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

#541 · December 28, 2022, 8:43 am

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on December 28, 2022, 8:43 am
Hello guys,
I have read quickly along the way and not going to review every single step.
So please don't quote me on precise lines, I'm not lawyering here, but more giving a "general feel" (which is more helpful since in real life people judge and assess based on "general feels" and not on verbatim words).
Here's my review of the situation:
OVERVIEW:
At the foundations, the dynamics here are a mild/better version of LoF/Kavalier and, in part, LoF/me.
And it's a milder/better version of old John/Matthew and John/me (there were some important improvements, with still some way to go).
And those dynamics are:
not enough and not clear enough ownership of the original power move, plus adding some more power moves along the way.
Specifically, the long replies, requests for clarifications, and long time spent on "I meand this, not that" do feel like water muddling and like a "dilution approach" to water down the apology (John did it present an apology, but not clear-cut enough, and when you mix some more power moves along the way it never feels genuine).
SOLUTION:
Generally speaking, it's much better to do this:
own it
apologize
keep your explaining brief (or it feels like diluting)
mark your questions as "an aside" (or it feels like a power move. Like you're asking questions to play dumb, divert from the issue, task others, make them invest with their explanation, and "dilute your ownership and apology")
Also:
Even if you didn't mean it, it's still a power move.
If you bump into someone, you don't turn and explain "why you didn't mean it and where you mean to go".
You just say "sorry" or "my bad".
In longer conversations, there is more place for explaining and asking, but don't overdo them.
The main dishes are ownership and apology so make sure the rest are side dishes.
Plus, long replies tend to be lower power and feel less "straight".
Even when you're not sure, it's often just much simpler to say:
"my bad, sorry guys, didn't mean it. Just for me to better understand though... (ask for clarification)".
STEP-BY-STEP:
There was an original power move: the "if you have more ideas, more than welcome" feels like "credit withholding" rather than, say a more neutral "happy to read" or a more giving "I appreciate any feedback on what I did well/wrong".
It's a form of social scalping, and whether or not you wanna call it "power move", it does feel off and "not cool".
The misunderstanding: John meant that line as in "let's learn together", but didn't realize there were some important issues to address in the texts he shared. So Growfast (and everyone replying felt they were going to address some important issues for John (giving) rather than with John (win-win)
The overall tone of the first post felt power-thirsty rather than win-win: the approach in the group chat with real-life friends felt off and too much power-movey. That may have also framed Growfast's interpretation of the last line, and made Growfast not really like/trust John based on how he approached his friend (harsh, but a fair feeling: I wouldn't have liked a friend sending me those texts either)
Growfast pointed it out too strongly: it would have been fair for John to say "I'm not comfortable with the tone", albeit that would have only been complete if at the same time he recognized the big value he was getting in that thread and his own original power move and took ownership of it
John justifies and explains the original power move rather than "check the tone and own": John not addressing the tone but instead thanking and not owning feels not genuine and not "straight" (as per PU lesson).
I think it's fair for Growfast to wonder "how can you not understand it", since John is an advanced member.
There do seem to be some power moves in the reply as well, such as "excuse me if I offended you" and "thanks for you feedback" feels like a power move, since if one has power moved the only appropriate answer is to own it, rather than frame it "a feedback" (= "your opinion")
John closed the door too early and unilaterally here with the "it's in the past": unless both parties feel re-empowered and respected enough, you can't close the conversation unilaterally.
And I think it was pretty obvious there were some unresolved issues there, so it did feel like a power move indeed.
I'll skip what happened after this because the overview is enough.
INVITES GOING FORWARD
Now some personal notes for going forward:
Growfast:
You went too strong in my opinion, both initially and later on here.
You can only gain by being equally firm, but with a tone that is less aggressive and more neutral/matter-of-fact.
Also please note: at a certain point I think you said you apologized.
But I think you actually said something along the lines of "if I was too strong, I will apologize", which is not really an apology.
That "small stuff" can come across as manipulative whether you mean it or not.
And it destroys your social capital (reputation, trust, respect, etc.) when dealing with others
HOWEVER,
Despite it was too direct/aggressive:
Growfast / community:
I must say that I'm also very glad you addressed the power moves you saw.
Same as I was glad Kavalier flagged a power move with LoF.
Even a bit proud, I must add.
This is what a great community is supposed to do: hold each other accountable.
2 years year ago I would have been alone to spot those power moves (and most likely let them slip to avoid long escalations and explanations).
Today, it was several people highlighting and checking them.
Really, thank you for that (even the people you checked them for, you've given them huge opportunities for self-development).
This community can only grow when people point to each other power moves.
Because eagles don't pull value-taking power moves on other eagles (and also not on other people going for win-win).
John:
I see a lot of improvements.
And I'm not saying just "to preserve rapport": I really do.
There was more ownership now, more direct talk, less convolution, and generally just (a lot) better handling of the situation.
I think you can also see in your life: more people want you as friends and even accept you as a leader.
Still, I still see sometimes seeking power over win-win.
And there were some power moves both in these feedback exchanges and outside that would be a lot better to avoid (I can think of some teacher frames in the recent past).
Nothing red level, but still important.
They may be small, but trust: those destroy social capital.
In terms of friendship, I personally find it extremely difficult to get close to anyone who pulls power moves, no matter how small.
And if I saw a leader doing it, I'd check out immediately (and either challenge him, or leave the group).
Many others guys who "see" them are the same.
And you'll also get a lot smoother dating and relationships when you approach them high power and high warmth.

Hello guys,

I have read quickly along the way and not going to review every single step.

So please don't quote me on precise lines, I'm not lawyering here, but more giving a "general feel" (which is more helpful since in real life people judge and assess based on "general feels" and not on verbatim words).

Here's my review of the situation:

OVERVIEW:

At the foundations, the dynamics here are a mild/better version of LoF/Kavalier and, in part, LoF/me.

And it's a milder/better version of old John/Matthew and John/me (there were some important improvements, with still some way to go).

And those dynamics are:

not enough and not clear enough ownership of the original power move, plus adding some more power moves along the way.

Specifically, the long replies, requests for clarifications, and long time spent on "I meand this, not that" do feel like water muddling and like a "dilution approach" to water down the apology (John did it present an apology, but not clear-cut enough, and when you mix some more power moves along the way it never feels genuine).

SOLUTION:

Generally speaking, it's much better to do this:

own it
apologize
keep your explaining brief (or it feels like diluting)
mark your questions as "an aside" (or it feels like a power move. Like you're asking questions to play dumb, divert from the issue, task others, make them invest with their explanation, and "dilute your ownership and apology")

Also:

Even if you didn't mean it, it's still a power move.

If you bump into someone, you don't turn and explain "why you didn't mean it and where you mean to go".
You just say "sorry" or "my bad".

In longer conversations, there is more place for explaining and asking, but don't overdo them.
The main dishes are ownership and apology so make sure the rest are side dishes.

Plus, long replies tend to be lower power and feel less "straight".

Even when you're not sure, it's often just much simpler to say:

"my bad, sorry guys, didn't mean it. Just for me to better understand though... (ask for clarification)".

STEP-BY-STEP:

There was an original power move: the "if you have more ideas, more than welcome" feels like "credit withholding" rather than, say a more neutral "happy to read" or a more giving "I appreciate any feedback on what I did well/wrong".
It's a form of social scalping, and whether or not you wanna call it "power move", it does feel off and "not cool".
The misunderstanding: John meant that line as in "let's learn together", but didn't realize there were some important issues to address in the texts he shared. So Growfast (and everyone replying felt they were going to address some important issues for John (giving) rather than with John (win-win)
The overall tone of the first post felt power-thirsty rather than win-win: the approach in the group chat with real-life friends felt off and too much power-movey. That may have also framed Growfast's interpretation of the last line, and made Growfast not really like/trust John based on how he approached his friend (harsh, but a fair feeling: I wouldn't have liked a friend sending me those texts either)
Growfast pointed it out too strongly: it would have been fair for John to say "I'm not comfortable with the tone", albeit that would have only been complete if at the same time he recognized the big value he was getting in that thread and his own original power move and took ownership of it
John justifies and explains the original power move rather than "check the tone and own": John not addressing the tone but instead thanking and not owning feels not genuine and not "straight" (as per PU lesson).
I think it's fair for Growfast to wonder "how can you not understand it", since John is an advanced member.
There do seem to be some power moves in the reply as well, such as "excuse me if I offended you" and "thanks for you feedback" feels like a power move, since if one has power moved the only appropriate answer is to own it, rather than frame it "a feedback" (= "your opinion")
John closed the door too early and unilaterally here with the "it's in the past": unless both parties feel re-empowered and respected enough, you can't close the conversation unilaterally.
And I think it was pretty obvious there were some unresolved issues there, so it did feel like a power move indeed.

I'll skip what happened after this because the overview is enough.

INVITES GOING FORWARD

Now some personal notes for going forward:

Growfast:

You went too strong in my opinion, both initially and later on here.

You can only gain by being equally firm, but with a tone that is less aggressive and more neutral/matter-of-fact.

Also please note: at a certain point I think you said you apologized.
But I think you actually said something along the lines of "if I was too strong, I will apologize", which is not really an apology.

That "small stuff" can come across as manipulative whether you mean it or not.
And it destroys your social capital (reputation, trust, respect, etc.) when dealing with others

HOWEVER,

Despite it was too direct/aggressive:

Growfast / community:

I must say that I'm also very glad you addressed the power moves you saw.

Same as I was glad Kavalier flagged a power move with LoF.

Even a bit proud, I must add.
This is what a great community is supposed to do: hold each other accountable.

2 years year ago I would have been alone to spot those power moves (and most likely let them slip to avoid long escalations and explanations).
Today, it was several people highlighting and checking them.

Really, thank you for that (even the people you checked them for, you've given them huge opportunities for self-development).

This community can only grow when people point to each other power moves.

Because eagles don't pull value-taking power moves on other eagles (and also not on other people going for win-win).

John:

I see a lot of improvements.

And I'm not saying just "to preserve rapport": I really do.

There was more ownership now, more direct talk, less convolution, and generally just (a lot) better handling of the situation.

I think you can also see in your life: more people want you as friends and even accept you as a leader.

Still, I still see sometimes seeking power over win-win.
And there were some power moves both in these feedback exchanges and outside that would be a lot better to avoid (I can think of some teacher frames in the recent past).

Nothing red level, but still important.

They may be small, but trust: those destroy social capital.

In terms of friendship, I personally find it extremely difficult to get close to anyone who pulls power moves, no matter how small.
And if I saw a leader doing it, I'd check out immediately (and either challenge him, or leave the group).
Many others guys who "see" them are the same.
And you'll also get a lot smoother dating and relationships when you approach them high power and high warmth.

Ali Scarlett, John Freeman and 6 other users have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#542 · December 28, 2022, 10:05 am

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on December 28, 2022, 8:43 am
SOLUTION:
Generally speaking, it's much better to do this:
own it
apologize
keep your explaining brief (or it feels like diluting)
mark your questions as "an aside" (or it feels like a power move. Like you're asking questions to play dumb, divert from the issue, task others, make them invest with their explanation, and "dilute your ownership and apology")

Thanks for writing down actionable steps, this is helpful, Lucio.

I have a question about step 3: "keep your explaining brief (or it feels like diluting)"

If someone writes a long, detailed post with direct feedback on you, and you respond with a short paragraph, with no detail: wouldn't that feel like a power move? The short response to a long one would not match investment levels, and feel like you didn't care enough to address every point on the long answer. Also TPM posting rules seem to discourage short answers (like this one) and encourage a proper essay. Which is a serious investment per post.

Having said that, the short answer can work. In my case with Lucio, the short answer was spot on, the long answer (where I went into detail on every criticism) felt like adding salt to the wound (on both sides).

I haven't been following the forum as closely lately. In particular the John/Growfast convo, apologies if I'm missing a key detail.

#543 · December 29, 2022, 6:52 pm

Growfast:
You went too strong in my opinion, both initially and later on here.
You can only gain by being equally firm, but with a tone that is less aggressive and more neutral/matter-of-fact.

Having a less aggressive tone when faced with powermoves is definitely something I am working on. The aggressive tone comes from a place where I get a disgust towards people who pull powermoves.

Thanks for the feedback on the interaction.

The whole "If I have been XYZ, I will apologize" could be named as an "ifpology". (A not so good version of an apology)

I was thinking of a name for the "I don't understand" Powermove which people use when called out on their powermoves.

However after reading @bel post on gaslighting, I will agree that it is a form of gaslighting and no new name is needed.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.

#544 · December 31, 2022, 3:19 pm

Hi Lucio,

From this post:

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on December 29, 2022, 1:37 am
(...)
Even though it's not an invitation to change the sales page, I'm thinking of doing that quite soon because it does seem much more persuasive indeed.
As a matter of fact, I already implemented some of those changes before finishing to write the post :).
I'm thinking about whether "charm" may provide the biggest draw as compared to, say, "charisma" or "leader" -Ie. "become a better leader of men in 3 months"-.

When you phrased this sentence as a statement, it felt like a covert question.

But, it was also very possible you were simply thinking out loud given that:

You repeated "I'm thinking": which makes it seem like you were truly just jotting down notes/thinking out loud.
My post also has an "I'm just thinking" preface: I said, "wanted to share some more scattered thoughts," which also pre-frames my post as "just thinking out loud", so it's fair that you might've been doing the same in response (and not necessarily seeking an answer).

However, then I saw you change the headline a couple of times and it made me feel a (self-inflicted) emotional pressure to respond/give an answer.

So, since I'm not sure, this is less of a feedback and more of a question for my own learning:

Was this an accidental covert question or were you simply sharing your thoughts?

Of course, if it was nothing, happy to be corrected.

Lucio Buffalmano and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

#545 · December 31, 2022, 7:36 pm

Adding to this a self-feedback:

I wrote the post above before reading this one.

And, now I feel it was bad timing because:

It came after Lucio's post on forum expectations
A (debatable) covert question like that one is too small to be worth bringing up (in my opinion)

So, my bad on the timing, Lucio, and, actually, no pressure to respond to the post above.

Lucio Buffalmano and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

#546 · January 1, 2023, 3:59 am

It's a fair note, Ali.

Didn't mean to make it a question without sharing credit or gratitude for the answer and if you felt that way: sorry, my bad.

Edit:
But I'm pretty confident that you know I meant well, as much as I know you mean well.

So about this:

Quote from Ali Scarlett on December 31, 2022, 3:19 pm
Was this an accidental covert question or were you simply sharing your thoughts?

Yes, it was purposefully to keep that "thinking out aloud and sharing ideas and opinions" approach.

And to keep the exchange free of any pressure from answering -albeit it didn't work that way as you shared-.
More direct questions such as "why did you..." tend to raise the pressure to answer and to raise the "power stakes" as well. They are a form of tasking, so whether one answers them or not, the consequences are bigger.

Finally, while the "why did you" tends to lock the exchange between 2 people, that "thinking out aloud" format also invites others who are reading to potentially jump in.

Ali Scarlett and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#547 · January 1, 2023, 7:13 am

Got it, I agree this was a productive and honest exchange, thank you as well for being open to it :).
Will keep your thoughts and feedback in mind for the future.
Cheers!

Hello Ali,

It's heartwarming for me to see that we're reaching the same conclusion and share the same attitude (virtual manly and warm handshake).

Same here I learned from this, thanks!

Happy new year BTW!

Cheers!

Ali Scarlett has reacted to this post.

#548 · January 2, 2023, 12:58 pm

Quote from leaderoffun on December 28, 2022, 10:05 am
I have a question about step 3: "keep your explaining brief (or it feels like diluting)"
Having said that, the short answer can work. In my case with Lucio, the short answer was spot on, the long answer (where I went into detail on every criticism) felt like adding salt to the wound (on both sides).

LoF,

The most important points are #1 and #2.

The long answers were not ideal, but the main issue is that there was no owning, no apologies and even more power moves.

In the case of Kavalier, here is how the straight way of handling it would look like:

Kavalier: sorry LoF
LoF: it's OK Kavalier, I'm sorry too. I did XYZ, and that wasn't cool.
I hope we can be good going forward

That never happened though.

Ali Scarlett and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#549 · January 2, 2023, 1:26 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on January 2, 2023, 1:26 pm
John,
I'm quoting from this other thread:
Quote from John Freeman on January 1, 2023, 10:47 am
Again, I'm taking responsibility for my recent mistake as you guys read. This post is not here to make excuses nor to evade anything (that would take the cake ("être le comble" in French, "il colmo di qc" in Italian).
I haven't seen that very clearly.
Bel still hasn't been told "sorry for misrepresenting your message", for example.
How should he feel towards you reading that line?
If it were me, I'd feel like it was a PR move without really owning it and re-empowering him (Bel can agree or disagree with this).
And also: where was that placed?
To me, it feels off to say that in another thread when the main exchange happened here -Growfast and Bel that were involved can agree or disagree with that-.
If one wanted to own and take responsiblity, the best way to do it was here because here the exchange mostly took place.
Like, well... Like Growfast did.
To do it another thread feels like ignoring/spurning the original feedback and wanting to... Not sure what, but it does feel suspiciously off that the frame is, once gain, "need to learn, it was a mistake, not a power move" -it's always suspicious when the explanation is the best one to exculpate ourselves-.
Most of all, it CAN be a mistake and that one needs to learn, but again, to do so in another thread is not the "straight" way of dealing with it.
It's as if in real life one slights someone and then he says "I own (but it was a mistake, really)" but... Says in another place and time, and to some other people.
Thhe straight way of dealing with it:
(quotes original feedback)
Thank you for this, it helps to better understand and I must recognize that there were some power moves.
(disagree with whatever you disagree with, give solid reasons, but keep it brief)
@Growfast, it was not cool of you to get aggressvie so early and so soon, and that stands.
At the same time, I recognize that it was a power move in the first place, and that there a few more along the way.
I am sorry for that (then: monitor if Growfast does the same which, I'm confident, he would have. If he does, quote his message, and say "thank you for this, I'm good now and I look forward to more fruitful exchanges)
@Bel, sorry for misinterpreting your message along the way.
It was a honest mistake, but the effect was still not cool for you.
I know see that and recognize it: my bad.
Then MOVE ON.
No more threads on the issue, no more references to what happened here in another thread.
The best way to improve reputation and rebuild social capital is not with more explaining -often a strategic mistake because it thread-expands on the issue- but with more straight behavior, win-win, and value-adding.

John,

I'm quoting from this other thread:

Quote from John Freeman on January 1, 2023, 10:47 am
Again, I'm taking responsibility for my recent mistake as you guys read. This post is not here to make excuses nor to evade anything (that would take the cake ("être le comble" in French, "il colmo di qc" in Italian).

I haven't seen that very clearly.

Bel still hasn't been told "sorry for misrepresenting your message", for example.
How should he feel towards you reading that line?
If it were me, I'd feel like it was a PR move without really owning it and re-empowering him (Bel can agree or disagree with this).

And also: where was that placed?

To me, it feels off to say that in another thread when the main exchange happened here -Growfast and Bel that were involved can agree or disagree with that-.

If one wanted to own and take responsiblity, the best way to do it was here because here the exchange mostly took place.

Like, well... Like Growfast did.

To do it another thread feels like ignoring/spurning the original feedback and wanting to... Not sure what, but it does feel suspiciously off that the frame is, once gain, "need to learn, it was a mistake, not a power move" -it's always suspicious when the explanation is the best one to exculpate ourselves-.

Most of all, it CAN be a mistake and that one needs to learn, but again, to do so in another thread is not the "straight" way of dealing with it.

It's as if in real life one slights someone and then he says "I own (but it was a mistake, really)" but... Says in another place and time, and to some other people.

Thhe straight way of dealing with it:

(quotes original feedback)
Thank you for this, it helps to better understand and I must recognize that there were some power moves.
(disagree with whatever you disagree with, give solid reasons, but keep it brief)
@Growfast, it was not cool of you to get aggressvie so early and so soon, and that stands.
At the same time, I recognize that it was a power move in the first place, and that there a few more along the way.
I am sorry for that (then: monitor if Growfast does the same which, I'm confident, he would have. If he does, quote his message, and say "thank you for this, I'm good now and I look forward to more fruitful exchanges)
@Bel, sorry for misinterpreting your message along the way.
It was a honest mistake, but the effect was still not cool for you.
I know see that and recognize it: my bad.

Then MOVE ON.

No more threads on the issue, no more references to what happened here in another thread.

The best way to improve reputation and rebuild social capital is not with more explaining -often a strategic mistake because it thread-expands on the issue- but with more straight behavior, win-win, and value-adding.

Ali Scarlett and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#550 · January 2, 2023, 6:07 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on January 2, 2023, 12:58 pm

LoF,
The most important points are #1 and #2.
The long answers were not ideal, but the main issue is that there was no owning, no apologies and even more power moves.
In the case of Kavalier, here is how the straight way of handling it would look like:
Kavalier: sorry LoF
LoF: it's OK Kavalier, I'm sorry too. I did XYZ, and that wasn't cool.
I hope we can be good going forward
That never happened though.

I agree this didn't happen, and I'm surprised this step is so important. But now that I see it, I think it would have helped. Sorry @Kavalier I didn't see this pretty obvious thing in retrospect at the time.

So the way the interaction went was something like this:

LoF: powermove

Kavalier: flags powermove

LoF: Issues apology, but powermoves again

Kavalier: asks for more apology, takes it a bit far into ad hominem territory

LoF: refuses to apologize, flags the ad hominem

(some conflict here, Lucio adds his point of view, missing the ad hominem)

LoF: says "we are good" (and thinks the matter is done). And moves on. Not for a second considering to invest more in the matter (no references, no threads)

Kavalier: apologizes for ad hominem, owns it, totally eagle style

Missing, LoF says: "it's OK Kavalier, I'm sorry too. I did XYZ, and that wasn't cool.
I hope we can be good going forward"

^^ this was a mistake. Owning it right here, right now. Sorry Kavalier!

@Lucio, is this more or less what you saw too? It's important for me to get this right.

Ali Scarlett has reacted to this post.