Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumPublic Forum: Power DynamicsHow to approach the -inverted sho …

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

How to approach the -inverted showdown- effectively

#1 · October 27, 2020, 2:01 pm

Quote from Anon on October 27, 2020, 2:01 pm
Hi guys,
this thread is based on this post from Lucio and I think it should have it's own topic because of how common it seems, at least to me. Here the relevant quote (emphasize is mine):

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on October 27, 2020, 11:58 am
These situations are relatively common in socialization, and can become a battle of egos. At that point, it's the ego that keeps the relationship combative more than any real/rational reason.
And this is where the "power of vulnerability" can indeed be power.
Posing an olive branch is a sign of mental and emotional control, it's the sign of you doing what's more effective, rather than not doing it out of (emotional) self-protection.
Similar situation when two lovers don't contact each other out of ego, waiting for the other to make the first move (an "inverted showdown" scenario).
But those are often situations where speaking first about you liked/didn't like and what you expect would far more leader-like.

I'm not really thinking about the context of lovers but friends and acquaintances, and it appears to be quite common there as well. I haven't tried the vulneralibity approach in these situation yet and it seems like a great strategy.

Though I'm not sure about the details, because it seems necessary to balance the relationship a bit after "loosing" the showdown and then on top of that going with vulnerability, which could be too much.

How exactly could this look like in a situation where I will seek contact with a friend I haven't heard about in months and who I know will appreaciate it, but we both had our stupid egos, and I really want to avoid this whole -who innitiates first- issue completely from now on.

In this case it's a bit added difficulty because said friend likes to space out their (text) answers for days which is annoying and even a red flag for me now (otherwise they're alright).

So the plan could be to initiate with the usual, textual “Hey how are you doing, let’s have a talk soon” etc, and if we have updated each other to what we're up to now, bringing the topic to:

How I value the contact to them and that I feel a bit sad it happens so rarely and feel hurt if they space out simple text messages for days like as if I were an annyoing disturbance.

This is the implemention of the vulnerability approach (though feels a bit too weak right now for my taste).

And at the end, after we had a cool talk as usual, I could propose a bit more regularity (e.g. once a month) or alternatively, we could decide then and there who should initiate next time and combine that with some collaboration talk (though it would be even better to write that in text form so there is less possibilty of forgetting who’s turn it is and avoid possible accidental resentment).

Any thoughts of improvement or other ideas to approach this?

Hi guys,

this thread is based on this post from Lucio and I think it should have it's own topic because of how common it seems, at least to me. Here the relevant quote (emphasize is mine):

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on October 27, 2020, 11:58 am

These situations are relatively common in socialization, and can become a battle of egos. At that point, it's the ego that keeps the relationship combative more than any real/rational reason.

And this is where the "power of vulnerability" can indeed be power.
Posing an olive branch is a sign of mental and emotional control, it's the sign of you doing what's more effective, rather than not doing it out of (emotional) self-protection.

Similar situation when two lovers don't contact each other out of ego, waiting for the other to make the first move (an "inverted showdown" scenario).
But those are often situations where speaking first about you liked/didn't like and what you expect would far more leader-like.

I'm not really thinking about the context of lovers but friends and acquaintances, and it appears to be quite common there as well. I haven't tried the vulneralibity approach in these situation yet and it seems like a great strategy.

Though I'm not sure about the details, because it seems necessary to balance the relationship a bit after "loosing" the showdown and then on top of that going with vulnerability, which could be too much.

How exactly could this look like in a situation where I will seek contact with a friend I haven't heard about in months and who I know will appreaciate it, but we both had our stupid egos, and I really want to avoid this whole -who innitiates first- issue completely from now on.

In this case it's a bit added difficulty because said friend likes to space out their (text) answers for days which is annoying and even a red flag for me now (otherwise they're alright).

So the plan could be to initiate with the usual, textual “Hey how are you doing, let’s have a talk soon” etc, and if we have updated each other to what we're up to now, bringing the topic to:

How I value the contact to them and that I feel a bit sad it happens so rarely and feel hurt if they space out simple text messages for days like as if I were an annyoing disturbance.

This is the implemention of the vulnerability approach (though feels a bit too weak right now for my taste).

And at the end, after we had a cool talk as usual, I could propose a bit more regularity (e.g. once a month) or alternatively, we could decide then and there who should initiate next time and combine that with some collaboration talk (though it would be even better to write that in text form so there is less possibilty of forgetting who’s turn it is and avoid possible accidental resentment).

Any thoughts of improvement or other ideas to approach this?

#2 · October 31, 2020, 9:28 am

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on October 31, 2020, 9:28 am
Hi Anon,
Yeah, you're right, this phenomenon is so common, and often so unnecessarily damaging, that it does deserve its own post.
You're right that spacing text replies over many days is a red flag.
It's a red flag of priorities, but not necessarily a red of liking someone, or wanting to stay in touch (of course, it can be, but not necessarily).
For example, there are several people I really like and appreciate and do want to have in my life, but right now that I'm 100% on PU's upgrade, I'm also continually spacing out -or outright skipping- my replies to gain time and space.
Such as: it's certainly possible that sometimes one can have higher priorities of doing things, but also wishes to keep someone close.
Strategies for reopening contact
Take your proposed line:
Hey how are you doing, let’s have a talk soon
This one is a short ping giving little and asking for something -and asking it soon-.
Now imagine they're busy with something, and get that message, how are they likely to interpret?
Like an added item on their to-do list.
They'll think "shit, do I need to do this one thing soon?".
And if they're really over heir head with whatever, they'll likely end up avoiding it.
I wouldn't go down that road.
In this case, I'd probably open with something like this:
Hey man, I hope all good there!
Didn't speak for a while, life can get crazy, busy doing X these days.
What are you up to, let's have a quick update call one of these days.
This one takes care of delivering some more value, and:
Empathically saves their face: you make excuses for both, so they don't feel "faulty" for not keeping in touch. Many people inadvertently make others feel "faulty" when they get in touch again (faulty for not staying in touch)
Reopens from a position of power: you're also busy and doing your own thing, so it's not framed as a low-value, asking for something to the higher-value
Pressure off: a call "one of these days". But, if you use this general frame with the two points above, also "soon" is fine
At that point, frankly, it doesn't even matter that much if you have a call or not.
A different mindset for friendships
I usually don't have to open like this because most of my close friendships operate under the assumption of:
We like each other and are always happy to see each other. even if we don't speak.
I rarely speak to many of the people whom I am happiest to see again. I think this is both efficient and warm (high power / high warmth). Not everyone naturally accepts this frame, so sometimes you have to nudge it in that direction -or openly state that it's how you stay in touch with people-.

Hi Anon,

Yeah, you're right, this phenomenon is so common, and often so unnecessarily damaging, that it does deserve its own post.

You're right that spacing text replies over many days is a red flag.
It's a red flag of priorities, but not necessarily a red of liking someone, or wanting to stay in touch (of course, it can be, but not necessarily).

For example, there are several people I really like and appreciate and do want to have in my life, but right now that I'm 100% on PU's upgrade, I'm also continually spacing out -or outright skipping- my replies to gain time and space.
Such as: it's certainly possible that sometimes one can have higher priorities of doing things, but also wishes to keep someone close.

Strategies for reopening contact

Take your proposed line:

Hey how are you doing, let’s have a talk soon

This one is a short ping giving little and asking for something -and asking it soon-.
Now imagine they're busy with something, and get that message, how are they likely to interpret?
Like an added item on their to-do list.

They'll think "shit, do I need to do this one thing soon?".
And if they're really over heir head with whatever, they'll likely end up avoiding it.

I wouldn't go down that road.

In this case, I'd probably open with something like this:

Hey man, I hope all good there!
Didn't speak for a while, life can get crazy, busy doing X these days.
What are you up to, let's have a quick update call one of these days.

This one takes care of delivering some more value, and:

Empathically saves their face: you make excuses for both, so they don't feel "faulty" for not keeping in touch. Many people inadvertently make others feel "faulty" when they get in touch again (faulty for not staying in touch)
Reopens from a position of power: you're also busy and doing your own thing, so it's not framed as a low-value, asking for something to the higher-value
Pressure off: a call "one of these days". But, if you use this general frame with the two points above, also "soon" is fine

At that point, frankly, it doesn't even matter that much if you have a call or not.

A different mindset for friendships

I usually don't have to open like this because most of my close friendships operate under the assumption of:

We like each other and are always happy to see each other. even if we don't speak.

I rarely speak to many of the people whom I am happiest to see again. I think this is both efficient and warm (high power / high warmth). Not everyone naturally accepts this frame, so sometimes you have to nudge it in that direction -or openly state that it's how you stay in touch with people-.

Stef has reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#3 · October 31, 2020, 1:58 pm

Quote from John Freeman on October 31, 2020, 1:58 pm
How I value the contact to them and that I feel a bit sad it happens so rarely and feel hurt if they space out simple text messages for days like as if I were an annyoing disturbance.
This is your interpretation. Be careful not to take personnally their behavior.
I agree with Lucio about priorities. Sometimes we have to accept that we don't have the same priorities at the same time.
And at the end, after we had a cool talk as usual, I could propose a bit more regularity (e.g. once a month) or alternatively, we could decide then and there who should initiate next time and combine that with some collaboration talk (though it would be even better to write that in text form so there is less possibilty of forgetting who’s turn it is and avoid possible accidental resentment).
I would add on top of Lucio's frame about friendship (which I agree with) that good relationships are reciprocal and based on mutual respect and appreciation. If the other person does not value the relationship as much as I do it means that the kind of relationship I want with this person is unlikely to happen. I'm talking about closeness/intimacy. How much you open up and trust the other person. Until you are at this stage, as Lucio put it in another post, it's mostly an exchange-based relationship: "you give me this, I give you that". For me, a friendship between guys has to be based on mutual respect, liking and appreciation or shared values/philosophies. Also, as guys we bond around a common goal or activity. Like on this forum. We find allies that share some common traits, goals or activities and we are friends until our goals change. To me, that is the biological reality. It does not have to be this way, but I think it's the basis of male friendships.
So if there are not these conditions, I would let it go. Also, it's important to be careful not to be attached to the relationship for what it means to us (what it says about you, whatever meaning we attribute to it, etc.) but rather because you value it for the person and the relationship itself.
Lastly, the unconformable truth: an imbalance in perceived value. If whatever value you have to give does not match your friend's expectations (goes back to his values and goals) or he values things higher than the time spent with you, then he won't reciprocate. And it's all good, it's his right.
There are TONS of other people that will be happy to be your friend. However, this requires to let go of previous relationship progressively.
That's my opinion. Congrats on having the courage to face this uncomfortable situation!

How I value the contact to them and that I feel a bit sad it happens so rarely and feel hurt if they space out simple text messages for days like as if I were an annyoing disturbance.

This is your interpretation. Be careful not to take personnally their behavior.

I agree with Lucio about priorities. Sometimes we have to accept that we don't have the same priorities at the same time.

And at the end, after we had a cool talk as usual, I could propose a bit more regularity (e.g. once a month) or alternatively, we could decide then and there who should initiate next time and combine that with some collaboration talk (though it would be even better to write that in text form so there is less possibilty of forgetting who’s turn it is and avoid possible accidental resentment).

I would add on top of Lucio's frame about friendship (which I agree with) that good relationships are reciprocal and based on mutual respect and appreciation. If the other person does not value the relationship as much as I do it means that the kind of relationship I want with this person is unlikely to happen. I'm talking about closeness/intimacy. How much you open up and trust the other person. Until you are at this stage, as Lucio put it in another post, it's mostly an exchange-based relationship: "you give me this, I give you that". For me, a friendship between guys has to be based on mutual respect, liking and appreciation or shared values/philosophies. Also, as guys we bond around a common goal or activity. Like on this forum. We find allies that share some common traits, goals or activities and we are friends until our goals change. To me, that is the biological reality. It does not have to be this way, but I think it's the basis of male friendships.

So if there are not these conditions, I would let it go. Also, it's important to be careful not to be attached to the relationship for what it means to us (what it says about you, whatever meaning we attribute to it, etc.) but rather because you value it for the person and the relationship itself.

Lastly, the unconformable truth: an imbalance in perceived value. If whatever value you have to give does not match your friend's expectations (goes back to his values and goals) or he values things higher than the time spent with you, then he won't reciprocate. And it's all good, it's his right.

There are TONS of other people that will be happy to be your friend. However, this requires to let go of previous relationship progressively.

That's my opinion. Congrats on having the courage to face this uncomfortable situation!

#4 · October 31, 2020, 3:09 pm

Very good points, John.

Same for win-win exchanges, too.
Win-win must also not be "for-ever win-win".
It can as well be "win-win until our goals matched", or "until we were in the same city", or whenever a relevant variable changed.

I see friendships somewhat less time and goal-constrained, though.

Not all, but some good friendships that went beyond the "exchange-based phase" do still remain within you even when you are not in touch anymore.
For example, I've long moved away from my village, and some of the people I grew up with I don't even write anymore even when I'm here. But if I meet them, I'm still happy to see them. Sometimes very happy, and might spend a happy evening with, treating them like close and good friends even though all about us has changed.

One of the things friendships differ with relationships: you wouldn't treat an ex like when you were together :).

Stef has reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#5 · November 4, 2020, 9:07 am

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on October 31, 2020, 9:28 am
Strategies for reopening contact
Take your proposed line:
Hey how are you doing, let’s have a talk soon
This one is a short ping giving little and asking for something -and asking it soon-.
Now imagine they're busy with something, and get that message, how are they likely to interpret?
Like an added item on their to-do list.
They'll think "shit, do I need to do this one thing soon?".
And if they're really over heir head with whatever, they'll likely end up avoiding it.
I wouldn't go down that road.
In this case, I'd probably open with something like this:
Hey man, I hope all good there!
Didn't speak for a while, life can get crazy, busy doing X these days.
What are you up to, let's have a quick update call one of these days.
This one takes care of delivering some more value, and:
Empathically saves their face: you make excuses for both, so they don't feel "faulty" for not keeping in touch. Many people inadvertently make others feel "faulty" when they get in touch again (faulty for not staying in touch)
Reopens from a position of power: you're also busy and doing your own thing, so it's not framed as a low-value, asking for something to the higher-value
Pressure off: a call "one of these days". But, if you use this general frame with the two points above, also "soon" is fine
At that point, frankly, it doesn't even matter that much if you have a call or not.

Thank you for your advice.

It’s sometimes difficult to question or analyze basic every-day things like a simple ping, that normaly “works” or was always “good enough” in the past

Your solution is short as well and yet the difference is quite significant. Very helpful.

#6 · November 4, 2020, 9:12 am

Quote from Anon on November 4, 2020, 9:12 am
Quote from John Freeman on October 31, 2020, 1:58 pm
How I value the contact to them and that I feel a bit sad it happens so rarely and feel hurt if they space out simple text messages for days like as if I were an annyoing disturbance.
This is your interpretation. Be careful not to take personnally their behavior.
I agree with Lucio about priorities. Sometimes we have to accept that we don't have the same priorities at the same time.
And at the end, after we had a cool talk as usual, I could propose a bit more regularity (e.g. once a month) or alternatively, we could decide then and there who should initiate next time and combine that with some collaboration talk (though it would be even better to write that in text form so there is less possibilty of forgetting who’s turn it is and avoid possible accidental resentment).
I would add on top of Lucio's frame about friendship (which I agree with) that good relationships are reciprocal and based on mutual respect and appreciation. If the other person does not value the relationship as much as I do it means that the kind of relationship I want with this person is unlikely to happen. I'm talking about closeness/intimacy. How much you open up and trust the other person. Until you are at this stage, as Lucio put it in another post, it's mostly an exchange-based relationship: "you give me this, I give you that". For me, a friendship between guys has to be based on mutual respect, liking and appreciation or shared values/philosophies. Also, as guys we bond around a common goal or activity. Like on this forum. We find allies that share some common traits, goals or activities and we are friends until our goals change. To me, that is the biological reality. It does not have to be this way, but I think it's the basis of male friendships.
So if there are not these conditions, I would let it go. Also, it's important to be careful not to be attached to the relationship for what it means to us (what it says about you, whatever meaning we attribute to it, etc.) but rather because you value it for the person and the relationship itself.
Lastly, the unconformable truth: an imbalance in perceived value. If whatever value you have to give does not match your friend's expectations (goes back to his values and goals) or he values things higher than the time spent with you, then he won't reciprocate. And it's all good, it's his right.
There are TONS of other people that will be happy to be your friend. However, this requires to let go of previous relationship progressively.
That's my opinion. Congrats on having the courage to face this uncomfortable situation!

Thank you as well for taking the time and effort to write your response.
It sounds like a healthy mindset on friendships in general.

What’s annyoing in this particular case though are the mixed signals – that makes it all the more hard to judge, and unfortunately it's quite common for people to be (somewhat deliberately) disrespectful in one way or 'nother.
But the strategies on here help with this a lot, needed all of these years ago.

Quote from John Freeman on October 31, 2020, 1:58 pm
How I value the contact to them and that I feel a bit sad it happens so rarely and feel hurt if they space out simple text messages for days like as if I were an annyoing disturbance.
This is your interpretation. Be careful not to take personnally their behavior.
I agree with Lucio about priorities. Sometimes we have to accept that we don't have the same priorities at the same time.
And at the end, after we had a cool talk as usual, I could propose a bit more regularity (e.g. once a month) or alternatively, we could decide then and there who should initiate next time and combine that with some collaboration talk (though it would be even better to write that in text form so there is less possibilty of forgetting who’s turn it is and avoid possible accidental resentment).
I would add on top of Lucio's frame about friendship (which I agree with) that good relationships are reciprocal and based on mutual respect and appreciation. If the other person does not value the relationship as much as I do it means that the kind of relationship I want with this person is unlikely to happen. I'm talking about closeness/intimacy. How much you open up and trust the other person. Until you are at this stage, as Lucio put it in another post, it's mostly an exchange-based relationship: "you give me this, I give you that". For me, a friendship between guys has to be based on mutual respect, liking and appreciation or shared values/philosophies. Also, as guys we bond around a common goal or activity. Like on this forum. We find allies that share some common traits, goals or activities and we are friends until our goals change. To me, that is the biological reality. It does not have to be this way, but I think it's the basis of male friendships.
So if there are not these conditions, I would let it go. Also, it's important to be careful not to be attached to the relationship for what it means to us (what it says about you, whatever meaning we attribute to it, etc.) but rather because you value it for the person and the relationship itself.
Lastly, the unconformable truth: an imbalance in perceived value. If whatever value you have to give does not match your friend's expectations (goes back to his values and goals) or he values things higher than the time spent with you, then he won't reciprocate. And it's all good, it's his right.
There are TONS of other people that will be happy to be your friend. However, this requires to let go of previous relationship progressively.
That's my opinion. Congrats on having the courage to face this uncomfortable situation!

Thank you as well for taking the time and effort to write your response.

It sounds like a healthy mindset on friendships in general.

What’s annyoing in this particular case though are the mixed signals – that makes it all the more hard to judge, and unfortunately it's quite common for people to be (somewhat deliberately) disrespectful in one way or 'nother.

But the strategies on here help with this a lot, needed all of these years ago.