Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Lucio's journal
Tact: the art of the smooth, high-society courtesan
The other day I was at a neighbor's place.
Two new people moved in the building and we had had a little get-together.
They brought some little food (chocolate) with them, always a good idea, and handed it to the host.
The two of them also explained a bit of the background of the chocolate, which is also often a great idea for "fair value marketing".
The host said:
Host: please don't do this
LOL, a more German-direct way couldn't have been thought of.
What she meant to say was: there is no need to inconvenience yourself, which is also a good idea.
BUT put it that way, it becomes a negative.
You want to put that in the positive.
For example:
Thank you so much, so kind of you. Your presence was all that was needed because I was happy to meet you and introduce you to everyone else. But it's really nice of you to bring this.
Didn't think the words through, just a random example for the approach and mindset (mindset being: make them feel welcome for their presence first and foremost, plus make them feel good for having brought something).
Potentially, leave what the people brought on the table or even open it and share it.
Also a great idea is to let people talk and present their own gifts, which makes them feel good and rewards them for the nice gesture.
Little later the host added:
Host: this is why I get fat, I don't eat meat but eat lots of chocolate
Also a bad idea, and she's now indirectly criticizing the gift idea and devaluing the gift.
If she didn't want the chocolate all she had to do was to give it to someone else on the way out (IF the couple had left earlier), or to the next person who'd visit.
None of these are mean and none are red flags.
They're just the smaller stuff that differentiates the good courtesans and high socialites from the majority of normal folks.
No strategic lessons learned and power dynamics tips here, just reflections on diet and nutrition.
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 23, 2022, 5:08 pmTectonic Shift in Nutrition
I'm looking to make a huge shift in the way I approach nutrition.
(...)
Ditching the one-meal a day plan (probably)
Did keto for 30 days + a few more days "just to be sure".
I couldn't wait to finish it.
It was so gay -and I use "gay" as it was used in my environment growing up: as if to say "not cool". I have zero issues with gay people, zero fear of gays, zero hangups about my sexual orientation, and I'm aware using gay in that sense might feel discriminatory. But that's still how I'd describe my feeling-.
I remember I ate with some slight apprehension some white vegetables that came in a salad, I wasn't sure what it was.
Then I saw it in a supermarket, checked the labels and... Horror, it was full of carbs.
I was both angry and disappointed and, again, I thought "this is so gay".
Then again checking the menu at a cocktail at a rooftop bar, phone in my hand, Googling spirits that had no sugar or carbs.
So idiotic.
Now I'm back to eating generally healthy, generally avoiding processed food, and still also checking labels... But without being gay about it and eating pretty much anything.
And pretty much any time I'm hungry.
Having breakfast again is fantastic.
My stance today is that a good chunk of food gurus are value-takers leading people astray, wasting their time while adding no value -and often taking value-.
I'll be experimenting again, and I think that's the only way for people to find out their best nutrition -not listening to anyone on the Internet peddling any specific diet based on eliminating this or that-.
Generally speaking, f you're generally fine and can tolerate most foods, then treating any food class as if it was poison is idiotic.
You know, Lucio, it might be easier to share your goals (healthy nutrition, freedom, and ease of implementation) with a nutrition consultant and then craft your own "Lucio diet" based on their feedback and recommendations.
There's an old saying:
Lincoln: “If I had eight hours to chop down a tree, I'd spend six sharpening my axe.”
Rather than testing each diet for 30+ days (testing each tree for which is the easiest to cut down), you can spend more time doing due diligence on who's the best nutrition consultant for your needs (finding the sharpest axe), and then move forward in a way that both meets your goals and does so in the fastest, most efficient way possible.
I confess I haven't got the brainpower or stickability to use either approach. I do a lot of old guy hacks. I do a green juice sirtfoods smoothie which I hope gives me the benefits without the fasting. And an anticancer smoothie. It's gross but you have to include the pulp for the food value. Alternate days try and get it in me min 3 times a week. In between times I add oat bran to my oats (Jordan low sugar burstin with berries) and benifibre (soluble fibre) to my coffee. Also mix pomegranite, blueberry and sour cherry juice 3 times a week. And my G/F loves to present me with salads and fruit salads so side benefit of choosing wisely on my main squeeze. PITA but it basically sorts out my nutrition needs quick so I have time to exercise and stretch and yea I have hacks on those too. Not saying its as good as eating clean but I am saying its a lot better than the average.
Quote from Transitioned on April 10, 2022, 8:27 amI confess I haven't got the brainpower or stickability to use either approach.
From the point I'm at right now, I think that's an advantage for you and what saved you from the "self-flagellation hacks" that 90% of the nutrition guru are selling these days -from all angles really, ranging from avoiding carbs and fruits, to avoiding dairy, to avoiding meat, to lately avoiding anything that's not meat :S-.
As long as one has no major issue, a good diet shouldn't be too crazy or too limiting to follow.
And props on the supportive G/F :D
He tried to one-up me, but lost the negotiation
An interesting case study for subscribers:
Also good to understand how lack of power awareness can lead people to lose out not because they're too lower power, but because they may unintentionally pull power moves that can piss people off.
Increasing cooperation, win-win, and psychological pleasure with stock purchases
I sometimes like to invest in the brands I like.
There is a rational element because I find the products good and hence think that the brand will do well.
But the benefits are also psychological, and it's similar to interpersonal win-win and collaborative frames we talk about here on TPM.
In a way, investing in the products' producers makes you tighter with them by linking their success, to yours.
It increases your self-interest overlap and, thus, it becomes more win-win, collaborative, and a "better" relationship.
The biggest advantage for me is the increased pleasure I get from those purchases and products.
You become more like an evangelist, and I find that I'm always happier to spend money on products or services that I like and that I invested in.
My purchases become a way to support the producers, contribute to common values we both believe in, plus supporting both of our self-interests.
It's win-win-win.
When it comes to supporting your own self-interest it's often mostly a psychological thing, of course.
If you're talking about any big business your purchases do next to nothing to tip the needle.
But it feels that way.
And sometimes, feelings are important too (plus, small amounts are still not zero)
Divorce and share sales
Of course, as for many interpersonal win-wins, divorces are a possibility, too.
And since brands aren't even people and the relationship is not really one of equals (a "brand" doesn't exist and the brand execs don't even know who you are), you should probably be even readier to detach.
When I feel a brand starts producing lower quality products, misbehaves, or does not represent me anymore, then I stop buying, sell my shares (or plan to sell them at the earliest convenient time), and look for a worthier company to support.
Customer care strategy: Own it, empathize, and apologize to your customers. Often, it will solve all issues (case study)
I was in the process of buying a phone as a gift.
And while usually don't care about timelines, this time it was a time-sensitive gift, and wanted to get it in time before my father left for some beach vacation (which also happened to be close to his birthday).
Since I had ordered in advance, there shouldn't have been any issues.
However, the delivery date slipped 2 times, with poor communication and responsiveness in between.
I wasn't happy about it.
And I was annoyed by the second delay because in retrospect it felt a lot the first delayed date was a set-up "in-between date" to buy time. Such as: "keep the customer happy enough" until it finally gets here, and hopefully we can sweep the full extent of the issue under the carpet (similar to something that happened to Bel with a lawyer).
I don't like that behavior because I prefer honest truth: tell me the final date, and I'll find a way.
But lie to me, and I'll be planning and wasting time around a lie: twice the damage.
She fails to own it, passes the blame buck, power moves to frame me as "unreasonable"
When I expressed my dissatisfaction her initial reaction made it a lot worse:
The original message was poorly written, but more or less:
Me: OK, I'm not happy because I was counting on the 7-8 days delivery before he left. That was OK, but we overshoot it by a lot
Her: we do whatever can be done (= you have unfair demands beyond "what's possible")
to make everyone happy (= impersonal, the feel is "you're just another customer of ours" and not special. I'm complaining, reply to me, not with this impersonal generic BS),
but unluckily we're not omnipotent (= disempowering both to herself and to me)
when faced with external delays (= "it's not our fault")
It feels like a load of BS (and my feel is that she at least shares part of the blame with that initial incorrect order).
But that would be OK if she owned it.
Instead, she adds power moves in there.
It frames me as "unreasonable", as if I was expecting her to be "omnipotent".
No, you didn't have to be "omnipotent", you just had to stick to the original delivery date and, when not possible, simply own the full truth of the new date instead of playing delay games.
Most of all, it's bad strategy from a customer care point of view.
From her role as the service provider, even if she was right and it wasn't her fault, she still had to apologize to the customer to make me whole again.
Many times customers just want to feel validated in their anger or displeasure.
Instead, to protect her ego, she makes a customer even angrier.
Finally she owns it and apologizes & re-empower
Me: I didn't assign blame, only expressed my displeasure for the delay (= you did the whole blame thing yourself, I've only expressed dissatisfaction with the buying experience, now be a good a seller and own it)
I keep it factual and brief, low-investment and high-power , and now she finally gets it:
Her: yes, yes, we're also sorry (...) if there are any changes of mind there are no problems, we only ask for the favor to let us kindly know by Monday. Sorry again for...
She's still sticking to that BS impersonal communication style.
"If there are changes of mind", who are you talking to, a generic public via a PR template?
Tell me that if I change my mind, I can.
But at least now:
- Aligned emotionally with my displeasure for the failed gift/surprise
- Owned it and re-empowered, with the apology (twice, once in the beginning, one at the end)
- Further re-empowered me: giving me the power to decide to back out, and asking me to "kindly let them know"
I think there is a clash in communication styles here.
I do agree with you that it’s better to deal in a person-to-person way though. It’s more comfortable for everyone but not everyone is at ease doing that. She might have thought it’s a « professional » tone.
I think that it’s somewhat irréconciliable because she would not change her style to adapt to yours. This would have been a way for her to submit to you and maybe she did not want it not to feel too disempowered. I’m speculating here. About the content/meta-communication, you already addressed it.
Quote from John Freeman on June 12, 2022, 9:25 amI think there is a clash in communication styles here.
I do agree with you that it’s better to deal in a person-to-person way though. It’s more comfortable for everyone but not everyone is at ease doing that. She might have thought it’s a « professional » tone.
I think that it’s somewhat irréconciliable because she would not change her style to adapt to yours. This would have been a way for her to submit to you and maybe she did not want it not to feel too disempowered. I’m speculating here. About the content/meta-communication, you already addressed it.
You mean the disconnect between me wanting "you" and informal and her staying "professional" and talking with "we" format?
Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head, and it also fits well with the story here.
