Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Self-power-protecting technique: use "'no'-oriented answers" to defend your power and freedom

There was a note in PU that said, "Frames are the rule system of relationships."

And, that's why when people use "the 'no'-oriented question technique"—empowering you to say "no" to their frames / rules—it can help defend your freedom.

E.g.

[At a networking event]

Him: "Hey, by the way, would you be open to joining my email list?" (= if you say "yes" and join, it'll will be harder for you to unsubscribe because you already agreed)

Him: (power-protecting: "no"-oriented question technique) "Hey, by the way, would you be completely against joining my email list?" (= if you say "no", it's up to you whether or not you want to join and it will be much easier for you to unsubscribe later on if you decide that you want to)

So, what can you do when someone fields a request without the "'no'-oriented question technique" and you want to say "yes" without limiting your options? What's a way to respond to a "'yes'-oriented question" that will still protect your power?

Try a "no"-oriented answer:

Him: "Hey, by the way, would you be open to joining my email list?" (= if you say "yes" and join, it'll will be harder for you to unsubscribe because you already agreed)

You: (self-power-protecting: "no"-oriented answer technique) "I wouldn't be completely against joining, where can I check it out?"

This is an unofficial technique, feel free to share your thoughts!

Interesting.

It's a good move as it avoids full commitment with a "yes" or "no".

In this specific case, I'd personally avoid any over-investment on my side by turning the frame from responder, to asker.
He made a question and he needs something, so he should invest more and provide some concrete reasons.

Something like this:

Him: "Hey, by the way, would you be open to joining my email list?" 
You: "I'm open to everything mate, but that doesn't mean I will do everything (indirectly calls the game out: you used "open" as a bait for "acting", but that ain't the same). Is there some specific reason why one should join it? (drop the game, talk openly about concrete benefits and WIIFM)

Also I prefer to say "why ONE should join it" and not "why I should join it".
"I" makes it a bit more me VS you: convince me, convince me, and maybe I'll give it to you. "One" instead keeps it more impersonal, so you can talk about general benefits and pros and cons.

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Note:

The Red Flags on Mach Radars

Any time your hear some keywords such as:

  • Would you be open to
  • Would you consider to...
  • Can you imagine...
  • What if...
  • But let me ask you a quesiton

These are all signals that someone is potentially playing some social games and/or trying to make you do something that is for sure good for them, but not necessarily good for you.

So those register on the Mach radar as "warning".

Calling the Game Out

A common frame control of mine in these casess include calling the game out, or calling the gamer out.

One of my favorite:

Yeah, yeah, you're a good salesman man

And then ask or say whatever you wanted to say or ask.

This is a great way of saying "I know the game, and I know what you're doing (so you can drop that with me)", but without being confrontational or starting a frame battle.

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?
Processing...