Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Lucio's journal
Yes, makes sense, part of good strategy is to know when to drop that game, VS when to play it (and depending on the amount of effort one has put in, a good middle way: "I looked up research" instead of "based on the literature" that feels more power move-y)
Editing for less bombast and for a more measured approach
Sometimes I re-read some sections of early articles or reviews.
And I've noticed I had adopted some patterns from some folks I was following at the time.
That pattern was bombastic and exaggerated in terms of learning, the power of learning, and the added value of that learning.
It was reflected in words and sentences such as:
- Enlightening
- Golden /Â Gold nuggets
- Transformative
- Life-changing
- "It changed me"
Re-reading them today, it feels... I can't say the word of how it feels in public since it would be offensive to some -and for some good reasons, maybe-.
Let's say it feels "weak", "overly-dramatic" and "low authority".
So IÂ find myself "toning down" the reviews and swapping some bombastic sentences for more measured ones.
Generally speaking, the "measured" approach is higher power and higher authority than the bombastic and exaggerated one.
Both from a mental/growth and from a power/strategic point of view, the more measured approach sub-communicates critical analysis, caution, and a steadier but more reliable growth.
This is how good science grows, by the way: slowly. The consensus shouldn't change with single studies.
The bombasitc approach sub-communicates "taking everything at face value" and "fickle". Not sticking to things but always being pulled in any direction from any new fad/guru.
This is how poor scientists move: changing opinion with any new single study, guru, or book.
Hello Lucio,
interesting topic. I can definitely relate.
I think it totally makes sense to revisit these articles and change the wording.
- Since you feel differently about it.
- In order to be higher power
I have a slightly different take on looking back at one's old self who felt like that at the time. I think it's about value. At the time the person was not as knowledgeable and experienced. So it felt like life-changing and golden nuggets. It was a lot of value. Once someone is more experienced it feels different.
Same with travel. The first times you see a waterfall, a castle, a cathedral: one goes "wow", takes pictures and talks about it. The value is high. After the 20th waterfall, castle, cathedral, one goes: "it's nice". The value is not as high anymore.
I feel the same as you, I don't feel comfortable saying "it changed my life" anymore. For some experiences that were life-changing I don't feel like expressing like that anymore. I feel more like listing what it taught me in a matter of fact way.
All of this to say that I think our old self was not as experienced and I think it normal if he/she felt like that. In terms of experience of course. In terms of expression, I think once one knows about high power expressions it's best to avoid as you said.
Absolutely right, John, great point and totally agree.
It's a bit different here since it's not just that back then it was newer stuff for me -albeit that also probably played a role-.
In good part, it was that I had fallen trap of the idea that to do good self-development work, you had to be super open-minded, and had that kind of "child-like wonder" for any new bit of information that may be helpful.
But my nature has always been more that of a skeptical.
Double checking, poking holes into arguments, looking beyond the rosy facade of the biographies and the hidden motives of the authors. Even a bit cynical, I would say.
And:
- That's superior for your own learning. I believe that's a better attitude for your own learning than too high open-mindedness (as long as you don't go too overboard in rejecting everything, of course. Law of balance)
- That's how TPM can add the most value. Because it's what's most missing in the self-development industry (99% is just either positive or acritical reviews/summaries/interviews).
Couple examples of too much open-mindedness, acceptance, and "child-like wonder" at the new (supposedly) empowering information.
And it:
- makes him come across like a naive idiot
- does a disservice to his audience
And:
Edit:
Full video even worse, with Lewis, having zero idea whether that was true or BS, sheepisly saying "that's true, that's true" and taking notes (facepalm).
I went looking for it cause I want it as an example in the next updates of PU.
Another good example is about the recent note on Ray Dalio's Principles and the new critical book we talked about here.
I knew better that it all sounded a bit too rosy.
And that some of those "principles" were good for the owners but not the employees.
But I bit my tongue thinking that open-mindedness was the better way of doing self-help -after all, he's such a successful man, a billionaire... We should all learn from him, right? Yes! But still with your critical mind and your personal power to see the limitations, that it's not all applicable to you, and to call the BS and inconsistencies-.
Just watched the first video. Not only the reasoning of the first guy makes no sense medically speaking (and just like Tom with Sadghuru, Lewis looks like an idiot smiling through it) but the second guy is wrong too. Celiac disease is an auto-immune disorder not an auto-inflammatory one. It’s not the same.
Thank you for sharing John!
From my medically clueless point of view, there was BS stink all over it, but it was good to read a proper analysis from someone with the actual training to dispel the BS :)
Thanks for your answer!
Yeah I wrote quick in the bus so lacking some details. My point is actually to support your point. If the host of the show debunking the quack is making himself some mistakes, it shows the distortions on the Internet. That being said I salute his critical thinking approach. My intention is to express that it's good to use critical thinking as even people using critical thinking can make mistakes.
And it's even more difficult as nowadays everyone is Dr. this and That PhD or this MD. Then they sell stuff. Especially in the US. Some of them are legit scientist vulgarizing important concepts. Some are quacks. Same things in any field. Some guys I don't even have an opinion now as I did not do the research and I'm not sure I can trust their claims anymore (Wif Hof for instance). So I suspend judgment here.
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on November 12, 2023, 9:03 amAbsolutely right, John, great point and totally agree.
It's a bit different here since it's not just that back then it was newer stuff for me -albeit that also probably played a role-.
In good part, it was that I had fallen trap of the idea that to do good self-development work, you had to be super open-minded, and had that kind of "child-like wonder" for any new bit of information that may be helpful.
Yeah definitely.
But my nature has always been more that of a skeptical.
Double checking, poking holes into arguments, looking beyond the rosy facade of the biographies and the hidden motives of the authors. Even a bit cynical, I would say.
I think this approach is the best as a default approach regarding information.
And:
- That's superior for your own learning. I believe that's a better attitude for your own learning than too high open-mindedness (as long as you don't go too overboard in rejecting everything, of course. Law of balance)
I agree. Some time ago, I would have thought the opposite. The advantage is that there is thinking involved before integrating this information: "does it make sense?`". And that can be seen in your reviews where you are able to sort the relevant information from the trash.
- That's how TPM can add the most value. Because it's what's most missing in the self-development industry (99% is just either positive or acritical reviews/summaries/interviews).
Definitely! Your review actually add value to the book itself in my opinion. I totally believe some authors come here and read them. I know I would.
There's a caveat to critical thinking I think though I must say. Some things are beyond the rational mind in my own opinion. So using critical thinking only can prevent us to reach these things. There are some things that are unknowable through the rational mind. On this it's very subjective and personal and that should not base most of our interactions with the World and information though.
Call out the power move while also making little of it and moving the interaction forward
A funny example of a technique/game this business uses:
When you fill out their contact form, they get in touch with an email that has "RE" in the subject line, as if they were replying to a previous email.
And the subject says "thanks for meeting", as if we had a meeting already (we didn't).
I can understand it's not this guy's fault if the company processes are set up based on games that may -may- increase replies -but may have other hidden costs that game players seldom think of-.
But still, I don't like it:
it's fake, and manipulative... And if you don't call it out, you're framed like you fell for it.
So I call it out, laugh at it (useful here to use emoji), and then move on:
CRO=Conversation Rate Optimization, I used that acronym because that's the type of work I'm inquiring about.
How to frame something as easy, without power-scalping
Framing something as "easy to do" can be a power move.
But what if something IS easy and you want to avoid the scalping component (ie.: "this is easy, so you have little credit with me / can only ask for little money")?
This can be an easy solution:
This should be easy for you (and your level of expertise)
So you turn it into a compliment.
I realized this when I was adding a task to my developer.
It was challenging for me, but easy for him, but I meant it more as a compliment. So just by adding that, you can turn a potential power move, into a compliment.
Of course this can also be used more manipulative by good manipulators, so always look at context/history/overall character.
