Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Treat Power Moves as if You Were the Target
What I noticed, is that even if you are power aware and can defend easily, it still does nothing to help make the environment, in which you are, a better place.
At most, you get an exempt from disempowering behaviour, but you will still have a tougher time with making relationships, creating win-win and being happy if you let dark triad and turkeys to create chaos for everyone who can't defend properly.
And in the end the environment is slowly becoming more stressful, disempowering and tiring. The problem is, there are not many eagles, and it's hard to create one. Helpful and nice people are way easier to find, but those people will be an easy target and will either shunned or used as an easy target to gain status by others, even if you manage to outwit and defeat those people, chances are big you will still be surrounded by them if you are heading up.
Hoping you will just get to environment that is full of eagles is wishful thinking, if there is such an environment, it's hard to get by, and if you can't find it, you need to create it.
How? My idea is that, if you know a person and they are not assholes, so you are neutral or fond of them you "take them under your wing". If they can defend easily themselves, then there's no need for anything like that, you show stand behind them and that's enough, if they have trouble defending yet they are good people, you take the attacks personally.
Later you can show them some advice on how to deal with that and if they show they are not clueless and understanding, it also deepens the relationship.
It also makes you look like a great leader, you take responsibility for others in situations when they have problems on their own, that's a leader everyone would want to follow.
It is especially important if the attacks are against your good friends or acquaintances, if they have trouble defending you behave as if the attack was directed straight at you, no questions asked. Keep in mind to defend them while empowering them, no one likes when others defend you while making you look like you need their help ( and makes them an even easier target when you are not around ).
This way we can make the environments better, as good people will feel more at ease, and you will strike down not only attacks directed at you but also against your group, making it a lot harder to create a circumstances when you are outnumbered or disadvantaged by social rules.
This fits nicely with the saying "United we stand, divided we fall." You may be in a strong place right now, but if you let others be attacked, you will find yourself in a bad position, forcing you to adapt to the game, instead of setting the rules.
Man, you sure you are the age you said you are?
This is one of the best threads I've read this year.
I started reading it and thought "of course not, you gotta lead that change".
And that's what you ended up saying, basically -leading that change from the grassroots levels-.
This is a fantastic leadership mindset and approach -the eagle-type of leader-.
And it's the type of leader that is both respected from a power/dominance point of view, and admired from a "prestige" point of view -the perfect combo, somewhat similar to the "high-power/high-warmth"-.
Let's see how it develops and it may be a good start for an article and/or PU entry.
This is also a great leadership attitude for what we talked about the other day.
The attitude and mindset of taking responsibility for your environment and the people around you.
And, whenever you can, to make sure that not just you, but also the people around you are also granted basic respect and decency.
Hi guys!
I agree in principle to the idea of "defending (and possibly training) the good people in the group".
I noticed that, immediately before I went no contact with lots of people, I had unconsciously started doing something similar in very small instances.
I remember a cousin of Bella loudly criticizing Bella's mother in front of everybody for trying to help someone, and me turning to Bella's mom and saying:
Me: That's what you get when you're generous and kind.
I also see some pre-conditions to this, however.
- the "eagle defender" should be both high-status in the group, and skilled and trained in power-awareness and power-defense.
If not, one is bound to make mistakes that will likely tank both his status, and his relationship with the "defended" - who may resent being helped by a lower status guy.
- the "defended" must truly deserve it.
Which is probably the most difficult point to ascertain, probably impossible.
Since low power is by definition an "unaware state", if someone goes from low to high power in time he/she is bound to start getting out many obnoxious/socially bad behaviors that were repressed until that moment.
What guarantee do we have that he will choose the good, instead of the bad?
None. In other words, it's always going to be somewhat of a bet.
- the "group" must be mostly good.
I see no point to doing this in a group of mostly dark triad/bad people, like my prior work environment. In these environments, any attempts at defending/explaining are likely going to be triangulated against you.
Bel,
For sure the are strategic considerations as for most things, and some of the ones you add are great points.
And yet, I think it's important to stress the overall mindset that stands behind the "ideal leader" people look up:
It's exactly for taking some (social) risks that one signals ideal-leader qualities.
Those signals are credible because they entail some risks and hence are hard to fake.
As well, the opposite general rule:
The more overly-cautious you become, the more of a individual contributor you become (VS a leader).
One can greatly succeed with that approach, but it's simply not the approach of the leader (not the type we were talking about here, at least).
People don't exactly look up at overly cautious accountant.
Also, besides cases of terrible paraiahs who deserve punishment, there is a lot of power in defending average folks.
It says that you stand up for the average Joe.
Plus, if accepted, it frames you as the only legimate one to (socially) punish others. (Which BTW is exactly the stance of the highest powers in the wolrd: the governments. No citizen can punish others because that's up to the government).
You’re right Lucio.
I fully support that.
I think my cautious approach depends both on my past and on my profession. But it may be time to shed some of that.
Hello DGX37,
I think it's a great idea. I personally stopped doing it a few years ago when I learned about the "drama triangle".
The reasoning behind is that I did not want to become the rescuer of a victim which then would feel disempowered (due to a parent-child dynamics) and would then lash back at me ("I don't need saving! You're going to see what I'm capable of. You think I'm weak well I'll show you" kind of dynamics). This would then trigger them moving from victim to perpretrator and me moving from rescuer to victim (and being floored of being attacked by the person I just helped). That's why I made the decision to let people defend themselves. I'm happy to change my mind if I'm mistaken.
I've experienced it many times and that's why I stopped intervening in a conflict between 2 people. So that's my reservation. BUT I think in terms of leadership and benevolence I agree with you it's a good attitude.
To be clear, it is more of a question as I think the idea great. It's more about the "how to do it" (owning one's environment and protect others) without making the person protected feeling disempowered?
My own answer would be through power protecting. I lack a specific example. I'll make one as best as I can.
Person 1: Mark, you always fuck up this kind of thing.
Me: Mark is totally capable, so please stop talk to him like that
Me (to Mark): is that ok for you?
Or something like that. It might be too much power protecting. I think that now I'm more socially savvy and more power aware than a few years ago I feel like experimenting with this again.
In an environment when it's our role (manager for instance) to facilitate solving conflicts between employees it does not raise this kind of issue of the possibility of feeling disempowered. I think it's more when it's between equals in a group.
Also, a possibility of my previous failures to address that could be that I was not treating the person protected as someone who could take care of themselves. That is, to treat it just as a service rendered to a friend. However on my side, when someone who's an equal protects me I feel like saying: "Hey man I can defend myself".
I agree about taking social risks as a hallmark of leadership.
That's my current reflection about it.
I'm happy to know what you think about it.
Thanks for your feedback and positive reactions, makes me happy that my idea can help fellow users, as I thought about it more, I saw there are many challenges one needs to overcome to successfully use this tactic which posts above pointed out overlapping with responses above.
Quote from Bel on July 23, 2023, 2:13 pmthe "eagle defender" should be both high-status in the group, and skilled and trained in power-awareness and power-defense.
I agree completely that you need to have high power-awareness and power-defense, you are not only protecting yourself but also others which heightens exposure with value takers, ending in more attacks and disempowerement used against you, if you can't defend you will be quickly dispatched as no value taker will enjoy someone who disturbs their games.
The first principle "should be high-status" is very important but I would say it's an advantage ( a very big advantage ) instead of necessity. If you are a team lead, director, someone who has power over his environment and everyone within it, then it's "easy mode", if you desire good behaviour among your subordinates, they only have a choice of adapting to you.
In case of equals, no major difference in status, you can still have a big influence on others and limit the power taking. That's "normal mode", you won't get any advantages but you will be able to pull through quite well if you are a high-power person.
But having low or no status is very tough to manage, that's "hard mode", if the environment is poor, and you are in group of seniors or managers while being average employee, even if they disempower each other, for example by a joke, if everyone else laughs and you don't, you don't fit, you become the odd one out, most attempts at defending will be badly taken by both attackers and victims. I imagine it's hard to even defend yourself in this situation, trying to change the environment in this situation is near impossible.
You can only try to distance yourself, power protect with your every move, side with those that are already against it, and act as a good person who has only good things to say about others. If it seems like it's naturally how you are, they will mind less, but you still need to be very cautious.
Quote from John Freeman on July 23, 2023, 9:36 pmTo be clear, it is more of a question as I think the idea great. It's more about the "how to do it" (owning one's environment and protect others) without making the person protected feeling disempowered?
This is another important point, protecting others without them being disempowered seems like a tough job. The idea is that you don't want to make them look weak, so the solution is to wait for the target's response and if it's weak, or you know it will be weak, you comment on value taker's action or attitude.
Person 1: Mark, you always fuck up this kind of thing.
Mark: ..., Oh sorry, my bad, I will do better next time.
Me: Give it a rest <Person 1>, mistakes happen to everyone, no need to get angry.
In this way, there is no possibility for Mark to be angry, he will instinctively agree or at least feel relief someone stood back behind him, while saying absolutely nothing of him, so also no possibility of disempowering.
Your example can feel disempowering, as you respond instead of someone, like they can't respond themselves, demand better behaviour towards them, as if they are scared of asking for fair behaviour themselves. And asking clarification if it's okay, thread expanding on not being okay before.
And it may be true, he can be scared, he may not feel okay, but in reality, he is better off denying it, showing that he has no problems whatsoever, instead of looking like a person that can't do anything without other person's help.
Being a "eagle defender" is in truth helping people, but you don't want to look like you are helping them but as if you are both equals that find the behaviour annoying. While on surface it seems like you have the same problems and are equals, deeply the person will know you helped them and they may have failed on defending on their own, and if they are equals they will be happy to help you the same way in the future if you are cornered.
So in summary you need those things to make it work:
1. Being even more high-power, as you take more fights than you would on your own.
2. Be able to protect without disempowering the attacked, which is tricky.
3. Solid power protecting when dealing higher status people.
One other idea is to be more fair even to those that disempower you.
For example if they make disempowering jokes and you fight back and demand respect, if later, your friends start laughing at him or making fun of him, it is very advantageous from social perspective to join the game and dominate him. But if you want to make the environment truly good, you can't just help those that are good to you while it's fair game to do everything against value takers.
In the end it may cause a lot of resentment that will make it a lot harder to make the environment truly good and people may doubt if you are high quality or you just act like a good person when it suits you.
I am not sure if it is optimal solution, if you are going to be defeated because you refuse to dirty your hands, then always look after yourself, if you fall, it's a game over.
It also requires very strong mental fortitude, if someone hurts or attacks you, you may be too angry or uncaring to think about what will happen to them. You need to fight for yourself with respect to the other person even if they don't respect you, and I don't have this strength yet.
if you have feedback regarding this or previous ideas, feel free to post it. Â
This is another important point, protecting others without them being disempowered seems like a tough job. The idea is that you don't want to make them look weak, so the solution is to wait for the target's response and if it's weak, or you know it will be weak, you comment on value taker's action or attitude.
Person 1: Mark, you always fuck up this kind of thing.
Mark: ..., Oh sorry, my bad, I will do better next time.
Me: Give it a rest <Person 1>, mistakes happen to everyone, no need to get angry.
In this way, there is no possibility for Mark to be angry, he will instinctively agree or at least feel relief someone stood back behind him, while saying absolutely nothing of him, so also no possibility of disempowering.
Your example can feel disempowering, as you respond instead of someone, like they can't respond themselves, demand better behaviour towards them, as if they are scared of asking for fair behaviour themselves. And asking clarification if it's okay, thread expanding on not being okay before.
And it may be true, he can be scared, he may not feel okay, but in reality, he is better off denying it, showing that he has no problems whatsoever, instead of looking like a person that can't do anything without other person's help.Being a "eagle defender" is in truth helping people, but you don't want to look like you are helping them but as if you are both equals that find the behaviour annoying. While on surface it seems like you have the same problems and are equals, deeply the person will know you helped them and they may have failed on defending on their own, and if they are equals they will be happy to help you the same way in the future if you are cornered.
Boom! Solved it. Thank you very much, that is what I've been looking for for a long time.
About your second idea, I think you're referring to what Lucio calls "Gentleman's attitude" in fight (not sure of the exact name). So yes 100%. You want to fight as clean as possible and get dirty only if all else fails.
