Lucio's journal
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on December 20, 2022, 3:50 pm"I always see you" - the "know you own you" power move
....
By the way, one more important consideration for social strategic thinking:
Me not stopping was a good idea considering what would have happened if I had stopped.
Giving the dynamics:
- how the guy started the conversation
- that it was 3 of them (VS me 1)
- that they knew each other already
That would mean that I'd have been asked a lot of questions and that I'd have struggled to ask and get as much back -I could ask 1 person, but not all 3 of them at the same time-.
Meaning: I'd have given a lot more info than I'd have taken.
That's a "grilled" type of power dynamics, and it's not good for you and it's not easy to dodge many questions while still maintaining both power and warmth (exceptions apply of course: it can be an opportunity to showcase how cool you are, but you must very careful not to spill too many beans).
So keep on walking was also a strategic move to maintain power by also avoiding a not-so-good dynamic.
As a general rule:
When you're more likely to lose than gain in an interaction: don't interact. Excuse yourself, or keep on moving.
That way, instead of losing, you often gain: you're scarce and maintain power and an air of mystery and superiority.
Should you learn "etiquette" such as "table manners"?
Probably a lot less needed today compared to past centuries.
When money and power was all in the etiquette-driven aristocracy, learning etiquette was a must for anyone who wanted to move forward in life.
Today, a lot less so.
But it still "wouldn't hurt", so to speak.
Etiquette sub-communicate "high class".
And people tend to assign high value to those who come from "old money" and "high-class behaving" families, and to look up to them.
Also, because many of the politicians also follow at least some of those etiquette rules, it's not just about old money, but also, in part, "ruling class".
Beginner level: moving slowly around food, as if you didn't even want it
I personally had to learn the basics of the basics when it comes to "high-value behavior" around buffets and open bars.
For a long time, and in part also now, I had a tendency to bolt for the tables, hoard food, get my wine, and then focus on consuming that -and then going back for more-.
The feeling of that behavior is that of the starved animal that's lived a life of scarcity -definitely something you want to avoid-.
If you cut socializing and focus on your plate, the feeling is also that of the feral animal that's consuming quickly because he's lived a life of competition for food -either eat quickly out of fear, or for the opportunity to get more than others-.
Instead, the cooler people move slowly around food and keep socializing as if the food and drinks were secondary.
Some may even get drunk and drink a lot, but never rushing to get their booze.
That sub-communicates abundant living.
Intermediate level: proper use of silverware
The other day I was out with a friend.
I knew he was from a good family.
But if you didn't know, it still showed from the way he ate.
We were eating "paella negra", which is rice with squid ink and some seafood that included prawns -delicious-.
I used my hands to open the prawns and by the end of that blank ink was all over me, around the glass, and even on my shirt lol.
My friend was spotless because he used his silverware.
That made me think: the proper networker probably should learn at least some basics of food etiquette.
Distant "thanks" without eye contact to move past a "kindly confrontational" asshole
Intro:
She sets up the "competition frame" for us
A couple days ago there was a guy with a girl I had once dated.
As I passed by them the girl uttered an energetic "hi" with hand-waving + leaning towards me (it's possible she was also playing a triangulation / jealousy power move) and I said "hi" back with much lower intensity to the point of being a brush-off (long story, but she didn't strike me as a very good person).
Still, since the guy was oblivious to all of that, the "competition frame" was probably already set in his mind.
I didn't want that frame, but sometimes you're just being thrown into it and your best strategy is about limitation and containment.
The worst place to cross path: the "door situation"
Yesterday I was going out while holding hands with a girl, and right at the glass door, I see the guy coming back in.
The door is a glass door divided in two right in the middle, split into two glass panes with a handle for each pane (so much more complicated to describe than to show):
You can open both panes both ways, either by pushing or pulling.
He is on the outside and closer to the door, so he'd have the "right of way".
However, he stops moving and just pushes the door towards me and just stands there, half-blocking the way.
Since I was approaching from an angle, the pushed door was being pushed toward me, so I had to slightly move around it.
Very weird and, I felt, covertly aggressive / confrontational.
If one wanted to do the kind move to give the right of way to the incoming people, he'd open the door by pulling it, not pushing the door towards someone.
He was bigger and much taller, but the biggest impact of that is always if you let it impact you.
Plus, I had the advantage of being two, and with a girl (any aggressive power move would also be framed as a man aggressive on a couple that includes a woman, a no-no that would make my frame control a lot easier).
Usually, this is what I do at those "door situations":
The 2 door strategies: kind welcome or high-power "always forward"
While a surprisingly large number of people stop when they see someone moving towards, my preferred way is to take the active role with either:
- Do the kind move and open the door for others (the elevator's equivalent of "after you")
- Keep walking no matter who's first, and use the other door so that we both can go at the right time (very high power, without impinging on anyone).
However, since he's stopped around the middle while he pushes the left door with his right hand, neither of those two options is ideal.
What to do? Back to the basics of power
Well, I don't invite him.
And I don't invite him because I'm in a lower power situation since he is holding the door, plus it would create more reasons for tension that nobody needs (he could invite me back to go first, and then it becomes a "kind leadership" showdown).
Instead, I keep walking, grab the same door handle he's holding so that I also have an active role (doesn't seem like I'm being "invited out" + I'm taking care of my own door + I make sure he can't get any weirder with some "let go power move"), say "thanks man" with a flat tonality as I walk past, and avoid eye contact.
All in all, it was a largely "ignore" power move.
The sub-communication was:
whatever you do man, I'm gonna take care of my door and going about my business, without being rude, but without wasting time either.
All in all, an interesting and potentially thorny situation, and well handled.
10 seconds total, but there were a lot of power dynamics there.
Not very friendly on either side, and I'd have rather avoided it all.
But sometimes in life you're forced into the dance floor and called to dance. And then you just dance to the best of your abilities.
Handling a gaslighter
Here's this first message, see if you can already spot her gaslighting power move:
It's this:
Her: You promise you will help me
As you can imagine no promises were ever made.
Manipulators and gaslighters try to use what you said in the past, when things were completely different, to corner you into doing what they want today, when things are totally different.
As in this case, they can twist what you said into a "promise" -that you're now supposed to fulfill-, or totally make it up.
It's a relatively common power move, so good to be aware of.
My reply:
I don't remember saying it was our "goal" either, but if I address that, I fall for the slippery slope of the gaslighter.
Instead, I focus on addressing and surfacing the power move I'm calling out, without allowing for diversions -and I'm curious to test the reaction-.
As expected, the reaction was in line with the previous generally low-quality and "bent" behavior -as in "non-straight and honest"-.
You definitely don't want to take that apology as a necessarily positive sign because:
- it was forced
- she still wanted/needed something from me
And, as we often say here: you don't want to judge people when they're power down.
Plus, "I'm apologizing" is quite weak compared to the nastiness of the power move (and what it says about her character).
If you're a person who prefer honest dealing with others, it always feels not cool to cut contact with someone.
But that's exactly what the gaslighter leverages to keep you in their grasp -and pollute your mood-.
I'm afraid the best course of action with gaslighters is to do just that: either cut contact, or minimize interactions -and always make sure you call the shot on when/how to interact, and always be ready and prepared to engage, and win, the social warfare-.
Thanks for sharing! Quite enlightening...
I'm afraid the best course of action with gaslighters is to do just that: either cut contact, or minimize interactions -and always make sure you call the shot on when/how to interact, and always be ready and prepared to engage, and win, the social warfare-.
I actually contacted my mother yesterday because there is an exhibition about his favorite painter. As you guys know she's quite narcisstic. Through the forum I could also see thanks to you guys that I learned unconsciously gaslighting behaviours that I'm working on to eliminate as I was not aware of them.
I minimized contact for a few years when I realized who she really was. This was quite a painful realization as the image of my mother changed quite a lot in my mind. Now I'm thinking she's quite old, she does not have many years left. She's still my mother so I want to spend some time with her.
In her answer, she was delighted as she wanted to go to see this exhibition. However, there was also some gaslighting in her message. She tasked me to give her the phone numbers of her brother-in-law and other family members of my deceased father. She did not say they were my family but hers. So that's the unfortunate truth as these people don't change. So I'm going to do this activity with her however I will have to be ready for attacks from her.
So I think after this short exchange and experiment (me trying to do an activity with her), I will still have few contacts with her but will still have a strategy to have the best relationship I can with her.
Thank you for sharing that, John, that's pretty cool you may be able to be back in touch, somehow.
I'm not in a much different situation as well.
And albeit I don't want to generalize because there are some parents you just have to cut-off, if you can, then to have the "best relationship you can muster" is probably better than nothing.
Of course, just don't go expecting they'll be the loving mothers we may have never had (and you know that, I think), and you may be able to at least get (and give) as much as it's possible to get and give.
And that's already a huge win.
Yes, I do agree with you. The way you say it makes it even clearer in my mind: better a little than nothing. And that is something that we can control. And yes you're right: I'm aware of the mourning process of the parent we wish we had but will never have.
Thank you for sharing this, Lucio!
Also, on this part:
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on March 14, 2023, 6:51 amHandling a gaslighter
(...)
I don't remember saying it was our "goal" either, but if I address that, I'll fall for the slippery slope of the gaslighter.
Instead, I focus on addressing and surfacing the power move I'm calling out, without allowing for diversions -and I'm curious to test the reaction-.
(...)
This reminded me of a quote I heard recently:
"If intelligence is the ability to respond to any argument, wisdom lies in knowing which arguments to respond to and which parts of an argument to respond to." - Bob Seo, Two-Time World Champion Debater and Former Coach of Harvard College Debating Union
I sometimes find it difficult to manage the urge to go down a thread that particularly annoys me (I oftentimes want to address it).
So, I think this was a great example of the importance of staying focused on the overall goal of the conversation.
As a guy, don't bring your GF/wife on the first meet with your friend
Recently someone I know, let's say, proposed to go eat something.
I was glad to and happy to catch up.
And then, it turns out, it was his wife and him.
There are times and places to bring along wives and girlfriends and in some cases, it's perfect.
However, you don't want to bring your wife in these 2 situations:
- You're meeting a friend after a long time (because, supposedly, you need to update each other, and some of those updates may be for "guys only", or simply not fit to be spoken in front of the wife. You may be super open with your wife and talk about anything, but if your friend is your friend, not your wive's, he may not be.
- You're going to talk about personal stuff (then you don't just avoid bringing your wife, but anyone else)
- It's all guys going out (and a woman would change the dynamic)
This is related to the "social status game among men", overlapping with the alpha male thing.
And the general rule is that the guy who brings along the GF loses status points with other male friends.
Funny enough, I commented about that at home and even my mother commented "of course, what the heck you bring your wife for".
100%, a friend of mine did this when I reconnected with him a couple months ago.
He even brought his kid. I was not expecting this. So yeah he lost points in my eyes in terms of social intelligence for not understanding the context: 2 friends catching up after a long time. And yes I could not talk about the topics I wanted or when I talked about them, I did not want his wife to know about it. So a bit of being not at ease.