ForumPublic Forum: Power DynamicsTry to Understand Power Move?

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Try to Understand Power Move?

#1 · April 11, 2023, 8:29 am

Hi Everyone,

I was in a group, and we were having a free wheeling discussion, and my view did not agree with the rest of the group, in most cases I wouldn't have pushed my case, but in this context, I was feeling by not stating or even arguing my case I would lose status, so I discussed my point, but after a while I was cut out by one person in the group who says to me

X: Try and understand what we are saying

Me: It still doesn't make any sense

I felt that statement of X was dis-empowering as it implies I'm unable to understand what they mean, I felt my reply was not good enough,and ignoring it felt like implicitly agreeing with the statement. I feel I could have surfaced it by asking "what he means by that" but that would have left me open to a reply by X in these terms " See he still doesn't understand at all". How would you guys deal with it?

Thank You

Mav

Maxim Levinsky, Kavalier and Bel have reacted to this post.

#2 · April 11, 2023, 9:48 am

Hello Maverick,

You were there, so you know better, but here's a very different approach then the one you have in mind:

Have you considered that maybe you could have indeed more deeply considered their point of view/position?

Especially if they all agree and if it's a group, it's a situation where you want to be strategic because entrenching your position as the only one disagreeing against a group and telling them "it doesn't make sense" can quickly sour relationship with everyone at the same time.

Not exactly great social strategy.

Otherwise, yes, it can definitely be a power move.

And if you were convinced to be in the right and/or if it was important to consider all options, it was good to push it.
But strategically.

"What do you mean by that": how effective would it be here?

Think about what "what do you mean by that" would do there.

That's a thread-expanding question.

And what thread was it going to expand... ?

John Freeman, Maxim Levinsky and 5 other users have reacted to this post.

Check the forum guidelines for effective communication.
---
(Book a call) for personalized & private feedback

#3 · April 11, 2023, 10:07 am

P.S.:

If anyone wants to weigh in on this or give it a try, please go.

It's a very good case study on both foundational power dynamics and frame control principles.

Kavalier has reacted to this post.

Check the forum guidelines for effective communication.
---
(Book a call) for personalized & private feedback

#4 · April 11, 2023, 6:09 pm

It's not good to try to make them look like they are wrong, even if you know they are, you cannot win argument against a group ( it's a miracle to convince a single person ), at least not without heavy costs. If they feel threatened they will just steamroll you with questions/statements/jokes before you manage to answer one of them. They may do exactly that even if you don't threaten them because they have such a big advantage over you and you don't want to give them more reasons for that.

If they try to make you look bad for not agreeing, I would focus on building bridges by getting a yes from them ( socratic method ), it will make your stance look more sensible.
For example:

( discussion about guns in USA, you are anti-gun )

Group: ( Says why anti-gun movement is bullshit and people that believe in it are stupid )
You: I don't think it's so white and black.
X: Try and understand what we are saying ( Can't you understand it? You are stupid frame )
You: I understand quite well but isn't it true... ( make some more simple and obvious argument that your disagreement is founded on )

Then even if they disagree with you still they will still have to doubt themselves a bit and be less attacking for you having a different opinion.

Try to change the topic or get out of it, for example you try to find a divide between them so it's not group vs you, but people just arguing so you don't lose status.
I wouldn't directly address what X is saying because this is not the most important thing here, I would just ignore it or go past it quickly like above.

For sure there are things to improve upon in this, I am in no way a great debater.

Kavalier and Maverick have reacted to this post.

#5 · April 11, 2023, 6:10 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on April 11, 2023, 9:48 am

Hello Maverick,

You were there, so you know better, but here's a very different approach then the one you have in mind:

Have you considered that maybe you could have indeed more deeply considered their point of view/position?

Especially if they all agree and if it's a group, it's a situation where you want to be strategic because entrenching your position as the only one disagreeing against a group and telling them "it doesn't make sense" can quickly sour relationship with everyone at the same time.

Hi Lucio!

I agree with you, usually this is the strategy I follow, this situation is quite different I feel, for two reasons, Firstly one of the members had asked for my opinion in private and then brought it up in the group as a way to mock me, secondly the group always is correcting, and arguing about who/what is correct and making fun of the person for thinking that way, the members are pretty much jostling for status.

But strategically.

"What do you mean by that": how effective would it be here?

Think about what "what do you mean by that" would do there.

That's a thread-expanding question.

And what thread was it going to expand... ?

This would have been negative thread expanding, not a good move, I wasn't sure what to say here, but I feel a better reply would have been " What a weird thing to say", it would have put him in the defensive made him explain.

Mav

Lucio Buffalmano, John Freeman and 4 other users have reacted to this post.

#6 · April 11, 2023, 6:26 pm

Quote from Maverick on April 11, 2023, 6:10 pm

I agree with you, usually this is the strategy I follow, this situation is quite different I feel, for two reasons, Firstly one of the members had asked for my opinion in private and then brought it up in the group as a way to mock me, secondly the group always is correcting, and arguing about who/what is correct and making fun of the person for thinking that way, the members are pretty much jostling for status.

Yeah, that's a tough one, probably deserves another topic like "What to do when someone tries to gang up on you".
Because that's what it really is, he spins it so it looks like you are an idiot, he has status so they believe him, confont you in a group and demand you to explain yourself.

John Freeman, Kavalier and Maverick have reacted to this post.

#7 · April 11, 2023, 6:30 pm

Quote from Maverick on April 11, 2023, 6:30 pm

Quote from DGX37 on April 11, 2023, 6:09 pm

It's not good to try to make them look like they are wrong, even if you know they are, you cannot win argument against a group ( it's a miracle to convince a single person ), at least not without heavy costs. If they feel threatened they will just steamroll you with questions/statements/jokes before you manage to answer one of them. They may do exactly that even if you don't threaten them because they have such a big advantage over you and you don't want to give them more reasons for that.

If they try to make you look bad for not agreeing, I would focus on building bridges by getting a yes from them ( socratic method ), it will make your stance more look more sensible.
For example:

( discussion about guns in USA, you are anti-gun )

Group: ( Says why anti-gun movement is bullshit and people that believe in it are stupid )
You: I don't think it's so white and black.
X: Try and understand what we are saying ( Can't you understand it? You are stupid frame )
You: I understand quite well but isn't it true... ( make some more simple and obvious argument that your disagreement is founded on )

Then even if they disagree with you still they will still have to doubt themselves a bit and be less attacking for you having a different opinion.

Try to change the topic or get out of it, for example you try to find a divide between them so it's not group vs you, but people just arguing so you don't lose status.
I wouldn't directly address what X is saying because this is not the most important thing here, I would just ignore it or go past it quickly like above.

For sure there are things to improve upon in this, I am in no way a great debater.

Hi DGX37

I agree with you ignoring is a good idea in most cases, in this case I felt I cannot ignore the power moves going on because it would be dis empowering to me in the long run, I have ignored a lot of X's snarky comments, but this time I felt ignoring it was not good because it would be like holding a note up saying "I endorse your crappy behavior" I feel that your reply of "I understand quite well" would have been a good reply in most cases, and in this case it feels to me like I'm reacting to a judge power move (I might be wrong about that) and it would be easy for him to deny that I understood it and he can just ask me to explain it back to him to make sure I understood.

Mav

Quote from DGX37 on April 11, 2023, 6:09 pm

It's not good to try to make them look like they are wrong, even if you know they are, you cannot win argument against a group ( it's a miracle to convince a single person ), at least not without heavy costs. If they feel threatened they will just steamroll you with questions/statements/jokes before you manage to answer one of them. They may do exactly that even if you don't threaten them because they have such a big advantage over you and you don't want to give them more reasons for that.

If they try to make you look bad for not agreeing, I would focus on building bridges by getting a yes from them ( socratic method ), it will make your stance more look more sensible.
For example:

( discussion about guns in USA, you are anti-gun )

Group: ( Says why anti-gun movement is bullshit and people that believe in it are stupid )
You: I don't think it's so white and black.
X: Try and understand what we are saying ( Can't you understand it? You are stupid frame )
You: I understand quite well but isn't it true... ( make some more simple and obvious argument that your disagreement is founded on )

Then even if they disagree with you still they will still have to doubt themselves a bit and be less attacking for you having a different opinion.

Try to change the topic or get out of it, for example you try to find a divide between them so it's not group vs you, but people just arguing so you don't lose status.
I wouldn't directly address what X is saying because this is not the most important thing here, I would just ignore it or go past it quickly like above.

For sure there are things to improve upon in this, I am in no way a great debater.

Hi DGX37

I agree with you ignoring is a good idea in most cases, in this case I felt I cannot ignore the power moves going on because it would be dis empowering to me in the long run, I have ignored a lot of X's snarky comments, but this time I felt ignoring it was not good because it would be like holding a note up saying "I endorse your crappy behavior" I feel that your reply of "I understand quite well" would have been a good reply in most cases, and in this case it feels to me like I'm reacting to a judge power move (I might be wrong about that) and it would be easy for him to deny that I understood it and he can just ask me to explain it back to him to make sure I understood.

Mav

John Freeman, Kavalier and 3 other users have reacted to this post.

#8 · April 11, 2023, 7:19 pm

Quote from Maverick on April 11, 2023, 6:10 pm

This would have been negative thread expanding, not a good move, I wasn't sure what to say here, but I feel a better reply would have been " What a weird thing to say", it would have put him in the defensive made him explain.

Mav

Yes!

Exactly.

That would have expanded on you not listening to them, and potentially you not "getting it", and potentially you wasting people's time.

"What a weird thing say" may have worked... If they were blatantly missing something obvious.

I wasn't there and you know better.
But generally speaking, my first advice when it's a whole group who disagrees with an individual is to focus less on "beating the other person" and more on seeing their point of view (not least because, with plenty of exceptions, a group is more likely to be right than an individual).

John Freeman, Maxim Levinsky and 4 other users have reacted to this post.

Check the forum guidelines for effective communication.
---
(Book a call) for personalized & private feedback

#9 · April 12, 2023, 12:43 pm

Quote from Bel on April 12, 2023, 12:43 pm

Quote from Maverick on April 11, 2023, 6:10 pm

I agree with you, usually this is the strategy I follow, this situation is quite different I feel, for two reasons, Firstly one of the members had asked for my opinion in private and then brought it up in the group as a way to mock me, secondly the group always is correcting, and arguing about who/what is correct and making fun of the person for thinking that way, the members are pretty much jostling for status.

Hi Mav, Guys,

considering the specific dynamics, I believe one possibility here would have been to surface the malicious move by this person.

Because: this person had asked for your opinion prior to the group meeting to then expose it in public and mock you.

If you don't surface the move, the group could subconsciously understand the dynamics and may automatically side with him as the "higher power" person in the interaction:

Him: Hey guys, you won't believe what Mav told me yesterday! He thinks that ...

Part 1: Isolate the asshole

On the other hand, surfacing his (already somewhat obvious, but not totally obvious) move - at a cost for him - would have communicated you are ready to make him pay socially for his nasty moves (thus reducing the likelihood he pulls another one in the future), and at the same time could have brought the group to your side by surfacing his nastiness:

You: It's interesting you are now getting into this debate over my opinion. I remember when you asked me what I thought yesterday in private, you didn't seem so against my idea as you are now...

I would include the part where he "didn't seem so against the idea" - even if he was against it from the beginning: his move of bringing out your private discussion to mock you in public is too nasty.

Part 2: Keep rapport with the rest of the group

Then you could add the philosopher frame to keep rapport with the rest of the group:

You: And by the way guys, I see the merit in your opinion, I guess it's a matter of personal preference as with everything in life.

or something similar.

The most important thing in these situations is to not fall into the manipulative frame - that was set here by this guy - that you have to fight against the group as a whole.

In fact, you want to isolate the bastard and subcommunicate to the group that you are siding with all the rest.

OFF TOPIC

If I interpreted the dynamics correctly, I think this dynamic, which is already exposed in some of PU's lessons (I remember the video where the guy bought a "champagne diamond") may merit a name if not already present in the dictionary of power.

It is a form of ganging up, but a manipulative one: the ganging up is mostly due to the mark falling into the frame of "they are all against me" set by the manipulator.

It is a reaction of the group to the mark's behavior, not to the manipulator's behavior.

Quote from Maverick on April 11, 2023, 6:10 pm

I agree with you, usually this is the strategy I follow, this situation is quite different I feel, for two reasons, Firstly one of the members had asked for my opinion in private and then brought it up in the group as a way to mock me, secondly the group always is correcting, and arguing about who/what is correct and making fun of the person for thinking that way, the members are pretty much jostling for status.

Hi Mav, Guys,

considering the specific dynamics, I believe one possibility here would have been to surface the malicious move by this person.

Because: this person had asked for your opinion prior to the group meeting to then expose it in public and mock you.

If you don't surface the move, the group could subconsciously understand the dynamics and may automatically side with him as the "higher power" person in the interaction:

Him: Hey guys, you won't believe what Mav told me yesterday! He thinks that ...

Part 1: Isolate the asshole

On the other hand, surfacing his (already somewhat obvious, but not totally obvious) move - at a cost for him - would have communicated you are ready to make him pay socially for his nasty moves (thus reducing the likelihood he pulls another one in the future), and at the same time could have brought the group to your side by surfacing his nastiness:

You: It's interesting you are now getting into this debate over my opinion. I remember when you asked me what I thought yesterday in private, you didn't seem so against my idea as you are now...

I would include the part where he "didn't seem so against the idea" - even if he was against it from the beginning: his move of bringing out your private discussion to mock you in public is too nasty.

Part 2: Keep rapport with the rest of the group

Then you could add the philosopher frame to keep rapport with the rest of the group:

You: And by the way guys, I see the merit in your opinion, I guess it's a matter of personal preference as with everything in life.

or something similar.

The most important thing in these situations is to not fall into the manipulative frame - that was set here by this guy - that you have to fight against the group as a whole.

In fact, you want to isolate the bastard and subcommunicate to the group that you are siding with all the rest.

OFF TOPIC

If I interpreted the dynamics correctly, I think this dynamic, which is already exposed in some of PU's lessons (I remember the video where the guy bought a "champagne diamond") may merit a name if not already present in the dictionary of power.

It is a form of ganging up, but a manipulative one: the ganging up is mostly due to the mark falling into the frame of "they are all against me" set by the manipulator.

It is a reaction of the group to the mark's behavior, not to the manipulator's behavior.

Lucio Buffalmano, John Freeman and 3 other users have reacted to this post.

#10 · April 12, 2023, 3:41 pm

Quote from John Freeman on April 12, 2023, 3:41 pm
Hello Maverick,

I see this situation like this: most of times these debates have no real importance. That is that they don't have real consequences. These are opinions shared on topics that are not life-changing (it's not about deciding climate policies or the national budget). They are more about ego battles. I agree to try to understand what the group means in the first place. And if despite them trying to explain I don't understand/don't agree I let it go: "Ok, it seems we have a different opinion on this, but it's not that important (rapport building)".

In this case, I think also about mindset. Personnally I would not care that much, when it happens it means I got too invested in the "who's right" dynamics. So now I'm doing my best to prevent getting sucked in these in the first place and/or entrenched in my position.

Also, there is one way to get out of it is to recognize that we all have different opinions (and it does not matter that much) and move on. For instance if you understand their POV and still don't agree:

You: Alright, I understand better thank you. (warm smile) Yeah sometimes we have different point of views on a topic, it happens (rapport building, normalizing, philosopher phrame).

And then say nothing or move on

If you could share the topic discussed, that would also help me to understand what's at stake.

So I think that having the general mindset that these conversations become ego battles among a peer group (battle for status) and are not that important help me not to take them so seriously. They make it so important, I would let them. Generally, I'm not interested in being right so much, I prefer to learn. These days I also realized that being more detached might be a sign of status: you have more important matters to think about/consider than this one. It's not about showing it, it's more about internalizing it. It's not easy and I fail sometimes of course.

I'm curious to know what you guys think on this approach: that is a mindset of not caring so much as a way to prevent these power moves.

Hello Maverick,

I see this situation like this: most of times these debates have no real importance. That is that they don't have real consequences. These are opinions shared on topics that are not life-changing (it's not about deciding climate policies or the national budget). They are more about ego battles. I agree to try to understand what the group means in the first place. And if despite them trying to explain I don't understand/don't agree I let it go: "Ok, it seems we have a different opinion on this, but it's not that important (rapport building)".

In this case, I think also about mindset. Personnally I would not care that much, when it happens it means I got too invested in the "who's right" dynamics. So now I'm doing my best to prevent getting sucked in these in the first place and/or entrenched in my position.

Also, there is one way to get out of it is to recognize that we all have different opinions (and it does not matter that much) and move on. For instance if you understand their POV and still don't agree:

You: Alright, I understand better thank you. (warm smile) Yeah sometimes we have different point of views on a topic, it happens (rapport building, normalizing, philosopher phrame).

And then say nothing or move on

If you could share the topic discussed, that would also help me to understand what's at stake.

So I think that having the general mindset that these conversations become ego battles among a peer group (battle for status) and are not that important help me not to take them so seriously. They make it so important, I would let them. Generally, I'm not interested in being right so much, I prefer to learn. These days I also realized that being more detached might be a sign of status: you have more important matters to think about/consider than this one. It's not about showing it, it's more about internalizing it. It's not easy and I fail sometimes of course.

I'm curious to know what you guys think on this approach: that is a mindset of not caring so much as a way to prevent these power moves.

Maxim Levinsky, Kavalier and Maverick have reacted to this post.