Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 27, 2023, 5:09 pm

Bad all over.

• "Can you provide me" tasks you = as if the ask wasn't already a task in itself, the "provide me" surface and thread expands that you should act on his task (for nothing)
• "For free" thread expands on the taker's frame = as if the ask in itself wasn't bad in itself, the "for free" surfaces and thread-expands on the fact that he's being a scrounger looking for a free ride
• "I can't afford it" doesn't add what he could afford = fair enough, but fails to provide a more relatable reason -a student, in a developing country, recently bankrupted... What?-, or say that he may be willing to offer at least something
• "I would greatly appreciate it" fails to add something more concrete, such as "sharing it with friends", "writing a good review", etc. Plus, it sounds judgey (ie.: "do it, and you will gain my appreciation. Don't do it, and you won't get it")

Quote from Ali Scarlett on February 28, 2023, 4:59 am

Yep, and some nitpicks:

• "Hey there": it would have taken little effort to find my name which makes this person come across like someone who "saw something cool and just wanted free stuff"
• "Power University": a value-neutral subject line, so better would've been something value-giving, such as "I love your work!" (if they followed my work and feel that way)

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on March 19, 2023, 9:51 am

Mind your reputation on reach-outs

Some of the issues with it:

1. Personal email, which decreases authority
2. Personal Twitter, which decreases authority
3. Zero followers, which decreases authority
4. Can't find a better contact than Twitter = little knowledge of the business

Plus:

• He says nothing about this "opportunity", so now I'm supposed to get in touch and chase him for a big question mark? Much better would have been to mention what it's about

Quote from John Freeman on March 19, 2023, 7:48 pm

Very vague indeed.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on March 28, 2023, 9:51 am

This one is a bit more challenging to spot.

If anyone wants to give it a go, feel free to guess.

What's the WIIFT failure here, or at least the missed opportunity to increase the odds of a reply (or even just to increase the odds of an exchange/better relationship)?

Hint:

As usual, put yourself in the receiver's shoes

Quote from B on March 28, 2023, 1:33 pm

I see:

• the spelling and the use of contracted unprofessional language
• he is a bit too tasking
• he's trying to slightly scalp on his giving ("hopefully they are of use to u")
• the compliment tweet is private and not public.

Quote from Mehdi ELK on March 28, 2023, 5:23 pm

Please add Why Are We Yelling by Buster Benson.

• Tasking, the "please" is only for decoration.

Btw here's his cog bias categories hopefully they are of use to u

• Framing you're going to accept his request. Yes, it's slightly power scalp.

My modification :

I absolutely love the site, especially your reviews on different books they are mind-expanding! I suggest an interesting book: Why are we Yelling by Buster Benson. It could be a great addition to the list. Buster Benson expands on great ideas regarding cognitive bias (Paste the link). Would love to know your take on it.

My logic for the request above:

• Giving value by suggesting an interesting book. Also the tweet should be public to give more attention to the tweet. (Value comes in many form and is relatif to the person you're addressing.)
• In exchange for your point of view on the book.

What do you think?

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on March 29, 2023, 8:18 am

Yep, all great points Bel and Mehdi.

What started it as a "no reply" for me was that it was private, and it's the general principle that's also in PU of "public praise, private feedback/criticism".

He's saying something good, but... Why the extra effort to make it private?

It's a lot more likely that I -or any business accounts- would reply to public praise because:

• Big WIIFM incentive: a reply publicly thread expands on a positive, and showcases to everyone that one more person thinks the reviews are great.
  The incentive to reply to a 1:1 instead is negative
• Reciprocation principle (social exchange): A public praise would make his "give" a LOT bigger, so it also obliges the receiver to give back

Instead, by making it private, it's as if he went the extra mile to make his give much smaller, which also makes his other mistakes -like his tasking- stand out even more.

Quote from secretkey on July 4, 2023, 8:56 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on November 19, 2020, 8:14 am

Both are much better approaches, addressing the main weakness of the original sentences:

• Bounce ideas off of you = you listen and give me feedback
• Bounce ideas with = we both (seek to) enrich each other

And

• Pick your brain = I pick, you get picked
• Pick each other's brain = we both learn from each other

Hi there Lucio, I am new to Power University and enjoying the great content so far.

"Looking forward to pick your brain and bombard you with questions"

Ups.

I mean...

"Looking forward to learn from each other and improve our lives beacause of it".

My contribution to the talk.

Here are phrases that convey a similar meaning to bounce ideas with/pick each other's brain:

- Engage in a thought exchange.

- Collaborate on brainstorming.

- Share and develop concepts.

- Engage in a creative dialogue.

- Foster a reciprocal idea generation.

- Engage in a mutual idea exploration.

- Engage in a knowledge-sharing conversation.

- Participate in a reciprocal idea bouncing.

- Unleash our minds.

- Spark a dynamic conversation.

- Engage in an idea exchange/trade.

- Spark a captivating conversation.

- Engage in an inspiring idea exchange.

I like to compare having a conversation/ bouncing ideas with ping-pong...

Both are:

A Dynamic Exchange: Both bouncing ideas and playing ping-pong involve a dynamic exchange of thoughts or actions. In ping-pong, players hit the ball back and forth across the table, while in bouncing ideas, individuals share and respond to each other's thoughts in a back-and-forth manner.

Reciprocity: Both activities rely on reciprocity and interaction. In ping-pong, players must respond to the opponent's shots with their own, while in bouncing ideas, individuals build upon and respond to each other's concepts, generating new ideas in the process. It is not just take, take, take. ("I want to pick your brain" type of thinking) But there is reciprocity.

Energy and Flow: Both bouncing ideas and playing ping-pong can create a sense of energy and flow. In ping-pong, the quick rallies and rapid movements generate excitement and focus. Similarly, when bouncing ideas, the back-and-forth exchange can generate a sense of momentum, enthusiasm, and engagement.

Skill Development: Both activities offer opportunities for skill development. In ping-pong, players refine their hand-eye coordination, timing, and strategy. Bouncing ideas also helps individuals develop their communication, critical thinking, and creativity skills as they navigate different perspectives and contribute to the conversation.

Collaboration: While bouncing ideas is often associated with collaboration and cooperation, ping-pong involves a competitive element. In ping-pong, players strive to outsmart and outplay their opponents. In the context of bouncing ideas, individuals work together to build upon each other's thoughts, encouraging a cooperative and supportive environment.

Thanks to everybody for being part of this awesome community.