Quote from Transitioned on January 3, 2022, 7:23 am

I think you're right John - I have watched the videos you posted on detachment.  I'm trying to be more regular with my meditation and putting in some interrupt techniques under fire.  The work on inner game is eternal.

Getting back to specifics.  My definition of annoying people is people who exhibit many annoying behaviours, e.g. lying or manipulation, or not following through on commitments, etc.  I guess how many red flags to not make the cut in your social life is a personal choice.   Different at work obviously.

I gave it a 10 minute timebox couldn't find the RAG scale on the forum search. I'm sure its in PU or been linked by now.

The high level was it was a guide on how/if to respond to power moves.

Rated by how damaging they could be to you.   For example running down your or your team's performance publicly would be a red.  The offense is blatant and damaging to your reputation.  You must respond.

The more covert power moves or rude but delivered privately with just the 2 of you would be an amber.  You might respond gently or strongly or not at all depending on the context and the history (if there's a pattern)

Green's fine - its people joking around or not being very socially smart - give the benefit of the doubt and grow a thicker skin.

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on January 3, 2022, 11:22 am

As per the examples in your original thread these are often covert aggressions (amber) people are not  to be crazy enough to be shooting off reds.

Could you point me to the original thread talking about the green-yellow-amber-red framework please?

Power University, Social Power Dynamics 101

I think you were on monk mode :).
I'm unsure where is the original thread (I would have to dig).
The resultant discussion ended up as a lesson in Power University.

By the way, thanks for your advice on seeing a therapist.
It was very helpful.
Although I am still finding a good therapist which you also advised that it will not be an easy process.

Quote from John Freeman on January 7, 2022, 8:04 pm

Quote from Transitioned on January 3, 2022, 7:23 am

The high level was it was a guide on how/if to respond to power moves.

Rated by how damaging they could be to you.   For example running down your or your team's performance publicly would be a red.  The offense is blatant and damaging to your reputation.  You must respond.

The more covert power moves or rude but delivered privately with just the 2 of you would be an amber.  You might respond gently or strongly or not at all depending on the context and the history (if there's a pattern)

Green's fine - its people joking around or not being very socially smart - give the benefit of the doubt and grow a thicker skin.

Makes sense, thanks!

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on January 10, 2022, 4:43 pm

Hi Lucio,

Think & Write Freely: the Brainstorming Thread

I feel that in the above thread, I answered all your questions and you gave only a short answer afterwards.
That makes me feel that you're not very interested in the topic while I invested a lot of time to answer your questions.

I feel that the same investment dynamic is happening here:
Discussing the Zombie Approach to Refining Idea for the Community & Individuals

And I wanted to talk about this on a general level.
Because I noticed for other people who contribute ideas as well, you sometimes give a short reply.

Compared to people asking for help in social situations, you sometimes give very detailed replies.

I feel that the intention to contribute ideas is a positive and value-adding one.
Asking questions on social situations is not necessarily value-taking but the intention is to ask for help.

Shouldn't people who contribute ideas be rewarded with more investment compared to people who ask for help?

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on January 10, 2022, 5:31 pm

Hey Matthew,

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on January 10, 2022, 4:43 pm

I feel that in the above thread, I answered all your questions and you gave only a short answer afterwards.
That makes me feel that you're not very interested in the topic while I invested a lot of time to answer your questions.

Shouldn't people who contribute ideas be rewarded with more investment compared to people who ask for help?

The question seems to presuppose that:

1. It's a duty of mine -or that at least you expect- me to "treat somewhat better" those who add more value
2. That "better treatment" is measured by the length of the answer (disagree)
3. The threads you mentioned were value-giving, hence (agree)
4. The threads you mentioned deserved a longer answer (disagree)
5. My rewards matter (I'd rather not have that responsibility, but I suppose it's inescapable at times. I also believe that it's your duty to make yourself more independent of it)

I strongly agree with #1 actually.

It's often an unspoken truth and axiom of good leadership/management/social cohesion/group effectiveness that too many people miss out on.

And if you noticed, I never miss a practical question from you, Ali, or some other guys who contribute.

But I more frequently skip questions from those who contribute less.

In the specifics of the 2 threads you mention, I agree they're value adding.
Yet, you covered it all, I agreed, and there wasn't much I had to add.

The divergent thinking thread has lots of potential, so let's see how that goes.
But even there, I don't have anything else to say on top of what was said.

Generally speaking:

1. I value time, so the briefer I can be, the better
2. I value practical matters. So threads and questions with practical implications that develop and refine techniques, ways of teaching, or higher-level strategies. So generally speaking, practical questions get more of my time

Edit:
Because of #2 above many questions here are actually value-giving, because they help develop the discipline.
I also prioritize good questions that make me reflect, including situations that require some refined strategies and approaches. That's one of the major ways that PU / power dynamics have been improving recently.

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on January 10, 2022, 6:29 pm

Hi Lucio,

Thanks for giving your point of view on this.

I am quoting these few statements together because I think it's relevant.

That "better treatment" is measured by the length of the answer (disagree)
The threads you mentioned deserved a longer answer (disagree)

I value time, so the briefer I can be, the better

For that thread, I didn't know what to do with the multiple questions in your post.
I felt like I had to address all the points in order to give a proper answer.

I had the expectation that you would add on some points to my answers to your questions.
Would you prefer if I don't have much such an expectation in the future?

I strongly agree with #1 actually.

It's often an unspoken truth and axiom of good leadership/management/social cohesion/group effectiveness that too many people miss out on.

And if you noticed, I never miss a practical question from you, Ali, or some other guys who contribute.

I appreciate that very much.
And thank you for both your time, knowledge and perspectives.
It means a lot to me.

My rewards matter (I'd rather not have that responsibility, but I suppose it's inescapable at times. I also believe that it's your duty to make yourself more independent of it)

I would like to rephrase this in another way.
I feel that your engagement matters.
It makes me feel that you care.

Would you prefer me to care less about whether you care?
Although I don't necessarily see that as my duty.

2. I value practical matters. So threads and questions with practical implications that develop and refine techniques, ways of teaching, or higher-level strategies. So generally speaking, practical questions get more of my time

Edit:
Because of #2 above many questions here are actually value-giving, because they help develop the discipline.
I also prioritize good questions that make me reflect, including situations that require some refined strategies and approaches. That's one of the major ways that PU / power dynamics have been improving recently.

Thanks for bringing up this point.
I previously mentioned about me bringing up topics more towards power dynamics.
I feel that our interests are more aligned in that regard.

If I bring up ideas like the two above mentioned threads, I feel that I don't get as much dialogue.
This makes me feel incentivised to focus more on asking questions on power dynamics and bringing up strategies for social dynamics.

In short, dialogue matters a lot to me.
And my personal preference is to start threads that engage in dialogue.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on January 10, 2022, 7:15 pm

Cool, some shorter-format answers:

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on January 10, 2022, 6:29 pm

Would you prefer me to care less about whether you care?
Although I don't necessarily see that as my duty.

It would make things easier, prevent potential disappointment, and prevent the need for some clarifications.

But it's one of those things one can ask, but hardly command + it's difficult to follow through on.

So no, no "action item" on that one :).

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on January 10, 2022, 6:29 pm

For that thread, I didn't know what to do with the multiple questions in your post.
I felt like I had to address all the points in order to give a proper answer.

I had the expectation that you would add on some points to my answers to your questions.
Would you prefer if I don't have much such an expectation in the future?

OK, I see.

Paradoxically, it's because you addressed it so well that no more was needed.

It's a bit like a good collaborative frame in "how to end all games": when it's well done, the only answer you usually get is "yes" or "I agree".

I think no expectations for engagement and length of reply would be useful, yes.

Personally, I expect a reply or a "thank you" when I'm providing answers and I consider it a negative strike not getting an answer/acknowledgment.

I reply less to posters who do not thank or provide feedback -the way I see, it's just plain dumb not to do it: it's basic social skills to succeed with people, it's even in PU and it's also written in the guidelines-.

But I don't expect high engagement to posts, not when I had high level of engagement on my side -as a matter of fact, a quick "that was awesome" (if it was), a feedback on why it's not helpful, or a quick answer on how it was helpful is my favorite-.

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on January 10, 2022, 6:29 pm

In short, dialogue matters a lot to me.
And my personal preference is to start threads that engage in dialogue.

I've noticed.

I'd say "go for it, and see if anyone's interested" -which is what I said the last time as well-.

It's only if you expect high engagement that it might lead to these issues.

But if you expect high engagement and it bothers you not to get it, then it might make sense to cut back on some high-dialogue threads.

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on January 10, 2022, 7:33 pm

Thanks a lot for the response and advice as well.

To get to the core of the issue, I am subconsciously thinking of good ideas in exchange for emotional support during this period.

I think it's unhealthy for some reasons you mentioned above.

So I may have to heal before coming back to this forum. If not, I am adding this unnecessary expectation.

I feel that even when I have a lot of status, power and authority, it is difficult to negotiate for emotional support.

I'd say "go for it, and see if anyone's interested" -which is what I said the last time as well-.

I feel that starting threads on social dynamics has a greater guarantee of returns.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on January 10, 2022, 7:40 pm

Yeah, that's very deep introspection and probably right.

Some emotional expectations and needs are always there -even expecting a "thank you" has an emotional component and not just a power dynamics one-, but in times of personal issues it can spike up.