Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumPublic Forum: Power DynamicsCase StudiesMohammed Hijab: Oxford graduate, …

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Mohammed Hijab: Oxford graduate, not "controversial figure"

#1 · October 17, 2023, 11:06 am

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on October 17, 2023, 11:06 am
Interesting interview:
https://youtu.be/9jBgGY2Ww9Q?si=HUTXuKZmHfhYbu9L&t=79
Transcript:
Piers: Muhammad Hijab, the controversial Pro Palestine influencer with nearly a million YouTube subscribers
(...)
Mohammed: Before that, sorry, if you want to say fair grounds, you introduced me as a Palestinian controversial... (<--- goes at the foundations of the negative framing)
(...)
Mohammed: Why didn't you introduce me as an Oxford graduate (<----- challenges the frame at the higher level while also putting the "brand authority" on his side. Great move)
Piers: do you want to be introduced as an Oxford graduate
Mohammed: yes
Piers: (feels the sting and power loss and loses his plot and over-submits) okay um no problem you can be introduced as anything you like
When I heard that I thought "beast move" and thought this guy may be the real deal.
Some points from the interview:
Mohammed's improvement areas:
Overall, Mohammed did well.
He came from the solid foundations of condemning Hamas' killing and accepting the possibility of Palestine / Israel as two states living peacefully.
That gives him credibility as a non-extremist spokesperson.
Some notes on what may be further improved in my opinion:
Avoid fighting about the veracity of a picture (whether the infants murdered were AI faked or not)
He should have only mentioned the possibility it was fake and then moved on.
That was a "self-boxing in" move because, if the picture turns out to be real, he loses credibility.
Plus, the focus shifts from his other more important points, to this less important one.
So he'd lose control over his own narrative, and lose influencing power.
But even if the picture turns out to be fake, it's still a strategic mistake.
Hamas did terrible things, whether that picture is true or not, so he shouldn't waste time on a topic that feels like "defending barbarians".
On the other hand, Israel's bombing did and will sadly also inevitably kill children.
And you don't want to shift focus away from that.
So the only fly-higher way to handle was to say that he wasn't sure if it was true, and if it was true it was disgusting.
Mentioning Russel Brand to highlight Morgan's double standard
To which Morgan replies "what has he to do with this", which is an effective defense -and makes it easy for his listeners to side with him-.
He shouldn't have mentioned any other third-party cases, especially when it's about individual as it feels less important and "silly".
Better to stick with the main issue at hand and avoid any side-topic.
Some more precise language may help
For example:
This was said by the UN and these kind of agencies
That type of language will always make you somewhat less authoritative than, say, a Jordan Peterson who crosses his Ts and dots his Is when carefully picking his words (old JP of course, this new one is more of a rabid extremist :).
Less "angry attack mode" and don't make it "you VS me" with the journalist
Including the line "why are you stuttering", which felt nasty and unneeded.
It shouldn't have been personal with Piers.
Piers is just an individual journalist.
It should have been about the bigger causes -truth, finding a solution, no more indiscriminate bombings, fair resolutions, peace, etc.-.
The spokesperson the Palestinian needed
The best way to avoid and solve conflicts is always to fly higher.
In the absence of that, it's better to have great spokespeople from both sides. (And so far Palestinians were only represented by extremist fighters and extremist Western left-wingers. Not good).
It's a bit like the court system: the best way to reach the truth is with great lawyers on both sides.
Israel already had great "lawyers", influencers, and spokespersons.
In that sense, the Palestinians need a popular, well-spoken, high-power, high-authority, non-extremist man in a suit to represent them.
Mohammed Hijab may be just that, so he's good news in my opinion.
For having just started at this level of international notoriety, he's already great.
And hopefully he'll also get better with time.

Interesting interview:

Transcript:

Piers: Muhammad Hijab, the controversial Pro Palestine influencer with nearly a million YouTube subscribers
(...)
Mohammed: Before that, sorry, if you want to say fair grounds, you introduced me as a Palestinian controversial... (<--- goes at the foundations of the negative framing)
(...)
Mohammed: Why didn't you introduce me as an Oxford graduate (<----- challenges the frame at the higher level while also putting the "brand authority" on his side. Great move)
Piers: do you want to be introduced as an Oxford graduate
Mohammed: yes
Piers: (feels the sting and power loss and loses his plot and over-submits) okay um no problem you can be introduced as anything you like

When I heard that I thought "beast move" and thought this guy may be the real deal.

Some points from the interview:

Mohammed's improvement areas:

Overall, Mohammed did well.

He came from the solid foundations of condemning Hamas' killing and accepting the possibility of Palestine / Israel as two states living peacefully.

That gives him credibility as a non-extremist spokesperson.

Some notes on what may be further improved in my opinion:

Avoid fighting about the veracity of a picture (whether the infants murdered were AI faked or not)

He should have only mentioned the possibility it was fake and then moved on.

That was a "self-boxing in" move because, if the picture turns out to be real, he loses credibility.
Plus, the focus shifts from his other more important points, to this less important one.
So he'd lose control over his own narrative, and lose influencing power.

But even if the picture turns out to be fake, it's still a strategic mistake.
Hamas did terrible things, whether that picture is true or not, so he shouldn't waste time on a topic that feels like "defending barbarians".

On the other hand, Israel's bombing did and will sadly also inevitably kill children.
And you don't want to shift focus away from that.

So the only fly-higher way to handle was to say that he wasn't sure if it was true, and if it was true it was disgusting.

Mentioning Russel Brand to highlight Morgan's double standard

To which Morgan replies "what has he to do with this", which is an effective defense -and makes it easy for his listeners to side with him-.

He shouldn't have mentioned any other third-party cases, especially when it's about individual as it feels less important and "silly".

Better to stick with the main issue at hand and avoid any side-topic.

Some more precise language may help

For example:

This was said by the UN and these kind of agencies

That type of language will always make you somewhat less authoritative than, say, a Jordan Peterson who crosses his Ts and dots his Is when carefully picking his words (old JP of course, this new one is more of a rabid extremist :).

Less "angry attack mode" and don't make it "you VS me" with the journalist

Including the line "why are you stuttering", which felt nasty and unneeded.

It shouldn't have been personal with Piers.

Piers is just an individual journalist.

It should have been about the bigger causes -truth, finding a solution, no more indiscriminate bombings, fair resolutions, peace, etc.-.

The spokesperson the Palestinian needed

The best way to avoid and solve conflicts is always to fly higher.

In the absence of that, it's better to have great spokespeople from both sides. (And so far Palestinians were only represented by extremist fighters and extremist Western left-wingers. Not good).

It's a bit like the court system: the best way to reach the truth is with great lawyers on both sides.

Israel already had great "lawyers", influencers, and spokespersons.

In that sense, the Palestinians need a popular, well-spoken, high-power, high-authority, non-extremist man in a suit to represent them.

Mohammed Hijab may be just that, so he's good news in my opinion.

For having just started at this level of international notoriety, he's already great.
And hopefully he'll also get better with time.

Ali Scarlett, John Freeman and 4 other users have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#2 · October 17, 2023, 11:45 am

Thank you Lucio!

I actually watched part of this interview earlier today. What struck me is that Mr. Hijab got angry. That’s Morgan’s strength like Shapiro. He’s great at getting under people’s skin. I think he does it by himself feeling angry (not only his words) and then he infects the other person with his anger (and provocative words and tone). Then when the other person gets angry he defeats them with logic.

Really really hard to stay cool headed with Morgan. However I think it’s the only way to defeat him. He’s a strong debater as he does it on a daily basis. He makes a living out of debating. So yeah he’s like a top dog in this kind of arena. On top of it it’s his territory.

Lucio Buffalmano, Matthew Whitewood and 4 other users have reacted to this post.

#3 · October 17, 2023, 11:52 am

Yes, totally agree John.

Great analysis of Piers Morgan's MO as well.

To share totally unfiltered views, I personally found Piers Morgan to be a nasty SOB in many occasions.
But he's super covert about it, so few people "see" it.

That approach is effective at making his guests angry and over-reactive, which (unluckily) also worked here (at least in some passages).

Most people who are non-aligned will react more to the guest's own behavior and "overall feel", than to their words.

So as you correctly say, many will distance themselves from Mohammed the moment he seemed to get too angry/aggressive.
It's his first time on a large audience I think, so as we mentioned in the other thread: it's tough being great on first times.
He did really well taking that into account.

Ali Scarlett, Matthew Whitewood and 4 other users have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#4 · October 17, 2023, 12:20 pm

Yeah I watched an interview where Piers Morgan ate a beef burger in front of a vegan activist to spite her.

Not sure if Morgan is like that in real life or he's making the interviews more dramatic on purpose.

As Lucio advised, I think sticking to one's main point while not getting dragged into the "pyrotechnics" of the debate would help a lot.

In the absence of that, it's better to have great spokespeople from both sides. (And so far Palestinians were only represented by extremist fighters and extremist Western left-wingers. Not good).
It's a bit like the court system: the best way to reach the truth is with great lawyers on both sides.

I'm thinking that since Piers Morgan is not really a truth-seeking type of debater, one could also choose to avoid such kind of debaters.

However, I'm not sure if that's entirely possible for current affair issues though. The media and journalists nowadays are into sensationalism.

And, if one handles these kind of debaters well, one would come across as an intellectual authority and potentially go viral. Like some of the old interviews by Jordan Peterson.

Unfortunately, sometimes the more well-rounded discussions don't seem to get as many views on YouTube.

Lucio Buffalmano, Ali Scarlett and 4 other users have reacted to this post.

#5 · October 17, 2023, 1:17 pm

Yes I agree with you Matthew.

Off-topic

I studied a bit rethorics, which to me is what we call frame control. And what the Victor Ferry said (has a PhD in rethorics, value-adding and positive person, unfortunately it's all in French :( ) is that debate is a show. It's about who's winning it's not about the truth. It's about a set of technique to look like your point is valid. It's basically intellectual techniques to get an emotional reaction out of the public. A debate without a public is not really a debate in this sense. As it has no purpose since nobody is there to change their minds. It's about having the public side with you.

If you're great at rethorics, your points could be illogical and you could still "win". That's why he advises to be good at it.

One technique that I'd like to share with you and that I love:

The longer you can have your opponent on the defensive on a topic he's uncomfortable with the higher chance of winning.

He talks about the 3 aspects to winning a debate:

Ethos: your character, your credibility (that's the ad hominem attack)
Logos: the discourse itself, the logic, the content
Pathos: appeal to the emotions of the public

/Off-topic

Matthew Whitewood, Jack and 2 other users have reacted to this post.

#6 · October 17, 2023, 6:05 pm

Thanks for sharing about Victor Ferry. I took French classes in university back then but still am far from fluency.

If you're great at rhetorics, your points could be illogical and you could still "win". That's why he advises to be good at it.

Yeah I am on the same page. Being good at rhetorics is important. The corporate world has lots of games around rhetorics (presentations, meetings, ingratiation, etc).

In a way as well in entrepreneurship. But at least I can regard the rhetorics as a means to an end.

The longer you can have your opponent on the defensive on a topic he's uncomfortable with the higher chance of winning.

Sometimes I do make this mistake against Piers Morgan type of people. Getting defensive when getting attacked.

I usually do lots of preparation and rehearsals to polish my points for key events.

John Freeman and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

#7 · October 18, 2023, 5:45 am

Quote from Ali Scarlett on October 18, 2023, 5:45 am
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on October 17, 2023, 11:06 am
Interesting interview:
https://youtu.be/9jBgGY2Ww9Q?si=HUTXuKZmHfhYbu9L&t=79
Transcript:
Piers: Muhammad Hijab, the controversial Pro Palestine influencer with nearly a million YouTube subscribers
(...)
Mohammed: Before that, sorry, if you want to say fair grounds, you introduced me as a Palestinian controversial... (<--- goes at the foundations of the negative framing)
(...)
Mohammed: Why didn't you introduce me as an Oxford graduate (<----- challenges the frame at the higher level while also putting the "brand authority" on his side. Great move)
Piers: do you want to be introduced as an Oxford graduate
Mohammed: yes
Piers: (feels the sting and power loss and loses his plot and over-submits) okay um no problem you can be introduced as anything you like
When I heard that I thought "beast move" and thought this guy may be the real deal.
Some points from the interview:
Mohammed's improvement areas:
Overall, Mohammed did well.
He came from the solid foundations of condemning Hamas' killing and accepting the possibility of Palestine / Israel as two states living peacefully.
That gives him credibility as a non-extremist spokesperson.
Some notes on what may be further improved in my opinion:
Avoid fighting about the veracity of a picture (whether the infants murdered were AI faked or not)
He should have only mentioned the possibility it was fake and then moved on.
That was a "self-boxing in" move because, if the picture turns out to be real, he loses credibility.
Plus, the focus shifts from his other more important points, to this less important one.
So he'd lose control over his own narrative, and lose influencing power.
But even if the picture turns out to be fake, it's still a strategic mistake.
Hamas did terrible things, whether that picture is true or not, so he shouldn't waste time on a topic that feels like "defending barbarians".
On the other hand, Israel's bombing did and will sadly also inevitably kill children.
And you don't want to shift focus away from that.
So the only fly-higher way to handle was to say that he wasn't sure if it was true, and if it was true it was disgusting.
Mentioning Russel Brand to highlight Morgan's double standard
To which Morgan replies "what has he to do with this", which is an effective defense -and makes it easy for his listeners to side with him-.
He shouldn't have mentioned any other third-party cases, especially when it's about individual as it feels less important and "silly".
Better to stick with the main issue at hand and avoid any side-topic.
Some more precise language may help
For example:
This was said by the UN and these kind of agencies
That type of language will always make you somewhat less authoritative than, say, a Jordan Peterson who crosses his Ts and dots his Is when carefully picking his words (old JP of course, this new one is more of a rabid extremist :).
Less "angry attack mode" and don't make it "you VS me" with the journalist
Including the line "why are you stuttering", which felt nasty and unneeded.
It shouldn't have been personal with Piers.
Piers is just an individual journalist.
It should have been about the bigger causes -truth, finding a solution, no more indiscriminate bombings, fair resolutions, peace, etc.-.
The spokesperson the Palestinian needed
The best way to avoid and solve conflicts is always to fly higher.
In the absence of that, it's better to have great spokespeople from both sides. (And so far Palestinians were only represented by extremist fighters and extremist Western left-wingers. Not good).
It's a bit like the court system: the best way to reach the truth is with great lawyers on both sides.
Israel already had great "lawyers", influencers, and spokespersons.
In that sense, the Palestinians need a popular, well-spoken, high-power, high-authority, non-extremist man in a suit to represent them.
Mohammed Hijab may be just that, so he's good news in my opinion.
For having just started at this level of international notoriety, he's already great.
And hopefully he'll also get better with time.
Thank you, Lucio!
This feels like another example that a course on interviewing power dynamics could be valuable.
Maybe for now, I should try to take the interview forum threads and make a solid article or two out of them on TSS.net sometime.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on October 17, 2023, 11:06 am
Interesting interview:
Transcript:
Piers: Muhammad Hijab, the controversial Pro Palestine influencer with nearly a million YouTube subscribers
(...)
Mohammed: Before that, sorry, if you want to say fair grounds, you introduced me as a Palestinian controversial... (<--- goes at the foundations of the negative framing)
(...)
Mohammed: Why didn't you introduce me as an Oxford graduate (<----- challenges the frame at the higher level while also putting the "brand authority" on his side. Great move)
Piers: do you want to be introduced as an Oxford graduate
Mohammed: yes
Piers: (feels the sting and power loss and loses his plot and over-submits) okay um no problem you can be introduced as anything you like
When I heard that I thought "beast move" and thought this guy may be the real deal.
Some points from the interview:
Mohammed's improvement areas:
Overall, Mohammed did well.
He came from the solid foundations of condemning Hamas' killing and accepting the possibility of Palestine / Israel as two states living peacefully.
That gives him credibility as a non-extremist spokesperson.
Some notes on what may be further improved in my opinion:
Avoid fighting about the veracity of a picture (whether the infants murdered were AI faked or not)
He should have only mentioned the possibility it was fake and then moved on.
That was a "self-boxing in" move because, if the picture turns out to be real, he loses credibility.
Plus, the focus shifts from his other more important points, to this less important one.
So he'd lose control over his own narrative, and lose influencing power.
But even if the picture turns out to be fake, it's still a strategic mistake.
Hamas did terrible things, whether that picture is true or not, so he shouldn't waste time on a topic that feels like "defending barbarians".
On the other hand, Israel's bombing did and will sadly also inevitably kill children.
And you don't want to shift focus away from that.
So the only fly-higher way to handle was to say that he wasn't sure if it was true, and if it was true it was disgusting.
Mentioning Russel Brand to highlight Morgan's double standard
To which Morgan replies "what has he to do with this", which is an effective defense -and makes it easy for his listeners to side with him-.
He shouldn't have mentioned any other third-party cases, especially when it's about individual as it feels less important and "silly".
Better to stick with the main issue at hand and avoid any side-topic.
Some more precise language may help
For example:
This was said by the UN and these kind of agencies
That type of language will always make you somewhat less authoritative than, say, a Jordan Peterson who crosses his Ts and dots his Is when carefully picking his words (old JP of course, this new one is more of a rabid extremist :).
Less "angry attack mode" and don't make it "you VS me" with the journalist
Including the line "why are you stuttering", which felt nasty and unneeded.
It shouldn't have been personal with Piers.
Piers is just an individual journalist.
It should have been about the bigger causes -truth, finding a solution, no more indiscriminate bombings, fair resolutions, peace, etc.-.
The spokesperson the Palestinian needed
The best way to avoid and solve conflicts is always to fly higher.
In the absence of that, it's better to have great spokespeople from both sides. (And so far Palestinians were only represented by extremist fighters and extremist Western left-wingers. Not good).
It's a bit like the court system: the best way to reach the truth is with great lawyers on both sides.
Israel already had great "lawyers", influencers, and spokespersons.
In that sense, the Palestinians need a popular, well-spoken, high-power, high-authority, non-extremist man in a suit to represent them.
Mohammed Hijab may be just that, so he's good news in my opinion.
For having just started at this level of international notoriety, he's already great.
And hopefully he'll also get better with time.

Thank you, Lucio!

This feels like another example that a course on interviewing power dynamics could be valuable.

Maybe for now, I should try to take the interview forum threads and make a solid article or two out of them on TSS.net sometime.

Lucio Buffalmano and John Freeman have reacted to this post.

#8 · October 18, 2023, 6:46 am

Great idea, Ali!

Interviewing power dynamics could apply to daily conversations as there is a part when one is asking questions. It's not 100% transferrable as the interviewer is always in a power position whereas in conversations it's back-and-forth but still.

And if not a course maybe a lesson in PU.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.