Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Judge = "emotional power dynamics" ?


I think I may not have used the best example.

For example, an interaction goes as follows:

Me: How often does that happen?

Him: That's a good question.

Do you consider that an authority power move (or domain, information power) rather than a judge power move?

If that's the case, I think we conflated the 2 in some of our discussions.
Or at least I conflated the 2.

Potentially yes.

It depends a lot on how he says it, of course (smart alecky, or while he's actually really reflecting on the question because he's brainstorming as much as you are, and thus at your same level?).

And the other main point to identify it is: is there an emotional component in the receiver?

From the full article:

(...) for the "full" judge power, the receiver must grant that power. Without the receiver craving the emotional reward or fearing the emotional judgment, we only have at most an attempt at judge role, but not the judge effect.

So unless you're emotionally reacting at that line, at most he was trying to get judge powers.
But there were no judge dynamics if you don't take it personally and don't react at the emotional component.

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

So unless you're emotionally reacting at that line, at most he was trying to get judge powers.
But there were no judge dynamics if you don't take it personally and don't react at the emotional component.

You helped me phrase what I wanted to say.

I wanted to say that, if someone repeatedly tries to take the judge role over you, you could lose quite a bit of external influence even while being emotionally detached.

Essentially I was focusing on cases where only the first part of the judge holds like in the article you referenced: What's a Judge:

The judge is the individual who assesses other people’s worthiness, dispenses emotional punishments and rewards, and exercises power and influence over others through emotional control

From how I understand what you mean, with only the first part and without the emotional component, it becomes a power move but not a judge power move.

Okay, so judge power dynamics has to include emotional power dynamics.
It refers to how dispensing the emotional rewards and punishments affect the other.
Not so much the external or social influence component.

So, in the other cases, I would just say in an analysis:

That's a good question. (let's say this is the smart-alec version not the brainstorming version for the purpose of this discussion)

Takes the judge role. (but not necessarily imposes a judge power dynamics)

Or smart-alec judge role.

The positive judge roles may use their emotional power for good leadership and intrinsic motivation.

Thanks for helping me to clear this concept up.

With regards to the new term, I would see that the term emotional power dynamics helps in crystallising the judge power dynamics.

I myself have thought that judge power dynamics encompasses a larger scope than the emotional component.

Lucio Buffalmano and Growfast have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoGrowfast

I feel that the emotional power dynamics would be a good term to place beside the judge role.

My concern is that, we often analyse statements and put

That's a good question. (Or something stronger like "I expected better than you")
(Takes the judge role)

I think people may become confused about trying to take the judge role vs an emotional dynamic taking place.

And putting

That's a good question.
(Takes the judge role but not necessarily imposes a judge power dynamics)

may be verbose.

In troubleshooting the judge from the article,

Judge VS Judging

Judging, “the judge”, and having judge power overlap, but they’re all different.
To clarify:

  1. Judging = “I think Mark is not a high-value guy” (but I’m not necessarily expressing this to him, so no judge dynamics are even set in motion)
  2. Judge role = “Mark, I expected better from you, and I must say, I’m disappointed” (ie.: I’m judging you as not being good enough)
  3. Judge effects (Mark wants the judge to accept him, feels bad, and tries to prove himself to be good enough)

The terms may create some confusion.

So maybe highlighting the external vs emotional effects could help:

  • Judge Role - External power effects + Possibility of judge effects
  • Judge Effects - Emotional Power Dynamics

I also think that the external, non-emotional effects of the judge role are important.
So maybe we should put some term for that.

For example, on this thread
CEO Says to Another CEO: "Basically, I Gave Him Shit" in Front of Me

The judge role would have been an effective response as advised by Lucio:

Some other option would have been a simple reframing:

CEO 1: Basically, I was giving him shit
You: Yeah, challenging my ideas and plans. He was alright

Three power moves:

  1. Judge role in your reply
  2. Lukewarm compliment: lukewarm compliments are a hidden way of saying "he wasn't that helpful"
  3. You interject to put your own positive spin: you don't allow him to disempower without at least jumping in, shows resolve/power, social awareness

As such, I think it's important to learn about how to

  • Take the judge role when necessary to counter power moves
  • Observe the external influence of people taking judge roles on yourself and others

Please feel free to jump in and share your thoughts!
Thank you for your time in advance.