I am not usually a first mover when it comes to things and Twitter was no exception. It took time till I warmed to the idea of Twitter, and I still needed someone else to sign me up before I started using my account and learning to appreciate Twitter’s potential. But that’s just the way I am… it’s my Twittertude and I’m cool with that.
There are different personalities on Twitter (Twittertudes), each having their advantages and disadvantages. What is important is that you understand who these personalities are, and how to engage them effectively, and even advantageously.
A funny thing I noticed about Twitter is that perhaps a third of the posted articles I see discuss how to use Twitter more effectively. In other words, people are spending a good portion of their time on Twitter learning how to get better at using Twitter. This quirky little fact is symptomatic of the reality that Twitter, as accompany and a social media tool, is still in its infancy. Given time, previously guarded trade secrets will become standard Twitter etiquette. Until then though, these “how to” articles collectively form a golden path through an otherwise confusing, and potentially dangerous tool for the uninitiated.
Most of the aforementioned articles deal with applications and Twitter habits. Like “This is a great tool for increasing your following” or “Ten things not to do when tweeting” etc.
These articles are often well written, interesting and practical. However, I have yet to see an article about the types of personalities you will encounter on Twitter, and how best to engage these Twittertudes as a means of augmenting your Twitter experience. I train people in something called Social Combat Theory, which uses martial arts to teach you how to fight for your goals, and I’ve noticed that the personalities on Twitter, due to the structure and communication limitations, are simplified and easy to understand derivatives of the people you might find yourself having to face in more personal settings like work or home.
The following is a brief description of the three most common Twittertudes along with their strengths and weaknesses. Understanding these Personalities will go a long way in helping you master your Twitter mojo when working toward your goal.
The OverTweeter:
We all know them. These over achieving, over tweeters love hearing themselves tweet, and they aren’t much interested in what others have to say. They tweet their agendas non-stop with the idea that quantity becomes quality if its “quantiful” enough. You might find yourself wondering who would be interested in such overzealous personalities. The answer: You would be surprised. For every would-be Sheppard there is a flock willing to listen. The size usually depends on the dynamism of the Sheppard but the flock will be there in some proportion or another.
The “leverageable” element of the OverTweeter is the fact that the only thing they love more than hearing their own tweets, is hearing the retweets of their followers. Yes they aren’t interested in what others have to say about other things, but they relish hearing what others have to say about their things, especially when it’s positive feedback. Knowing this, a savvy sheep could wind up steering the Sheppard, and by proxy the entire flock, with a well targeted retweet.
The Follower:
These people are the polar opposite of the OverTweeter. They don’t like to put themselves out there too much and are quite content using Twitter to follow others and glean information. These people are the Twitter sheep. Now if you are reading this and you fit this description, don’t feel offended…because as a sheep there isn’t much you can do about it anyway.
Just Kidding:)
The truth is Twitter was created because of, and specifically for you. When Evan Willams and Biz Stone thought of Twitter, it was you they had in mind. Well not you as an individual. Alone you are just a Twit, but together with the rest of your follower type, you form Twitter. As such, even the most powerful, 100,000 strong following- Twitlebrity, will feed you information personally that you would otherwise likely have to spend $500 on a 2-day seminar to find out. So enjoy the connectivity and take advantage of it.
The Social Tweeter:
These fine upstanding folk are the backbone of the Twitter experience, and although their goals for using Twitter are as diverse as they are themselves, they all use Twitter in the same fashion;
Socially first, agenda second.
Make no mistake of it. These people are, for the most part, using Twitter to get something out of it; Business, exposure, connections, knowhow, or any other of a number of possibilities for self actualization. But they understand that when you give, you receive, and even if they don’t receive directly for their beneficiaries, they are contributing to an altruistic culture which is forming the fabric of the still-in its-infancy Twitter society. Should it continue to be shaped in this fashion, Twitter will become a home and a haven for anyone with the drive and ambition to actualize his or her potential. What better cyber cause to contribute to?
For the Social Tweeter, the way to engage them is like any other friend, if not with even a tad bit more naivety. Ultra courtesy, mutual respect and appreciation is the name of the game. Have your Tweets occupy the range of neutral to super helpful and positive. Negativity will only hurt you and your goals in this population, even if correct or justified.
On Twitter, you can always Tweet your mind, but if you want to be effective, as in all areas of life, know which part of your mind you are Tweeting, and to whom. The wrong combination will stifle your growth but the right combinations will synchronize dream and reality in achieving goals in bite sized pieces of 140 characters a piece.
The Great, Renaissance, Jewish philosopher, Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato ‘ZTL, in his introduction to one of the first self help books ever written, Path of The Just,tells us that this world is a battle that rages against us on all sides, to the front and to the back, to the left and to the right, and at all times.
This is a very important statement and should not be passed off as some cute fortune cookie wisdom.
I have recently come across an article about Martial Arts and social conflict. As one could imagine I was quite interested in what the Martial Artist, interviewed in the article, had to say. I even admit, I was a little bit jealous that someone else was promoting my idea.
However, after reading the article I came to two conclusions.
People are still a long way from understanding the legitimate place that fighting plays is our daily lives.
It is petty and wrong to think that Social Combat Theory is my idea. It is a law of nature that I gave a catchy name to, and it’s time others spread the word as well.
The Martial Artist in question, fed the interviewer the same stereotype impression of Martial Arts that you hear all the time. That Martial Arts teaches one not to fight, and that the principles of Martial Arts, when applied to social settings, are best used to avoid confrontations, and that the one who walks away is the true winner etc.
Let’s get something clear: Martial Arts is about FIGHTING!
It might be hard to accept because we have been fed, for so long, that Hollywood notion of the ancient, educated, and worldly cultures, who have nurtured the Martial Arts, having evolved to a point where they are above fighting. Know that this notion is the fabrication of some writer/producer/director’s childish, black and white view of the world where pacifism is an ideal. Vegetables are pacifists in the food chain and even bugs eat them.
If you want to mean something in this world you have to act. I’m not saying one should, G-d forbid, use violence indiscriminately, or that violence is always the answer. A true Martial Artist knows when to use a soft technique and when to use a hard one. When to be overtly violent and when to be subtly subversive. It’s a matter of understanding conflict and fighting and what strategies work best for which kind of situations. What the Martial Artist is aware of though, is that, when he needs to achieve a goal that is being challenged by an external force, stylistic strategy aside, he must fight for that goal.
When the trained fighter walks away from a physical fight, it is because strategy calls for him to achieve his goals through a softer technique. When the trained fighter controls his temper in the workplace it is to apply a fitting strategy from a clear headed perspective. That clear perspective though, may actually come to the conclusion, based on years of fighting experience, that against this particular opponent, an aggressive approach is appropriate. Therefore when the trained fighter floors his opponent in the street, or puts a work colleague in his place with an aggressive tone, he is doing so from a cold calculating mindset and not a temper driven emotional one.
The key is to realize, as all time tested, ancient wisdom’s have realized, that reality is a battle. Ancient Judaism is aware of this, evolutionary theory is aware of this, and Martial Arts theory is aware of it. The beauty of this reality, is that it forces those with the will to act, to dig deep within themselves, and discover their true potential, to nurture it, and to ultimately grow beyond it.
For any true fighter to achieve greatness, they must be willing to to look at themselves critically and admit when they are wrong.
I was wrong about Pierre.
I thought that focusing on dreams would only weaken a person as they have to be firmly grounded in reality.
Subsequent to my previous post when I stated, based on interviews, that Pierre was focusing on his legacy and not on his opponent, I saw additional interviews where beating Penn was stated explicitly as a goal by the now undisputed champ.
So I still maintain one must be focused on the immediate task at hand but as it turns out…
dreams of greatness in addition to a practical perspective might not hurt ones goals that much.
In fact, it could be the very thing that separates the great from the legendary.
No wait… I would say rather that I am a fan of some of its fighters.
There are some fighters, representing the Martial Arts at its finest in MMA.
There are also some fighters who represent the revolutionary primordial ooze at its finest instead. But that’s good because it serves as a great measuring stick for the difference between the Martial Artist and the barroom brawler.
There are many characteristics, which can and should be used to measure the Martial Art spirit of an individual. I would like to speak of one in particular, that being the mentality one should have when going into a fight.
(For you Social Combat Artists out there, the fight need not only be physical as you well know. Facing any challenge would require the same list of needs a physical fight would.)
As a back drop for this pre-fight mental prep, I would like to use the upcoming fight between Penn and Pierre, widely considered two of the best pound for pound fighters in the world.
I am also going to do something, which most bloggers and columnists are way too scared to do. I am going to make a definitive prediction.
I believe that BJ Penn will win this fight hands down, and I base it upon the hearing of one particular thought as expressed by the fighters.
There has been a lot of hype leading up to this fight and I have had the opportunity to hear a lot of things being said by both fighters and their camps. One thing however, interested me more than anything else. During each fighter’s interview, they both touched upon their goals for this fight. I will some up both fighters’ goals as follows:
Pierre: Intends to be a legend.
Penn: Wants to beat Pierre.
These factors, in my mind, are really what it boils down to. A good fighter has to be practical. He must understand clearly the task at hand and accomplish it. BJ seems to have a clear grasp of what he wants and needs to do. He needs to beat Pierre… period.
Pierre wants to be a legend, and well, who doesn’t. But a true fighter is not wrapped up in the dreams of fame or glory when they go into a fight. A true fighter sees the hard cold facts and then pounds them till they yield to his will.
People don’t turn themselves into legends. That’s the fans job. The more grounded a person is, the more amazing his accomplishments will seem to those spectators who wont and don’t risk the simple hardships and reality of battle. A good fighter doesn’t see the glory but rather a straightforward task to be accomplished.
I think BJ has the right focus and Pierre has lost it.
As we all know, Israel is embroiled in a battle against a ruthless terrorist enemy. This is not the first time Israel has had to contend with a culture possessing absolutely zero regard for human life.
Their lessons were hard learned, but learned well. So much so, that Israel’s strategy and doctrine for urban warfare has been adopted by the US for their war in Iraq.
It should be noted that this urban warfare strategy was designed to achieve the pinpoint striking of terrorists, avoidance of civilians (even though sometimes the difference between terrorist and civilian is often dictated by the number of guns free to go around), and all this while attempting to minimize the risk to their own soldiers.
This strategy is to be distinguished from Israeli strategy’s biggest detractor, Europe, whose past urban warfare strategy clashes greatly with that of Israel’s, having a far greater emphasis on the local, civilian populations. You know… really trying to get to know the people on a more personal level by way of rape, pillage and murder.
And this brings us to a very pressing matter for Israel, and that is the need for Israel to engage the enemy on a second front.
“Are you nuts?” you ask.
Well please hear me out before attacking me with your disproportionate responses.
Israel, although being far superior, militarily speaking, to its hostile neighbors, and despite having had pulled off some miraculous military feats over its short modern history, has been losing a battle of public opinion, image and political standing, throughout the world since the early eighties. Whether mainstream Israel was initially unaware of this or recklessly chose to ignore it, is a moot point. In the early nineties, a small number of Israeli “elite” who saw themselves as the dinner party refuges of the world due to Israel’s stance toward its hostile neighbors, chose the land for piece approach to win the accolades of their high society role models. It is not difficult to see where that has gotten us, and this small contingent’s desperate calls for more of the same is finally falling on the mainstream publics terror frustrated, bitter at having been used and mislead, ears. The right wing’s strong standing in Israel’s polls for the upcoming Israeli elections are proof positive to this welcome about face of the Israeli street.
Israel has now begun to fight back in this media war with all the ingenuity that characterizes its military prowess. A newbie to the game to be sure, but they’re learning fast. With a new IDF YouTube channel uncovering the human rights crimes of Hamas, as they make their way through the civilian booby trapped neighborhoods of Gaza, and the control of media exposure for the deliriously nostalgic, sixties-antiestablishment, agenda driven, international press, is a very good start.
However, all of Israel’s media and public relations offensives have been directed against the Palestinians themselves. There is another enemy being ignored, the self-proclaimed moral barometer of the world, i.e., the Left.
The Left take many forms. Most notable is the international, mainstream media outlets like the BBC and CNN, but there are also many players in the academic and entertainment worlds (funny how academia and entertainment go so well together), as well as anyone looking to be apart of the trend driven, removed from reality, world of the intellectual elite (hence the name).
Here is a breakdown of a typical exchange on the battlefield of public opinion:
1)The Palestinians accuse Israel of human rights atrocities.2)Israel responds (often too tentatively but they are getting better) either that it is really the Palestinians’ fault, or that they will look into the matter.3)The Left jump into the fracas and support the Palestinians that Israel is guilty.4)Israel reiterates to the Left that it is the Palestinians fault.
What you have then is Israel vs. the Palestinians, the Palestinians vs. Israel, and the Left vs. Israel. Mud is flying at Israel from two directions, at the Palestinians from one, and the Left is getting off scot-free. The thing about mud is that it sticks. No matter what you’re wearing, if enough mud is thrown, you’re going to get dirty.
It doesn’t matter how many times Israel exposes the accusations against her to be viciously contrived, the damage builds over time. The fact that the Palestinians are accruing (much deserved) mud as well would be enough if it were not for the fact that an unscathed ally were sticking up for them. It is high time the Left pay the price for their addict like fixation with, and romanticizing of, the murderous, suicidal terrorist and his crusade against the western establishment.
In war, as in any contest, the best defense is a good offense. Should Israel manage to put the Left on the defensive. Should the agenda driven journalist operate with the fear of being labeled a fraud, and the academic of being accused of murderous collaboration, and the Hollywood/Rock star of being perpetuators of human injustice, then we may just be privy to seeing truth and civility and general good, begin to prevail in the battle for society’s soul.
When I hear of people like UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon, attacking Israel for using disproportionate force against their palestinian attackers, it really burns me up.
As a martial artist, I find it completely irresponsible of people, without any combat experience, judging what should be considered appropriate force or not.
There was an infamous incident in my community where a man walking home at night was attacked by three teenagers. He was thrown to the ground where the attackers proceeded to beat him where he lay. The victim happened to have a gun, which he wisely opted to use, and shot his attackers. The attackers did not die but were in serious condition and some are maimed to this day. The victim is in jail, and if I am not mistaken, serving out a four year sentence. The judge ruled that the victim used disproportionate force, more then what was necessary to defend himself.
Really?
And just what are your credentials to form such an opinion Mr. Law man?
As a martial artist I am aware that if those boys accidentally did something right, and stomped on the temple or neck, in the right way, they could have easily killed their victim.
Are we suggesting he play the odds that they would not hit him where and how it could be lethal. Well, to do that he would have to know how many stomps the three attackers were planning to execute before he could make a guestimate with his life.
Perhaps he should have asked them.
“Excuse me, I know your busy and all, but if you could stop stepping on my face for just one moment and tell me how many times you plan to stomp on my head, I’d really appreciate it. Just throw out a round number.”
How could this judge tell what kind of force a situation would require, when the closest they ever got to combat was probably watching the protagonist get slapped in the face by his would be girlfriend in some chick flick.
I believe, that just how you would need an expert witness to assess if a defendant was temporarily insane or suffering from some sort of medical condition, which would explain the defendant’s actions… You need an expert in combat to asses what kind of force a self-defense situation would call for, and if the defender was acting properly in their choice of action.
What the “disproportionate force” rhetoric is basically saying, is that if your attacker is incompetent, then you have to defend yourself incompetently as well or teach him how to attack better. Just so long that evil has a fair shot.
I wonder what our moral overlords at the UN would have said to the ever heroic and unforgettable response to bully’ism… “That’s not a knife…now that’s a knife!”
“Uh, excuse me, Mr. Crocodile. That knife is not regulation size. You’re gonna have to find something a little smaller if you want to save your little heroin over there.”
Enough with the artificial morality of equal force.
THIS ISN’T A SPORT HERE PEOPLE… IT’S LIFE AND DEATH!
In most cases I would say, you can’t judge a fight if your not a fighter.
However, in Israel’s current battle with the palestinians, even someone with a PhD in stupidity could see that Israel is more than justified in its response to the evil terror unleashed upon her.
Perhaps Secretary Moon is simply disappointed that many of the palestinian rockets just aren’t killing Jews.
Maybe if we all color coordinate and form a bull’s-eye in one of those fields where these rockets often, miraculously fall, he would feel we were giving the palestinians more of a fighting chance.
We could make a day out of it…bring some hot dogs…sing some peace songs.
The truth is, Israel has been using disproportionate force. If they really wanted to be proportionate they would have to fire indiscriminately at palestinian civilians instead of pinpointing combatants. Not only that, but Israel would have to keep this up for eight years with the palestinians holding back, to let Israel catch up.
If Israel is guilty of anything, it’s of being criminally negligent in the defense of its own citizens by waiting eight years to do something.
The next time the UN Secretary General opens his mouth to support murderers and condemn the innocent…
I’d like to see somebody Ban-Ki his moon with disproportionate force.
Fight, or not to fight? For me, this is the only real decision a fighter has to make.
Everything else is just details.
(Fun details maybe, like should I choke’em or pound’em… but details non the less.)
Any Trained fighter is prepared (or believes they are prepared) for the gambit of possible conflict scenarios:
If he attacks high, I’ll go low. He comes in hard, I sidestep and use his force against him. Open hand or weapon, all scenarios are thought of, drilled, refined, and re-drilled, by any and all serious martial artists.
The only outstanding question is…
Is this a fight I want in the first place?
The question of thresh hold, where a fighter decides that for one reason or another, a line was just crossed. Where I can clearly discern and say to myself “Something has fundamentally changed from just a second ago to this very moment and now I’m going to destroy my opponent.”
Recognizing this thresh hold. Knowing that now it is time to unleash that little killer in your head, and more importantly, choosing to do so…That is a fighters most important decision and he has to know how to make it.
Some quick points.
This is not exclusively a question for physical confrontations. Anyone who recognizes the interrelationship of all forms of conflict, be they physical, social or even emotional, is also cognoscente of the consequences of a fight.
In the street it’s your physical life on the line. In the office it might be your job and at home it can mean your relationship with your family.
I am not saying that fighting or conflict is inherently bad. When it is the appropriate solution, conflict can spur advancements in relationships faster, and on a far more signigicant level than anything done by way of the peaceful path.
However, it should go without saying that conflict is volatile, and potentially damaging even when appropriate, let alone when it is not.
Which brings us back to our initial question, if only a little bit more defined:
How does a fighter know when conflict is appropriate?
The answer depends on the interplay between the fighter’s status and the governing context within which the fighter, given his status, finds himself.
Huh?
Don’t worry. I’ll explain.
There are two basic states within which a fighter can exist, and they are mutually exclusive:
1)Attacker/Conqueror.
2)Protector/Defender.
Attacker/Conqueror.
When a fighter is in Attack mode his goals fall within the realm of conquering and accomplishing.He is looking to expand his sphere of influence in order to accomplish some form of task and/or achieve a given goal.
Put another way; the fighter, in this mode, is looking for a fight.
Bring it on!
That does not mean he is looking to brawl with anyone. Remember, we’re talking about a trained fighter here. He is looking to fight those fights which bring him closer to his goal.
Bring it on opportunity!
Fighters in this state are usually loners, not much to lose, much to gain.
A Soldier, Police officer, Salesmen, Purchasing agent, and Prosecuting attorney would be examples of a fighter who would often find themselves in the attack state.
Protector/Defender:
When a fighter is in protection mode, it is because a fight is forcing itself upon him. His goal is not to conquer but rather to survive and protect himself, and those entities he is responsible for. He wouldn’t give chase to a fleeing enemy for his victory is found in the preservation of his current state, not the expansion of it.
(Unless, with this particular enemy, the only way to be safe is to finish them off. Terrorists usually fall into this category.)
In other words, the fighter is looking to avoid a fight.
“No, I am not talking to you. Why do you ask?”
Fighters in this state often have what to lose.
Their goal being to preserve that which they are charged with protecting. This often results in them fighting only if other safer means of protection, like avoidance, are not an option.
Body guards, Parents, Customer support agents, Human resource people, would be examples of fighters found in the protector state.
Obviously a fighter’s state can and does change according to context.
Therefore a police officer will find himself a protector, if he is off duty watching his kids, and will have to bite his lip when observing a violent fight rather than jump into the fracas. His family comes first.
Similarly, a sales agent will switch into defense mode when dealing with a disgruntled client and have to play conciliator rather than reach into the phone, grab the customers neck, and explain how it’s because of the customer’s incompetence that the problem arose in the first place.
(That would be the coolest phone in the world, by the way.)
Same goes for the parent who finds himself being attacked without his family around, or the customer support agent getting the same telemarketing call for the n’th time in one week while he is trying to enjoy a quiet dinner after a long day at work.
If he’s a fighter, it’s gonna be…
BONZAI Telemarketer man!!!!!!!
So generally speaking, understanding the roles of Attacker v.s. Protector, will give a fighter the guidelines needed, to know when and why to fight.
Here’s my problem.
What happens when you factor in Honor?
Honour is an intangible, impossible to measure. This poses an interesting problem.
Generally speaking a fighter should be cold and calculating, fighting for clearly defined goals. Weighing pros and cons of whether or not to to fight is usually a straight forward affair.
But when you throw honor into the fray, such clear cut calculations are impossible to make.
Is there such a thing as fighting solely for honor, even when tangibles will be sacrificed?
To me, such situations are a fighter’s ultimate dilemma.
If one thing can be clear from what happened to President Bush during his surprise “goodbye” visit to Iraq, It’s that the clothing threat toward public speakers can no longer be brushed aside. Terrorism is a disease which has infected civilized society world wide, and has now spread to the fashion industry.
Gone are the days when security can simply pat someone down and see if his pockets are devoid of any weapons. The pocket IS the weapon. A trained clothing terrorist can easily use a pocket to cover his victim’s mouth, serving as a makeshift muzzle to muffle any cries for help. (lint balls can help amplify this effect.)
Upset about taking your shoes off at the airport. Well now your not gonna get em back. How do ya like dem apples.
If the above seems scary, that’s because it is.
But do not fret. The following are some tips any public speaker can use to increase their safety and foil even the most trendy of clothing terrorists.
Lets start with the basics.
Eye Contact:
This is no longer merely a matter of keeping your audience engaged. It is about engaging the audience. You need to know who is out there and where the next Prada missile may come from. Feel free to stare and intimidate your audience.It might not get you elected but hey, safety first.
Use The Podium:
The podium is a tool for any speaker, no matter their stature, to look dominant and imposing right?
Wrong. It’s a place to duck.
Let your ego take the shot for you. Frankly, a little blow to the ego of some of these politicians could be just the thing we’re looking for to stimulate clean politics.
Following the shield theme, be sure to hold any papers or index cards directly in front of your face. Even trigger happy shoe slingers are hesitant to fire if they can’t see their targets face. Not because their afraid of inaccurate aim but they want to see that “what the heck” look when they fire. (Sick people).
Hand Gestures:
If your using the teleprompter and you don’t have papers to guard you, be sure to use hand gestures.Subtlety is a thing of the past. Use the “Helicopter” method where you vigorously wave your hands in large concentric circles in front of your face. This might require some cardio training so make sure you hit the treadmill a good few weeks before an important speech. This factor might allow us to see more youngins making it to the fore in politics. (always look for the silver lining.)
Don’t be shy to brainstorm with security about extra precautions that may be taken.For example make it a requirement for all speech attendees to have to ware laced shoes, triple knotted, before being allowed in. This will buy security some time to spot a potential shoe slinger long before he has the chance to fire, and then take him out first with a loafer of their own.
This list is certainly not an all inclusive text book, but hopefully it will prepare our next generation of leaders for the dangers of the modern world. A world where great powers must be careful not to taint their humanitarian self images. Even if it means that a far weaker society with ungrateful sentiments, in spite of all efforts invested to free them of despotism and rebuild their country, are no longer afraid to dress to kill.
I have been hearing this phrase a lot lately: Dealing with difficult people.
I have seen it as the subject of workshops and the title of best sellers (doesn’t compare to Social Combat Theory the book, Wink,Wink, Hint Hint.)
The truth though, is that the notion of difficult people is really a myth.
I know what your thinking. Your thinking, “Myth…Really? Well clearly you haven’t met my co-worker Mr. Rude or Overbearing Boss-Man, and lets not forget Suffocatingly Large Ego guy.
True, I have not and I do believe with all my heart that these people are very difficult for you to deal with. (Time for the big But.)
BUT,
The thing is, if you want to be able to deal with such people you have to understand that these people are not by definition rude, overbearing, egotistical or whatever other type of quality you can’t stand. It is only relative to your personal disposition that they come off that way to you.
To put it another way, as far as these guys are concerned, you might come off to them as shy, timid or unsure of yourself.
“Wait just a minute” you say. “I am the normal one, they’re the extreme freaks.”
True, untrue… Who cares?
Lets talk tachles (or Turkey, as you gentiles like to say.)
Even if there were some great reference guide you can refer to where your personality is compared to that of your opponents and it clearly references them as being the difficult ones, you will be vindicated but not successful….(how great would that be though.)
You need to focus on accomplishing tasks and achieving, nay, even surpassing your goals. And yes, I am assuming your goals constitute more than just vindication.
Don’t waste your time frothing at the mouth and dreaming up ways of dispatching your “difficult” colleague. It just clouds your mind and keeps you further from success. Besides, frothing at the mouth is disgusting and you’ll only manage to make someone else’s difficult people list.
Instead you must try to understand your colleague. Not in a couples therapy way but rather as a hunter studies his prey. If you must work with this individual then that means you need them to accomplish your tasks and achieve your goals on one level or another. In Social Combat terms that means they are your opponent. Study your opponent. Understand their behaviors. Which approaches trigger what kinds of reactions etc. Then: formulate a strategy to elicit the desired reaction, implement it, evaluate your progress in real time, adjust as needed, and continue until you achieve.
How to evaluate opponents is a learned skill and is what social Combat Theory is all about. So read the book Social Combat Theory and always look to grow as a Social Combat Artist..
If, however, vindication is your ultimate goal, you can always start working on your CPNG: Comprehensive Personality Normalcy Guide. If anyone gives you grief about its legitimacy, just upload it to Wikipedia. That’le show those difficult people. The whole lot of’em!
I was recently doing some work for a given company who had asked me to handle one specific client. My contact in the company, we’ll call him Phil, was telling me about the need to do a lot of hand holding with the clients, and in general, with his clients that may very well be the case. However with regards to the client I was given to work with, who was not a typical client for this company, I believed that being somewhat indifferent and having the client chase me was actually a better method for retaining him. My impressions of this client were that he would interpret too much unsolicited attention as smothering. I explained as much to Phil who politely expressed his understanding with a “but still” and reiterated his suggestion. Grrr.
I stuck with my gut and indeed the client came back on his own in a ready and willing fashion without my having kept tabs on him.
Ah Hah. VINDICATION!
Phil was delighted and surprised to hear this and again suggested I stylize my approach with the client in a hand holding fashion. Ummm, excuse me, wasn’t I just proven right? But no. It did not matter that reality was supporting my claims. Phil was blinded by habit. I remained quiet when Phil was making his suggestions and we ended our talk cordially.
I have every intention of sticking with my hereto proven gut… and I have every intention of keeping it to myself.
To say I hate being micro managed may be putting it a little strongly. People should have degrees of dislike. For example if I were to say I hate peas and then I were to say I hate murderous, lying terrorists, it would be placing my dislike for peas slightly out of perspective.
(Why must we eat those things when we’re five anyway. Was this a way for our parents to live out a warped projected revenge on their own parents by inflicting peas on us as they were similarly afflicted when they were five? And are we doomed to do the same to our children? If so this viscous cycle must be stopped! But I digress…)
A minor annoyance here or there can be tolerated if one is still left to make their own decisions. What benefit could there be to arguing my case. At best I feel vindication at being proven right (Unlikely though given most people have no problem ignoring the obvious to protect their habitual thoughts and tendencies). More likely I get on bad terms with Phil… and I like Phil. Whats not to love about Phil?
