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

#191 · April 1, 2021, 11:26 am

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on April 1, 2021, 11:26 am
I will focus on the portion that I think is most important to address.
Quote from John Freeman on April 1, 2021, 7:07 am
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 Bernes
I have never taken the victim role in our interactions.
I expressed my discomfort on a certain statement.
That does not make me a victim.
We disagreed and continued to disagree.
There was no resolution.
This again does not make anyone in this disagreement a victim.
I feel that you consciously or subconsciously chose to take the saviour or mentor frame.
I think that it's healthy to express these discomforts.
That's one of the reasons why this thread was created.
Victim implies that the person expressing the discomfort is helpless or has little power.
Why do you frame a person in a disagreement as a victim?
Other Notes
Quote from John Freeman on March 31, 2021, 7:34 am
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. ?
I have addressed this previously with the winking emoji.
It's a form of micro-aggression to stick your tongue out during a disagreement.
This is a way of getting under people's skin like the winking emoji.
When one expresses their frustration, you tell the person to "relax, it's all good".
Would you feel comfortable if someone sticks his tongue out at you while you were making an important point?

I will focus on the portion that I think is most important to address.

Quote from John Freeman on April 1, 2021, 7:07 am
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 Bernes

I have never taken the victim role in our interactions.
I expressed my discomfort on a certain statement.
That does not make me a victim.

We disagreed and continued to disagree.
There was no resolution.
This again does not make anyone in this disagreement a victim.
I feel that you consciously or subconsciously chose to take the saviour or mentor frame.

I think that it's healthy to express these discomforts.
That's one of the reasons why this thread was created.

Victim implies that the person expressing the discomfort is helpless or has little power.
Why do you frame a person in a disagreement as a victim?

Other Notes

Quote from John Freeman on March 31, 2021, 7:34 am
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. ?

I have addressed this previously with the winking emoji.
It's a form of micro-aggression to stick your tongue out during a disagreement.
This is a way of getting under people's skin like the winking emoji.
When one expresses their frustration, you tell the person to "relax, it's all good".

Would you feel comfortable if someone sticks his tongue out at you while you were making an important point?

Stef has reacted to this post.

#192 · April 1, 2021, 11:41 am

Here I’m making fun of myself with this emoji. Self-deprecation.

Regarding the victim. It’s a role in a given dynamics. Right now the tables have turned and I’m in the victim role for instance.

Stef has reacted to this post.

#193 · April 1, 2021, 1:36 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on 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!

Hi Lucio, I agree that mixing too many meanings into one sentence will confuse others.

For that specific example, I am not disagreeing with anything because I don't know (unsure) if this example was brought up as a positive example or negative example, since you said we should use "I don't" instead of "I cannot":

You: I can’t because I scheduled some me time for tonight and I’m just gonna eat my favorite meal, drink my favorite wine, and listen to my favorite music

Before the question is clarified, I don't express my opinion, as expressing opinions without due-diligence is not-respectful for myself and others. As I said, you have the full power to clarify your own material, and I don't judge it being "right" or "wrong". Thank you again for your mentorship and hard-works!

Stef has reacted to this post.

#194 · April 1, 2021, 1:40 pm

Quote from John Freeman on April 1, 2021, 11:41 am
Here I’m making fun of myself with this emoji. Self-deprecation.
Regarding the victim. It’s a role in a given dynamics. Right now the tables have turned and I’m in the victim role for instance.

I don't think you are the victim, John. Lucio's consulting rate is 500 dollars per 30 min. As you said, we all come here to learn. He wrote two long post of more than 1000 words each, which would at least take him two hours in total. All the feedbacks are almost solely for you! That is 2000 dollars earned! He does not really give Matthew these many feedbacks.

Lucio Buffalmano and Stef have reacted to this post.

#195 · April 1, 2021, 2:37 pm

Hello selfriend,

thank you for your feed-back! :)

Cheers!

Stef and selffriend have reacted to this post.

#196 · April 2, 2021, 8:17 am

@lucio

So this would have been the win-win?

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”.

Stef has reacted to this post.

#197 · April 2, 2021, 6:20 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on April 2, 2021, 6:20 pm
Hey John,
That would have been a negotiating approach, ultimately resulting in win-win, yes.
Purely on this specifc circumstance, it might have been less of a "win" for your alone, since you'd have to give some ground.
On the surface, you'd go from 100% your way, to 60% your way.
But in practice, it was a bigger win for you as well, since it would have:
preserved the relationship with Matthew
increased your reputation as a socially gracious individual
increased your reputation as a socially effective player, being able to adroitly avoid potential pitfalls and come out of it well
And it would have most likely actually cost you nothing in practice, since Matthew would have been cool with that resolution in the present, and far more easy-going in the future.
Once Matthew saw you were collaborative/friendly with him in general, he'd likely have also been OK with you quoting him again in the future.
My guess is that the issue here was not so much quoting or not quoting, but about personal issues, non-fully resolved past interactions, and non-stellar reputation that was developed over previous interactions.
So, yeah, in the end, that negotiating approach was going to be a major win-win.
TEST IT OUT
Just imagine your friend R. that you consider a value-taker quotes from a situation in which you were wrong.
You might consider it a one-up, and an attack on your status in the group.
Now imagine a friend of yours does the same instead, a guy that you consider a value-giver -and an ally-.
And while he does it, he slightly places a hand on your back as if to say "we're friends" -the friend equivalent of this-.
And adds that "it's not about John who made a mistake, but about the general principle that he's talking about, and that he would have done the same mistake, if not bigger, if he were in John's shoes".
Now you don't take it personally anymore.
He took steps to protect your power, and to show to you and to everyone that "you two are friends and close". Plus, he is generally a value-adding guy, with a history of being an eagle who doesn't scratch on others.
You might even chip in and share some more of your experience, and all would be good.

Hey John,

That would have been a negotiating approach, ultimately resulting in win-win, yes.

Purely on this specifc circumstance, it might have been less of a "win" for your alone, since you'd have to give some ground.

On the surface, you'd go from 100% your way, to 60% your way.

But in practice, it was a bigger win for you as well, since it would have:

preserved the relationship with Matthew
increased your reputation as a socially gracious individual
increased your reputation as a socially effective player, being able to adroitly avoid potential pitfalls and come out of it well

And it would have most likely actually cost you nothing in practice, since Matthew would have been cool with that resolution in the present, and far more easy-going in the future.
Once Matthew saw you were collaborative/friendly with him in general, he'd likely have also been OK with you quoting him again in the future.
My guess is that the issue here was not so much quoting or not quoting, but about personal issues, non-fully resolved past interactions, and non-stellar reputation that was developed over previous interactions.

So, yeah, in the end, that negotiating approach was going to be a major win-win.

TEST IT OUT

Just imagine your friend R. that you consider a value-taker quotes from a situation in which you were wrong.

You might consider it a one-up, and an attack on your status in the group.

Now imagine a friend of yours does the same instead, a guy that you consider a value-giver -and an ally-.
And while he does it, he slightly places a hand on your back as if to say "we're friends" -the friend equivalent of this-.
And adds that "it's not about John who made a mistake, but about the general principle that he's talking about, and that he would have done the same mistake, if not bigger, if he were in John's shoes".
Now you don't take it personally anymore.
He took steps to protect your power, and to show to you and to everyone that "you two are friends and close". Plus, he is generally a value-adding guy, with a history of being an eagle who doesn't scratch on others.
You might even chip in and share some more of your experience, and all would be good.

John Freeman, Stef and selffriend have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#198 · April 2, 2021, 7:15 pm

Quote from John Freeman on April 2, 2021, 7:15 pm
Hey Lucio,
thanks for your answer. I understand I could have been smoother. As my intention was benevolent it was also not to be smooth, that is true. I made that choice consciously and it was a mistake.
non-stellar reputation
What do you mean?
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on April 2, 2021, 6:20 pm
Once Matthew saw you were collaborative/friendly with him in general, he'd likely have also been OK with you quoting him again in the future.
My guess is that the issue here was not so much quoting or not quoting, but about personal issues, non-fully resolved past interactions, and non-stellar reputation that was developed over previous interactions.
So there was a grudge. That's what you're saying.
TEST IT OUT
Just imagine your friend R. that you consider a value-taker quotes from a situation in which you were wrong.
You might consider it a one-up, and an attack on your status in the group.
Now imagine a friend of yours does the same instead, a guy that you consider a value-giver -and an ally-.
And while he does it, he slightly places a hand on your back as if to say "we're friends" -the friend equivalent of this-.
And adds that "it's not about John who made a mistake, but about the general principle that he's talking about, and that he would have done the same mistake, if not bigger, if he were in John's shoes".
That has been what I repeatedly stated, that it was the best example I could think of. It happened to be an example about Matthew. So that is as far as I could have gone. To say repeatedly that it was an example and that I'm ok to remove his name in the post. That was the "win-win" that I was willing to go for. If we talk in terms of negotiation and not in terms of ego or emotions: in this case the counter-part was asking too much in terms of bargain. So if the guy wants my arm: he's not going to get it. And that is where I got defensive: when the other person took it too far. I'm starting to understand that there are layers to power dynamics just as there are in communication. Actually power dynamics might just be a subset of communication: there is no power dynamics without communication. And to have a smooth interaction, one must have the different layers aligned just as in communication.
Now you don't take it personally anymore.
He took steps to protect your power, and to show to you and to everyone that "you two are friends and close". Plus, he is generally a value-adding guy, with a history of being an eagle who doesn't scratch on others.
You might even chip in and share some more of your experience, and all would be good.
You took a good example. However, I have a different frame. Since our conversation some time ago, I now do view this forum as a playground to learn. I understand that a lot about this is about saving face. I agree and I don't judge it. However, right now I think I don't care about my status on this forum anymore. This forum is not the real life. It's a place where we exchange ideas. So if I would have been in his shoes I not have reacted like that either way. In real life, I might have asked: "What are you talking about?" to understand what the other one was talking about and what his intentions were.
I might be wrong but this is how I see it now: I realize more and more that a lot of power dynamics is interwoven with ego. I understand it is important in many cultures (and in general) to save face. However, I think it goes against the mentality of the learner. So since I now consider this forum to be a learning arena, I think it's less important for me to "power-protect" (ego-protect?) myself and more important to learn. That is why the growth mindset is so difficult to acquire. I understand that when interacting with me, my mindset might not be completely transparent of easy to understand. I open myself up now to facilitate this. I value growth more than significance, way more. So beyond grudges, communication styles and personality, I think the learning is where the value was: first when I posted the example and second when I suggested to Matthew to not to take it so seriously. The learning is what matters to me. So there was also a conflict of values. This is still a topic I'm considering, I do not have any definitive answer regarding the Power & Ego topic. It's a new topic for me.
Anyway, there is always something good coming out of these events. As long as one keeps an open mind and reflect on one's actions.
So thanks a lot for speaking your mind and taking the time to answer me!
PS: I'll have a second look at your example as it is still not 100% clear to me.

Hey Lucio,

thanks for your answer. I understand I could have been smoother. As my intention was benevolent it was also not to be smooth, that is true. I made that choice consciously and it was a mistake.

non-stellar reputation

What do you mean?

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on April 2, 2021, 6:20 pm
Once Matthew saw you were collaborative/friendly with him in general, he'd likely have also been OK with you quoting him again in the future.
My guess is that the issue here was not so much quoting or not quoting, but about personal issues, non-fully resolved past interactions, and non-stellar reputation that was developed over previous interactions.

So there was a grudge. That's what you're saying.

TEST IT OUT
Just imagine your friend R. that you consider a value-taker quotes from a situation in which you were wrong.
You might consider it a one-up, and an attack on your status in the group.
Now imagine a friend of yours does the same instead, a guy that you consider a value-giver -and an ally-.
And while he does it, he slightly places a hand on your back as if to say "we're friends" -the friend equivalent of this-.
And adds that "it's not about John who made a mistake, but about the general principle that he's talking about, and that he would have done the same mistake, if not bigger, if he were in John's shoes".

That has been what I repeatedly stated, that it was the best example I could think of. It happened to be an example about Matthew. So that is as far as I could have gone. To say repeatedly that it was an example and that I'm ok to remove his name in the post. That was the "win-win" that I was willing to go for. If we talk in terms of negotiation and not in terms of ego or emotions: in this case the counter-part was asking too much in terms of bargain. So if the guy wants my arm: he's not going to get it. And that is where I got defensive: when the other person took it too far. I'm starting to understand that there are layers to power dynamics just as there are in communication. Actually power dynamics might just be a subset of communication: there is no power dynamics without communication. And to have a smooth interaction, one must have the different layers aligned just as in communication.

Now you don't take it personally anymore.
He took steps to protect your power, and to show to you and to everyone that "you two are friends and close". Plus, he is generally a value-adding guy, with a history of being an eagle who doesn't scratch on others.
You might even chip in and share some more of your experience, and all would be good.

You took a good example. However, I have a different frame. Since our conversation some time ago, I now do view this forum as a playground to learn. I understand that a lot about this is about saving face. I agree and I don't judge it. However, right now I think I don't care about my status on this forum anymore. This forum is not the real life. It's a place where we exchange ideas. So if I would have been in his shoes I not have reacted like that either way. In real life, I might have asked: "What are you talking about?" to understand what the other one was talking about and what his intentions were.

I might be wrong but this is how I see it now: I realize more and more that a lot of power dynamics is interwoven with ego. I understand it is important in many cultures (and in general) to save face. However, I think it goes against the mentality of the learner. So since I now consider this forum to be a learning arena, I think it's less important for me to "power-protect" (ego-protect?) myself and more important to learn. That is why the growth mindset is so difficult to acquire. I understand that when interacting with me, my mindset might not be completely transparent of easy to understand. I open myself up now to facilitate this. I value growth more than significance, way more. So beyond grudges, communication styles and personality, I think the learning is where the value was: first when I posted the example and second when I suggested to Matthew to not to take it so seriously. The learning is what matters to me. So there was also a conflict of values. This is still a topic I'm considering, I do not have any definitive answer regarding the Power & Ego topic. It's a new topic for me.

Anyway, there is always something good coming out of these events. As long as one keeps an open mind and reflect on one's actions.

So thanks a lot for speaking your mind and taking the time to answer me!

PS: I'll have a second look at your example as it is still not 100% clear to me.

selffriend has reacted to this post.

#199 · April 3, 2021, 1:11 am

Quote from John Freeman on April 2, 2021, 7:15 pm
So there was a grudge. That's also what you're saying.
(...)
That has been what I repeatedly stated, that it was the best example I could think of.

John,

For sure there is lots of ego and saving face.
Those are integral part of power dynamics.

But that is a different topic.

Instead, I want to keep the focus on that feedback because that's what matters the most here.

Based on your reply, it feels like you're not agreeing with the feedback, or not willing to accept it, and are seeking to re-open the discussion to assess whether or not the feedback or the warning are valid.

The feedback is simple:

There has been behavior, and a pattern of behavior, that was:

Not in line with the values and philosphy of this website
Refusal to accept feedback

Read again the original post, as well as the second reply, and there are several examples of behavior that go against this website's values as well as the use of strategies, techniques, and attitudes that this website recommends to avoid.

I still haven't seen any real acknowledgment for that, but that is fully up to you.

What is ot up me is that the feedback stands, and so does the warning.

I really wanna read lots of more from you and for decades to come, and also want to have the best possible relationship with you.

But I also must acknowledge what I've seen, and think about the message that is being sent here.

I cannot have a website that says this is "high-quality behavior", and then have a forum with examples of covert aggression, winks, smart-alecking, frame twisting, and word salads that skirt the real issue -just to be clear, those are like 1% of your posts or less, 99% of your posts add value, but that 1% is still important-.

Edit: from "long detours" to "word salads".

Stef has reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#200 · April 3, 2021, 7:55 am

I acknowledged many times my mistakes in the previous posts. Let's talk about it on the phone. I called you, let me know when you are available.

Stef has reacted to this post.