Power Move After Dispute Resolution
From the Feedbacks & clarifications thread
The reason for the arguments and the personal fears for the feedback is that you're all guys and all care too much about status.
There I said it, don't attack the messenger ?
This is quite a power move right here.
Reframing the Discussion on Thread After Resolution Via a Judge Role
you're all guys and all care too much about status.
John and Lucio spent a lot of effort understanding each other and came to a resolution that this was a huge misunderstanding.
And we spent a great deal of time about how the forum medium had constraints leading to this misunderstanding.
After a great deal of resolution, reframing the hard-earned conclusion with low effort is a huge one-up power move.
It is like a judge watching a debate and giving the final verdict.
One-Up Power Move - Shaming and Babying
The reason for the arguments and the personal fears for the feedback is that you're all guys and all care too much about status.
This statement sets up the implicit frame that women are superior to men because women do not care so much about status.
It is true that men generally need to care more about status because that influences more value in the sexual marketplace.
The tone of this message has a shaming tone, especially with reference to the male gender and "too much".
Babying because she sets herself up as kind of like a mother who knows better.
An analogy would be shaming women for caring too much about their appearances.
Appearances are essential for women to increase their sexual market value.
We know that high-quality women put effort into their appearances.
This was achieved by reframing the discussion as seen above.
Goes General Rather Than Describe the Specifics of the Situation
The reason for the arguments and the personal fears for the feedback is that you're all guys and all care too much about status.
This goes general so it becomes more challenging to rebut.
But using the word "all" makes the argument easier to find an exception to discredit the statement.
For example, olive branches were exchanged in that thread to resolve the disagreement, which is not a status-game.
It is a sign that the participants on that thread cared more about the relationships together with understanding and learning.
Compare this to the power move
The reason for the arguments and the personal fears for the feedback is that quite a few men care too much about status.
Making this a grey area while not targeting the participants directly on that thread makes it harder to rebut.
Goes into the Philosopher's frame.
Covert Power Move
There I said it, don't attack the messenger ?
Perfect wrapper to put the first statement into a covert mode.
She frames herself as a messenger who is objective and giving the truth.
POSSIBLE RESPONSES
- Ignore and move on - like what John did
- Pick & choose with sarcasm - "Wow, you know all about our personal fears"
- Surfacing - "What do you mean by 'personal fears' and 'caring too much about status'?"
- Show me the hand technique - "That sounds quite patronising. Please elaborate."
- Shame with vulnerability - "Yeah, we men need to care about status to appeal to women. But I'm shocked by that patronising tone. It is demeaning."
- Shame with judge role - "Yeah, we men need to care about status to appeal to women. But I'm shocked by that patronising tone. It is demeaning. Let's have an open, collaborative, non-judgmental discussion on the dynamics here. It would allow everyone on this forum to learn better."
- One-up back - "By your argument, you must be a guy to take advantage of this situation to gain status." (everyone plays these games, not just men)
- Reframe into a positive - "Yeah, we have channeled our dark side, personal fears to drive us to achieve our vision."
- Covert Aggression Back With “Affectionate Dominance” - "Wow that's very friendly of you after we have struck a resolution on this thread."
- Covert Sarcasm - "You must enjoy men who don't care too much about status."
Awesome analysis, Matthew!
Matthew: She frames herself as a messenger who is objective and giving the truth.
Yes, exactly, and also frames it as "I'm telling (uncomfortable) truths", and if you disagree, then it means you're being politically correct, rather than realistic.
All in all though, I personally took it more for its fun tone, than a one-upping power move. Just to be clear, it was also a one-upping power move, but I personally took it more for its joking side and smiled at it, rather than being perturbed by it (not saying you were personally annoyed by it, your great analysis stands, and because of that, one might have been annoyed by it).
IDENTITIES AND RESILIENCE AGAINST ATTACKS AT "POPULATION-LEVEL"
I think how easily -or not easily- that type of power moves can get under one's skin also goes back to the personal identities one chooses, how strongly he identifies with that group/identity, and how much he feels he can transcend the bigger population (there is a topic in the "mindsets" section).
Usually, attacks at a general population level skids very easily on me because I see myself as an individual first, and as individuals, one can always transcend his group, and do better (or, sometimes, do worse, of course).
Thank you for the further analysis!
(not saying you were personally annoyed by it, your great analysis stands, and because of that, one might have been annoyed by it).
I did feel perturbed by it because we were spending time to resolve differences on that thread.
I felt that John was being very honest and vulnerable in his latter replies.
I personally don't like it when people do one-up moves when people (or I) are vulnerable, resolving differences, and mending relationships.
I could be overly-sensitive here, but that's how I feel about the situation.
What I do find is that, whenever I feel annoyed at a situation, it is a reflection of what I identify with and what my self-esteem is built upon.
For example, when someone one-ups my friend, sometimes I get annoyed and jump in too harshly.
In this case, it's not so much the broader identity, but the specific context of the thread which makes me feel the need to speak up.
It is an important moment of awareness, because I have seen how this has caused me great pain in the past.
Time for some reflection.
Just to be clear, it was also a one-upping power move, but I personally took it more for its joking side and smiled at it, rather than being perturbed by it (not saying you were personally annoyed by it, your great analysis stands, and because of that, one might have been annoyed by it).
I'll make a thread on this topic. I think it's a very important topic.
Usually, attacks at a general population level skids very easily on me because I see myself as an individual first, and as individuals, one can always transcend his group, and do better (or, sometimes, do worse, of course).
Very important.
I felt that John was being very honest and vulnerable in his latter replies.
Thank you for noticing it.
I personally don't like it when people do one-up moves when people (or I) are vulnerable, resolving differences, and mending relationships.
Be careful, this is part of the nice guy/savior mindset. Just saying.
For example, when someone one-ups my friend, sometimes I get annoyed and jump in too harshly.
It is an important moment of awareness, because I have seen how this has caused me great pain in the past.
See? I would recommend you the Power of TED. It changed my life for the better.
So I'll go meta for the learning experience of why I did not answer.
- Because I thought it was a stupid statement and negative on so many levels that I did not know where to start if I would comment on it. I would have to deconstruct negative idea by negative idea. Why do I say "stupid"? Because it was a loss for the sender and a loss for the receiver. Yes, we got a lesson out of it, so it's good in the end 🙂
- I have enough of a self-esteem not to feel hurt by it. I identify as a male/man but I don't reply to provocation.
- I learned that it's very important to choose with whom you interact. I did not want to interact with this person who seems to come only to say negative shit and go away. So really not the kind of person I like to give attention to or deal with.
Cheers!
I personally don't like it when people do one-up moves when people (or I) are vulnerable, resolving differences, and mending relationships.
Be careful, this is part of the nice guy/savior mindset. Just saying.
Could you elaborate more on this point?
It is an interesting perspective.
My view is that I should do my best to maintain a healthy culture and social environment around me.
Because it benefits me and the people around me.
Sometimes I may fail to do so because a lot of social variables are out of my control.
This is what I am interpreting your statement to be.
The issue comes when you build your self-esteem around saving people out of difficult situations.
And building your self-image around being the hero or saviour of people.
The key part is that you feel good even to the detriment of your own interests.
This is one of my anti-fragile statements that is a work in progress:
I strive and do my best to build and maintain a healthy culture and social environment around me.
Because a healthy environment benefits me and everyone around.That being said, often a lot of social variables are beyond my control like how people will respond and choose to do.
If something beyond my control harms this environment or I make a genuine mistake but I have done my best, that is part of life.
I can seek to rectify the situation to my best of my abilities and learn from this experience.I care deeply about the environment but do not derive my self-esteem on the outcome of the environment.
The outcome is important for learning and having an aim, but that is all.
I derive my self-esteem on my best planning and efforts towards building this environment.
My view is that I should do my best to maintain a healthy culture and social environment around me.
The problem is the should. Why should you? Shoulds generally come from some kind of (moral) obligation. So most of the times it's rules/beliefs acquired during childhood/life that we keep without examining them.
The issue comes when you build your self-esteem around saving people out of difficult situations.
And building your self-image around being the hero or saviour of people.
It has more ramifications than that. It's a negative belief system. Have you read "No more mr. nice guy"? or a book about the saviour complex?
Regarding the "just saying", as I said I don't understand the issue?
Let me think about this in greater detail.
I put "should" in that statement because I am open to changing my beliefs on this topic.
I take responsibility for curating a healthy social environment around me as much as possible.
For example, I do my best to not let value-taking people into my social circle.
And to not allow value-taking people to destroy a healthy social environment.
If a value-taking stranger verbally attacks my friend, I will stand up for my friend.
At the same time, I understand that there are limits, and I will not go out of my way to protect the social environment.
It's not a societal or moral standard.
Because I do not feel guilt or shame if I fail to do it.
Examples will help to illustrate that.
Example 1
I am a leader of a corporate team to work on a project.
One of my teammates one-ups the other.
I will step in and enforce boundaries.
As it is my responsibility to curate a healthy environment.
And I have tangible benefits as a leader to curate a healthy environment.
Example 2
My friend has a bad boss who always shouts at him.
I will give him advice on how to navigate the situation.
However, I will not stand up to his boss on his behalf.
Here, I have to expend time and attention to help my friend.
So I will have boundaries on how much I am willing to help.
The issue comes when you build your self-esteem around saving people out of difficult situations.
And building your self-image around being the hero or saviour of people.
It has more ramifications than that. It's a negative belief system. Have you read "No more mr. nice guy"? or a book about the saviour complex?
I have not read those books.
Probably you know more about this topic than I do.
Thanks for the recommendation.
There is a misunderstanding. It's not my opinion. It's what I read in a book and it helped me a lot.
When we say "should", see the explanation above. It's a word that we use in a certain context. I am not criticizing your morals or belief system. I'm suggesting that it has not yet been examined by you.
I'll give you an example: I don't have to help anyone. That's my belief system. Remember my profession and my mission? I serve the children and their parents. Well, I don't have to. I choose to. So I should not help the children and their parents. I chose to. Big difference. Otherwise I bound by some fake rule in my head.
That is what I'm sharing with you. By removing my "shoulds" I became more free. Not a worse person, not a better person but more free.
Maybe this clip will explain the general thinking. If it does not, it's ok. It resonates with me, might not resonate with you.
Example 1
I disagree. That is exactly what I was saying. I think in this case it's important to let people resolve their own conflicts. If they're not able to do so or it has an effect on the moral of the team, then yes, step in. But not as a first intention.
Example 2
I agree.
Probably you know more about this topic than I do.
I don't think it's not about who knows more. These books helped me a lot and I still have a lot to learn.
Here is the link, I recommend it to you. If you like it, please let me know.
Cheers!