Quote from Anon on April 5, 2022, 4:09 pm

Hi everyone,

while reading through the very interesting thread on Chriss Voss, I thought looking at the most fundamental frames and implications of common powermoves might also be a good approach to come up with effective responses.

1 - The most fundamental frame?

Explicit: "You are worth-less."

Implicit: "But I'm worthy - especially in contrast to you."

The essence of arrogance. It seems very harsh and obvious if stated so bluntly.

But while it's quite toxic, the manifestation doesn't necessarily have to be terribly harmful, it could just be a quick remark said half jokingly (vs. a full blown direct attack in front of your whole social environment).

low(ish) impact example: "(soccer context) How could you miss such an easy one, man?"

high impact example: "Get a life sucker."

Reasons why, and ways how this frame gets used:

• social climbing ("That was so dumb you looser.")
• force stronger investment ("Make me laugh.")
• win-lose fight mentality ("I won the argument, you lost.")
• ego hybris ("I AM better than these ghetto rats, I have money.")
• bad intentions ("I will crush them for fun.")

possible response frame/mindset:
"Worth as a human- isn't determined by how intelligent, rich, cool or strong someone is, but how they treat others. Intelligence, strenght or amount of money determine -worth as a ressource-."

-Worth as a Human- vs -Worth as a Ressource-

My first thought was that humans are always inherently worthy, and there is no fight for worthiness.

But scum like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc. truly IS without any worth as a human whatsoever - precisely because of how they treated others. (Though -worthless as a human- doesn't have to be caused by such extremes.)
The same is true the other way 'round: someone who is poor, weak, ugly without any humour but who is very kind and good-hearted IS worthy as a human.

Outshining Features

Sometimes people have outshining features (beauty, competence, money, etc.) that will make it so that many other people will still accept their (in this case) bad/unworthy behaviour (especially if they are in need of said feature).
But if someone would come along who had exactly the same features AND were also treating others nice, everyone would rather interact with that guy/gal.

So I think how someone treats others (especially others who are powerless compared to them, as Lucio pointed out) really is the most deciding factor of -worth as a human-.

Since the -worth as a human- concept is seperate from the -worth as a ressource-, even though I have a bad impression from Chriss Voss as a human, the content of what he says might still have some valid insights in it.

2 - me vs you

Explicit: "We fight, one of us will come out as winner, the other one as a looser." (can be openly or covertly stated)

Implicit: "We are enemies."

I'm not sure yet, but the constant fight mentality might stem in many instances from a perceived need to prove your worth to others (e.g. spectators) - so I kinda see it as a sub-frame from the worthy vs worthless frame.

Ironically the usual hostility stemming from such a frame makes them actually more and more unworthy of your time and nice behaviour.

possible response frame/mindset: "I disagree, I'm not here to spew venom and fight with you over nothing. We could collaborate and win both - if you behave accordingly."

3 - "Just teasing" - wrapping the attack inside another one

Explicit: "I'm not attacking you, I'm just teasing you."

Implicit: "I behave like a friend and make people laugh and provide a good time."

It's of course a lie, they are very much attacking - so much so that they cover their attack with another attack ("you have no humor if you don't like my nasty behaviour").

possible response frame/mindset: "Attacking and trying to humiliate people is not funny nor the behaviour of a friend, and you are not providing a good time, but taking it away (and then blame the victim for not liking your toxic behavior)."

Notes:

• I think it makes sense to initially assume kindness and be on the look out for red flags , which would be them proving to you that their worth as a human has been wrongly perceived (by how much depends on the severity of their actions).
• It might also be a good idea to be lead by intuition on how much leeway to give to people when judging their behaviour, because there are a lot of people who are duped or indoctrinated by things like for example rap culture (which seems to explicitly claim that mens' worth were enirely determined by money, women or at least repercussiveness, which is of course toxic).

So if it was not too bad, neutralizing and reframing to a collaborative interaction and see how it proceeds is likely the best approach.