Please or Register to create posts and topics.

The Eagle Mentality

PreviousPage 2 of 2

Bel answer is correct and exhaustive.

And John's answer is also correct.

I'm still processing and thinking this over because this question has the potential to be a game-changer for the lesson/article on the "eagle approach" (and a big development for TPM as well).

Even though there would obviously be exceptions, being able to come up with a high-level approach would be immensely helpful.

I still don't see a simple way to propose a high-level structure.
And one of the issues standing in the way of a good high-level structure is the number of variables, including:

  • Nasty VS addressing: this is an important "in-between". There is a big difference between "getting nasty back" and "addressing a power move". One can address a power move without being dragged down to turkey level -ie.: "surfacing", "going meta", etc.-
  • Personality: It's more OK for hot-tempered folks to answer blow by blow as that comes across as "genuine" and "passionate" and "straightforward"
  • How it looks like on the outside / social status impact: if flying higher makes it seem like you allow disrespect to happen in front of a social group you care about, then you probably gotta intervene just to maintain status. There is an example in PU
  • Closeness: generally speaking, the closer the relationship, the more you want to address power moves. Not necessarily getting angry back, but addressing it. That's because you need to ensure that your close relationship are good and healthy, while you can easily say "whatever, fuck it, got more important things to care about" with random folks
  • Importance: how important is a relationship. Just in the previous thread, I wrote in we were dealing with a customer relationship. The customer is not "close", but it's important to address the power move because customers are important
  • Effectiveness on frame control / getting what you want: sometimes it's effective to fly higher. Other times, it's not effective. The example in PU is the girlfriend getting emotional and yelling. Ignoring is obviously a no-go and being assertive/detached might not work. Then "meeting her at the same level", which is a way of saying "getting nasty back" is the most effective route.
    Is there a way to systematize what's more effective and when? That's what would be cool to find out

And a few more.

However, even in the absence of more precise directives, there is an important mindset difference:

The eagle is at least aware of the possibility of flying higher.

Albeit it might seem like a small detail, it's a huge mindset shift.
When you start seeing the possibility -and the benefits-, it's a new world that opens.

Kavalier and Bel have reacted to this post.
KavalierBel
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Here's two ideas about the eagle mentality:

  1. One can aspire to be an eagle, but one cannot really become an eagle unless one has first learned (and practiced) how to be bad and counter evil with evil, on the same, or even on a worse, level

Flying higher and soaring like an eagle above turkeys is certainly the ultimate objective in one's path, but I suspect that often "you cannot get there from here". Especially when "here" is a starting place of naiveté and protracted weakness/submissiveness.

Lets' assume one has a past of having shown submissiveness, weakness, not saying anything, letting oneself be bullied.

Let's assume then, abruptly, when someone publicly shames him for the nth time, he thinks "I must be an eagle!" and goes just with a loud laugh to show he is unaffected.

Will the shamer (and the bystanders) think "Oh my god, he's an eagle! I am losing, I now must become his friend and apologize!"?

Probably not.

There probably is a path one must follow in reaching "eagleness", and it may often entail going through phases where one may not be his best self, in order to master both "being bad" to beat bad people, and "going over needing to be bad": by both suffering the consequences of having been bad, and discovering that the only way to soar is by overcoming past traumas/suffering.

And, some "turkey spirals" may be part and parcel of walking the path toward eagleness.

For some people and where they are in their path, going into a turkey spiral may even lead to a better outcome than "going eagle".

 2. Thinking one can reach "eagle-level" without having gone through "lower levels" may be ineffective and could also be dangerous

Sometimes, people can really be ready. They have suffered, they have retaliated, they have learned, and they really understand there must be a better way.

But, for the sake of this post, let's imagine one is still badly damaged from past suffering, ineffective, naive (and, one can be naive in many ways: maybe this person has discovered what others used to do to him or her, but not (yet) what he or she does unconsciously to others).

And then he suddenly thinks: "I need to be an eagle! I must not fall at the level of the attackers, but always fly higher!".

I think either one of these is probably going to happen:

  • either this person risks coming across even more submissive than before, or
  • this person risks putting up a fake front of magnanimity and power, while making constant power-plays to humiliate other people and get back at them for his suffering.

We could even call the second approach the "fake eagle", or the "turkey disguised as an eagle".

None of these seem good outcomes to me. And, a fake eagle not only is still a turkey, but is also probably more ridiculous than other turkeys.

So I think eagle mentality probably needs to come after necessarily having learned first to be bad, having accepted the consequences of being bad, and then having learned not to be bad.

Lucio Buffalmano, John Freeman and Kavalier have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoJohn FreemanKavalier

Yes, the plan is true self-development not pretending. We don’t do this stuff for other people. We do it for ourselves.

However you have to know what you’re aiming for. This is what these idea of high quality and eagle are for. To know what it looks and feels like.

How can you know how to become an eagle if all you’ve ever seen in your life are turkeys? You cannot.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano
Quote from Bel on October 1, 2022, 7:10 pm

Here's two ideas about the eagle mentality:

  1. One can aspire to be an eagle, but one cannot really become an eagle unless one has first learned (and practiced) how to be bad and counter evil with evil, on the same, or even on a worse, level

Flying higher and soaring like an eagle above turkeys is certainly the ultimate objective in one's path, but I suspect that often "you cannot get there from here". Especially when "here" is a starting place of naiveté and protracted weakness/submissiveness.

Lets' assume one has a past of having shown submissiveness, weakness, not saying anything, letting oneself be bullied.

Let's assume then, abruptly, when someone publicly shames him for the nth time, he thinks "I must be an eagle!" and goes just with a loud laugh to show he is unaffected.

Will the shamer (and the bystanders) think "Oh my god, he's an eagle! I am losing, I now must become his friend and apologize!"?

Probably not.

There probably is a path one must follow in reaching "eagleness", and it may often entail going through phases where one may not be his best self, in order to master both "being bad" to beat bad people, and "going over needing to be bad": by both suffering the consequences of having been bad, and discovering that the only way to soar is by overcoming past traumas/suffering.

And, some "turkey spirals" may be part and parcel of walking the path toward eagleness.

For some people and where they are in their path, going into a turkey spiral may even lead to a better outcome than "going eagle".

 2. Thinking one can reach "eagle-level" without having gone through "lower levels" may be ineffective and could also be dangerous

Sometimes, people can really be ready. They have suffered, they have retaliated, they have learned, and they really understand there must be a better way.

But, for the sake of this post, let's imagine one is still badly damaged from past suffering, ineffective, naive (and, one can be naive in many ways: maybe this person has discovered what others used to do to him or her, but not (yet) what he or she does unconsciously to others).

And then he suddenly thinks: "I need to be an eagle! I must not fall at the level of the attackers, but always fly higher!".

I think either one of these is probably going to happen:

  • either this person risks coming across even more submissive than before, or
  • this person risks putting up a fake front of magnanimity and power, while making constant power-plays to humiliate other people and get back at them for his suffering.

We could even call the second approach the "fake eagle", or the "turkey disguised as an eagle".

None of these seem good outcomes to me. And, a fake eagle not only is still a turkey, but is also probably more ridiculous than other turkeys.

So I think eagle mentality probably needs to come after necessarily having learned first to be bad, having accepted the consequences of being bad, and then having learned not to be bad.

Yeah, it makes sense.

I think in some places we talked about also going through some asshole phases, or at least interactions, when learning to assert boundaries.

It's because one is necessarily a bit brusque or lacking refinement, and it can happen to overdo it -and if one's been passive for a long time, probably he'll always feel like an asshole, even when not-.

Something similar may happen in all areas of socialization.
Take dating for example: if one has always chased and been taken advantage of, he may have to go through a period of "never doing anything for a woman" before he can settle for a happier and more effective optimum balance.
And at work one may have to go through a "grumpy player" phase when refusing help or an overly cynical (thanks John) view and selfish approach to his employer as he realizes that his employer is no benevolent father figure with his best interest in mind.

John Freeman, Kavalier and Bel have reacted to this post.
John FreemanKavalierBel
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

overly clinical view

You meant "cynical", right? (this post can be deleted after)

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano
PreviousPage 2 of 2
Processing...