Feedbacks & clarifications

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on July 14, 2021, 1:45 pm

There was a similar dynamic a while ago with the roles reversed.
Lucio was asking from Ali about a review:

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on June 25, 2021, 8:27 pm from What I'm Doing, Maybe Where Why #66

Thanks, but it's all you bro because you're a beast :).

On the reviews:

Quote from Ali Scarlett on June 25, 2021, 7:39 pm

The Reviews Have Been Put On Hold (Possibly Indefinitely)

Looking back at some of these programs, unfortunately, their reviews are not really worth the read.

I can always come back when I have more time and drop something anyway in case anyone here is curious. But, as far as posting these reviews in the hopes that they'll provide value, I don't think it's worth it. (Dream Job was the exception out of the bunch.)

Would you like to review the programs you've taken recently with a few strings of words and a vote?

We could put them on the "reviews" page, I think it's valuable information.
Even more valuable than reviewing books since for many of these courses there is no reliable place where to get good reviews before investing time / money.

Quote from Ali Scarlett on June 26, 2021, 4:15 am

I really like that idea, Lucio, and I think you make a great point. Right now, I'm prioritizing some other work, so let’s go for that another time.

Ali declined here too.
So we can see that it's probably not too uncommon.
Since Lucio has pointed out that it's pretty normal to do this in normal conversation.
Except that the forum channel has a different set of conversational dynamics.

How We Can Handle This Dynamic to the Benefit of Everyone?

The issue here Lucio stated is that it's adding one more thing to the to-do list.
I agree and resonate with that.

As such, I think we can find a framework that suits everyone:

• Anyone can ask anyone for thoughts & feedback
• Anyone can ignore such requests as well.
  Meaning no reply is expected.

This achieves 2 things:

• On the asker side, we can still phrase things assertively, especially if we want the thoughts of someone in particular.
  Although, as Lucio has stated in the forum guidelines, we do our best to address the community.
  Sometimes I think it's natural to end up directing a question to someone in a thread.
• On the receiver side, there is no obligation or expectation to reply.
  So one can freely choose what to reply to and at any time.

Quote from Ali Scarlett on July 14, 2021, 4:39 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 14, 2021, 7:11 am

(...)

It's not a case of tasking.
It's more of an emotional-based form of self-tasking that leverages our relationship + our shared social capital.

It works like this:

1. Ali asks me what I think
2. If I don't say what I think, it seems like I spurned Ali
3. I like Ali, and don't want to spurn him (relationship-based leverage)
4. Then, I must reply
5. Plus, Ali has given so much to power dynamics as a discipline, to this community, and to this website as well.. (social exchange / reciprocity - based leverage)
6. Then, I totally must reply

To me, that removes much of the freedom and pleasure of the forum medium, which is all about "replying when you feel like, when you have something useful to add, or when you have pleasure in doing so".

Yea, I think I get it.

I ask "what do you think" to invite feedback from others which sets a collaborative frame—working together to reach an outcome that works for everyone.

But, Daniel Pink mentions that questions are inherently engaging. So, asking a question can "pull someone in" on a conversation that they may or may not be interested in taking part in. A collaboration they didn't sign up for.

And, that's where answering a question can feel like a burden for the receiver—which erodes some social capital because the receiver now has to expend their valuable time and energy resolving a responsibility you put on them.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 14, 2021, 7:11 am

(...)

...Plus, Ali has given so much to power dynamics as a discipline, to this community, and to this website as well.. (social exchange / reciprocity - based leverage)

Lucio, I didn't think about this because I don't remember everything I've given to you or TPM. And, more than my memory, a lot of what I've given to TPM has been for more than you, but the community as a whole.

For me, if I wanted to raise my social capital with you, I'd probably give you something that has more obvious, mass-appeal value and is specific to something you might want/need as an individual (such as mentioning one of your products to my email list).

Whenever I've given to TPM, there was no expectation for an increase in my social capital with you because it was meant to help the TPM community as a whole. I'm hoping that my efforts in giving here will help shorten the time it takes for others to reach the light at the end of the tunnel that I didn't even believe existed in my darkest moments.

So, to be honest, I didn't think I had much social capital with you to begin with outside of what comes with being friends.

That said, sometimes I forget that what I do for TPM benefits you as the solopreneur spearheading TPM. So, I didn't mean to create any pressure on you if that's the case.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 14, 2021, 7:11 am

(...)

But in case the receiver didn't see the conversation and/or point as super-productive, then he will feel like he's being asked to keep on investing in something that he didn't necessarily want [or might not have wanted] to keep investing on.

Thanks for the feedback, Lucio, this will be my general rule moving forward.

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on July 14, 2021, 1:45 pm

There was a similar dynamic a while ago with the roles reversed. Lucio was asking from Ali about a review...Ali declined here too. So we can see that it's probably not too uncommon....the forum channel has a different set of conversational dynamics.

Yea, I remember having similar thoughts that I didn't want to spurn Lucio when he asked me that question. So, even though my answer was something he might not have wanted to hear, I still made sure to respond.

In that sense, I tasked myself with giving Lucio an answer (self-tasking) because I like Lucio and didn't want to "leave him hanging" (emotion-based leverage).

You're probably right that it's not an uncommon dynamic here, Matthew, I'm still learning the unwritten rules of forum conversation here :).

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on July 14, 2021, 1:45 pm

How We Can Handle This Dynamic to the Benefit of Everyone?

The issue here Lucio stated is that it's adding one more thing to the to-do list.
I agree and resonate with that.

As such, I think we can find a framework that suits everyone:

• Anyone can ask anyone for thoughts & feedback
• Anyone can ignore such requests as well.
  Meaning no reply is expected.

This seems like a very open-minded approach and there's a lot I like about it. It would probably have to be added to the forum guidelines and would be another step toward resiliency (i.e. being OK with being ignored by other members when you were possibly expecting a response from them).

Still, I think another (maybe more simple) solution is to simply frame questions as options for the receiver.

Instead of:

• [Suggests a possible change.] "What do you think [about making this change], Lucio?": (= open-ended question that leads to "emotion-based leverage self-tasking")

We say:

• "Lucio, if you want to ("if you want to" = power-protecting) make the following change, I'm all for it..." [Suggests a possible change.]: (= optional solution that can be acted upon or ignored)

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 14, 2021, 8:03 pm

"A collaboration they didn't sign up for", that's a nice way of putting it :).

Ali: Lucio, I didn't think about this because I don't remember everything I've given to you or TPM. And, more than my memory, a lot of what I've given to TPM has been for more than you, but the community as a whole.

Yeah, got it.
I was still part of that community you gave though, so it still feels like I'm on the receiving end.
Plus, all the definitions you came up with, the case studies, the feedback, many of those helped advance power dynamics as a discipline, which is a goal/mission I care about.

Generally speaking, no pressure though, I see almost all relationships here as win-win with no major imbalances.
And even if sometimes I felt like there was almost "too much golden" shared here in terms of ideas, feedback, or analyses, well... being on the receiving end of too much giving, that might be the new definition of "first world problems" :D.

Matthew: Ali declined here too.
So we can see that it's probably not too uncommon.

Just to be clear: the point is not so much whether one declines or not, but that he has to take it over as a responsibility to do so.

Such as: you're putting something on someone's plate to ponder, and then to communicate it.
"What do you think about it" means that you now have to form an opinion about something. And the more precise you want to be in life, the bigger a task that becomes.
And that person might not have wanted, or even seen the point, of forming an opinion on a certain topic.

Incidentally, that's one of the reasons why I recommend people to cut out from news: the "agenda-setting effect". News put things in your mind to think over, to have an opinion about and, often, to get angry about.

Matthew: As such, I think we can find a framework that suits everyone:

• Anyone can ask anyone for thoughts & feedback
• Anyone can ignore such requests as well.
  Meaning no reply is expected.

Sounds like a sensible approach.

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on July 15, 2021, 5:11 am

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 14, 2021, 8:03 pm

Such as: you're putting something on someone's plate to ponder, and then to communicate it.
"What do you think about it" means that you now have to form an opinion about something. And the more precise you want to be in life, the bigger a task that becomes.
And that person might not have wanted, or even seen the point, of forming an opinion on a certain topic.

Incidentally, that's one of the reasons why I recommend people to cut out from news: the "agenda-setting effect". News put things in your mind to think over, to have an opinion about and, often, to get angry about.

I agree completely with the dynamics here.
I resonate with it to take this further.

I brought up this issue from another thread for another reason.
So my intention is to talk about how I have observed this dynamic to play out between Lucio and Ali.
Not on the nature of the dynamic.

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on July 14, 2021, 1:45 pm

There was a similar dynamic a while ago with the roles reversed. Lucio was asking from Ali about a review...Ali declined here too. So we can see that it's probably not too uncommon....the forum channel has a different set of conversational dynamics.

Yea, I remember having similar thoughts that I didn't want to spurn Lucio when he asked me that question. So, even though my answer was something he might not have wanted to hear, I still made sure to respond.

In that sense, I tasked myself with giving Lucio an answer (self-tasking) because I like Lucio and didn't want to "leave him hanging" (emotion-based leverage).

You're probably right that it's not an uncommon dynamic here, Matthew, I'm still learning the unwritten rules of forum conversation here :).

I may have explained it unclearly but introducing the word "decline".
But exactly what Lucio has said, that's not really the point.

I brought up this situation by Ali because there have been instances where Lucio has also directed a question to Ali.
Ali feels the same way that he doesn't want to leave Lucio hanging.

So because

• Ali received such questions previously from Lucio
• The questions of this dynamic are not uncommon

Ali would probably think that it is okay to ask such questions.
And maybe even fair to ask such questions.

The Crux of the Issue in my Opinion

I also think this is not the crux of the issue.
What I think is the crux of the issue is that Ali thread-expanded upon a topic that Lucio is uninterested in and does not want to spend time on.

In my opinion, it is a WIIFM issue.
If Ali had asked "What do you think, Lucio?" on a topic that Lucio is interested in and already wants to spend time upon, naturally both of them would go on to continue posting on the topic.

Then again, we don't want people to overthink when posting on the forum.
One should think but not overthink about whether the topic is well-received.
Maybe you have a different opinion here.

This is why I propose the above where

• Anyone can ask anyone for thoughts & feedback
• Anyone can ignore such requests as well.
  Meaning no reply is expected.

People continue to feel like posting and no one feels obliged to reply.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 15, 2021, 9:42 am

Yes, great message Matthew.

Also, to finish expanding on the dynamics of that individual exchange, I also felt in a double-bind because replying to that question meant going off-topic, and I didn't want to go off-topic.

On Going Off-Topic

This is something that's happened a few times: I might want to reply, but I don't want to go off-topic.

To me it's a question of forum-usability, providing a good learning environment, and general values as well.

If I go off-topic, I'm wasting the time of people who might open a thread specifically to seek answers and wisdom on a specific topic. And if we go off-topic, we're stealing their time.

A Wrap-Up

I agree with Matthew:

The crux of the issue when asking "what do you think" is the WIIFT.
Do they care about this issue as to want to form an opinion and take time to reply?

If yes, you're adding value.

If not, you're taking value, eroding social capital.

BUT... You can't always know what's important to someone else.

So when you don't know, don't overthink it.
Being effective in life also means not being afraid of potentially bothering someone, sometimes.

So just to ask "what do you think" as often as you want.

It's still good of course to understand the dynamics though, of course.
Now chances are that we're all more likely to use "what do you think" in a way that is more deliberate, more calibrated, and more effective.

This Thread Is Awesome

Finally, this thread started as an experiment.

And I really love how it turned out.

It also changed me for the better in real-life behavior: experiencing so many positive clarifications made me readier and more willing to start and undertake more real-life clarifications.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 19, 2021, 10:37 am

Hey guys,

I got a favor to ask.

If you got 5 minutes to spare, I'd like feedback on this exchange here.

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on July 19, 2021, 1:17 pm

Hi Lucio,

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure why Jack got angry.
Let me write a bit and if more thoughts come to mind, write more.

In short, my quick thought is that sometimes people ask for a different perspective but are not actually welcoming of a new perspective.

I checked Jack's previous posts.
He seems to often describe situations in generic terms.
It looks like we have given him similar responses on giving more details.

Jack Invites Feedback Showing Openness to Feedback

I am not a great writer. So if you see some way I could have improved this post let me know if your are  so inclined.

2nd Post Gets Passive Aggressive

Ok I will give some context. I really feel it distracts from the question. There are a lot of examples too many to share. A requirement of reading my original post is that you already know the context. However this is not my forum and I want to be respectful. Here goes...

For some reason, he thinks that the specific context distracts from the question.
Then he talks about "the requirement that a reader should already know the context".
Or probably his concepts of power dynamics.

I have a feeling that he thinks the 48 Laws of Power are laws of social dynamics.
One cannot break these laws.
I guess this is why he alludes to someone who should be very familiar with this law (what he refers to as context).

However this is not my forum and I want to be respectful.

I think this suggests that he's angry but he's holding back to be respectful on this forum because it's not his forum.
Similar dynamics to when Obama says "Fortunately, the President is nice about it.".

Too Much "Theory"?

I think he probably reads a lot of theory here and there.
The issue is that a lot of social skill theories out there are not really practical.

However, some people may feel that they have "mastered" these theories.
As such, these individuals may think that they are certain of some concepts and know more than the average person.

I feel that this is the case because he quotes the 48 Laws of Power:

I have also read in the 48 Laws of Power that use your enemies in times of need not your friends. Your friends already have your approval and your enemies do not. Friends will sabotage you.

Character Assassination

Jack: Lucio you are wrong. And this is the last time I will seek advice here. You are obviously nothing more than a internet marketer. You weird costumes to  portray yourself as some  powerful guy comes tells a story abou how socially  uncalibrated you really are. I would not trust taking advice from someone that needs help dressing themselves (basic fundamentals as you talk about). And with  your above very anti social uncalibrated reply even less so.

Then he escalated to character assassination here.
There could be several possibilities:

• He really thinks Lucio's advice is wrong and Lucio is a scam.
• He wants his point to be correct.
• He was annoyed that we have asked him to give more details over several posts.

I thought that it would likely be the 2nd and 3rd reason.
From his reply to my post on that thread, I think the 1st reason could be very possible.

On the other hand, this thread is one of the better threads between the community and Jack:
Rapper Guy Shows Aggressiveness At My Attempts To Ask A Girl On a Date

He gave more details about his interaction at the start, and the thread went more smoothly.
He thought Lucio's advice was good, and thanked Lucio for it.

Possibility of Skewed Personal Experience

Lucio: We don't discuss here things like "distrust your friends, use your enemies", because that makes you no smarter and no more effective in real life. If anything, it likely make you less effective.

Maybe he has mingled with a lot of sharks which earned his trust.
This is what he thinks of as "friends" previously.

So he thinks having a healthy degree of cynicism means "distrust your friends, use your enemies".
It is safer to approach social situations in a calculative manner.

Why I think so is from this particular exchange:

From the Thread "Blind Spot in my Social Intelligence"

Matthew
It could be the case where you are hanging around some manipulative people who use covert aggression.
Do you have an example conversation for us to understand the dynamics better?

Jack
I think you are right that I do hang around people who use covert aggression and who are manipulative. Also it seems like whenever I am aggressive back it makes me look bad (Not just people I know but strangers too).

I don't have any word for word interactions. Because I am so unreactive there are no word for word examples. But I am a older man who has lived life long enough to see the pattern.

He also says that he's an older man.
So probably he has a certain way of viewing the world.
Maybe he consciously or subconsciously gets into social groups with more aggressive people.

Not Native English Speaker?

It looks like he's not a native English speaker.
So there could be some misunderstanding in that thread.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 19, 2021, 1:56 pm

Thank you, Matthew!

And very good catch on the dynamics of that "I want to be respectful".
When I read that, I thought that my next reply could have very possibly pushed him over the edge.

Maybe we could come up with a name for that, actually.

Quote from Ali Scarlett on July 19, 2021, 2:13 pm

My View On the Interaction

1. Jack's initial question feels like it's coming from an experienced "teacher"

Jack: So we have  all heard in dating. Don't chase. Be not needy. Be outcome dependent. I have also read in the 48 Laws of Power that use your enemies in times of need not your friends. Your friends already have your approval and your enemies do not. Friends will sabotage you.

Before posing his question, Jack doesn't necessarily take the teacher role, but he gives off the feeling that he already has some authority in the topic he's looking to discuss:

• When he says, "So, we have all heard in dating...," he's framing his knowledge as common knowledge. Then, he goes down the list of things he knows about: (= if that knowledge isn't common for someone, it'll look like he's more advanced—more of an authority—to that person because he knows these things that are actually uncommon while framing it as "not a big deal since everybody knows it")

And, when I read that, it made me feel like he had excluded from the conversation anyone who wasn't already on his level of knowledge (i.e. if this common knowledge is uncommon to you, you can't participate in this discussion).

2. Lucio asks for clarity on the question

Lucio: How does showing acceptance welcome the feeling of superiority, in your opinion?

When I read Jack's question, I did my best to understand it.

The first paragraph threw me off. He mentions discussing neediness (something I related to relationships) and then outcome-dependence (something that can be related to any goal in life) and then friends / enemies (something I attributed to collaborative / competitive frames in my mind).

So, I was struggling to figure out what exactly the question was since it felt like it had so many different branches to it.

That's why, for my own clarity, I decided to ignore the first paragraph and only focus on the second one:

Jack: "So, do you agree or disagree. Have you personally used this approach. I mean not giving anyone your full approval. Or, to show that you do not fully accept them. If so, how? Have any common techniques?"

And, that got me thinking, "OK, he's asking about the judge role."

But, I was confused on how the judge role (namely "acceptance") was related to feelings of superiority because of the title Jack chose for the thread.

The judge role was leading me to think in terms of high-power / low-power (especially after the 48 Laws of Power reference), and the acceptance part was leading me to think ingroup / outgroup (which could be two entirely different conversations).

So, I still wasn't fully sure and, of course, I didn't want to make any assumptions. That's why I was going to ask for more clarity, but Lucio beat me to it.

3. Lucio enforces forum rules with a collaborative frame

Lucio: As a general rule for writing good posts, and generally for better understanding social strategies and power dynamics, they key are concrete examples. There are no real "laws" in social dynamics because everything's about context.

The WIIFT parts Lucio used to enforce the forum guidelines that I saw were:

• "As a general rule for writing good posts...": (= writing better posts reflects better on you in the forum which can give you a better reputation among other members. This WIIFT doesn't make the mistake of assuming he cares about that because he mentions "I am not a great writer. So, if you see some way I could have improved this post let me know if your are so inclined.")
• "...and generally for better understanding social strategies and power dynamics...": (this is a common one I've seen Lucio use in the past and, based on what I've seen, it has worked quite well before. Plus, it's a good benefit / incentive since concrete examples do provide more material to analyze and work with which provides more learning and growth opportunity for everyone)

4. Jack seems to feel like he's being inconvenienced

Jack: "I really feel it distracts from the question. There are a lot of examples too many to share."

One can "feel" in Jack's response that he seems to feel inconvenienced. Not only from what he says above, but from how he ignores the WIIFMs (which could mean he doesn't care about those incentives).

Still, Jack acknowledges that Lucio is enforcing forum rules even without Lucio having to openly say it:

Jack: "However this is not my forum and I want to be respectful."

5. Jack (more directly) excludes from the conversation anyone who isn't already "on his (advanced) level"

Jack: "A requirement of reading my original post is that you already know the context."

Putting the requirement in place for being apart of a thread that one must "already know" something excludes the whole of the group who doesn't already know that thing.

And, when we're talking about a case of needing to know advanced material to take part in a discussion, it can create a feeling among members that this conversation is reserved for Lucio only.

If more members were involved, that might have diluted negative feelings because more members sharing opinions back and forth could've been social proof that this is not so much of a community of right vs wrong, practical facts vs theory, but a place where we can openly share our thoughts and move towards conclusions together.

When there's only a one-on-one conversation going back and forth in one thread, any opinions or feedback shared can begin to feel more personal when they're received negatively.

So, perhaps addressing that "requirements" aspect could have helped draw in a more collaborative frame of "the whole community is invited".

6. There's a miscommunication as far as what each party means by "context"

When Lucio says "context", he means examples.

When Jack says "context", he means knowledge.

Unfortunately, Lucio misses this part, which in my opinion, creates the whole issue down the line.

When Jack said, "A requirement of reading my original post is that you already know the context." It wouldn't make sense for him to mean by that, "A requirement of reading my original post is that you already know the example I'm talking about," because, in that original post, he didn't provide one.

So, he was really saying, "A requirement of reading my original post is that you already know as much as me about judge roles, power dynamics, social strategy, etc."

This is a part of what led him to feel like he was being inconvenienced. He felt like he was having to invest time and energy into helping "bring up the beginners" when he only wanted to take part in a discussion with the "advanced strategists".

*Note: This seems to also be a part of what led him to ignore the WIIFTs Lucio proposed. He cared less about the "understanding social strategies and power dynamics" WIIFM because he felt he already knew enough to be apart of the conversation. Hence, why he focused on the "as a general rule for writing good posts" aspect of Lucio's reply only. And, he focused on that to follow the forum rules, not because he cares whether or not the forum finds his posts good or not since, as we discover later, he was still assessing whether or not he wanted to be an active member of this community.

7. Jack tries to highlight where beginners need to focus in order to be a part of the discussion

Jack: "I FEEL THE SECOND EXAMPLE..."

Again, feeling like he has to now involve people into the conversation who do not meet his "advanced requirements", he does his best to make it clear what he's saying with big, bold, red text.

However, this can be annoying to be on the receiving end of. And, (while this is an assumption that could very well be wrong) it felt like Lucio went more direct in his feedback-giving because of it.

8. The miscommunication happens because neither side is clear on what they mean by "context"

Before, I remember Lucio would sometimes lead with, "OK, got it." Then transition into his feedback.

But, this time, it felt like he went full-on direct and said:

Lucio: Jack, the context you gave turns a generic go-nowhere question into a practical, specific question.

Which, to Jack, he might have read that as:

Lucio: Jack, the context (that I inconvenienced you into giving with my rules) isn't good enough for a discussion.

But, remember, context to Lucio is examples. And, context to Jack is (advanced) knowledge.

So, the implied statement that Jack might've read is:

Lucio: Jack, the context you gave isn't good enough for a discussion (= your knowledge of social strategy and power dynamics is wrong)

And, that's probably what led Jack to feel as if he needed to contradict back:

Jack: Lucio you are wrong...your above very anti social uncalibrated reply... (= your reply that doesn't even discuss social strategy or power dynamics)

On that note about the "anti-social, uncalibrated reply", Jack could've felt that Lucio's feedback on his question being a generic question was a cop-out of having to answer the question. And, assumed that it was a cop-out because Lucio didn't know the answer (i.e. isn't as advanced as him).

Lucio taking the approach of giving direct feedback without giving a direct answer to his question (and, instead, addressing the question itself) could be what led to Jack's feelings:

Jack: You are obviously nothing more than a internet marketer (= you don't know the advanced stuff). You weird costumes to  portray yourself as some  powerful guy comes tells a story about how socially  uncalibrated you really are (= you give feedback directly to look like you're giving answers / value only to give no value at all).

Final Thoughts

Please understand, I chose to give my feedback on this exchange because I believe that, while the above are all my own interpretation, doing my best to give something is better than nothing at all.

So, if there are any aspects of the feedback I gave above that anyone disagrees with, please let me know. After all, we're in the perfect thread for it :).