Quote from Kavalier on June 12, 2022, 6:42 pm

On nutrition:

I also used to experiment a lot with my nutrition. But then, some years ago, I started dating a dietician who was doing some research on traditional diets, and I was taken aback by the simplicity of her advice: "just eat like your grandparents did". Indeed, all the amount of effort I was putting trying to decide what foods to give up/eat more, trying to count macros, researching the "best foods", looking up nutrition plans for elite athletes, usw. would end up in something very similar to traditional diets: a basis of legumes + cereals, meat (I personally am a vegetarian for non-nutrition oriented reasons, so I substitute this one) and salad on the side - the specifics vary from culture do culture, as well as the proportions, but there is never a radical divergence in eating patterns.

I thought a lot about that. In the modern world, we don't usually give credit to the wisdom of tradition, but hundreds of thousands of years of evolution have taught us something about how to eat. And by (mostly) skipping ultraprocessed foods and  following her advice, I did end up eating better. Food produced/gathered next to where we currently are (and in the proper season) is more nutrient-dense, fresher, taste better, cheaper and generate value to people inside our community. It's win-win for everyone.

I still enjoy eating "fancy" foods from time to time, but now I'll mostly leave the quinoa to the peruvians.

Quote from Bel on June 12, 2022, 11:07 pm

Hey Lucio,

thanks for sharing this. It is very helpful.

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")

The breakdown of the power moves in her answer is very helpful. Without it, it would have taken me one month to begin to understand what was the subcommunication!

And her answer is especially obnoxious because she conveniently forgets that the delivery date was (I presume) set by the seller.

And when she says "we try to keep behind everyone" she frames things as if the customers are inconveniencing her!

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)

If I understand correctly, your subcommunication was basically: "Don't play this game with me, facts are exactly as I stated, and I am the judge here not you".

I would instead have instinctively answered on the legal side, like:

"Interesting you say that, since your company in fact committed to delivering in [x] days and now we have a [z] days delay. And this comes after you already informed me of a previous delay, and in that occasion assured me that the product would be delivered by [y].

In any case, I now await the product by the final deadline of [...]".

But your answer conveys all the right things while allowing her to save face more, and thus is probably more effective in keeping rapport and trying to obtain redress in a "willing" way. You can always escalate after.

My answer on the other hand cuts the relationship in two and immediately communicates "I got legal recourse here", so it feels more of a "last resort".

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on June 13, 2022, 5:54 am

Quote from Kavalier on June 12, 2022, 6:42 pm

I also used to experiment a lot with my nutrition. But then, some years ago, I started dating a dietician who was doing some research on traditional diets, and I was taken aback by the simplicity of her advice: "just eat like your grandparents did". Indeed, all the amount of effort I was putting trying to decide what foods to give up/eat more, trying to count macros, researching the "best foods", looking up nutrition plans for elite athletes, usw. would end up in something very similar to traditional diets: a basis of legumes + cereals, meat (I personally am a vegetarian for non-nutrition oriented reasons, so I substitute this one) and salad on the side - the specifics vary from culture do culture, as well as the proportions, but there is never a radical divergence in eating patterns.

Exactly!

The way I see it today, 90% of nutritional gurus are preying on the driven and self-development types of guys who want to maximize and improve everything they can.

In this case, much of that time (and money) is wasted because 95% of the benefits come from very simple guidelines that can be learned quickly, and applied very simply.
The only ones to gain are the nutritional gurus.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on June 13, 2022, 5:59 am

Thank you for the note, Bel, it's super helpful (will make a post soon on "PU-worthy threads" as I'm thinking that a lesson on "how to read sub-communication" would be super helpful")

Quote from Bel on June 12, 2022, 11:07 pm

My answer on the other hand cuts the relationship in two and immediately communicates "I got legal recourse here", so it feels more of a "last resort".

Exactly, that, plus it'd be very high investment (much higher than hers).

So while on one hand you'd go higher power with your lawyer's answer, from a social power dynamic point of view you also go personally lower power by putting so much more effort into it.

My approach instead was that she doesn't deserve that high investment, just a quick "I stand my ground" note (a form of "frame imposing").

Quote from Bel on June 13, 2022, 10:54 am

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on June 13, 2022, 5:59 am

Exactly, that, plus it'd be very high investment (much higher than hers).

So while on one hand you'd go higher power with your lawyer's answer, from a social power dynamic point of view you also go personally lower power by putting so much more effort into it.

This is something I am starting to grasp lately (from your notes about answers to power moves having to be “briefer” than the power mover’s) but I struggle to fully understand.

How can you go higher power from a legal point of view while still being lower power from a personal relation POV?

Maybe it ties to legal escalation needing to be done outside the personal relation, eg with a letter to the company instead of this person. Meaning, since she power-moved, she doesn’t even deserve an explanation of what you are going to do if goods don‘t arrive.

Sometimes I struggle with having to convey lots of meaning in short responses, and I tend to prolong the answer to include every point I want to convey.

But here also the idea of subcommunicating things is more powerful (and more difficult) than conveying them explicitly.

And the concept of “investment” that you mention is also interesting but difficult to understand for me. It’s as if there a rule that says “when someone power-moves, you must show lower-investment than him in addressing him”.

Edit: I think it's me who's going off-topic. Maybe I'll start a separate thread on the concepts of "lower effort", "lower investment" and "briefer" in addressing power moves.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on June 13, 2022, 11:16 am

Yeah, I confused you there because it was frankly a poorly thought-through message.

Skip that part on "legal higher power VS social higher power".
My interaction was purely social.

Quote from John Freeman on June 13, 2022, 11:32 am

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on June 13, 2022, 5:59 am

I'm thinking that a lesson on "how to read sub-communication" would be super helpful")

That is a great idea! 🙂

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 25, 2022, 10:03 pm

Listening attentively to a lot of family stories these, new and old, to learn more about relationship manipulations, games, and better ways to handle them.

The games in small towns are in many ways different than big cities, since people see each other a lot more (and win-win matters even more), know a lot more about everyone else (and reputation matters even more), and have the chance to either build up a long history of value-giving, or build up a lot of resentment ("festering") over time (and direct and honest talk matters even more).

Anyway, it would be too many to list for now, so hopefully I'll find some time soon.

But for now, wanted to drop a quick note here anyway:

Provide details that make your case look good

I had a copyright strike from a copyright owner on YouTube, sometimes it happens.

And I appealed.

One of the questions was:

How much of the original content is used?

Now a poor persuader might simply reply in terms of seconds.

The good strategist instead thinks about what the questions is for, and how he can better frame his argument.

The question is to see whether the segment you used is a big or small portion, relative to the clip you used on your video.

So if your clip was a small part, you have all the interest in thread-expanding that, and highlighting it as much as possible.

My answer was:

Just a tiny portion.

It was 41 seconds out of a video of 2h 57mins+ (that would be a mere 0.4%, meaning that there's 99.6% more original content left untouched)

The section is also a mere fragment in my own video.

In grey the part that I might have added, but didn't -just wasn't worth that much investment-.

Overall though, the idea is to thread-expand and highlight the information that paints a good case for you.
Everyone looking at that answer is first pre-framed by my own statement, and then has it confirmed by the data.

Met Bel

Also, I met Bel some days ago (cut out from the picture for privacy, but take my word he's a very handsome and cool guy 🙂 ).

Great place, great good, great company & chat (including of course a lot of power dynamics and social strategy stuff).

Quote from Bel on July 25, 2022, 10:51 pm

Thank you so much for your very kind words Lucio. Too kind 🙂

It was a privilege, but first of all a great pleasure, to meet in person and have lunch with you.