Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Way too judgmental & aggressive to be a friend: case study
I've been watching this podcast to learn more from Charisma on Command as a business.
The overall vibe is this:
- Black sweater is way too nice guy (they even discuss about his lackluster dating, Charlie tries to analyze why, but nobody says the most obvious thing: too nice, too low power)
- Charlie is a bit too nice / nervous /defensive
- Beige polo is overly dominant / disempowering and should be checked more assertively
The whole interview is full of opportunities to deep dive into different aspects of social and power dynamics.
But when I reached this one I thought "OK, time to go for it":
Charlie: 40-50% of my net worth in cash
Over-aggressive: (looks down to display disapproval) ahhh come on... Why
Charlie: (mimics a happy dance and sings it, a not-so-good move in my opinion) I'm keeping it down and ready to go
Over-aggressive: (doesn't like being shown wrong with the reference of the stock market trending lower as an opportunity, and starts speaking louder to match Charlie's tone and re-assert the frame Charlie was being stupid) OH MY GOD...
Too nice: (to Charlie) you're lucky now (lends credibility to Charlie, now it's 2 VS 1)
Over-aggressive: (stays equally loud but gets even nastier to "win" the confrontation) (...) you lost a TON of money, how long have you even been in cash for
Charlie: (gives an accurate reply that gives further flank for attacks and being framed as financially dumb) (...) couple of years
Over-aggressive: (...) oh come on, WHY
Over-aggressive is right in terms of "general good investment practices"?
But who cares about that, if you're with friends?
And anyway, he's very wrong in terms of "generall good friendship practices", so...
He's taking it all too seriously, and he's overly focused on winning, no matter how disempowered the others may be.
Nobody came out of it well.
The beige polo acted overly aggressive -a dick- to a supposed friend, and even to a close friend and business partner.
And the other two let him run slipshod.
Charlie smoothens it over by moving on quickly, but from "nasty" it just turns into "grilling" -and equally disempowering-.
Beige polo asks super direct questions about how much he's got, and Charlie lays out plain numbers of his whole financial situation -how much cash he's holding, the mortgage to his parents, and Ben has to step in from the outside to remind him to shut up on the details-.
Charlie walked away that he left all his personal financial information on that table.
The thing is...
Even if he was planning to share full numbers and cool with, the way he shared and the person he shared it to... It was still a lose-win and the dynamic was still him submitting to an asshole.
Feel free to share how you'd have handled it if you wanna give it a try.
Hello Lucio,
yeah I agree his vibe and early reaction to Charlie’s statement was a tell.
I think the mistake Charlie did was way before this interview not to recognize this guy as a frenemy. When then guy said “you tell me to outsource this and that..” it showed that he had resentment/was holding a grudge about the advice he has been given. So this guy is definitely comparing himself to Charlie which leads to an up/down relationship (someone is better than the other in some respect, here: money). So he thought he was having a honest conversation with a friend whereas he was having a pissing context with a frenemy.
IF and I say IF I would have been aware he was a frenemy I would have been more perceptive to his tone being negative and actually probably an attack I would have used the old :
Over-aggressive: (looks down to display disapproval) ahhh come on... Why
Me: … what do you mean?
Him: well, you told me….
Me: I see what you mean. Yeah I probably could have done it differently. How much cash do you have?
I would have turned it back on him to justify himself and then turn back the focus on him and let him speak.
It’s not the best solution as Charlie was the one answering questions but it’s a way out of the interrogation.
Quote from John Freeman on March 21, 2023, 6:17 pmI think the mistake Charlie did was way before this interview not to recognize this guy as a frenemy. When then guy said “you tell me to outsource this and that..” it showed that he had resentment/was holding a grudge about the advice he has been given. So this guy is definitely comparing himself to Charlie which leads to an up/down relationship (someone is better than the other in some respect, here: money). So he thought he was having a honest conversation with a friend whereas he was having a pissing context with a frenemy.
Nice one, John!
It's a great approach that addresses the root cause.
Recognize who you're dealing with first, and if they're not friends with you, then don't be friends with them, but be prepared to be more strategic/defensive/assertive/strategically aggressive.
And don't share everything...
Thanks!
If this was a board game: the moment Charlie said the percentage I would guess that a light bulb lit up in this guy’s mind: “I can know how much cash he has (and compare myself to him)”
That was the first blow: get him to talk more about his investments. Then when he opened up he delivers the second blow: “how much cash do you have?” (In absolute number: so I can deduce your net worth with the percentage and compare myself to you).
In board games we always try to get the other to talk about how much money he has or what is his strategy. It’s a common joke as everyone knows what’s up and then we laugh, basic example:
him: what are your going to do?
me: it depends: are you going to attack me?
him: I’m not telling you!
everyone laughs
Sometimes you succeed (if with beginners or if done well/at the right moment) and this is how you do it: you get him to lower his defense and you ask the question in a different way.
You can also see the confrontational and demeaning approach in the tonality and nonverbal details.
Notice the tonality of "two years"?
As if to sub-communicate "are you fucking stupid"?
And the dismissive hand gesture that goes with "no, I think that if he's waited FIVE years"
As if to say: "if this dumbass sat on cash for that long there's no way he can move faster than a snail".
At the foundational levels, Charlie is staying in a hapless learner frame and conceding a (disrespectful) guru frame to him.
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on March 21, 2023, 7:27 pmAt the foundational levels, Charlie is staying in a hapless learner frame and conceding a (disrespectful) guru frame to him.
He is. This guy is very demeaning. Charlie should have felt it at some point.
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on March 21, 2023, 4:31 pmI've been watching this podcast to learn more from Charisma on Command as a business.
The overall vibe is this:
- Black sweater is way too nice guy (they even discuss about his lackluster dating, Charlie tries to analyze why, but nobody says the most obvious thing: too nice, too low power)
- Charlie is a bit too nice / nervous /defensive
- Beige polo is overly dominant / disempowering and should be checked more assertively
The whole interview is full of opportunities to deep dive into different aspects of social and power dynamics.
But when I reached this one I thought "OK, time to go for it":
Charlie: 40-50% of my net worth in cash
Over-aggressive: (looks down to display disapproval) ahhh come on... Why
Charlie: (mimics a happy dance and sings it, a not-so-good move in my opinion) I'm keeping it down and ready to go
Over-aggressive: (doesn't like being shown wrong with the reference of the stock market trending lower as an opportunity, and starts speaking louder to match Charlie's tone and re-assert the frame Charlie was being stupid) OH MY GOD...
Too nice: (to Charlie) you're lucky now (lends credibility to Charlie, now it's 2 VS 1)
Over-aggressive: (stays equally loud but gets even nastier to "win" the confrontation) (...) you lost a TON of money, how long have you even been in cash for
Charlie: (gives an accurate reply that gives further flank for attacks and being framed as financially dumb) (...) couple of years
Over-aggressive: (...) oh come on, WHYOver-aggressive is right in terms of "general good investment practices"?
But who cares about that, if you're with friends?
And anyway, he's very wrong in terms of "generall good friendship practices", so...
He's taking it all too seriously, and he's overly focused on winning, no matter how disempowered the others may be.
Nobody came out of it well.
The beige polo acted overly aggressive -a dick- to a supposed friend, and even to a close friend and business partner.
And the other two let him run slipshod.
Charlie smoothens it over by moving on quickly, but from "nasty" it just turns into "grilling" -and equally disempowering-.
Beige polo asks super direct questions about how much he's got, and Charlie lays out plain numbers of his whole financial situation -how much cash he's holding, the mortgage to his parents, and Ben has to step in from the outside to remind him to shut up on the details-.
Charlie walked away that he left all his personal financial information on that table.
The thing is...
Even if he was planning to share full numbers and cool with, the way he shared and the person he shared it to... It was still a lose-win and the dynamic was still him submitting to an asshole.
Feel free to share how you'd have handled it if you wanna give it a try.
Hi Lucio,I agree with you
The beige shirt dude, was direct, judgemental, whereas Charlie was trying to preserve Rapport, Charlie was the guest and Beige dude was the host, it's harder for Charlie to not disclose information since he is the sole reason this episode exists,Charlie could have made it harder for beige dude to probe and be judgemental.
I would have replied something along these lines
Me: 40-50% of my net worth in cash
Over-aggressive: (looks down to display disapproval) ahhh come on... Why
Me: Why Not? How much Cash do you have?
Over-aggressive: (doesn't like being shown wrong with the reference of the stock market trending lower as an opportunity, and starts speaking louder to match Charlie's tone and re-assert the frame Charlie was being stupid) OH MY GOD...
Too nice: (to Charlie) you're lucky now (lends credibility to Charlie, now it's 2 VS 1)
Over-aggressive: (stays equally loud but gets even nastier to "win" the confrontation) (...) you lost a TON of money, how long have you even been in cash for
Me: Nah Man, I haven't lost money, I have had cash for a while now, What about you? have you lost money on any Bad investments?
Over-aggressive: (...) oh come on, WHY
At least Charlie should have been asking the same questions he was asked back to the host, he is under no obligation to answer, but I think he felt that pressure maybe because he was the guest on the beige shirts podcast.
Mav
Hey Mav,
That's a lot better not answer, but I personally wouldn't ask questions back if you're in no position of doing so, and you know they're going to be ignored.
The reason being questions and getting ignored is quite disempowering -read your own dialogue looking for those dynamics, and chances are you'll see it now-.
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on March 21, 2023, 4:31 pmFeel free to share how you'd have handled it if you wanna give it a try.
Thank you for sharing this case study, Lucio!
I probably would've reframed that "more money isn't necessarily my goal, I care more about living the life I want (and I have more than enough money outside of cash to do that)".
This way, I can leverage three of the main pros to this approach:
- More room to re-empower myself (by diverting away from his authority): one doesn't need to be a financial guru/expert to talk about a great lifestyle.
- Defending my financial position: if my goal is to live a great lifestyle and I have enough money outside of cash to do that, then I'm still being "financially responsible" (this way, it's more of an agree and redirect).
- Going on the offensive if need be: by framing them as caring too much about money (and maybe being too uptight) and not using their money to experience life at its fullest.
Great one, Ali!
Preserves rapport, effectively self-defends, prevents any further attack, and provides an easy and effective line of defense ("yeah but WHY, you can make even more", "yeah but I'm good with what I've got").
I'd have probably done the same.
P.S.:
To confirm that people will sometimes treat you how you let them treat you, see how differently he behaves with a higher power man:
Exact same situation.
You can see a hint of judgmental attitude, but it's a LOT more respectful (and you can even spot submissiveness in his voice and demenaour).
Funny enough, Alex even gives the same answer Charlie gave singing and joking: to be ready for better deal.
But now it's suddenly taken just a bit more seriously (no wonder).
