Quote from Ali Scarlett on July 4, 2023, 1:53 am

This is an analysis that could also go in the "Case Studies" forum category.

However, I decided to put it here because:

• Vivek Ramaswamy is running for president (a leadership position): and he's presenting some of his leadership skills here in this interview.
• The interviewers are the hosts of this show (leadership positions): and should ideally behave as good leaders to encourage the guest to want to return and the audience to want to watch the show again in the future.
• Observing how the interviewers and interviewee interact can tell you a lot about them as leaders and social strategists.

So, let's begin.

#1. The Hosts Set Up Unfair Power Dynamics for the Guest

Marketing psychologist, Nick Kolenda, spoke about this as a negotiation tactic in one of his books:

Kolenda:

Kolenda even went on to say this as part of what can make this tactic effective:

Kolenda: "Upward Angle. Your counterpart should look up at you. These angles boost your power. Even white rice seems more powerful with an upward perspective (Van Rompay, De Vries, Bontekoe, & Tanja-Dijkstra, 2012). If you’re negotiating through video chat, you could achieve a similar effect by tilting your camera upward."

Chairs and the types of chairs each party receives can subcommunicate a lot about the power dynamics in the room.

The Breakfast Club (BC) seems to have also employed this tactic (albeit maybe not as a malicious move), replacing their chairs with thrones, but giving their guest a regular chair that's significantly smaller in size:

I sometimes like the idea of thinking of oneself as a king (for those who need a higher level of what we could call "core self-esteem" because they're starting with zero), and I think an even more win-win way to go about it here would've been an attitude of, "We only let guests onto this show who we like and respect, therefore, you also get a throne because we consider you a king too."

However, that's only if they would've given their guest a throne. And, thinking of it in this regard, it now feels like it devalues the show (for me) for them to bring on guests who they view as less than them.

It's either that or the thrones are a product of their own narcissism and maybe nothing more than that. (At least, that's how it feels to me.)

#2. Reading People: This Person Is Going to Be Rude

BC lets someone else into the discussion named Tezlyn Figaro and allows her to weigh in with her own questions.

Watch how she starts off her conversation with Vivek and see if you get the feeling that she's probably going to be rude, disrespectful, or aggressive:

https://youtu.be/DLotjyLHRmU?t=737

DJ Envy: "And we have Tezlyn Figaro, I'm sure Tezlyn has some questions. Tez, you good?

Figaro: "Yes, I do [have some questions] (responds immediately first and foremost to wanting to question Vivek). Um, so, I've heard a lot of, you know, what you think and your vision and I am, I'm a very practical person and I want to kind of, as opposed to talking about your opponents, let's talk about you for a moment (a direct preface to her questioning to set the frame/"rules for this conversation" that her part of the discussion will be targeted to him and only him) and let's actually talk about your policy (switches from "I want to" to a more dominant and power-taking form of asking of "let's"). Explain to me your policy on the civic duty voting (and now, drops the asking altogether for the fully dominant order-giving)."

Notice, none of this communication was mixed with warmth signals either. There were small, partial smiles here and there but overall the tone of her body language was one of "getting down to business" and being willing to offend if necessary. (If you watched the beginning of the interview, Vivek was talking a lot about his vision for the country and so Figaro's comment that she's a "practical person" felt like a bit of a slight toward him as well which we later found out indeed was the case.)

#3. The Speaker Sets a Disempowering Trap and Vivek Falls for It

https://youtu.be/DLotjyLHRmU?t=905

Figaro: "Well, I got a test I would like to see if you're willing to pass. Umm because I believe in, just as you believe in civic engagement, I believe in changing the ideas of what political opponents should look like...or political candidates. (Adds a quick smile only now to try to hopefully increase her chances of getting what she wants) Are you willing to take a test with me quickly? (Drops the smile now and goes back to verbal persuading) 'Cuz I just have a couple of questions for you."

If Figaro has a question, she's free to ask it, just as anyone else does and has throughout this interview.

But by framing it as a test and herself as the test-giver, she can position herself in the teacher role to deem whether or not Vivek's answers were right or wrong (which she later uses against him).

Vivek says he'll take the test but that he can tell that with the way she opened this up he's probably going to fail, signaling that he can already smell that there's a game being played. But he probably didn't want to say "no" to the challenge in front of the audiences watching at home.

Still, from a power dynamics POV, this was the wrong decision. (You'll see why a little later.)

#4. Speaker Puts Herself On a High Horse, Then Aims Down to the Target Below

https://youtu.be/DLotjyLHRmU?t=953

Figaro: "So, you mentioned, uh, you know, the pride of being an American and how important it is to have pride in this country. I'm also a veteran, uh, by the way, for the United States Air Force. So, (begins squinting eyes scrutinizingly) when is it that you voted for the first time?

Vivek: "I voted in 2020."

Figaro: "OK, so you're how old again?"

Vivek: "I'm 37 years old."

Figaro: "So, for how many years you sat around did not get involved at all in any civic engagement? Is that my understanding?"

Vivek: (Chooses to respond with total honesty, even when the truth may come across negative to many viewers watching) "A long time is the answer...I'm not holding myself out as some sort of model. I'm actually offering myself as a self-reflection of my journey as a citizen to whom this country has given much...I'm very honest about that. Absolutely."

Figaro: "OK, no problem, so let's go deeper into the self-reflection (an annoying power move framing herself as going deeper into his self-reflection when really she primarily plans to go deeper into her attack). So, you've sat around for, and sir I'm being as respectful as I possibly can, please don't take anything in a hard way..."

Vivek: "And you don't have to be [respectful], and you don't even have to be so take it off and let's go."

Figaro: "So, you've been sitting around in the country that my ancestors built for about twenty years (more manipulation: framing him as having "done nothing" for years which is a lie + power borrowing from the work her ancestors did that she herself did not do), your parents came over as immigrants, brought you over. You made millions according to your resume off of this country (more manipulation: he didn't make money off the "country", it's not as if the US government just gave him that money, he earned it in transactions with the *people* of the country, many of whom might not have even been American) and you have absolutely not been involved in civics. One, not voting, and, two, let me just ask because I know you mentioned earlier you don't want to sit around at the debate and talk about accomplishments, let's make the accomplishments pretty simple. In high school, were you ever a class president or take any leadership role because your opponent did. Chris Christie, he was a class president. So have you ever taken any leadership at all on anything..."

Vivek: "Can I just correct a couple factual things, uh, that are kind of important?"

Figaro: "Sure, uh huh."

Vivek: "My parents didn't bring me over into the country. I was born in this country and I'm proud of that."

Figaro: "No, I know you were born here in Ohio (a weird thing to say at this point because if she actually knew he was born in Ohio, then why did she say before that his parents had actually brought him from another country?)."

Vivek: "No, you mentioned my parents brought me (addresses the weird and manipulative change in her statement)."

Figaro: "No, I know you were born here in Ohio. Ohio. I'm saying your parents were immigrants, my apologies."

Vivek: "Yeah, and that's alright, you said your parents brought you over to this country, I thought I would set the record straight."

Figaro: "Yeah, they were immigrants, but let's not go down the waterhole (invalidating feelings: it's a rude power move to frame the clarification of points that are important to him as "going down a waterhole"—implying it's pointless discussion that leads to nowhere and adds no value to the discussion)."

Vivek: "Oh, no, no, no, we're not going down a waterhole (rejects her frame), I just want to correct a couple facts..."

Figaro: "...So, the question is (takes the host role: she tries to control the topic of conversation by reiterating the question, but it's a low-warmth way to do it given that he already heard and knows the question, he simply wants to correct inaccuracies in the preface of her question and still hasn't been allowed to finish doing so), did you take any leadership role in middle school, high school, class president..."

Vivek: "I did."

Figaro: "What is it, explain it for us (orders him again)."

Vivek: "Student council. But, you know, I think that this is the, yes, I've held leadership roles over my life but those don't qualify me to do what I'm doing now."

Figaro: "No, it kinda does. [Vivkek: "OK, well..."] Well, it kinda does. Well, let me, well, I'm giving the test, I'm the test administrator (dominant power move: reminds him of her teacher role to "shut him up" and make her answer the only right answer with a "my way is the only way" attitude)."

Vivek: "OK, alright, there you go (accepts Figaro's teacher frame again as if this is a fun game they're playing and the stakes are low)."

She starts off by mentioning she's a veteran and then uses that to put herself in a position of high moral authority to dispense judgment as to whether or not he's been practicing good civic duty.

Vivek, albeit I got the feeling that he probably read her and felt she's an aggressive debater, went for the full (maybe even radical) honesty approach anyway by admitting he had done little civic engagement in his lifetime. And he admitted this before even addressing the falsehoods in the preface of her question.

This was a mistake. It was too high-warmth of an approach taken toward someone who would clearly be happy to use that truth against him. And it only led to more problems later.

Figaro was being rude and tried to brush off her rudeness as her being "as respectful as she can". In response, Vivek says that the disrespect was OK. (Perhaps trying to show he's a thick-skinned candidate who can handle the pressure, a major plus for anyone who could end up running against a personality like Trump.)

But, again, this was a mistake because it denied him the ability to demand a more respectful form of communication.

Then, Figaro made the claim that Vivek's parents brought him over into the country. That was an important inaccuracy to correct.

For Vivek, he claims it was important as a point of pride for him. But for me, I saw a bigger issue: Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution explicitly states that "no Person except a natural born Citizen […] shall be eligible to the Office of President."

So, if Vivek's parents brought him over from another country, then he's not a natural-born citizen and therefore, not eligible to even become president.

That's not a waterhole, that's a major blunder on her part. And yet, despite apologizing, in the end, she didn't seem to take her mistake as seriously as he did.

Finally, and I'll provide some context first, at the beginning of the interview, one of the interviewers (Charlamagne) mentioned that the latest Fox poll says Vivek is currently in third place behind DeSantis.

I don't think all of the supporters who got him to that third-place spot so early in the race against such tough opponents asked if he was class president in high school to make their decision (and that if the answer was "no" they all would've withdrawn their approvals).

And yet, here Figaro is absolutely insisting that this is vital to any would-be US president.

#5. Vivek Reclaims His Speaking Time and Address the Speaker's Misinformation

Let me say, Vivek has shown some power awareness from what I've seen from him so far.

It might not be obvious to the typical reader exploring this analysis, especially if you've never seen him before in any other media.

But, generally speaking, he can be pretty good in a back-and-forth discussion and it's possible that it's because, according to Tezlyn Figaro, he was on the Harvard debate team (which could also be why she felt she had to attack him so hard to win).

At one point early on in the interview (that I didn't think was big enough to write too much on, but as you know, sometimes power dynamics is about the small cuts that can add up), Charlamagne cuts off Vivek while he's speaking.

So, Vivek patiently waits for Charlamagne to finish, asks Charlamagne a question and expects an answer (already dominant), and then cuts off Charlemagne back while he's giving his answer with a great point that was worth listening to (so it wasn't just filler to get back at Charlamagne for running him over). Brilliant, in my opinion.

This was another one of those great moments (continuing from Figaro's power move before):

https://youtu.be/DLotjyLHRmU?t=1092

Figaro: "...when you go from saying I want to go to the highest office..."

Vivek: "(cuts her off while she's speaking) And I'll tell you, I've led companies as well, is the other leader, is the main leadership role I've played."

Vivek: [Figaro tries to cut him off back but he pushes through and maintains the microphone] "And I want to, I want to talk about one earlier part of your premise that I also want to say, bring it to the country point, the other point, you use the word 'sitting around'...I wasn't sitting around. I've developed medicines, five of which are FDA approved products today, one of which is a life-saving therapy in kids, twenty of whom die by the age of three if they're not treated. Seventy percent of whom now live lives of a normal duration. Another one for prostate cancer...

I mostly liked this move from Vivek because it achieved a few things:

• Rebalancing some of the power loss: with a dominant move of cutting her off.
• Goes back to an earlier part of the conversation: denying her host role power move that she'd been using to control the scope of the conversation by deciding for himself what topics he wanted to speak on and going for it.
• Exposes her lying misinformation: claiming he was sitting around (doing nothing) when he was really developing medicines to save the lives of children is a very bad look for the speaker.

#6. The Speaker Reclaims the Moral High Ground to Go Back On the Offensive

Unfortunately, after this small win, Figaro went back to her moral high ground of being a veteran and began dispensing more power moves:

https://youtu.be/DLotjyLHRmU?t=1138

Figaro: "Right, well I don't want you to filibuster that because that's not the question that I asked (frames Vivek's exposing of the misinformation in the premise of her earlier question as a delaying tactic to avoid answering her current question) and I don't consider [for profit work], as a veteran (puts herself back on the moral high ground) I'm talking about service. I'm not talking about what you did for profit. I'm not talking about what you paid people to do with your company. I'm not talking about that because that means nothing to me (pushing that teacher role: slams door in his face on one of his answers to her question)...so have you done anything of service besides [serving] yourself that has not benefited yourself. It's just a simple question."

---

I'm currently in the hospital recovering from a fever (everything is looking good right now though and I should be discharged soon :).

And then, I saw this interview and it got me so stirred up, I had to mentally crack my knuckles and write this post (and it's still not finished).

Lately, my blood has been boiling at receiving disrespect from people and sometimes also just seeing other people get direspected unfairly without them being able to defend themselves effectively.

It makes me passionate about what I do, but it can also makes me an easy target with the difficult manipulators when my buttons are so pushable.

It's something I'm currently working on, but for now, I'm using it as fuel to crank out some good work and I think this is a solid example of a guest dealing with a bully ineffectively (and another part of the post, if I could've finished it in one fell swoop, was going to be how Vivek could've handled it better).

Feel free to leave your feedback below and happy to read your thoughts and comments.