Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 27, 2021, 11:06 am

I don't think that it makes a major difference here.

Depending on the context, palm-down hand on shoulders must not necessarily be a sign of overpowering or intimidatory dominance.
Often, it's a sign of "affectionate dominance" which is different.

Also, the hand is not fully up but sideways.
And that might suggest he might grab him later.

Past Leverage = Admission of Powerlessness

It's telling when he says:

Him: I've paid you a small fortune

He brings up past value and past leverage.

Bringing up past leverage often sub-communicates you don't have any current value to give.
And no current leverage.

Past Leverage = Manipulative, Generally Annoying

That's a movie of course.

But the "bringing up past value" is something that many do in real life as well.

See the reminders of "I'm a lifetime customer / invested in this 2 years ago" in Shan's other thread, sub-communicating that "I paid you, so I got leverage over you, so do X".
Not necessarily manipulative in that case, since it's true, but not everything that's true or helps you "win" in the short term is good.
It's a power move that erodes social capital so, generally, long-term disempowering for the speaker.

In some cases, the reminders of past value can also be manipulative and part of guilt-tripping efforts.

I'm adding a new lesson now in PU for these more advanced nuances of the social exchange.
It's in draft form right now but there are some examples already.

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on August 27, 2021, 2:48 pm

Thanks for helping me to understand this scene.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 27, 2021, 11:06 am

Depending on the context, palm-down hand on shoulders must not necessarily be a sign of overpowering or intimidatory dominance.
Often, it's a sign of "affectionate dominance" which is different.

I think I understand.
Palm-down hand while shaking hands is different from palm-down hand on shoulders.

A palm-down handshake is deliberate while the palm-down on the shoulder can make sense practically because it's a natural way of holding a person's shoulder.
A good example is the side-hug with your hand over the other person's shoulders.
It can be dominant and affectionate at the same time.

Obama's patting is a different dynamic altogether.
It's something like a "good boy" power move.
That's more overpowering.

Sideways looks like he's about the grab the neck.
Which I think he actually did afterwards.

When to Bring Up the Past?

In summary, one should not bring up the past to gain leverage over a person.
I recall that a famous book (48 Law of Power or The Prince) has one rule on this.

Bringing up the past suggests that I did this in the past to gain leverage over you rather than build goodwill and trust.
Or I am finding ways to "win" the argument or take advantage of you.
It also comes across as bean-counting to a certain extent.
I brought this value, did this and so I expect this and this in return.
As you mentioned, it erodes social capital.

Using past leverage is fairer when there's an honest exchange talk or a previous agreement on setting expectations.

I think from what you mentioned, one should side with bringing up win-win examples in the past.
Those examples build trust and build a narrative of shared experience together whether business or personal.

Friend: We have worked on many successful projects together.
What do you think about working on this project together?

Then, bringing up the past can be a good thing to reinforce the win-win narrative and frame of the relationship.

Although I can also see how that can be used in a manipulative manner too.
For example, using the good relationship as leverage to get a win-lose outcome by bringing up past win-win examples.

Friend: We have worked on many successful projects together.
Could you help me with this?

This can be annoying in my opinion.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 27, 2021, 6:12 pm

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on August 27, 2021, 2:48 pm

Thanks for helping me to understand this scene.

I think I'm going to break down the power dynamics module of PU into:

• Overpowering dominance - often breaking rapport
• High-power behavior
  • Dominance that is not rapport-breaking
  • Behavior that is generally high-status / high-quality / high-confidence independently of dominance level

Obviously sometimes the same behavior can be overpowering and rapport-breaking in a situation, but totally OK in another.

So I'll have to think how to best structure it.

But I that will help a lot.
Plus being something totally absent in the market and that PU should cover.