The taker's 'defense power move': give even less, see the reaction
Imagine the following situation.
In a relationship, one side is giving more than the other, because they have more to give. This is perhaps agreed by both sides. Let's label them giver and taker, although of course in a relationship both are giving and taking.
Giver: (subcommunicates they don't feel appreciated and that they are giving more)
Taker: Takes an issue with that, and proceeds to give even less; to test the resolve of the giver.
Giver: Now they are in a difficult situation. If they accept the 'even less giving' of the taker, then they have lost a lot of power. If they stop giving, the relationship is going to suffer.
This is never explicit. It's subcommunicated with body language, responses to small requests for compliance, or even 'attention' (in time spent together).
If the giver resurfaces the situation, then the relationship becomes transactional, one where power accounting or value accounting is evident. That is not good for an intimate relationship.
If the giver stops giving so much in response to the taker's strategy of giving even less, the relationship goes to hell.
The taker can always blame being 'less giving' to personal circumstances: the giver has more to give.
What do you think the giver can do in this situation?
EDIT:
Note, the taker in this case takes the judge role from the giver. Initially the giver subcommunicates "you are not giving enough for me to stay" (judge role). With this strategy, the taker takes the judge role and 'calls the bluff' of the giver.
Hmm, I think you did a great job going from specific to general, LoF.
Only issue with that is... It's often more difficult to give any advice at the general level.
Some Ideas:
Beware the "open exchange talk", which is more for business
In general, it can often be a good idea to avoid any frame that might even suggest an accountancy of giving and taking.
Almost everyone runs that mental calculation, but almost nobody is ready to talk about it without feeling like they're dealing with a cold-hearted person and/or a bean counter.
Preframe & frame the open exchange talk properly
If you open that topic though, you want to give it a proper preframe of something like:
"I love you and want this relationship to flourish, and having this convo I think can help that.
(What do you think)"
Then keep repeating that line and re-enstating that frame as you have the conversation.
Including cementing and (emotional rewarding) in the end (there should be examples in PU).
Address the issue at the specific & detail level, rather than the overall give/take balance
Also, I gotta wonder: is there anything that may make you feel short-changed?
Is it:
- Not enough time spent with you
- not making up financial giving with gratitude
- not making up your giving with affection / cooking / generally making an effort...
- not being ready and willing with a "yes" as often as you'd like
- being late, or inconsiderate of your time
When you know if there's something specific, then you can address that, rather than the full balance of give/take, which is often fraught with risks as per above.
---
Book a call for personalized & private feedback
Awesome response Lucio. You are right I didn't give enough detail (as I'm concerned this could be found in a public forum).
I'm moving this to a private part of the forum to give more detail in my answer.
I'm amused I've found @Alex commenting on something very, very similar in that private forum:
Problem
I invest more social efforts in the relationship, and I am expected to do so (if I don't do it, or if I calibrate to the same degree of value she brings, she will start to grow resentful, passive-aggressive, stonewalling, and she won't be able to explain why she becomes resentful).
(...)
The problem is that I objectively bring more value to the relationship. In terms of finances, of social status, intelligence, physically, etc. I also have a higher SMV. I'm not giving more details, but I'm not making this up, she even told it to her friends and family (and I think deep down she feels insecure about it).
And she is doing a lot less for me that I am doing for her. That's what makes me think that expecting me to invest more socially is unbalanced, or can make me feel like I'm being taken advange of.
This is a similar way of phrasing what I'm facing. It seems to be a common pattern for TPM/PU alumni.
It'll take me a long while to make a post with enough detail, when I do I'll link it here. (I hope I can still edit it).
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 24, 2022, 4:52 pmBeware the "open exchange talk", which is more for business
In general, it can often be a good idea to avoid any frame that might even suggest an accountancy of giving and taking.
Almost everyone runs that mental calculation, but almost nobody is ready to talk about it without feeling like they're dealing with a cold-hearted person and/or a bean counter.
I want to correct this.
The general concept holds.
However, you can do it.
And it can actually be very high power and leader-like.
Ind if you can bring that awareness to her, without making it seem like you're being nasty, then you gain a lot of leadership points, respect, and attraction as the "intellectual authority" (SU talks about this).
However, the caveat, you must do it well -not nasty or bean counting-, with conviction, and much, much better, while also keeping a win-win frame.
Also, it's possible to drop hints of the value exchange.
For example, at the risk of coming across like a blowhard, I remember once one girl complaining to me that I didn't do something that her ex supposedly used to do.
I answered: "yeah, but I'm a cooler guy".
She replied, "that's also true".
Sub-communication there was:
Me: (I can afford not to do that, the relationship is still better for you because you're getting more value just by being with me)
Her: (fair enough)
But because everything was implied, it didn't come across like a blowhard, value-taking, or just "crass" -which is the risk of open-exchange talk-.
If she didn't get it right away, then I should have gone into that open-exchange talk.
Once you embark on that kind of talk, it's crucial you stick to it, and "maintain frame", without apologizing or backtracking.
Backtracking, justifying or denying would mean losing much of your power and displaying the opposite of what you want to convey.
---
Book a call for personalized & private feedback
Very important topic, as we see it goes deeper.
Thanks to you both for this conversation, I'm learning from it.
I'm answering in the follow-up thread.
I think there's something profound about this relationship dynamic, and about the strategy of 'calling the bluff.' Some more thinking here.
The interesting situation is that the side with less to give (aka 'taker', but this could be an accidental taker) has a 'hard stop' in the negotiation that is obvious to both sides: they cannot go to 'expensive vacation' because they only make $$$$ per month, period. Or they cannot go to [interesting activity] because their child needs them. Or they cannot respond a WA message within a reasonable window (accidental power move) because they are doing other things that demand their attention like child rearing.
When the situation that turns them into a taker is 'lifelong' (like systemic poverty), it automagically justifies taker behavior like being low social competence, or not being well read, or any of the million things that poverty in any form brings.
It's very easy for the taker side to feel judged, and to stop giving the little they have because they feel hurt. They don't want to be the side that gives less. It's 'not their fault'. I don't know if that's what goes in the mind of the taker at this point. Nobody knows.
The end result is that there's a very effective strategy here: there's a forced "ultimatum", they give even less and observe the other side. I would love to know if you have found examples in your life of something like this.
There could be a possibility of “drawing out” the giving side of a partner by asking for help with things she is competent in and valuing her help.
By asking for help in something the other person is good at (even though for you it may be tangential) you may be able to rebalance the relationship in some way for her, because the “taking side” will start to “give” and there will be more flow.
This in turn may have a positive ripple effect in time.
Thanks Bel, this is indeed a course of action.
Rewarding any giving, even if it's not relevant (or as you put it, tangential), may have the effect of encouraging more giving overall.
Because this topic came about in a relationship context, and relationships are hard, it may mud things up a little. And I believe these dynamics exist in all contexts! Let's see if I can find an example from business. Imagine two cofounders, 50%-50%, and each one should be working 100% on their startup. But one of the two keeps a side job and has a family that takes quite a bit of time.
Founder 1 (giver): I feel I'm putting in a ton of effort (all I have) to make this project successful. Sometimes, when you write that you cannot attend a meeting because you are with your family, or because your side gig is keeping you busy, I wish you could be putting in as many hours as I do. And I feel unappreciated and getting the short end of the stick...
Founder 2 (taker): I don't agree at all. The value I contribute has nothing to do with the hours I put in. My network, my connections... is something you would not have access to without me.
Founder 2 proceeds to do even less work for the startup and more for his side gig (breaking the verbal agreement of working as hard as they can). Founder 2 may think that Founder 1 will see the value of his work when it's removed; and appreciate it more. Which of course damages the relationship and perhaps starts s downward spiral of self-destruction.
Another response that has about the same result (if a bit more tactful and considerate):
Founder 2 (taker): I understand you. I think if I was in your situation I would feel the same. But there's nothing I can do about this; I have a family that has priority over our business. You knew this before we started this company together, and it's my understanding that you accepted it. Our company is not generating cash yet, so I have to keep my side engagement to sustain my lifestyle (and my family's). (proceeds to do even less to show the other the value of his work)
I've been in that kind of relationship too. So I'm thinking that this might be an universal pattern.
What do you think the giver can do in this situation?