Flattery and playing for the crowd

Blarney? Cajolery?! Pulling a snow job???!
I do this all the time in a social sense, it's an easy little thing to implement I think. It comes most natural, sure. However this is coming from a fairly inhibited npd, kind of reserved but also the antithesis of that in certain situations. I befriend people who fall high on my utility scale- flattery, I suppose, or a little soft soap can grease the wheels, even if it doesn't appear 110% genuine is can offer charm and warmer relations with let's say, a boss when you are up for promotion- and combined with intelligence of course, not just blind firehose flattery, yes yes use tactic old boy!!
Interesting topic to be found on spd forum, I would think a schizoid wouldn't bother with such toadying.

A disinterest in or disinclination for utilising said tactic doesn't make it uninteresting for speculation, especially if this kind of tactic was attempted to be used to manipulate the schizoid.

That was insightful, thank you OneRinger.

If the main motivation is only honesty, pitting people against each others is not necessary,

If the main motivation is honesty and people take that for a reason to butt heads, they have an ego problem.

and detracts in fact from what could be achieved through better more direct means.

Which are?
If there are two people and one did good in your opinion and the other ###$ed up and you're telling them … what more direct way is there?

big Anatoly wrote:I would think a schizoid wouldn't bother with such toadying.

I think when you grew up in a toxic environment it's implausible to assume you're not implementing behavioral patterns witnessed up-close for the better part of at least 20 years. To surmount that you really have to be self-aware, for which you need other people.

slimsally wrote:Idk what the name for it is, but it's extremely common. It's probably used to make the "player" of the game more powerful.

lyratheowl wrote:It sounds like it could be someone asserting themselves as the authority on approval/disapproval (basically). So as to gain some kind of social power mostly likely. Not sure of if there is a specific word to describe to this kind of thing.

Philonoe wrote:And both are judgement.
So it's a way to put oneself in higher place (the judge is above)

I agree, it's fundamentally a political thing. Actually, the closest phrase I can think of for it (or a similar process) comes from Chinese political philosophy: Han Fei on using the "two handles." What we're talking about seems to me like a less official and lower-stakes version of that with social approval.

Dalloway wrote:So! The answer to that question if we filter schizoid damage, “Why does someone publicly admires one and disapproves another?” could also be:

OneRinger wrote:what would motivate such a behavior?

Honesty.

If I didn't misunderstand you, I think there may be some thing to this, but with a big disclaimer; it can be healthy or pathological. There can be the real thing where someone's praise and criticism reflects the real value of things (a quality of good leadership), or someone might just be faking (manipulation).

And maybe that's the reason the manipulation works. Most people don't look for the underlying value so they just take any praise or criticism as a signal of leadership.... yup, I'm a cynical person.

slimsally wrote:The best bet for healthy social relationships is to make everyone feel good and included, if possible.

I try to take a similar approach too like giving people chances to save face. It's hard sometimes though, especially if you're worn-out. And I think in more serious, high-stakes situations, you have to be upfront about things.

Thank you for responding to this post and good to read you.

muaddib wrote:If I didn't misunderstand you

How can this be misunderstood?

muaddib wrote:it can be healthy or pathological

Yes, like eating … or sport … or, well, everything.

muaddib wrote:where someone's praise and criticism reflects the real value of things

I don't think that's possible. I'm at odds with real and value. I like to make the distinction between truth (individual) and reality (universal). We can try to give our most unobstructed truths and the question is how much this resonates with the truth of someone else.
It's largely about cultural tendency. Many people in this forum respond towards a topic in a way dependent on how the topic makes them look; it's not a question of reality but truth, transfigured by emotion.
Value is always an opinion and the conviction of having a grasp on reality hubris.

Since OneRinger unsurprisingly didn't explain his “more direct way of communication” than telling someone directly, I'm giving this to you. C'mon metaphysic away.

I'm impressed you know about Han Fei. Did you read all of his work?

slimsally wrote:The best bet for healthy social relationships is to make everyone feel good and included, if possible.

muaddib wrote:I try to take a similar approach too

Why the f would you do that? If you shy away from every form of open* classification you're just making it easy for yourself, in the short run at that. It's not healthy, it's spineless; resulting in 19-year-olds convinced about their brain chemistry, calling OTHERS stupid – that's your result.

*And, let's please don't kid ourselves. You judge. I think some of you do so in a very backward, egotistical way, since it's seldom out in the open, which would be a necessity for development. Just because someone openly signs himself up to wrestle against social intrigue, doesn't mean he's not an opinionated, toxic chatterbox in the locker room.
I tell you, I've read some private messages from people in this forum, that, if you have any sense left, would make your stomach turn. I guess their parents can be proud of them.

Dalloway wrote:

muaddib wrote:If I didn't misunderstand you

How can this be misunderstood?

Haha, that was partly just sentence-fluff, but I wasn't clear on the reference to "schizoid damage." I've also been getting by on less sleep past couple weeks so I started wondering if I was missing something about the back-and-forth between you and OneRinger.

Dalloway wrote:

muaddib wrote:where someone's praise and criticism reflects the real value of things

I don't think that's possible. I'm at odds with real and value. I like to make the distinction between truth (individual) and reality (universal). We can try to give our most unobstructed truths and the question is how much this resonates with the truth of someone else.

Well, in retrospect, I probably could have used a better term than value, but I'm wondering if we have different situations in mind. I was picturing a situation where there's a relatively dependable notion of doing something right or wrong, like building an airplane. It's not enough for you to know how to build an airplane, but you have to support the people that know what they're doing and lay down some consequences for mistakes. If you don't, the whole enterprise will fall apart even if somehow the plane doesn't.

Dalloway wrote:Many people in this forum respond towards a topic in a way dependent on how the topic makes them look; it's not a question of reality but truth, transfigured by emotion.

Ah, if you had things like the forum in mind, I can understand where you're coming from.

Dalloway wrote:Since OneRinger unsurprisingly didn't explain his “more direct way of communication” than telling someone directly, I'm giving this to you. C'mon metaphysic away.

Now honestly, I definitely don't understand what your exact drift is here. In regards to what OneRinger was saying, I don't know what he had in mind, but perhaps he was getting at something like "admonish your friends in private, praise them in public"?

Dalloway wrote:I'm impressed you know about Han Fei. Did you read all of his work?

Oh, I've still only read excerpts like that one and the first part of the Hanfeizi. I actually found a copy of the Book of Lord Shang too so I thought I'd go through that first. I'd like to really buckle down on the original books (not just Legalist), but I have to finish all the other stuff going on in life to earn a little monk-cation.

I've been reading more when I can and trying to think about Chinese philosophy, and not just the Legalists. I've actually had a few epiphanies over the past few months that have led me back to the Confucians in several ways (one of which I plan to share here at some point). The Legalists are definitely interesting though, and from what I understand of Chinese history and all their ideas taken together, the actual philosophers probably don't deserve a lot of the bad rap they get.

Dalloway wrote:

slimsally wrote:The best bet for healthy social relationships is to make everyone feel good and included, if possible.

muaddib wrote:I try to take a similar approach too

Why the f would you do that? If you shy away from every form of open* classification you're just making it easy for yourself, in the short run at that....

This is another place where I think we just had different things in mind. I was picturing a situation where someone makes a faux-pas, like an awkward remark, but it's not from some persistent character flaw and nobody's genuinely hurt by it. If you hit people over the head with criticisms in situations like that, you'll push most into an oppositional stance (I think that's where a lot of the reaction against political correctness first came from, then it turned into something more toxic among some).

I figured that was what slimsally had in mind too since she mentioned healthy relationships (which I took as implying some level of regular interaction). I don't disagree with you necessarily though; I just think the level of consequences should be taken into account. If someone is acting in a way that you feel is pathological and a private reprimand doesn't get through to them, then you probably will need to do it in public, if only to keep them from inflicting themselves on everyone else.

muaddib wrote:

Philonoe wrote:And both are judgement.
So it's a way to put oneself in higher place (the judge is above)

I agree, it's fundamentally a political thing. Actually, the closest phrase I can think of for it (or a similar process) comes from Chinese political philosophy: Han Fei on using the "two handles." What we're talking about seems to me like a less official and lower-stakes version of that with social approval.

Thank you for the link. It sounds interesting.

I always felt uncomfortable with public gratifications. In my experience (or in my memory), it was always manipulative. I was quiet and quiet child. They used me as an example for scapegoat sibling sometimes. I hated that. Or they used my sibling as counterexample. That made me still more quiet. I feared them all and their drama.
I was in a school where they gave gratification to quiet children. I would have hided. I felt still more shy. Then i went to a school with no gratification and i felt better.

muaddib wrote:And maybe that's the reason the manipulation works. Most people don't look for the underlying value so they just take any praise or criticism as a signal of leadership.... yup, I'm a cynical person.

It's actually proven to be the case, especially the criticism part. It's part of the soft power in groups that have been studied.

-- Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:26 am --

muaddib wrote:

Dalloway wrote:Since OneRinger unsurprisingly didn't explain his “more direct way of communication” than telling someone directly, I'm giving this to you. C'mon metaphysic away.

Now honestly, I definitely don't understand what your exact drift is here. In regards to what OneRinger was saying, I don't know what he had in mind, but perhaps he was getting at something like "admonish your friends in private, praise them in public"?

More direct means not using manipulative techniques like praise and criticism to go around just exchanging information. If someone is doing it though, the actual reason behind cannot be addressed because it is hidden. Not that it matters, because it is usually stupid power games. I was just curious in the end why Dalloway was doing it, so I got my answer, and some other answers as well.