Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Feedbacks & clarifications

Humble:

Hi Matthew, are you saying that the definition from macmillandictionary

  1. used for expressing your opinion about something, especially when you are sure that you are right

is more accurate than the definition from wiktionary?

  1. Used to introduce or qualify a statement, as expressing one's own view, not one backed by external authority or to be accepted without question

Well, now, I actually agree with you as you just made a point. So, what alternative you'll going to use in order to avoid confusion?


90% rule:

Well, of course I agree that if 90% think a move is value-taking, then the move is value-taking. But, I want to reemphasize that, there is a spectrum of value-taking powermoves. Some of them are very harmful and need us to pay more attention. Others might be less harmful.

My point was, if everyone (in general public) can identify a powermove, and everyone can properly prepare for it, handle it, and defend it, then, that powermove is too obvious to do material harm. Well, an obvious, easily identifiable value-taking move is still harmful, but less harmful than a smartly-crafted covert powermove, in my personal opinion.

 

 

I think concerning the phrase "in my humble opinion", it is challenging to look at the word "humble" alone to discern why the phrase may not be taken well by people.
Because humble is often a positive word in other contexts.
In the phrase "in my humble opinion", people have misused the phrase in a sarcastic manner.
As such, there is a negative connotation nowadays.

What you used at the end "in my personal opinion" would likely come across better.
I like to give a pre-amble

I may be wrong.
In my personal opinion, ...

EDIT: I checked out Macmillan Dictionary and Wiktionary.
I think quite a few people would view the meaning to be that of Macmillan's rather than Wiktionary's.
I think given the wider context, people may be able to discern if you mean the Macmillan's meaning or the Wiktionary's meaning.


On the 90% rule, I pointed that out (even though it may be obvious) because that's where we seemed to misunderstand each other.
On the overt vs covert power moves, we are on the same page, which I guess why we are learning on this website about the more manipulative and nuanced power moves.

In short, I broke it down until it's obvious to show that we are on the same page.

Lucio Buffalmano and selffriend have reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmanoselffriend
Quote from Matthew Whitewood on April 9, 2021, 12:46 pm
One-Way Implication: 90% Viewing A Statement As A Power Move Implies It Is A Power Moves But Not Vice Versa

We may actually be quite on the same page.
I think I should re-phrase this and ask if I interpret Lucio's concept correctly. @lucio

If 90% of the people view a statement as a value-taking power move, then it is a value-taking power move. (I think this is what Lucio means; I think so too)
If someone makes a value-taking power move, it does not imply that 90% of the people will view the statement as a value-taking power move.
I also think that this is true.

-------------------

Though I would say that totally innocent people will be harmed socially as well because not standing up to aggression will make you look submissive at times.

OFF-TOPIC

This message is not to enter into the debate, but for clarification on the issue I was mentioned on, and for a second issue which I think is highly relevant to power theory.

Your interpretation is correct, Matthew.

The "everything is subjective" can actually be another technique of the manipulator, so that he can never be cornered as a manipulator, a value-taker, or generally as someone that is not suited for inclusion in any social group / social exchange.

And I also agree with you that "totally innocent" doesn't mean that power move won't affect you. Maybe they won't affect you emotionally as you won't feel "slighted", but they affect you socially.

It's like wearing wool on your eyes and ears: sure, you won't get offended, but you won't go far either in influencing the world around you.
Getting to the top requires power intelligence.

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Hi @lucio, I brought up subjectivity because we, who built with anti-fragile ego, are definitely different from others without it. So my question is, shall we take their feeling seriously? Shall we take their feelings into account? My personal answer is yes, I need to take care of it. Even if someone does not come with an anti-fragile ego, and thus he think he's personally attacked, I cannot just laugh at him that he is too fragile. This is because anti-fragile is a requirement for myself, and myself only, I think.


 

I mostly agree you with your arguments on "totally innocent". Though, I want to bring up an exceptional case in my real life. A person, despite of being close to total innocent, did survive the harsh office politics in a big company. Based on her description, everyone think she is harmless, so no one wasted their precious resources on excluding or undermining her.

Of course, this example can be a rare exception.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano

That's a very deep intelligent take on "antifragile ego", selffriend, and I agree.

If we want to go deeper on that one, let's open a thread just for that.

And if you want to discuss the total innocence angle, which is also an interesting topic on its own, also open a new topic for that one.
Otherwise, let's go back to the topic of feedback and clarification on this one -in case you and Matthew have anything else to add, that's up to you. I wasn't involved there, so I'm calling myself out-.

Matthew Whitewood, Stef and selffriend have reacted to this post.
Matthew WhitewoodStefselffriend
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

@ratodo

Hey mate,

I've noticed that a few of your messages, and possible your general way of talking and arguing, is about finding faults and exceptions.

Some recent examples:

  • Napoleon and Cleopatra were great (when OP, me, was making the point they were over-hyped)
  • Debating strategies
  • Musk is a great salesman (when one of the articles / posts cast doubt on that assertion)

All the points you raise might be valid points -or might not-, that's not the point here.

The point here is the effect that attitude has on the social and power dynamics and your ability to achieve goals and status with people and through people.

And the danger is that people can frame you or see you as uncollaborative, unfriendly, and generally "not an ally" -when dealing with individuals- and "not on board with the team" when within groups.

When dealing with a boss, he might feel -and might feel so for good reasons- that you are diminishing his authority, and he might want to get rid of you just to preserve his power.

That attitude is not necessarily bad or "wrong" in all cases.
For example, it's a great asset for critical reviews, for brainstorming, for finding out the truth.
The voice that goes against the choir is a precious asset in many cases. BUT it can still cost you dearly, even while you're adding value.

I know that well because I often have the same approach in my reviews, and I've done a few enemies along the way -plus many lukewarm folks in the self-development industry who preferred to have a review without "cons" and "criticism" sections-. But I was conscious about it, and this message is to make you conscious about it as well-.

There are ways of keeping that attitude and the value it adds while also reducing the costs to you -but that's another topic-.

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on April 16, 2021, 6:01 pm

@ratodo

Hey mate,

I've noticed that a few of your messages, and possible your general way of talking and arguing, is about finding faults and exceptions.

Some recent examples:

  • Napoleon and Cleopatra were great (when OP, me, was making the point they were over-hyped)
  • Debating strategies
  • Musk is a great salesman (when one of the articles / posts cast doubt on that assertion)

All the points you raise might be valid points -or might not-, that's not the point here.

The point here is the effect that attitude has on the social and power dynamics and your ability to achieve goals and status with people and through people.

And the danger is that people can frame you or see you as uncollaborative, unfriendly, and generally "not an ally" -when dealing with individuals- and "not on board with the team" when within groups.

When dealing with a boss, he might feel -and might feel so for good reasons- that you are diminishing his authority, and he might want to get rid of you just to preserve his power.

That attitude is not necessarily bad or "wrong" in all cases.
For example, it's a great asset for critical reviews, for brainstorming, for finding out the truth.
The voice that goes against the choir is a precious asset in many cases. BUT it can still cost you dearly, even while you're adding value.

I know that well because I often have the same approach in my reviews, and I've done a few enemies along the way -plus many lukewarm folks in the self-development industry who preferred to have a review without "cons" and "criticism" sections-. But I was conscious about it, and this message is to make you conscious about it as well-.

There are ways of keeping that attitude and the value it adds while also reducing the costs to you -but that's another topic-.

Hi Lucio, I agree with most of your points. I understand that reviewing one's own mistakes is hard and embarrassing without an anti-fragile mindset -- not every bosses have it. I truly appreciated that you are still providing friendly feedbacks even though you might believe that I am trying to diminish your authority. In fact, I don't try to diminish anyone's authority, as I don't think authority exists, at least for me. Let me explain.

I think: the rational voice that goes against the "authority" is a precious asset, in most of the cases.

I am thinking about this because you taught us in day one: two of the core values of TPM are about questioning the authority; additionally, two of the core values of TPM are about individualism.

You also promoted individualism in multiple articles and threads.

I think individualism and questioning the authority is highly value-adding because:

  1. It is valuing adding to you because you are now expose to more ideas without the burden of doing too much research. It saves you time.
  2. It is valuing adding to your TPM because debates generates traffics
  3. It is valuing adding to your TPM's readers because now they learn more from TPM
  4. It is valuing adding to your TPM's members because here they are free; who doesn't love freedom and individualism?
  5. It is valuing adding to your TPM because TPM itself is questioning the authority of the mainstream media, mainstream "nice-guy", mainstream "blue-pill" and the mainstream "aggressive red-pill alpha", etc.

Of course if you think that I should not make rational disagreements here, in the future, I won't do it again.

Just some minor clarifications:

  1. Framing a forum member as "uncollaborative, unfriendly, and not on board with the team" or any other forms of framing on his personality is not a problem if that person is me. However, this is a public space and newcomers might think that putting negative frames on others' personality is acceptable in this forum.
  2. People make disagreements not to find faults or exceptions, but to find greater good and general truth, with good faith on the values of this forum.
  3. I am not arguing against your point that Napoleon is over-hyped; I actually agree that he is overly advertised by the mainstream media and books. I am arguing that he is not "smoke" or "noise".
  4. I clearly stated that "it is of course not your fault", "I agree most of your arguments", etc.
  5. For the Musk's article, if I remember correctly, you say that you want to know more why Musk is a good salesman. So I am following your command rather than diminishing your authority.

In fact, you are welcome to put me in a negative frame; I learned a lot from your comments. For example, now I am thinking that, in work place, one good strategy is to frame your competitor as the enemy of your boss.

So my questions:

  1. What are ways of keeping that attitude and the value it adds while also reducing the costs? Some quick notes will help if you don't have the time.
  2. What will be the costs here, in this specific forum?

 

Quote from selffriend on April 16, 2021, 7:39 p
  1. What are ways of keeping that attitude and the value it adds while also reducing the costs? Some quick notes will help if you don't have the time.
  2. What will be the costs here, in this specific forum?

For number one, it's the "collaborative frames".

They're in PU, as well as several examples scattered around the forum.

Maybe I'll do one post for this specific instance.

For number two, pretty much all the costs associated when you end up framed in people's minds as an enemy and/or value taker.

It goes well beyond this forum, but if we limit ourselves to the forum only, then it might include:

  • People not helping you out
  • People ignoring / not replying to your messages -people get only emotional rewards in helping others here, if one provides negative emotional rewards, obviously he's not gonna get much back-
  • Someone eventually escalating to an altercation
  • Someone might escalate it and ask admin intervention
  • The community might potentially sour
selffriend has reacted to this post.
selffriend
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on April 16, 2021, 6:01 pm

There are ways of keeping that attitude and the value it adds while also reducing the costs to you -but that's another topic-.

Best Ways to Disagree, Provide Alternative Perspective, Point Out Faults, Play Devil's Advocate

Created a new thread.
Like Lucio has done a while ago, I linked the threads together.
I think if more forum threads are linked together, it's easier to find and access these threads later on.

In the spirit of the thread itself, all those are my personal thoughts and opinions.
I may be wrong and always welcome a discussion.

Lucio Buffalmano, Transitioned and selffriend have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoTransitionedselffriend

Hi everyone,

Looking for some feedback on one of my posts:

Quote from Ali Scarlett on April 15, 2021, 3:11 am

Cool, thanks for the feedback guys.

I just released a review of the entire program. Unluckily, it's likely not as good or extensive as my past ones since I've been prioritizing some other work, so hold your expectations low for this one :).

An added note since this is a thread about sales, Lucio just approved the Daniel Pink Masterclass review as an article. You can check it out here:

Sales and Persuasion: (Daniel Pink) Summary & Review

Something feels off about it, but I'm not quite sure what it is yet.

Here's what I think:

Ali: "Cool, thanks for the feedback guys."

  • "...thanks for the feedback guys." (= showing gratitude for Lucio, Matthew, Transitioned, and Serena letting me know that my post was valuable—which led to the full review.)

I think this line is good but could have been better.

I wanted to write out a longer response on what exactly I was also grateful for (e.g. Lucio's notes on the pros and cons of the accusation audit). Unluckily, I had boxed myself in on time by posting the full review first. The time limit to proofread and make edits on the review made me sloppier and less openly grateful in this response than I would have liked to be.

Ali: "I just released a review of the entire program."

Linking to the review in the post so you guys don't have to dig around the Activity section of the forum is a WIIFT win to me. So, I'd say we're good there.

Ali: "Unluckily, it's likely not as good or extensive as my past ones since I've been prioritizing some other work, so hold your expectations low for this one :)."

In the spirit of going back into Voss's work, the mindset of "don't anchor numbers, anchor emotions" occurred to me. And, I ended up deciding to anchor expectations for the review low.

A couple of problems I think might have occurred because of that decision:

  • "...it's likely not as good or extensive as my past ones" (= WIIFT fail: "So, if we agreed that the topic is valuable and you believe it's not as good or extensive as your past ones, why didn't you just wait to publish it until you thought it was good enough? If you're not going to take the time to produce good work, Ali, why should I take the time to read it?")
  • "...since I've been prioritizing some other work" (= social credit inflating: "I have a lot on my plate, but I still made the time to do this for you all)
  • "...hold your expectations low for this one" (= emotional anchor: anchor expectations low technique/underpromise and overdeliver technique)

Ali: "An added note since this is a thread about sales, Lucio just approved the Daniel Pink Masterclass review as an article. You can check it out here:

Sales and Persuasion: (Daniel Pink) Summary & Review"

Adds value since it falls under the same umbrella of sales, but might have been a better WIIFT win if it was in its respective thread. After all, if people are inside of a Voss thread, it's only respectful of their time to keep the topic around Voss.

In the future, it might be wiser to simply place that added note in the Daniel Pink thread since there already is one, which would have bumped it to the top of the Activity section for everyone who's interested anyway.


It kind of hurts to write this, thinking that I might have offended any of you. That might not be the case since the vast majority of you all are really awesome people.

But, that's exactly why I want to make sure I don't make any of these mistakes again. So, if there is behavior above that anyone thinks needs correcting on my side, please let me know, I'm open to your feedback :).

Matthew Whitewood and selffriend have reacted to this post.
Matthew Whitewoodselffriend