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

#661 · August 7, 2023, 5:56 pm

Quote from Gguwad on August 7, 2023, 5:56 pm
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 7, 2023, 5:09 pm
Hello @dgx37
On this thread:
Quote from DGX37 on August 7, 2023, 4:09 pm
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 6, 2023, 11:11 am
It's not indeed, but I don't think anyone said that.
Not gonna argue about who said what, not productive.
Total power move and I don't appreciate it at all.
Basically says:
I'm focusing only on productive stuff (and you were wasting time on unproductive BS).
Please be more careful going foward and consider this a pre-warning: the forum is not the place for those types of power moves.
"I don't think anyone said that" frames my message as unhelpful, makes it look like I am writing about things everyone knows about, which in turn makes my message look off-base.
Bel said, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, that those who lack a conscience manipulate more, more frequently, differently (more extreme, often).
This then makes it me against Bel, because if I am to correct you how you suggest, I would just have to decide what Bel said, and I can't do that, because I don't truly know what Bel meant by what he wrote and if I got it wrong, Bel will have to reject it, making me look like I put words in his mouth, and that's a confrontation that is not helpful to anyone.
It doesn't help anyone reach understanding, therefore, it's not productive.
Not as bad, but yet another power move.
Not true.
Your original message was about a lot of things -just go back and re-read it-.
That was literally what I was answering to with what you quoted with your answer. There is the quote
The dichotomy overlaps with the distinction between "good" and "evil". According to author Martha Stout, "evil" is just the absence of empathy and conscience, and masking it beneath a veneer of "fake pro-sociality". I agree wholeheartedly.
and then my response
In the end it's not possible to say that those who manipulate are "lacking empathy and conscience" and those that don't have it. A empathetical person may manipulate for various reasons while admitedly not truly understanding ( or undestanding but having some justification for it ). On the other hand while not finding it wrong, person lacking above attributes may have never manipulated.
So even with taking definition of "good" and "evil" that society will mostly agree with, absence of empathy doesn't make you "evil" and having it doesn't make you "good".
To which you responded "nobody said that". So I give shortened quote what I was talking about, and then that's "easy to disagree" and "not in good-faith".
What I did was a power move, that's true, but what about it? This is the same:
just go back and re-read it
frames me as not knowing what I have written and just wanting to win, if that's what you believe in, that's fair, but so I power moved because I saw your message as a cheap way to win an argument by saying "this is what Bel was really talking about" ( not the same words, but the same point ), even though just like in my message, there was a lot of points, not only the point you highlighted, and not the point I was responding towards with the message you quoted.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 7, 2023, 5:09 pm
Hello @dgx37
On this thread:
Quote from DGX37 on August 7, 2023, 4:09 pm
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 6, 2023, 11:11 am
It's not indeed, but I don't think anyone said that.
Not gonna argue about who said what, not productive.
Total power move and I don't appreciate it at all.
Basically says:
I'm focusing only on productive stuff (and you were wasting time on unproductive BS).
Please be more careful going foward and consider this a pre-warning: the forum is not the place for those types of power moves.

"I don't think anyone said that" frames my message as unhelpful, makes it look like I am writing about things everyone knows about, which in turn makes my message look off-base.

Bel said, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, that those who lack a conscience manipulate more, more frequently, differently (more extreme, often).

This then makes it me against Bel, because if I am to correct you how you suggest, I would just have to decide what Bel said, and I can't do that, because I don't truly know what Bel meant by what he wrote and if I got it wrong, Bel will have to reject it, making me look like I put words in his mouth, and that's a confrontation that is not helpful to anyone.

It doesn't help anyone reach understanding, therefore, it's not productive.

Not as bad, but yet another power move.
Not true.
Your original message was about a lot of things -just go back and re-read it-.

That was literally what I was answering to with what you quoted with your answer. There is the quote

The dichotomy overlaps with the distinction between "good" and "evil". According to author Martha Stout, "evil" is just the absence of empathy and conscience, and masking it beneath a veneer of "fake pro-sociality". I agree wholeheartedly.

and then my response

In the end it's not possible to say that those who manipulate are "lacking empathy and conscience" and those that don't have it. A empathetical person may manipulate for various reasons while admitedly not truly understanding ( or undestanding but having some justification for it ). On the other hand while not finding it wrong, person lacking above attributes may have never manipulated.
So even with taking definition of "good" and "evil" that society will mostly agree with, absence of empathy doesn't make you "evil" and having it doesn't make you "good".

To which you responded "nobody said that". So I give shortened quote what I was talking about, and then that's "easy to disagree" and "not in good-faith".

What I did was a power move, that's true, but what about it? This is the same:

just go back and re-read it

frames me as not knowing what I have written and just wanting to win, if that's what you believe in, that's fair, but so I power moved because I saw your message as a cheap way to win an argument by saying "this is what Bel was really talking about" ( not the same words, but the same point ), even though just like in my message, there was a lot of points, not only the point you highlighted, and not the point I was responding towards with the message you quoted.

#662 · August 7, 2023, 6:42 pm

Quote from DGX37 on August 7, 2023, 5:56 pm
(...)
What I did was a power move, that's true, but what about it? This is the same:
(...)

Amid some other minor power moves that for this time I'm gonna let slip, you make some good points and I could have been more on point with my quotes / answers. I ackonwledge that.

Still, this is not the place for answering with more power moves -turkey spiral-.

If you feel there were power moves or disrespect, you're expected to talk straight and clarify here.

So the pre-warning stands:

Now you know not use power moves or manipulative frames on others on this forum.
So don't do it anymore.

And generally speaking, basic power dynamics dictate:

It's generally a good idea to avoid pulling power moves -and having an attitude- with those who are higher stauts -in this case, higher status absolutely not for personal merit, but for simply being an admin. But that's also part of the dynamics-.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#663 · August 7, 2023, 7:25 pm

Quote from Gguwad on August 7, 2023, 7:25 pm
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 7, 2023, 6:42 pm
If you feel there were power moves or disrespect, you're expected to talk straight and clarify here.
You're right, that's my mistake. I decided to answer with power moves instead of clarifying here, will remember that.
Still, this is not the place for answering with more power moves -turkey spiral-.
I understand you mean everywhere but here. I am beginning to understand that during clarification it is impossible to not power move, because if I think someone did something wrong and I say I didn't like that, that's already framing him as doing bad things or being unrespectful.
I don't know if I use the right definition of "power moving", but if there's an action that clarifies bad behaviour, it shows one as right for stopping this action and the other person wrong for having to be told to stop this action. So even if it is done in a good faith, it is impossible to not power move on someone when there is a conflict.
That means that power move that is delivered in a straight way, with desire to improve the situation is a "good" power move, and lack of power moving is impossible.
Why the power move I did was bad, was because it was not straight, instead of clarifying and trying to reach understanding, I did it to look good and make the situation more lose-lose, you on the other hand wrote here, giving a possibility to resolve a conflict, so even if you still power moved, it was good.
For example:
Now you know not use power moves or manipulative frames on others on this forum.
So don't do it anymore.
Makes me look like I use power moves and manipulative frames ( presumably at least few times ), which is a power move ( I lose status ), and even if I don't agree with manipulative frame part, it still is up for discussion because this is clarification thread and is made to reach understanding, and you see it true, so if you didn't do it, you just couldn't give me feedback, because no matter how you sugar coat a message you will gonna disempower me, and that's okay, because I can understand what I did wrong from that.
I want to know if you agree with what I said.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 7, 2023, 6:42 pm
If you feel there were power moves or disrespect, you're expected to talk straight and clarify here.

You're right, that's my mistake. I decided to answer with power moves instead of clarifying here, will remember that.

Still, this is not the place for answering with more power moves -turkey spiral-.

I understand you mean everywhere but here. I am beginning to understand that during clarification it is impossible to not power move, because if I think someone did something wrong and I say I didn't like that, that's already framing him as doing bad things or being unrespectful.

I don't know if I use the right definition of "power moving", but if there's an action that clarifies bad behaviour, it shows one as right for stopping this action and the other person wrong for having to be told to stop this action. So even if it is done in a good faith, it is impossible to not power move on someone when there is a conflict.

That means that power move that is delivered in a straight way, with desire to improve the situation is a "good" power move, and lack of power moving is impossible.

Why the power move I did was bad, was because it was not straight, instead of clarifying and trying to reach understanding, I did it to look good and make the situation more lose-lose, you on the other hand wrote here, giving a possibility to resolve a conflict, so even if you still power moved, it was good.

For example:

Now you know not use power moves or manipulative frames on others on this forum.
So don't do it anymore.

Makes me look like I use power moves and manipulative frames ( presumably at least few times ), which is a power move ( I lose status ), and even if I don't agree with manipulative frame part, it still is up for discussion because this is clarification thread and is made to reach understanding, and you see it true, so if you didn't do it, you just couldn't give me feedback, because no matter how you sugar coat a message you will gonna disempower me, and that's okay, because I can understand what I did wrong from that.

I want to know if you agree with what I said.

#664 · August 10, 2023, 9:40 am

Hello Emily,

thanks for your answers, it's great to see you back and posting.

Quote from Emily on August 10, 2023, 3:15 am
Not judging here but

When we say "but" it negates everything before the "but". So saying "not judging but..." actually means that the person is judging.

the type of women you are talking about (blonde with big breasts) are called bimbos where I am, and the social stereotype is that they are dumb (biased of course)

for instance "bimbo" is a judgment as being "dumb" is generally not considered a positive trait. If I remember well I never wrote anywhere that I'm looking for dumb women. Why would I frankly. So it's a judgment on me: it does not say good things about me if I'm (supposedly) looking for dumb women. A man who's looking for dumb women is either dumb himself or want to sexually exploit these women (taker behaviour). So it frames me quite negatively on a false premise.

Also it's also reinforcing the stereotype of blonde women with big breasts being dumb. I think we can all agree that all these women are not dumb.

but hey you like what you like.

This to me sounds also a bit judgmental ("but if you like those stupid women not my problem") as a conclusion while self-defending as in: "but I'm open-minded and respect you" after a judgment.

Happy to know if you have any comments on this.

#665 · August 10, 2023, 10:03 pm

Hey John,

This is one of the parts I'm referring to:

Man, reading this is painful. So that means that you get shamed at least twice a week for being a student. Their son. So I cannot imagine how annoying it gets if they talk constantly about it. I think it's worth fighting this "taker" frame hard and consistently. It's not cool at all.

I know the intention behind this of course, to show empathy and understandment of my situation. The thing is that this frames me as helpless and hurt by this, which isn't positive. Again I do appreciate the intention, things like this are said to show empathy and good will towards the other person.

I think that simply a positive reframe in the end could fix the negative frame. (E.g: Man that sucks.........however I do think thats not a big deal for you, things like that happen but that's precisely why we're here) This pulls the other person up, and frames him positively while showing empathy and friendliness.

The second part is this:

That was brilliant. Flawless. Fact-based and funny so light shaming ("you can't invite"), collaborative

To me this feels like a bit judgey.

Personally, I put "I think/I feel/ I believe" before almost every adjective/statement referring to someone Im talking to /something the person Im talking to said for that reason.

If you disagree with something I said or would like to add anything feel free to comment about it if you want to of course 🙂.

Lucio Buffalmano and John Freeman have reacted to this post.

#666 · August 10, 2023, 10:45 pm

OFF TOPIC

I couldn't edit this in the post, as the edit time ran out.

I want to thank you man, to you, Lucio and all the folks that have helped me lately. Im seeing lots of positive change, specially since I started listening to subliminals and doing shadow work so thank you for telling me about it.

I think you're a really cool guy, a bit of a shame I can't meet you personally, but well, we can still talk and exchange ideas here :).

END OFF TOPIC.

Lucio Buffalmano and John Freeman have reacted to this post.

#667 · August 10, 2023, 11:02 pm

Quote from John Freeman on August 10, 2023, 11:02 pm
Hello Power Duck,
thank you very much for your feed-back.
I think that simply a positive reframe in the end could fix the negative frame. (E.g: Man that sucks.........however I do think thats not a big deal for you, things like that happen but that's precisely why we're here) This pulls the other person up, and frames him positively while showing empathy and friendliness.
I totally agree with you. Yes my intention was to be empathetic. Without going into details or otherwise it would be excuse-splaining I'll say: I still have more work to do on not playing the role of the saviour. So thanks for pointing it out. My apologies, it was not my intention to be disrespectful.
Regarding your comment: it's helpful thanks. We can tell what we feel to display empathy or a quick comment and right away empower back, definitely.
Personally, I put "I think/I feel/ I believe" before almost every adjective/statement referring to someone Im talking to /something the person Im talking to said for that reason.
Alright, I understand your perspective.
So I guess it's this part right?
That was brilliant. Flawless.
Since this part:
Fact-based and funny so light shaming ("you can't invite"), collaborative
Is more analytical and keyword based to me.
If it's this part only:
That was brilliant. Flawless.
My intention was to express my enthusiasm and strong compliments, to be value-adding. Sub-communicating: "I'm with you". So I thought "I think" would have watered. Let's see:
I think it was brilliant and flawless.
Yes, it works. So I won't do it in our future communication.
Happy to know your thoughts on this if you want to.
Edit:
I think you're a really cool guy, a bit of a shame I can't meet you personally, but well, we can still talk and exchange ideas here :).
Hey man, same feelings on my end :) Definitely rich exchanges!
I want to thank you man, to you, Lucio and all the folks that have helped me lately. Im seeing lots of positive change, specially since I started listening to subliminals and doing shadow work so thank you for telling me about it.
That's cool, man. Yeah subliminals are quite interesting definitely. Thanks for telling me. I do my best to be a good brother-in-arms so thanks for telling me when I drop the ball. :)

Hello Power Duck,

thank you very much for your feed-back.

I think that simply a positive reframe in the end could fix the negative frame. (E.g: Man that sucks.........however I do think thats not a big deal for you, things like that happen but that's precisely why we're here) This pulls the other person up, and frames him positively while showing empathy and friendliness.

I totally agree with you. Yes my intention was to be empathetic. Without going into details or otherwise it would be excuse-splaining I'll say: I still have more work to do on not playing the role of the saviour. So thanks for pointing it out. My apologies, it was not my intention to be disrespectful.

Regarding your comment: it's helpful thanks. We can tell what we feel to display empathy or a quick comment and right away empower back, definitely.

Personally, I put "I think/I feel/ I believe" before almost every adjective/statement referring to someone Im talking to /something the person Im talking to said for that reason.

Alright, I understand your perspective.

So I guess it's this part right?

That was brilliant. Flawless.

Since this part:

Fact-based and funny so light shaming ("you can't invite"), collaborative

Is more analytical and keyword based to me.

If it's this part only:

That was brilliant. Flawless.

My intention was to express my enthusiasm and strong compliments, to be value-adding. Sub-communicating: "I'm with you". So I thought "I think" would have watered. Let's see:

I think it was brilliant and flawless.

Yes, it works. So I won't do it in our future communication.

Happy to know your thoughts on this if you want to.

Edit:

I think you're a really cool guy, a bit of a shame I can't meet you personally, but well, we can still talk and exchange ideas here :).

Hey man, same feelings on my end :) Definitely rich exchanges!

I want to thank you man, to you, Lucio and all the folks that have helped me lately. Im seeing lots of positive change, specially since I started listening to subliminals and doing shadow work so thank you for telling me about it.

That's cool, man. Yeah subliminals are quite interesting definitely. Thanks for telling me. I do my best to be a good brother-in-arms so thanks for telling me when I drop the ball. :)

Lucio Buffalmano and Power Duck have reacted to this post.

#668 · August 10, 2023, 11:47 pm

Correction: watered it down of course.

Power Duck has reacted to this post.

#669 · August 11, 2023, 1:21 am

Hey man, same feelings on my end 🙂 Definitely rich exchanges!

Indeed!

Thanks for telling me. I do my best to be a good brother-in-arms so thanks for telling me when I drop the ball. 🙂

Thanks to you too for the note!

John Freeman has reacted to this post.

#670 · August 13, 2023, 10:49 am

OFF-TOPIC (ADMIN NOTE)

Quote from John Freeman on December 16, 2022, 10:28 pm
I read with great interest the article about the limitations of a growth mindset.
....
I have been warned by you in the past due to my interactions with Matthew. So whatever happened this is what I think now: "if when I felt (don't want to start it all over again, so subjective is warranted) I was attacked I defended myself I got warned: what will happen if I defend myself again on this forum: will I get banned? "
So this is why I did not check the tone even though I felt it was inappropriate. Because last time it did not turn out great. I'm quite careful now because of the possible consequences so I want you to know it's part of my attitude.
.....
Even writing this I don't know what will happen to be fair. Alea jacta est.

I come after having read this exact lesson in order to read the forum example, and I can say this is something I noticed too. There are people who have been attacked when they tried to draw out boundaries and others who weren't. For the first, it's hard to get back to enforcing boundaries because of this kinds of past experiences and I am one of these people.
Does anyone have any advice? I also believe there is a thin border between drawing boundaries in a way that is accepted socially and challenging, which can get violence as an answer or, at least, intimidation. Here I don't agree with Lucio, violence is on the table, especially in youth groups.

OFF-TOPIC (ADMIN NOTE)

Ambrose, this is a thread for clarification among members, not to ask questions.

Please check the forum guidelines and help us keep the various threads on topic (it's also taxing on my time to moderate the forum, and I'd rather use my time more efficiently).