong with my user suggestion, analysis, or point of view, and I’m open to feedback and criticism.
But the admin decision stands: as long as you uphold basic human decency and mutual respect, feel free to quote and mention other members.
In the (very rare) cases when anyone feels slighted, or whenever you reach an impasse, please flag it and we’ll review it on a case by case basis.
Admin Warning: less frame imposing, more negotiation, compromise & win-win
As an admin, I must warn John that over time I’ve seen some over-use of frame-imposing coupled with little willingness to consider other people’s feelings and point of views.
And sometimes some general approaches to debating/communicating that are more about winning and being right, then reaching a win-win understanding.
The use of some techniques, sometimes, went against the values of this website.
So I ask John to adopt a more collaborative/gracious/win-win approach for future clarifications and discussions.

Agree 100%!

I am not intervening here but I just want express that I learned a lot from all of you guys. Thank you Lucio. Thank you the administrating team.

I guess that, imposing the mentoring frame without permission is kind of one-upping, especially during an disagreement.

Matthew assertively made his points clear and John's intention was also good. I don't think John intentionally played those win-lose power moves.

Lucio Buffalmano and Stef have reacted to this post.

#185 · March 31, 2021, 7:30 am

Quote from selffriend on March 31, 2021, 7:30 am
Quote from John Freeman on March 31, 2021, 7:18 am
Hello Lucio,
I have to say that I don't understand your intervention. We agreed to disagree. I also don't understand why you're warning me. It feels like a threat to me. I stated my perspective and Matthew stated his. I think it is fair to disagree on issues on this forum. To me, this feel very authoritative to be honest. I thought this forum was for free-thought and self-expression. I have to say that it bothers me. It feels like someone is monitoring my relationships with the other forum members, once again: a third party.
To clarify, when I said the "post is locked", it is not a technique. It actually was an indirect call to you. I could have been more direct. It means: "I'm totally ok to remove your name from the post. I'm willing to do it but I cannot. Only Lucio can." As I said I could have been more direct. So here it is: Lucio, could you remove Matthew's name from the post and replace it with "a forum member", please?
I knew I was going to be accused of being smart-alec with the definitions, but I did not care. I chose to be honest and I saw a logical flaw in the reasoning so I talked about it. Well, this is another misunderstanding. In my mind, it is totally ok to complain. In my job, patients come with complaints. Complaining means you're voicing an dissatisfaction: I did not like the movie, etc. In my mind (and I can see that you guys have a different perspective), complaining is neutral. That is why it was not something negative for me. And therefore not something negative nor positive. It was a description of a behaviour, not a judgment of it. Everybody complains from time to time, it's normal and part of life.
From my point of view, we do not share the same approach to self-development with Matthew and it comes up as me trying to one-up him. However, I chose to be honest because as you said yourself on this post, this thread is for anti-fragile ego. Hence, my attitude. I would have validated Matthew if this was in the main post. But here, it was about clarifications.
And as this website made the case several times: how you argue is as important as whatyou argue, and sometimes even more so.
On this point I agree 100%. I admit I have a lot of progress to make. I admit I could have validated more Matthew. As I said, my intention was to take this opportunity to share with him what I had learn regarding this. So I had to sacrifice equalitarian power dynamics in order to go with self-development. My mistake is that I did not ask him if he was interested in the feed-back (it seems that he was not). For him, this episode was a slight. For me, it was a learning opportunity. This is where I imposed my frame, without asking him if he was interested in learning. I assumed he was. This is where I admit that not taking his perspective into account was lacking respect. (note: I quote definitions all the time, here included for myself. We often talk about words but we're not sure we're sharing the same definitions. So to me, it is one of the basics of debating: "Ok man, let's look at the definition, because here I'm not 100% sure what it means".)
Respect, also called esteem, is a positive feeling or action shown towards someone or something considered important, or held in high esteem or regard. It conveys a sense of admiration for good or valuable qualities. And it is also the process of honoring someone by exhibiting care, concern, or consideration for their needs or feelings.^[1]^[2]
In this case, Matthew had a need to be respected. And I considered like he needed to learn.
“Got it. I disagree, but I’ll take that into account.
Let me say first it’s nothing personal. It was a quote to make a point, and not to say anyone was wrong or right.
I still think that quoting a previous user or situation might help make a point.
So if you’re cool with it, I might quote you again if it fits and helps the topic, but I am happy to review it with you and edit it or delete if you feel it’s not cool”.
Definitely true. For me this was obvious. As I said my attitude was: "Come on, man! Don't take it like that!". It was "tough love" to help another buddy in self-development see another perspective. There was a friendly intention of shocking the other person. My mistake is that I saw Matthew as someone who could be helped. Whereas Matthew did not want to be helped. It is a mistake I did many times over. It is a matter of learning style: some people like it (I love it), some people don't.
As an admin, I must warn John that over time I’ve seen some over-use of frame-imposing coupled with little willingness to consider other people’s feelings and point of views.
This feels like a very general statement. I think that my benevolent intentions have not been taken into account (see what I wrote here). I think I'm being framed as "the bad guy".
The use of some techniques, sometimes, went against the values of this website.
What techniques and what values, please?
So far, this was never necessary, so I think this will almost never happen anyway.
I don't understand why you're writing this and then intervene? I'm confused.
And sometimes some general approaches to debating/communicating that are more about winning and being right, then reaching a win-win understanding.
Here I proposed to remove the name from the thread. What win-win approach would you propose? I also think that my perspective was not taken into account. I don't feel like I'm being treated fairly.
My attitude comes from what I think was an unreasonable request: not quoting a name of a forum member on a forum forever ? Is this a reasonable request? And therefore to me, Matthew's attitude started from win-lose. So I'm all about win-win when the other person is willing to go win-win. If the other person has fixed position, there can be no win-win. So in this case I'm not willing to reach win-win if the other person has no flexibility in negotiation: if it's "either my way or the highway" ("never quote my name again on the forum or the dispute is not resolved" does not leave me much room for negotiation).
Overall, I really don't understand your attitude. Could you please explain it to me?
Hi John, to me, Lucio is actually on your side about the "quoting issue". Quoting the name is nothing bad and "John made good points". He is just saying that we all should not use the mentor one-upping frame during a disagreement, even if our intentions were good. Of course this is just my personal feelings.

Quote from John Freeman on March 31, 2021, 7:18 am
Hello Lucio,
I have to say that I don't understand your intervention. We agreed to disagree. I also don't understand why you're warning me. It feels like a threat to me. I stated my perspective and Matthew stated his. I think it is fair to disagree on issues on this forum. To me, this feel very authoritative to be honest. I thought this forum was for free-thought and self-expression. I have to say that it bothers me. It feels like someone is monitoring my relationships with the other forum members, once again: a third party.
To clarify, when I said the "post is locked", it is not a technique. It actually was an indirect call to you. I could have been more direct. It means: "I'm totally ok to remove your name from the post. I'm willing to do it but I cannot. Only Lucio can." As I said I could have been more direct. So here it is: Lucio, could you remove Matthew's name from the post and replace it with "a forum member", please?
I knew I was going to be accused of being smart-alec with the definitions, but I did not care. I chose to be honest and I saw a logical flaw in the reasoning so I talked about it. Well, this is another misunderstanding. In my mind, it is totally ok to complain. In my job, patients come with complaints. Complaining means you're voicing an dissatisfaction: I did not like the movie, etc. In my mind (and I can see that you guys have a different perspective), complaining is neutral. That is why it was not something negative for me. And therefore not something negative nor positive. It was a description of a behaviour, not a judgment of it. Everybody complains from time to time, it's normal and part of life.
From my point of view, we do not share the same approach to self-development with Matthew and it comes up as me trying to one-up him. However, I chose to be honest because as you said yourself on this post, this thread is for anti-fragile ego. Hence, my attitude. I would have validated Matthew if this was in the main post. But here, it was about clarifications.
And as this website made the case several times: how you argue is as important as whatyou argue, and sometimes even more so.
On this point I agree 100%. I admit I have a lot of progress to make. I admit I could have validated more Matthew. As I said, my intention was to take this opportunity to share with him what I had learn regarding this. So I had to sacrifice equalitarian power dynamics in order to go with self-development. My mistake is that I did not ask him if he was interested in the feed-back (it seems that he was not). For him, this episode was a slight. For me, it was a learning opportunity. This is where I imposed my frame, without asking him if he was interested in learning. I assumed he was. This is where I admit that not taking his perspective into account was lacking respect. (note: I quote definitions all the time, here included for myself. We often talk about words but we're not sure we're sharing the same definitions. So to me, it is one of the basics of debating: "Ok man, let's look at the definition, because here I'm not 100% sure what it means".)
Respect, also called esteem, is a positive feeling or action shown towards someone or something considered important, or held in high esteem or regard. It conveys a sense of admiration for good or valuable qualities. And it is also the process of honoring someone by exhibiting care, concern, or consideration for their needs or feelings.^[1]^[2]
In this case, Matthew had a need to be respected. And I considered like he needed to learn.
“Got it. I disagree, but I’ll take that into account.
Let me say first it’s nothing personal. It was a quote to make a point, and not to say anyone was wrong or right.
I still think that quoting a previous user or situation might help make a point.
So if you’re cool with it, I might quote you again if it fits and helps the topic, but I am happy to review it with you and edit it or delete if you feel it’s not cool”.
Definitely true. For me this was obvious. As I said my attitude was: "Come on, man! Don't take it like that!". It was "tough love" to help another buddy in self-development see another perspective. There was a friendly intention of shocking the other person. My mistake is that I saw Matthew as someone who could be helped. Whereas Matthew did not want to be helped. It is a mistake I did many times over. It is a matter of learning style: some people like it (I love it), some people don't.
As an admin, I must warn John that over time I’ve seen some over-use of frame-imposing coupled with little willingness to consider other people’s feelings and point of views.
This feels like a very general statement. I think that my benevolent intentions have not been taken into account (see what I wrote here). I think I'm being framed as "the bad guy".
The use of some techniques, sometimes, went against the values of this website.
What techniques and what values, please?
So far, this was never necessary, so I think this will almost never happen anyway.
I don't understand why you're writing this and then intervene? I'm confused.
And sometimes some general approaches to debating/communicating that are more about winning and being right, then reaching a win-win understanding.
Here I proposed to remove the name from the thread. What win-win approach would you propose? I also think that my perspective was not taken into account. I don't feel like I'm being treated fairly.
My attitude comes from what I think was an unreasonable request: not quoting a name of a forum member on a forum forever ? Is this a reasonable request? And therefore to me, Matthew's attitude started from win-lose. So I'm all about win-win when the other person is willing to go win-win. If the other person has fixed position, there can be no win-win. So in this case I'm not willing to reach win-win if the other person has no flexibility in negotiation: if it's "either my way or the highway" ("never quote my name again on the forum or the dispute is not resolved" does not leave me much room for negotiation).
Overall, I really don't understand your attitude. Could you please explain it to me?

Hi John, to me, Lucio is actually on your side about the "quoting issue". Quoting the name is nothing bad and "John made good points". He is just saying that we all should not use the mentor one-upping frame during a disagreement, even if our intentions were good. Of course this is just my personal feelings.

#186 · March 31, 2021, 7:34 am

Quote from selfriend on March 31, 2021, 7:25 am

I guess that, imposing the mentoring frame without permission is kind of one-upping.

Yes, that's a mistake I've been doing over and over again. I discuss it above.

That is why in real life I ask permission:

Do you want my opinion on this topic?
May I give you feed-back on this?

And often times people are surprised because they don't often get asked permission for these matters. It is effective when it is done. But if I don't do it, then it's of no use. :P

It is a good reminder for me to do it automatically. My (current) lack of patience in these matters is my (current) weakness.

It has been not so long ago that I learned that I don't have to teach people what I know. In the past, I thought that if I would not do it, then it would mean that I'm a selfish person. Now I learned to value what I have to teach. So I refrain more often to do it because I'm thinking more of the "when" and "how". I now learned that it comes off as "frame imposing" and "disrespectful". This is useful feed-back.

So the steps to get out of this "I have to teach people what I know/what they don't know/don't see" are:

Recognise that it is not a useful thought leading to a not useful behaviour because the other person feels one-upped.
Next time I feel someone could learn something from me, think about: "Is this person interested in learning this? Is this the right time? Am I willing to teach this person this? What will be the outcome after I taught this person this? How will I teach this person this? Do I have a benevolent intention towards this person?"
Then if all lights are "green" --> Ask for permission to give feed-back/teach something.
Then teach/give-feed-back in an ego-protecting manner.

Stef and selffriend have reacted to this post.

#187 · March 31, 2021, 8:20 am

Quote from selfriend on March 31, 2021, 7:30 am

Hi John, to me, Lucio is actually on your side about the "quoting issue". Quoting the name is nothing bad and "John made good points".

Yes.

He is just saying that we all should not use the mentor one-upping frame during a disagreement, even if our intentions were good. Of course this is just my personal feelings.

Yes. The thing is that it's not the first time that my intentions are framed in a negative manner, despite the contrary. I got "warned" and I think it's not warranted nor fair in this situation. That is my complaint.

Stef and selffriend have reacted to this post.

#188 · March 31, 2021, 6:56 pm

Ok, I understood the dynamics: it's once again the perpetrator-victim-savior cycle. That's why it's a pattern. So I'm out of it. The cycle cannot perpetuate itself without a third player.

Stef has reacted to this post.

#189 · March 31, 2021, 10:47 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on March 31, 2021, 10:47 pm
I've heard that perpetrator-savior-victim before, John.
It feels to me that whenever there is not-so-positive feedback, there is something wrong to be found within the feedback giver.
The first time, it was me being more friendly and biased towards Ali.
On the aftermath of that flare up and me giving feedback it would have been socially gracious to acknowledge Ali's apologies, it was me subconsciously registering you as a threat
When I interjected in another thread to explain what Selffreind probably meant, it was a pattern of me siding with other forum members
And now it's me who's gotten it all wrong again -and probably siding with Matthew, I guess?-.
I do see a pattern indeed, but we are seeing very different patterns here.
I said something along these lines to you some time ago:
It's not easy giving you feedback, there is often a very strong pushback.
And I confirm that.
And frankly, I had little doubts this one would also lead to another flare-up -albeit now it's understandable, as the feedback was stronger-.
Just some random notes:
I have to say that I don't understand your intervention. We agreed to disagree.
That's not the case at all.
This is twisting the events, in my opinion.
Saying that you "agreed to disagree" frames the situation as "kind of solved", and "probably solved in relatively amicable terms".
But that's not the case.
The discussion kept on going after Matthew wrote that, and it was all but a friendly agreement reached.
You don't need to reach a friendly agreement, just to be sure, but pretending you did is twisting the facts, and another example of not-so-honest debating, in my opinion.
I knew I was going to be accused of being smart-alec with the definitions, but I did not care. I chose to be honest and I saw a logical flaw in the reasoning so I talked about it. Well, this is another misunderstanding. In my mind, it is totally ok to complain. In my job, patients come with complaints. Complaining means you're voicing an dissatisfaction: I did not like the movie, etc.
If one acts smart-alecky, then you can easily expect being that behavior to be labeled "smart-alecky".
John, you call it "choosing to be honest", and to me that feels like textbook going undercover after the covert power move.
Unless you'd be totally cool if someone framed you like a complainer while you're arguing?
Really?
Fine, that might also be the case.
But you're a smart guy, and I guess you would know that 99.x% of people, don't feel that way.
BEYOND THE SPECIFIC CASES
Matthew can also chip in and share his own thoughts.
I don't think it's going anywhere to keep on nitpicking, so I'll get to the conclusions.
So I'm out of it. The cycle cannot perpetuate itself without a third player.
I hope you can change your mind and stay.
From what I've seen, you seem to be a great guy who's going to go places.
What we are addressing here, and this is the summary again, is that sometimes, especially when you feel under attack or under competitive settings it seems, your style of arguing and discussing with others can go overboard into dominating and winning at all costs.
That's cool when dealing with many people in lives. Sometimes you gotta do that for self defense, and some people only understand that style.
And it can be also fair in competitive settings.
That's why we also learn that style here (plus strategies and techniques).
But it's not cool within relationships that are not nearly as competitive, and that are expected to be win-win. In those win-win relationships, some grace and mutual respect is expected, and ruthlessness is not tolerated.
This is a place for those win-win. Tough feedback, yes, but not ruthless.
Overall, you are obviously a great mind and did a lot of great things both for advancing power dynamics and for people's self-development.
Whatever you decide, your contributions to this corner of self-development will live on forever, and nobody can take that away.

I've heard that perpetrator-savior-victim before, John.

It feels to me that whenever there is not-so-positive feedback, there is something wrong to be found within the feedback giver.

The first time, it was me being more friendly and biased towards Ali.
On the aftermath of that flare up and me giving feedback it would have been socially gracious to acknowledge Ali's apologies, it was me subconsciously registering you as a threat
When I interjected in another thread to explain what Selffreind probably meant, it was a pattern of me siding with other forum members
And now it's me who's gotten it all wrong again -and probably siding with Matthew, I guess?-.

I do see a pattern indeed, but we are seeing very different patterns here.

I said something along these lines to you some time ago:

It's not easy giving you feedback, there is often a very strong pushback.

And I confirm that.

And frankly, I had little doubts this one would also lead to another flare-up -albeit now it's understandable, as the feedback was stronger-.

Just some random notes:

I have to say that I don't understand your intervention. We agreed to disagree.

That's not the case at all.
This is twisting the events, in my opinion.
Saying that you "agreed to disagree" frames the situation as "kind of solved", and "probably solved in relatively amicable terms".
But that's not the case.
The discussion kept on going after Matthew wrote that, and it was all but a friendly agreement reached.

You don't need to reach a friendly agreement, just to be sure, but pretending you did is twisting the facts, and another example of not-so-honest debating, in my opinion.

I knew I was going to be accused of being smart-alec with the definitions, but I did not care. I chose to be honest and I saw a logical flaw in the reasoning so I talked about it. Well, this is another misunderstanding. In my mind, it is totally ok to complain. In my job, patients come with complaints. Complaining means you're voicing an dissatisfaction: I did not like the movie, etc.

If one acts smart-alecky, then you can easily expect being that behavior to be labeled "smart-alecky".

John, you call it "choosing to be honest", and to me that feels like textbook going undercover after the covert power move.

Unless you'd be totally cool if someone framed you like a complainer while you're arguing?
Really?
Fine, that might also be the case.
But you're a smart guy, and I guess you would know that 99.x% of people, don't feel that way.

BEYOND THE SPECIFIC CASES

Matthew can also chip in and share his own thoughts.

I don't think it's going anywhere to keep on nitpicking, so I'll get to the conclusions.

So I'm out of it. The cycle cannot perpetuate itself without a third player.

I hope you can change your mind and stay.

From what I've seen, you seem to be a great guy who's going to go places.

What we are addressing here, and this is the summary again, is that sometimes, especially when you feel under attack or under competitive settings it seems, your style of arguing and discussing with others can go overboard into dominating and winning at all costs.

That's cool when dealing with many people in lives. Sometimes you gotta do that for self defense, and some people only understand that style.
And it can be also fair in competitive settings.
That's why we also learn that style here (plus strategies and techniques).

But it's not cool within relationships that are not nearly as competitive, and that are expected to be win-win. In those win-win relationships, some grace and mutual respect is expected, and ruthlessness is not tolerated.
This is a place for those win-win. Tough feedback, yes, but not ruthless.

Overall, you are obviously a great mind and did a lot of great things both for advancing power dynamics and for people's self-development.
Whatever you decide, your contributions to this corner of self-development will live on forever, and nobody can take that away.

Stef has reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#190 · April 1, 2021, 7:07 am

Quote from John Freeman on April 1, 2021, 7:07 am
Hello Lucio,
I respect you and I hope you will hear me:
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on March 31, 2021, 10:47 pm
I've heard that perpetrator-savior-victim before, John.
It feels to me that whenever there is not-so-positive feedback, there is something wrong to be found within the feedback giver.
I hear your opinion and respectfully disagree. Proof of me taking feed-back:
I guess that, imposing the mentoring frame without permission is kind of one-upping.
Yes, that's a mistake I've been doing over and over again. I discuss it above.
Another proof of me taking feed-back:
And as this website made the case several times: how you argue is as important as whatyou argue, and sometimes even more so.
On this point I agree 100%. I admit I have a lot of progress to make. As I said, my intention was to take this opportunity to share with him what I had learn regarding this. So I had to sacrifice equalitarian power dynamics in order to go with self-development. My mistake is that I did not ask him if he was interested in the feed-back (it seems that he was not). For him, this episode was a slight. For me, it was a learning opportunity. This is where I imposed my frame, without asking him if he was interested in learning. I assumed he was. This is where I admit that not taking his perspective into account was lacking respect. (note: I quote definitions all the time, here included for myself. We often talk about words but we're not sure we're sharing the same definitions. So to me, it is one of the basics of debating: "Ok man, let's look at the definition, because here I'm not 100% sure what it means".)
This is the first issue. I'm supposed to be open to feed-back (and I am) whereas I think that it would be cool if you would be open to my feed-back (see above). So you feel it's smart-alecking. Well, I think this is smart-alecking to deny someone else's perspective and then argue against it.
The first time, it was me being more friendly and biased towards Ali.
On the aftermath of that flare up and me giving feedback it would have been socially gracious to acknowledge Ali's apologies, it was me subconsciously registering you as a threat
When I interjected in another thread to explain what Selffreind probably meant, it was a pattern of me siding with other forum members
And now it's me who's gotten it all wrong again -and probably siding with Matthew, I guess?-.
That is the dynamics: I take the saviour role because the person takes the victim role. Then, I amp it up and become a perpetrator while the 3rd person stays the victim. This is where you step up as the saviour towards the victim against the perpetrator (me). At this moment, I become the victim and you become the perpetrator (this is the part of the cycle where we are, we are stuck there because A) there is no third person to switch roles B) We're not yet to the final outcome, where you're supposed to punish me and end the game. Have you read "Games people play" by Eric Berne?
I do see a pattern indeed, but we are seeing very different patterns here.
I said something along these lines to you some time ago:
It's not easy giving you feedback, there is often a very strong pushback.
And I confirm that.
I'm sad to hear it, but I respect your opinion.
This is twisting the events, in my opinion.
I'm sad to hear it, but I respect your opinion.
Saying that you "agreed to disagree" frames the situation as "kind of solved", and "probably solved in relatively amicable terms".
But that's not the case.
The discussion kept on going after Matthew wrote that, and it was all but a friendly agreement reached.
You don't need to reach a friendly agreement, just to be sure, but pretending you did is twisting the facts, and another example of not-so-honest debating, in my opinion.
I respectfully disagree: I never said it was a friendy agreement (or quote me, please)
If one acts smart-alecky, then you can easily expect being that behavior to be labeled "smart-alecky".
Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, with some costs associated.
John, you call it "choosing to be honest", and to me that feels like textbook going undercover after the covert power move.
I am sad to hear it, but I respect your opinion. My intentions are portrayed here in a different way they were intended.
Unless you'd be totally cool if someone framed you like a complainer while you're arguing?
Really?
Fine, that might also be the case.
But you're a smart guy, and I guess you would know that 99.x% of people, don't feel that way.
I respect your opinion. However I have a different perspective. If this is how it looks like then I accept it and will find better ways to express myself in the future. Framing me as a smart guy does not prevent me from making mistakes. Everybody make mistakes, including smart guys.
So I'm out of it. The cycle cannot perpetuate itself without a third player.
I meant from this interaction as this savior-perpetrator-victim game cannot go on without a third player, if I would stop playing (I'm currently playing since I answered), it cannot go on. (BTW, if I'm "smart" and a "great mind", why don't you consider my opinion about this dynamics here? I hope you will)
What we are addressing here, and this is the summary again, is that sometimes, especially when you feel under attack or under competitive settings it seems, your style of arguing and discussing with others can go overboard into dominating and winning at all costs.
I'm sorry to hear that you don't like my style of arguing and discussing. I have so many things to learn from you, thanks for pointing it out! (BTW, who is "we" here?)
That's cool when dealing with many people in lives. Sometimes you gotta do that for self defense, and some people only understand that style.
And it can be also fair in competitive settings.
That's why we also learn that style here (plus strategies and techniques).
But it's not cool within relationships that are not nearly as competitive, and that are expected to be win-win. In those win-win relationships, some grace and mutual respect is expected, and ruthlessness is not tolerated.
That is your perspective and I respect it. Here is mine: we don't have to get along with everyone all the time. It is sad, but this is how Life goes. Sometimes we agree and are friendly, sometimes we are not. I asked you in earnest (=with sincere intentions) how could have I gone with win-win when the other is not willing to go win-win? I am willing to learn and take feed-back, however I'm not sure this was quite clear. Here I'm quoting it again for clarity's sake:
Here I proposed to remove the name from the thread. What win-win approach would you propose? I also think that my perspective was not taken into account. I don't feel like I'm being treated fairly.
My attitude comes from what I think was an unreasonable request: not quoting a name of a forum member on a forum forever ? Is this a reasonable request? And therefore to me, Matthew's attitude started from win-lose. So I'm all about win-win when the other person is willing to go win-win. If the other person has fixed position, there can be no win-win. So in this case I'm don't see a win-win if the other person has no flexibility in negotiation: if it's "either my way or the highway" ("never quote my name again on the forum or the dispute is not resolved" in this case does not leave me much room for negotiation).
So my question still stands, if you have some feed-back for me about this, it would be great!
This is a place for those win-win. Tough feedback, yes, but not ruthless.
I hear your perspective. I agree with it. I might have been too harsh (moved from saviour to perpetrator). This is a matter of calibration. I learned something. I already critiqued it in this post.
From what I've seen, you seem to be a great guy who's going to go places.
This is a power move. Just like Trump did it to Macron in Power University. But I love how you weave positive things with the more harsh things in your post. I'm learning from you. The alternative answer (more socially aware) would be: "Thanks, you also seem to be a great guy who's going to go places!"
Overall, you are obviously a great mind and did a lot of great things both for advancing power dynamics and for people's self-development. Whatever you decide, your contributions to this corner of self-development will live on forever, and nobody can take that away.
This feels like an obituary. I understand you don't like my style of arguing and think I cannot take feed-back, but please don't bury me so fast! As I said I respect your opinions. I understand you have a certain image of me, it is what it is: I contributed to it through my actions and words. However, I do feel like you're reacting to this image of me and not the real me. This is why I feel sad. Well, this is is Life. And it goes on!
Thanks for the compliments and acknowledging my contributions! I'm happy to serve this community! You're a great guy, BTW!
Thank you for your feed-backs, guys! You are amazing, I'm learning a lot, thanks to you!

Hello Lucio,

I respect you and I hope you will hear me:

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on March 31, 2021, 10:47 pm
I've heard that perpetrator-savior-victim before, John.
It feels to me that whenever there is not-so-positive feedback, there is something wrong to be found within the feedback giver.

I hear your opinion and respectfully disagree. Proof of me taking feed-back:

I guess that, imposing the mentoring frame without permission is kind of one-upping.
Yes, that's a mistake I've been doing over and over again. I discuss it above.

Another proof of me taking feed-back:

And as this website made the case several times: how you argue is as important as whatyou argue, and sometimes even more so.
On this point I agree 100%. I admit I have a lot of progress to make. As I said, my intention was to take this opportunity to share with him what I had learn regarding this. So I had to sacrifice equalitarian power dynamics in order to go with self-development. My mistake is that I did not ask him if he was interested in the feed-back (it seems that he was not). For him, this episode was a slight. For me, it was a learning opportunity. This is where I imposed my frame, without asking him if he was interested in learning. I assumed he was. This is where I admit that not taking his perspective into account was lacking respect. (note: I quote definitions all the time, here included for myself. We often talk about words but we're not sure we're sharing the same definitions. So to me, it is one of the basics of debating: "Ok man, let's look at the definition, because here I'm not 100% sure what it means".)

This is the first issue. I'm supposed to be open to feed-back (and I am) whereas I think that it would be cool if you would be open to my feed-back (see above). So you feel it's smart-alecking. Well, I think this is smart-alecking to deny someone else's perspective and then argue against it.

The first time, it was me being more friendly and biased towards Ali.
On the aftermath of that flare up and me giving feedback it would have been socially gracious to acknowledge Ali's apologies, it was me subconsciously registering you as a threat
When I interjected in another thread to explain what Selffreind probably meant, it was a pattern of me siding with other forum members
And now it's me who's gotten it all wrong again -and probably siding with Matthew, I guess?-.

That is the dynamics: I take the saviour role because the person takes the victim role. Then, I amp it up and become a perpetrator while the 3rd person stays the victim. This is where you step up as the saviour towards the victim against the perpetrator (me). At this moment, I become the victim and you become the perpetrator (this is the part of the cycle where we are, we are stuck there because A) there is no third person to switch roles B) We're not yet to the final outcome, where you're supposed to punish me and end the game. Have you read "Games people play" by Eric Berne?

I do see a pattern indeed, but we are seeing very different patterns here.
I said something along these lines to you some time ago:
It's not easy giving you feedback, there is often a very strong pushback.
And I confirm that.

I'm sad to hear it, but I respect your opinion.

This is twisting the events, in my opinion.

I'm sad to hear it, but I respect your opinion.

Saying that you "agreed to disagree" frames the situation as "kind of solved", and "probably solved in relatively amicable terms".
But that's not the case.
The discussion kept on going after Matthew wrote that, and it was all but a friendly agreement reached.
You don't need to reach a friendly agreement, just to be sure, but pretending you did is twisting the facts, and another example of not-so-honest debating, in my opinion.

I respectfully disagree: I never said it was a friendy agreement (or quote me, please)

If one acts smart-alecky, then you can easily expect being that behavior to be labeled "smart-alecky".

Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, with some costs associated.

John, you call it "choosing to be honest", and to me that feels like textbook going undercover after the covert power move.

I am sad to hear it, but I respect your opinion. My intentions are portrayed here in a different way they were intended.

Unless you'd be totally cool if someone framed you like a complainer while you're arguing?
Really?
Fine, that might also be the case.
But you're a smart guy, and I guess you would know that 99.x% of people, don't feel that way.

I respect your opinion. However I have a different perspective. If this is how it looks like then I accept it and will find better ways to express myself in the future. Framing me as a smart guy does not prevent me from making mistakes. Everybody make mistakes, including smart guys.

So I'm out of it. The cycle cannot perpetuate itself without a third player.

I meant from this interaction as this savior-perpetrator-victim game cannot go on without a third player, if I would stop playing (I'm currently playing since I answered), it cannot go on. (BTW, if I'm "smart" and a "great mind", why don't you consider my opinion about this dynamics here? I hope you will)

What we are addressing here, and this is the summary again, is that sometimes, especially when you feel under attack or under competitive settings it seems, your style of arguing and discussing with others can go overboard into dominating and winning at all costs.

I'm sorry to hear that you don't like my style of arguing and discussing. I have so many things to learn from you, thanks for pointing it out! (BTW, who is "we" here?)

That's cool when dealing with many people in lives. Sometimes you gotta do that for self defense, and some people only understand that style.
And it can be also fair in competitive settings.
That's why we also learn that style here (plus strategies and techniques).
But it's not cool within relationships that are not nearly as competitive, and that are expected to be win-win. In those win-win relationships, some grace and mutual respect is expected, and ruthlessness is not tolerated.

That is your perspective and I respect it. Here is mine: we don't have to get along with everyone all the time. It is sad, but this is how Life goes. Sometimes we agree and are friendly, sometimes we are not. I asked you in earnest (=with sincere intentions) how could have I gone with win-win when the other is not willing to go win-win? I am willing to learn and take feed-back, however I'm not sure this was quite clear. Here I'm quoting it again for clarity's sake:

Here I proposed to remove the name from the thread. What win-win approach would you propose? I also think that my perspective was not taken into account. I don't feel like I'm being treated fairly.
My attitude comes from what I think was an unreasonable request: not quoting a name of a forum member on a forum forever ? Is this a reasonable request? And therefore to me, Matthew's attitude started from win-lose. So I'm all about win-win when the other person is willing to go win-win. If the other person has fixed position, there can be no win-win. So in this case I'm don't see a win-win if the other person has no flexibility in negotiation: if it's "either my way or the highway" ("never quote my name again on the forum or the dispute is not resolved" in this case does not leave me much room for negotiation).

So my question still stands, if you have some feed-back for me about this, it would be great!

This is a place for those win-win. Tough feedback, yes, but not ruthless.

I hear your perspective. I agree with it. I might have been too harsh (moved from saviour to perpetrator). This is a matter of calibration. I learned something. I already critiqued it in this post.

From what I've seen, you seem to be a great guy who's going to go places.

This is a power move. Just like Trump did it to Macron in Power University. But I love how you weave positive things with the more harsh things in your post. I'm learning from you. The alternative answer (more socially aware) would be: "Thanks, you also seem to be a great guy who's going to go places!"

Overall, you are obviously a great mind and did a lot of great things both for advancing power dynamics and for people's self-development. Whatever you decide, your contributions to this corner of self-development will live on forever, and nobody can take that away.

This feels like an obituary. I understand you don't like my style of arguing and think I cannot take feed-back, but please don't bury me so fast! As I said I respect your opinions. I understand you have a certain image of me, it is what it is: I contributed to it through my actions and words. However, I do feel like you're reacting to this image of me and not the real me. This is why I feel sad. Well, this is is Life. And it goes on!

Thanks for the compliments and acknowledging my contributions! I'm happy to serve this community! You're a great guy, BTW!

Thank you for your feed-backs, guys! You are amazing, I'm learning a lot, thanks to you!

Stef has reacted to this post.