Quote from JackGD on January 23, 2022, 11:34 am

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on January 22, 2022, 9:59 am

JackGD,

Mate, that's a terrible strategy.

And we'll learn why now.

I give it low chances, but I hope you'll prove me wrong and can learn and grow from this.

So...

Arm yourself with the best antifragile ego you can, focus on learning, and only then keep on reading.

If you cannot do those two, I highly recommend you stop reading.

You're not getting advice on how to handle your friends here, you're getting advice on how to handle yourself.

Social scalping: the benefits of going meta

You ask how to handle (micro-) aggression.

Well, here's is one way:

By going meta.

Case study: your post.

You are being value-taking right now with (covert) aggression
And I'm going to go meta and explain why you're being value-taking (I'd even say "nasty") by removing that "cover" you used.

And that's what a meta technique does:

The meta-technique "explains the cover away" so that the nastiness becomes obvious for everyone to see.

If my meta technique will be successful, people will "see" what's really happening, agree with me, side with me, and leave you isolated (in some cases, even pile-up on the initial aggressor).

Not my goal, BTW.
It's a turkey goal to want others to pile up on you.
I truly hope you can instead learn from this and U-turn.

Anyway, back to us.

Going meta works because:

1. Going meta properly explains WHY something was nasty: most people know subconsciously when someone is being nasty, but when you go meta, it hits them even harder and they think "wow, that's true, he was truly being that nasty"
2. Going meta emphasizes the nastiness: in technical terms, it "thread-expands" on the nastiness. It highlights it, and it gives people more time to think about it. It "sinks in" better that the attacker was a nasty player
3. Going meta self-frames the person who does it as "better": without mincing words, when you chastise someone for being a nasty f*ck, the self frame is that you're probably someone who is not a nasty fuck himself, and someone who also does not accept nastiness -the type of eagle we talk about here-

A good execution of the meta-technique increases your status and power, and sinks the status of the nasty player.

That might be the only risk of this technique: you can end up shaming the nasty player so badly that he will seethe with anger and hate you.

To avoid that risk, it's a good idea to wrap it in collaborative frames (one of the basics of PU, but I'm only doing it partially now as this is long enough as it is).

Going meta: why this was social scalping & covert aggression

What you've done is social scalping.

At its worst.

You're not just trying to get advice without giving back, you're trying to get advice while disempowering and (nastily) social climbing on others.

Your approach is this:

• "You're all shit"

And that sets up the "negative judge" frame.

Let's see better:

Quote from JackGD on January 22, 2022, 1:33 am

OK so guys I have to kinda criticize the advice in this forum a bit
(funny enough, the beginning was very good!
It powers protects with the "kinda" and "a bit". It didn't feel like an attack and I was really curious to read how you thought the forum could improve)

Not to be mean but to be real. |
(now it starts with the power moves.
This says "I AM going to be mean. I wish I could be kinder with you, but you're so bad that I just gotta say it")

Hopefully you can provide some solid workable advise and redeem yourselves a bit.
(= "You never provide any solid advice here. I really hope you can do it this one time so you can can go from total shit, to only 90% shit)

Honestly.
(= reinforces the initial frame of you being the judge and dispensing "harsh truths")

• Your "you're all shit" approach self-frame you as "better" than us all

This is the climbing part.

The moment you tell us that we're all failing, you use us as "social pegs" and climb up by self-framing yourself as "better / above us".

That's because it's usually the people who are ahead who can properly judge others.
And they can judge others because (supposedly!) they've been there, done that, and acquired higher-level "mental representations" that allow them to see the patterns, understand the dynamics, and spot and correct the mistakes of others.

Note: 
It's possible to criticize and give feedback without pushing others down and without self-framing as "better than you" of course.
You do it with power-protecting -but it's not what you've done here, you did the opposite-.

• "BUT, I actually need help and I'm coming to ask you for that"

Now comes the "covert question":

Quote from JackGD on January 22, 2022, 1:33 am

Hopefully you can provide some solid workable advise (...)

The people I associate (...) do not give two shits about how you respond (...)

They will just (...)

It's the ask that you're trying to cover with your high-horse, "you're all terrible" judge attitude.

Covertly, you're asking for help, you're asking for value, but you don't want to appear like you are.

And that's why, even while even trying to come across as high-dominance and high-authority, the initial post still reeks of low-power shit.

It reeks of low power shit because only people with a super fragile ego need come up with all these nasty shenanigans to cover their reqeuest.

In brief, the final effect for all of those with just enough awareness to get this dynamic is...

"man, that was sad".

• "So if you guys help me out with this thing... "

The nast judge frame sets up a reward in the negative.

The reward format is;

IF you can help me out with my problem (and I'll be the judge), THEN:

• "I will deem you as being less shit" 

The nasty judge frame.

"Give me what I want, and I will judge you as being (somewhat) less shit".

Now the funny thing is:

It isn't even a given that we'll get to be "less shit".

One should "trust and hope" the nasty judge will acknowledge something was useful.
And given how he operates, chances are low he will.

More like he will just instead say "that was shit advice, I knew you guys are terrible".

You make it impossible to answer without being a sucker!

This is why it's bad strategy.

With this frame, answering the question is super disempowering and sets us up for even more disempowerment.

Answering to this post is:

1. Disempowering to respond in the first place because we'd be giving to someone who framed us as shit
2. An act of naie vulnerability to give you value and hope you will recognize it (it's naive to give to takers, don't be vulnerable with those who've already shown they're willing to disempower you)
3. Just plain stupid to give to a taker with a track record and hope he will change tack after that

And...

Why you won't get value here: we're not stupid

As simple as that.

As for most anything, unluckily, this approach might work in some cases.

But the question is who it works with.

It works with:

• Very low self-esteem folks -those who believe they're indeed shit-
• Those who don't even see basic power dynamics
• Those who are totally dependent on you

Generally, these are not the people with the most to give.

And it's not going to work with smarter, higher-value, going-places folks.
And those are the ones with the most to give, the ones you want in your life.

Which is also why here we espouse here personality-based self-development and are not big fans of relying on manipulation and power games.

Finally, man...

Just think where you're pulling those power moves.

You come tricking others on a place where people are actively learning power dynamics, games and manipulation?

Probably the worst place for that.

This was a (poor) face-saving attempt

Also, man, some awareness is helpful.

Keep in mind basic social exchange dynamics.

People do remember things.
Perosnally, I didn't remember the details, but the name was familiar -in a negative way-.

Plus, even those who weren't here or didn't remember: you start with that shit, and most people will get curious about your past.

Logged-in users just need to click on a nickname and see your post history here.

And one can see you left poo-pooing on everyone -especially on me, including turkey-level personal attacks- and swearing to never come back here.

Your words demean us, your behavior compliments us

A good lesson learned to see deeper power dynamics.

This is a case where words are used to cover one's behavior -and the behavior is most often where the truth lies-.

And your behavior says the opposite of your words.

While you imply everyone's shit here, we can probably guess what truly happened:

In all that time you were away, you found no better place anywhere else for social strategies and social dynamics.

So you had to eat your words, and come back here.

This was a face-saving attempt for you.
I get it and truly have empathy for it.

But it still was poor strategy.

Better strategy: vulnerable honesty & high power

A much better strategy would have been to:

1. Allow yourself to be vulnerable
2. Ask for forgiveness: you had to climb a negative value hole!
3. Ask like a non-nasty taker would ask -just plain ask- for help
4. Give back for the help with gratitude, telling people how it helped you, contribute to other people's questions, etc.

Example of the first 2 steps:

Guys, I know I made a poor showing on myself last time and left poo-pooing on you all (<- address that elephant)

That was stupid of me. Really stupid (<- align with what we all know and think, and go one step above)

I'm sorry. (<- just fucking, plain own it)

I learned in the meanwhile, and I'm a more humble person.

You were right the last time.
Really right. (<- Re-empower us, and especially me, for your attempts at offending us)
And the truth is that I'm struggling. (<- this is the "good" vulnerability that allows you to grow)

If you're cool with me being back, I'm ready to make it up to you, change and learn.

Are you cool with me being back? (< Give us the power to decide and we're more likely to fully welcome you back when we say "ok". An important social-skills technique in PU's first module and something that Ali put in the book as well)

Don't even ask anything first.

Let people welcome you back first, and THEN you post your question.

When you do that, you ask that you're back with either neutral, or potentially even a positive social bank account.

Now you were in the red.

And this post failed because you dug even deeper in the red.

Well here's the deal.  I was intending to be a bit rude as you and your fan boys have been in the past. You successfully reframed everything I said and did to fit your agenda and did not address the question that I asked. At least to my satisfaction. You gave me a reply that reeked of criticism and less of advice. I was posting somewhat to troll. Somewhat hoping to learn something but not betting on it. I think I'll stick with what works for me. Which has helped me immensely