Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Power duck's journal
Quick note:
Although now all that "Disney and virtue signaling bs" makes me a bit angry instead, I suppose my resentment is now directed towards those who created the naivete in the first place.
The anger is normal. I think it comes the feeling of having been lied to. So the lie was value-taking. Hence the anger. As you know it goes away once we integrate the newest more real information about reality in our perception of reality (our World view). My message is it's a good thing to feel the anger, better to accept it, experience it and then it will go away through time and awareness.
Quote from Power Duck on December 9, 2023, 1:27 pmI find also interesting how those things you point out used to make me feel sad and resentful in the past. But now I accept them as something normal and neither good or bad for the most part and most of the time. Although now all that "Disney and virtue signaling bs" makes me a bit angry instead, I suppose my resentment is now directed towards those who created the naivete in the first place.
Winning!
Not staying stuck in bitterness and anger forever is already a huge win.
Making it as brief as possible is... Flying.
Today I spent the afternoon studying with some female friends I get along with and who know that I study manipulation (they made an inside joke about it and since its pretty much harmless and quite funny I go along with it).
They do engage in one upping but since they aren't that value taking and are quite funny I do relax a bit and not focus that much in power, that is I'm not as "masculine".
Today I noticed that power protecting and being patient when they become stubborn about an exercises response being as they say does prevent petty frame battles and makes them actually way more likely to accept your response when they see they're wrong. Of course checking/surfacing power moves like tasking or speaking in disrespectful tone must still be done. But not being as "gamey" or dominant and pulling people up while checking power moves does make thing a bit more enjoyable while bonding more with people, however I believe that it also can make someone feel as if his goodwill isn't being reciprocated when the other party doesn't reply with a similar level of goodwill.
Ive clearly seen today that one upping and other forms of dominance can get in the way of bonding (and that some people use them because they may fear being turned down if they try to bond with others, including myself).
Today I felt quite sad while I returned home without knowing why, and thinking about it, it makes sense that it's because compliments weren't reciprocal or because I complimented them/something they did from time to time while they didn't reciprocate in a similar level. So basically the sadness may be my mind telling me that the investment wasn't the same from their part.
So overall trying new things and being less gamey, some people like the dominance and the games, but overall I prefer this approach although it makes me more likely to feel bad when the good intentions aren't reciprocal.
P.S:
The joke is saying "sorry" for no reason at all, since I once told them that apologising can be a power move. They eventually understood and agreed with me that it could be used to manipulate when I gave a good example though.
Being socially powerful vs Being "myself"
There's a dilemma I've had in my mind for quite some time: "You can't be stoic and calm the whole time and bond with peope, have fun and be yourself"
I don't believe in such a thing as "being oneself", since power dynamics/thought patterns/other variables can change one's personality in better and in worse ways, also thinking better about it (contary to my previous about it) I dont believe that much in the "bond with people approach", I've felt more fullfilled and mentally stable when I focused on my goals without caring that much about interpersonal relationships.
So for me this is food for thought, do I want to prioritize, being "myself" and not caring that much about being emotionally grounded the whole time? or do I want to focus on being more stoic, calm and emotionally grounded?
- The first one makes me have less power and "possibly" makes fulfilling relationships more "real" since they like me for "who I am" while I take it easy and have fun. However, being less stoic and calm makes me less attractive and get less respect.
- The second one, makes me have more power, more attraction from girls and more mental stability. While it decreases the feeling that friendships are "more real" since they like me for "not being myself" I also have to focus on being easygoing, stoic and chill, that is maximizing my ROI while investing as little as possible. Funny enough if I behave this way for some time it will eventually become the "new me" and the behaviour will become automatic, however I may not have as much fun or bond with people as much as I would want to.
It's quite a though decision to make, but sadly or not I think I'll take the second option, being more masculine and being "more cool" in exchange of having "less fulfilling" friendships: I rather be respected, powerful and get more attraction, than being and feeling liked for "who I am" while getting way less respect and mates.
I think it's a fair decision to prioritize "results".
At least for a certain period in life.
Then, once you've achieved some/enough or worked to a place in life you're happy with, you may change approach (albeit you may not want then).
Just a food for thought for you:
Quote from Power Duck on December 11, 2023, 9:30 pmbeing more masculine and being "more cool" in exchange of having "less fulfilling" friendships: I rather be respected, powerful and get more attraction, than being and feeling liked for "who I am" while getting way less respect and mates.
You may want to consider there is no real dichotomy here.
Instead, one may see a dichotomy because there may be some neediness there.
The need to be liked/loved by others.
Nothing wrong with that, everyone has it -it's just a generally good idea to keep within certain limits-.
Also, this is not to say it's something you should work on.
As a matter of fact, I don't think most people should "work" on that.
It's something that will "fix itself" as a consequence of the rest of your (life) progress (including simply "time", since younger people have a stronger need for popularity/being liked).
Thanks Lucio.
I think it's a fair decision to prioritize "results".
At least for a certain period in life.
Then, once you've achieved some/enough or worked to a place in life you're happy with, you may change approach (albeit you may not want then).
I hadn't thought about that approach. Will give it some thoughts.
You may want to consider there is no real dichotomy here.
Yeah, my problem was trying to please other as well as a lack of calibration. To sum things up instead of learning to calibrate my self defense with high power folks I started to not check minor power moves. Already fixed.
Cheers.
P.S:
I rewrote the response since it was deleted by accident.
Some people react well to value taking dominance, while others prefer a more respectful and power protecting approach.
So what I once wrote is true: "First get respect, then see how warm you can be with people".
Since the year is almost over and I won't see my college friends in a month, I invited them to my flat, we'll watch some movies, and order things to eat in case we don't eat outside.
Most of them are fun to be around with and don't pull major power moves, although one girl is dominant she responds well when I respond dominantly to her. Also since it's my place and not checking any disempowering behaviour/power moves that I don't allow (opening my fridge, taking things without my permission) will disempower me more than normal power moves, I'll have to use my power skills and be more aware of the dynamics than usual. Once I get in a dominant state of mind it will be childs play.
Quote from Power Duck on December 18, 2023, 2:49 pmSome people react well to value taking dominance, while others prefer a more respectful and power protecting approach.
So what I once wrote is true: "First get respect, then see how warm you can be with people".
It's true.
But with an important caveat:
Those who "react well" are often submissive / power blind / clueless / lacking in confidence/skills to say anything.
Those who do not tend to be higher power people who DO have the skills/confidence/power/status to do something.
So what you end up doing with value-taking dominance is to disempower those who are already low power, and often to antagonize those who are high power and tend to be at the top.
So not a good stock approach, IMO (unless as a phase, of course)
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on December 19, 2023, 9:26 amIt's true.
But with an important caveat:
Those who "react well" are often submissive / power blind / clueless / lacking in confidence/skills to say anything.
Those who do not tend to be higher power people who DO have the skills/confidence/power/status to do something.
So what you end up doing with value-taking dominance is to disempower those who are already low power, and often to antagonize those who are high power and tend to be at the top.
So not a good stock approach, IMO (unless as a phase, of course)
Some evidence from a game theory book I'm just reviewing now:
Some biological evidence for rejecting unfair offers comes from an experiment run by Terry Burnham.
In his version of the ultimatum game, the amount at stake was $40 and the subjects were male Harvard graduate students. The divider was given only two choices: offer $25 and keep $15 or offer $5 and keep $35. Among those offered only $5, twenty students accepted and six rejected, giving themselves and the divider both zero. Now for the punch line. It turns out that the six who rejected the offer had testosterone levels 50 percent higher than those who accepted the (unfair) offer. To the extent that testosterone is connected with status and aggression, this could provide a genetic link that might explain an evolutionary advantage of what evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers has called “moralistic aggression.”
The "unfair offer" can be seen as the equivalent of value-taking dominance, which is basically "unfair social behavior".
Meaning:
High testosterone men preferred to lose money themselves, just to push back against unfair behavior nad regain their power.
So by taking value from others, you're making enemies of the higher power people.
