Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Richard La Ruina getting shamed attack

Hello guys,

I think this video is quite educational. Basically the frame battle is: "you are insulting british women (and it's not even true)" vs "I am not insulting british women, I'm saying there are more beautiful women in Russia". We can also see that Piers Morgan is able to control the frame through sheer dominance (speaks loud), provocative attitude (projects angers), to put Richard on the defensive. And we see that Richard is able to defend himself a little bit, but is not able to escape the frame. Because he did not question the frame in the first place, he was stuck in defending his POV.

Also, him coming being a "dating guru/coach" frames him as sleazy, untrustworthy and phony whereas Piers Morgan is the "talk show host" and frames himself as the moral voice of society, a man of virtue himself of course.

He regained some credibility with the numbers about his company, his ability to speak russian, the fact that he was married. That showed he was sincere and telling the truth.

I think here the first defense would have been a philosopher frame: "I don't think it's about what I believe or don't about british women. I think it's about finding what you are looking for in Life. I found it in Russia but to each one their own".

If the guy would have come back he could have said that he thought that there was a trend and why he thought that was the case.

Matthew Whitewood has reacted to this post.
Matthew Whitewood

This is interesting because Lucio talks about how women do not like the geographical mobility of men.
It allows them to easily improve their relative sexual market value by virtually moving to another place.
The women in this video feel threatened about that.

Piers does come across as overly aggressive.
Richard indeed should stand up to that.

Avoiding the Competitive Frame at the Start

At the start, he talked about how he asked beautiful women where they are from and found out that they are not from the UK:

Richard: I am very successful with women.
Very, very successful.
But everytime I saw a beautiful woman and I went to talk to her.
Where are you from? Oh, Sweden, Russia, ...

It sounds too boastful and arrogant.
That definitely offended the women on the talk show.

He should have sensed this problem when the other woman said

Other Woman: There're no beautiful women in the UK?

Then he continued talking about the beautiful, foreign women in the UK, not getting the hint about how they are getting offended.
The women felt put down so they tried to put him down by framing him as unsuccessful in dating British women.

Piers rode on this majority pressure from the women to elevate this own social status during the discussion.
I would say it's aggressive social climbing.

At the start, he could avoided this frame and put the women in the show at ease first.

Felicity: I haven't got an answer from being entitled and overweight.

Richard: These are generalisations from my observations and experiences.
If you are a high quality British women, this does not apply to you.

(Instead of saying "you don't", which is confrontational)

There are even opportunities for flirting over here.

Quoting Successful Men That He Has Coached

On the same page as John with regards to the frame battle.
It's a challenging frame for Richard to hold about which country has more beautiful women.

As John says, reframing towards men's choices rather than subjective beauty would work better.
He could have quoted successful men (high sexual market value men) that he has worked with.
And he could share that these men could have their pick whether Russia or UK.

To avoid offending the women in the talk show, he could have stated these men's preference for high quality women in the UK as well.

Him: I have worked with highly accomplished men in their fields.
Successful lawyers, doctors, businessmen.
These are men with options.
Many like the women in Russia.

That's not to say that they have not enjoyed dating high-quality British women.
They do enjoy dating classy English women.

These are my observations throughout the years when working with them.

This rebuts the frame that British men go overseas purely because they cannot get the women locally.
And also frames himself as an authority with experience and statistics on his side.

Refuting the Remark on His Mother

I am on the same page.
Richard should have deflected Piers frame more.
Especially when he is rude to try to win the argument.

For example, the remark on Richard's mother is totally out of line:

Piers: Your mother is English right?

Richard: Yes, but let's leave our personal lives out of this discussion.

Verbally Following Too Much

Sometimes he follows their lead too much whether Piers or the women.
It is an interview so understandably the interviewers have some power to lead the discussion.

That being said, he does not have to agree in some of the cases.

Felicity: If we are talking about the obesity problem in the UK, which is a slightly different debate.
But actually more men are overweight.

Richard: It is a big problem.

He could have picked and choose to agree with "a slightly different debate".

Richard: Yeah, it's a different issue.
Here we are talking about men's preferences.

Richard's Voice

I think Richard's voice is too airy.
This takes away some of the power when standing up to confrontations.
Especially with Piers.

He also inflects upwards when making statements.
It comes across as a bit submissive, especially during a confrontational discussion like in the video.

His Posture

He slouches a bit with his shoulders rounded to the front during the interview.

Overall Thoughts

Richard should have avoided the competitive frame at the start.
That would have greatly helped him set the tone for the interview.

Richard did pretty well since there were 4 people against him regarding their stance.
Confrontational interviews like this are generally challenging to handle.
Julien did much worse in my opinion.

Though he can definitely do better to defend his credibility and authority.

Uuuh, great, great case study here.

And a tough one.

He got in defensive mode indeed and accepted the frame.

Piers: you can't deal with intelligent women
Richard: of course I can deal with them

And:

Piers: your chances of finding sex in this country are zero
Richard: they're not zero

Already great and better ways of dealing with that by both John and Matthew, not much to add there (and great note on bragging and pissing women off from the start by implying "there are better women there").

Also, it was a dangerous frame for him and his business as well: it's easier to do better in lower competition markets, and him moving to Russia might indeed indirectly reflect poorly on his skills / business.

META OPTION

If he wanted to play haradball with Piers a bit more, I think going meta was a good option.

something like:

Look Piers, I see what you're doing, and it's obvious to everyone. I came here to have a grown-up discussion about life and dating strategies so that people can get more of what they want, and live happier and fuller lives.
Simple and fair.
Instead, you are trying to frame me like some sort of an ogre who is attacking English women. Instead, I do the opposite: I provide dating advice for people to date better and have better relationships, and that's a win for everyone
are trying to frame me as some kind of an asshole,

Stef has reacted to this post.
Stef
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

POWER DYNAMICS OF GOING ON MAINSTREAM MEDIA FROM NICHE FIELDS

Going on mainstream media from niche and "frowned upon" fields is a major risk.

Chances are high that hosts will try to dismantle and attack you to:

  1. Virtue-signal
  2. Keep their job secure by distancing against "risky" guests
  3. Do some good audience number
  4. The simple pleasure of "throwing their power around" and boss a guest (who is generally lower power than the host)

From the dating scene, this has happened already before with Mystery, Neil Strauss, that guy from RSD.

It also happens with all "frowned upon" content and anything that goes against the PC-zeitgest.
It's also happened to Jordan Peterson, and what made Jordan Peterson huge is that he handled it like a champ.

This is something I also reflected on.
Should I ever go on some larger media as someone writing about power dynamics and (social) strategies to acquire power and status?

With zero experience of talk show, outnumbered, and with no chance of controlling the post-interview editing, you're power-down and fighting against tough odds.

Stef has reacted to this post.
Stef
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 22, 2021, 5:43 pm

This is something I also reflected on.
Should I ever go on some larger media as someone writing about power dynamics and (social) strategies to acquire power and status?

I think not. People who are trendsetters or at the forefront will always be viewed in a negative light by the majority. Because of the difference. There is a concept that you might know of minority influence. So I think you could do that if and when you are ready to influence a big group such as a nation. And that takes years if not decades. So it's a whole different mission. I prefer your mission to empower individuals who are seeking to be enlightened. If you focus on finding them and attracting them you will have much better success. As these people will become powerful leaders and you will have influenced them. Remember that my goal is to revolutionise my whole field. By helping me you're facilitating this goal. I think you're better at empowering leaders who want to influence a majority than doing it yourself: more leverage.

Lucio Buffalmano, Matthew Whitewood and Stef have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoMatthew WhitewoodStef

Awesome input, John!

I'm going to reflect on this.

Matthew Whitewood and John Freeman have reacted to this post.
Matthew WhitewoodJohn Freeman
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

I feel honoured that you're taking my opinion into account. Have a great day!

Lucio Buffalmano, Matthew Whitewood and Stef have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoMatthew WhitewoodStef

Matthew continued the discussion here.

To go back on this case study, frame-shocking with verbal aggression was also an option.

For example:

You know Piers, you're a total manipulator

Or when he said "you'll never get much sex here":

You're acting like a total jerk, Piers

Or when they were framing him as if he had said that all UK women weren't attractive:

You are really talking nonsense right now

Let that sink in.
Then, only later, you defend yourself and go on the finer details that you never said "all", but are talking about tendencies.

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 23, 2021, 5:22 pm

Or when he said "you'll never get much sex here":

You're acting like a total jerk, Piers

I think this is a great opportunity.
Even Felicity, the woman besides Richard, thought Piers was full of nonsense.
At the end of the video,

Felicity: He's married. Why would you say that?

Here's the video segment:

To go back on this case study, frame-shocking with verbal aggression was also an option.

This is an interesting case where aggression is a savvy move.
Piers is throwing verbal punches again and again.
It makes sense to give a solid blow for him to get shocked and step backwards.

Lucio Buffalmano and Stef have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoStef

This is an interesting case where aggression is a savvy move.
Piers is throwing verbal punches again and again.
It makes sense to give a solid blow for him to get shocked and step backwards.

Exactly, and very high-power, without being out of place.

You stop being the punching bag, go on the offensive in a way that is aggressive, rather than assertive, but that is still totally fair and called for.

An interesting case where verbal aggression can serve you better than assertiveness.

It changes the dynamics quicker, and it more quickly and more effectively regains basic respect and defends boundaries.

Stef and Sam Wellington have reacted to this post.
StefSam Wellington
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?