December 8, 2009

The Cognitive Kill Switch

prejean.JPG
this interview is about me, but it's for you


Convoluted story not worth exploring, Carrie Prejean, Miss USA contestant, was involved in some kind of litigation with the Miss USA pageant in which a masturbation tape she made years ago/yesterday figures prominently/not at all, resulting in some kind of settlement, and culminating with an appearance on Larry King to promote a book.

King asked about the terms of the settlement; she said he was "being inappropriate."  He asked if she could say why she settled, and she said "Larry, you're being inappropriate again."  She said "inappropriate" four or five times more before she pulled off her mic and left.

A "nobody" shut down pro-interviewer Larry King.  When a woman uses that word on a man, the conversation is over, whether he is right or wrong.  The man is on the defensive, the whole conversation changes, it's no longer about the thing that was inappropriate, it becomes about the character of the kind of man who would be inappropriate.  He spends the rest of the time trying to defend himself, and, of course, she never has to answer the question.

Cognitive kill switches change the focus from content to identity.  Popularly,  this mechanism is referred to as "short circuiting", but "kill switch" is better because it implies it's deliberate.

II.


One thought is that this works because of a power imbalance.  If she was in a bar, where the power is mostly equal, she wouldn't say "inappropriate," she'd say, "die."  But with Larry King, or in an situation that does not have an escape (e.g. work, an airplane-- a place where some relation must be maintained) she could reverse the power imbalance by calling him "inappropriate."  The only thing he can do is back off, which of course was the point.

But there are too many exceptions for it to be just about power.  It wouldn't work on a  psychoanalyst in therapy; he'd simply reply, "tell me more about that."  It wouldn't work on a  rock star.  Larry King caved, but I can't imagine Howard Stern caving.   

What those men on their side is an established reputation, identity: "you think that was inappropriate?  Do you have any idea how inappropriate I can get?"  Which translates as a willingness to confront the person about their use of manipulation.   It's a kill switch, too: she changes the focus from the content to his character, but then he changes the focus from his character to hers.  He wins because his identity is already established.

So "inappropriate" fails because the guy is known, and what was "inappropriate" actually wasn't inappropriate coming from him.  And, in the reverse: kill switches works when they are  at least partially right.

Prejean is correct: King was being inappropriate.  He may have said "settlement" but Prejean understood he meant "sex tape."

She realized that King didn't care about her, only about the sex tape.  The only reason he asked that question is to get to the sex tape.  She's not a full person to him, she's a news story.  Now, you can say she's an idiot for thinking there is any other reason to interview her, but regardless she thinks she's much more interesting than just that.  From her perspective, he is a man who only cares about her because she is currently hot and previously naked.

When King asks about the settlement, it's the most provocative question he, given his limited ability as provocateur, can ask.  But if Howard Stern asks about the settlement, he's actually  asking about the settlement.  When he wants to get inappropriate, we'll know.

III.

Focusing on the specific case of a man saying something "inappropriate" about the woman he's talking to (as opposed to a general comment, e.g. "I like hookers with a little mileage on 'em"):

If you accept that the kill switch changes the focus from content to character, then what she's doing isn't judging the words, she's judging you.   Some men don't understand this mechanism, and it is both the cause of the conflict and the explanation for why the kill switch succeeds: the woman has a brain and a life experience, and she has you figured out.  She knows you, probably better in this single respect (sex) than you know yourself.

You don't really get that she has this ability-- any abilities; you assume she knows nothing about you other than what you tell her, you assume she is less intuitive than you, whether it be because you are older or perhaps "smarter."  The exact opposite is true.  Because you don't appreciate this, you think you are fooling her by masking your real interets with neutral phrasing.  ("Oh, what kind of a bathing suit was it?")

The sum total problem you are having is this: you don't see her as a person, you see her as... 

You think you are seeing her as a single, complete individual, but you are mistaking your undivided attention to her as perception of her. 

Consider the extremely awesome scenario in which your female coworker gets breast implants.  What is a not-inappropriate way to comment on it?  Answer: there isn't any. You either can comment on it, or you can't.  And you know who you are.  And she does, too.


IV.

So what can you do if you're at the wrong end of an "inappropriate?"

(Part 2 soon)







Comments

This entire scenario is abs... (Below threshold)

December 8, 2009 6:11 AM | Posted by Xianhang Zhang: | Reply

This entire scenario is absolutely bizarre to me. I read your piece before I watched the video and I didn't see much that connected the two.

Neither of the two actors seemed to be in control of their own bodies, Carrie looked like she was getting directions from off camera & Larry seemed perversely inept in his interviewing skills.

Carrie didn't take off her mic at Larry's question, she took it off when a called ranted about gay marriage yet her offense was completely unrelated to her actions.

In short, both of them were acting like they were thinking "oh man, this is going to look so cool when I watch myself on TV later tonight" and not realizing that they weren't nearly skilled enough to pull it off.

This wasn't some masterful bit of semantic gameplaying, it was a pair of children making mud pies and pretending they were adults.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
So what can you do if yo... (Below threshold)

December 8, 2009 8:34 AM | Posted by fraise: | Reply

So what can you do if you're at the wrong end of an "inappropriate?"

Apologize?

You don't really get that she has this ability-- any abilities; you assume she knows nothing about you other than what you tell her, you assume she is less intuitive than you, whether it be because you are older or perhaps "smarter." The exact opposite is true.

Tell me about it. I could fill a novel-sized notebook with the number of times adult men (ages 20 to 70) have told me, "ever try riding your bike without a saddle, miss?" and they get offended when I tell them to grow up.

Experience has taught me that there will be people who don't get the inappropriateness, or pretend not to get it, and think (or pretend) it could be an innocent question. So: I have a cousin - male - who's been a cyclist ever since he was a kid (like me), and has participated in racing teams off and on over the years. My brother also rides, though less regularly. No one has ever asked them whether they ride without a saddle. On the other hand, being men around other male cyclists, they know precisely what that question means, and they know that the other guys know what it means.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 9 (15 votes cast)
It is a different kill swit... (Below threshold)

December 8, 2009 9:40 AM | Posted by jessa: | Reply

It is a different kill switch, but one that seems just as effective: whenever I use the word "paternalistic" to describe mental health care when talking to a professional, it kills the conversation. It would be a good tactic to know if I actually wanted to kill conversations, but I don't. I really do think mental health care is paternalistic but I also want to engage professionals in discussing that. They get defensive and write me off because they think I am writing them off. This isn't my goal.

So if you have a kill switch, but you don't actually want it to kill, you actually want to discuss it, how do you do that? How do you keep it alive?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
i like the kill switch. </p... (Below threshold)

December 8, 2009 4:13 PM | Posted by the0ther: | Reply

i like the kill switch.

talk is cheap. kissing is far more fun.

tell me more about how to activate this "kill switch" please.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -11 (13 votes cast)
The interviewer should have... (Below threshold)

December 8, 2009 5:47 PM | Posted by desik: | Reply

The interviewer should have just smiled , called his accuser a cunt and said ' Now I am being somewhat inappropriate.' Erving Goffman had this figured , it's all about saving face.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -4 (10 votes cast)
> So what can you do if you... (Below threshold)

December 8, 2009 6:46 PM | Posted, in reply to fraise's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

> So what can you do if you're at the wrong end of an "inappropriate?"

> Apologize?

Are we reading the same blog? Apologizing makes it about your character, like TLP said, and presumably the goal here is to keep it about the topic at hand instead.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
I think this "inappropriate... (Below threshold)

December 8, 2009 7:03 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I think this "inappropriate" business is an outgrowth of the rights movement. It's the equivelent of "racist" in black/white relations, the idea is that if you've offended a member of an oppressed group, the issue is your bigotry, not whatever the conversation is actually about. I think it's a bad thing for a free society to have certain ideas that can't be explored because some protected group *might* be offended. Which is just as insulting as anything you could actually say, because it means that they're so weak as to be offended by mere *words*.

I think even TLP fell into the trap a bit by pretending he can read King's mind. We *don't know* what the next question would have been, because he never actually got there. That's part of the point, she made everyone think King was going for the sex-tape angle, but he never really went there. It could have been that he was actually asking about the settlement.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (17 votes cast)
try the same word in a diff... (Below threshold)

December 8, 2009 10:05 PM | Posted, in reply to jessa's comment, by andy: | Reply

try the same word in a different context, that will keep the conversation about the idea, the concept of paternalism, without making it about the individual you are talking to.

if you say "you are being paternalistic" it makes it about that person. maybe if you said "mental health care can be paternalistic and i dont like that" it makes it about the system generally, paternalism as an idea rather than a comment on them, and the individual will be able to continue the conversation without taking it personally.

it might also force the therapist to actually think about the conversation rather than work on autopilot, and you will probably get more out of it then.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Thanks, andy, I'll have to ... (Below threshold)

December 8, 2009 11:24 PM | Posted, in reply to andy's comment, by jessa: | Reply

Thanks, andy, I'll have to try to keep that in mind in the future. While I do think, so far as I can remember, that I say things more along the lines of, "doing x, y, and z is rather paternalistic," than, "you are being paternalistic," I'll have to pay more attention in the future.

That just provoked in my mind the idea of framing it in the way professionals tried to get me to frame things as a patient; something like, "I feel X when you Y because Z. Can you A?" (fill in the blanks, obviously) Perhaps, "I feel you are being paternalistic when you insist that I do family therapy despite my objections because it indicates that you might think that you know more about me, my family, how my family will react to family therapy, and the costs/benefits of family therapy to me than I do. Please heed what I say about this and at least talk to me about it rather than forcing me into family therapy over my objections." The problem with that is that it falls short of calling a spade a spade; it sees a spade and says, "I think that is a spade," which leaves room for others to say it is not a spade. Even if I call the spade a spade, it seems many professionals will tell me that it isn't anyway, but calling it maybe-a-spade is just asking for it. On one hand, if I am using precisely what they have taught me down to the template for a complaint, they have to listen to me or make their hypocrisy painfully obvious (again, not that that doesn't happen on a regular basis); but on the other hand, wouldn't it be more assertive to call the spade a spade rather than pussyfoot around it? For people so fond of teaching communication skills, they sure make communicating with them difficult.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I honestly never realized s... (Below threshold)

December 8, 2009 11:29 PM | Posted by Lucas: | Reply

I honestly never realized she was trying to make it seem like Larry was asking about the sex tape. As far as I know she claims the lawsuits revolve around other issues entirely (her stance on abortion, etc.). I just thought she was too dumb to evade a damn question and didn't really know what the word meant.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
> That's part of the point,... (Below threshold)

December 9, 2009 12:36 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Pablo : | Reply

> That's part of the point, she made everyone think King was going for the sex-tape angle, but he never really went there.

I do not know if he had the intention or did not to do so, but I think that he made looks like she made everyone think that King was going for this particular angle, so he could do the "I was just asking about the settlement" face, like he did. :P

But IMO the post was not about this interview, it was about how who you are determinate what is inappropriate and what is not. In this case, "he was just asking about the settlement".

cheers!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
A "cognitive kill switch"? ... (Below threshold)

December 9, 2009 12:40 AM | Posted by Z. Constantine: | Reply

A "cognitive kill switch"? Sounds like some kind of "conspiracy theory"...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -6 (6 votes cast)
Give me a break. Did we ju... (Below threshold)

December 9, 2009 7:56 AM | Posted, in reply to Pablo 's comment, by CC: | Reply

Give me a break. Did we just jump out of buildings and have our brains splatter on the sidewalk?! Everyone _EVERYONE_ knows that the only reason she was on the show is because the story broke about her 'sex' tapes. This post is right on the money; this was an awesome post. And yes, Stern would have cut right to the chase.

The only useful response to this post is to try to guess at the answer to closing question. Possibilities: 1. Shut up; 2. 1+ go away; 3. 2+go do something righteous and useful like diving on a grenade, running into a burning building to save kids, curing cancer, or something.

I don't think apologies work because there's no answer and the apology itself would probably just make things worse and be awkward. Short of castrating yourself and presenting your testicles to her she's never going to have the assurance that you don't still have that feeling for her. She's offended by the feeling; it's gross; you're a loser, a creepy old man, get away. But should you apologize for the feeling? You can't. It's you. Not so much the gross-loser-creepy-old-man part --well, actually, that part exactly. But what's gross? Not that you have the feeling, but that you let it go; that you lost control of it. The answer is no, you can still be human, but you just have to shut the F up about it towards her and all these other girls way outside of your league, and if you're unhappy with playing division III, then get out there and compete and make it into the premier league. BTW, castrating yourself and presenting your testicles would probably be rather gross also.

So, basically, when they tell you to go to hell, they mean it. Go to hell, go to Afghanistan or some mine-shaft or laboratory or library or something somewhere, and bring me back something I can use.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
I think the word "inappropr... (Below threshold)

December 9, 2009 3:01 PM | Posted by Basil Valentine: | Reply

I think the word "inappropriate" is kind of interesting here. Essentially, she's declaring the interaction inappropriate with some salacious connotations, casting Larry as a dirty old man. Maybe in real life, he is or is not, but the character Larry King is certainly prying in an inappropriate way into the life of the character Carrie Prejean. It ruins the drama. Howard Stern, on the other hand, can say whatever he wants because his persona is a) gross and b) doesn't care if you know it.

Can you imagine if Claudius and Hamlet had had an honest conversation regarding the former's succession and associated marriage?

We have a wonderful capacity for mapping out these character relationships, to such an extent that it becomes unconscious and almost part of you, kinda. The other guy who commented above immediately applied it to being shot down by women "out of your league" because without money, power, heroism or genius, it seems like that conversation is not a valid interaction. It's tacitly assumed that the characters "Hot Girl" and "Average Guy" can't be on the same level absent the "Average Guy" somehow becoming an above-average guy.

How do you get out from being on the wrong side of an "inappropriate"? Well, assuming that you've thought about it, and upon reflection, you're convinced that you're not actually being inappropriate, then you've just got to go with your convictions. You can either decide on what your persona is going to be, or have it decided by other people for you.

The difference between Larry and Howard isn't that one's gross and the other one isn't (because everyone's gross), it's just that Howard Stern is willing to be seen as disgusting. Larry can get away with being gross if he does it indirectly, but once the appropriateness 'killswitch' is brought up, a sort of meta-question is asked of his persona: "are you a creepy old man?"

Larry couldn't continue, because he's pretty invested in that character; you won't comment on your co-worker's implants because it threatens to change the dynamic between the images you've created for each other. Bob Saget demolished his image as a stereotypical "nice guy" to great effect and applause-- but still, I'll never watch a Full House rerun the same way again.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
i'm curious now; what does ... (Below threshold)

December 9, 2009 11:42 PM | Posted by sam spade: | Reply

i'm curious now; what does it mean to ask if you've ever tried riding your bike without a saddle?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
my point is that we can't p... (Below threshold)

December 10, 2009 8:36 AM | Posted, in reply to Pablo 's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

my point is that we can't possibly know what he was "going for". After the fact, yeah he looked like he was just going for the sex-tape angle, but honestly it could have been anything. THAT'S THE POINT. That's the power of our "kill-switch words" -- After the charge of sexism/racism/socialism is made, that's what you are, unless you can prove otherwise. After the sex charge is made, King is guilty until he can prove he's innocent, but since the actual sexism never actually left his mouth, he can't prove that he wasn't going there.

I son't know what King was building to, nor do you, and to be honest no one did. It was an after the fact assumption that's now taken as factual.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Oh sure, we can be charitab... (Below threshold)

December 10, 2009 1:56 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by CC: | Reply

Oh sure, we can be charitable. There were loads of innocent lines of inquiry. Maybe he was curious about the procedures for filing a stipulation of in the particular jurisdiction where the suits originated? Maybe he was wondering what font they typed it up in --oh, I'm sorry, that wouldn't be a 'term.' Umm, let me think. Oh, yeah, maybe he was curious about ... What?! What else could he be going for?!

Are you really insane? She's on the show because she's hot, was involved in a gay controversy, sued, and then got submarined in litigation by some salicious tapes. There's no material term of the settlement that, at least in the public eye, could possibly be unrelated to the alleged sex tapes. To ask about the terms is to ask about the tapes. How much did you settle for? Oh, nothing? Really, you dropped the whole suit for no money --was that because they had a sex tape of you? When did you settle --was that just after they showed you the tape? Why did you settle -tape? Where did you settle --at the office just after they showed me the tape. Tell me about the settlement --well, they had a tape....

It's all the tape. The tape, allegedly, is of her .... All inquiry -except maybe a priest-penitent or attorney-client inquiry, is necessarily salacious.

"We can't know" is bullshit. We can know. We can infer from context and . I figure stuff out all the time. So do you. such pansy.

What's beautiful is even though she shut it down, it was still an interview worth doing from the seeker's point of view: look at her, she's so highfalutin; she won't even let old Larry ask around it.

What she thinks she's getting out of the interview is a whole ' story.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
The killswitch, like most c... (Below threshold)

December 10, 2009 7:25 PM | Posted by Stephen: | Reply

The killswitch, like most cognitive hang-ups, only exists if you fear it.

If a known attention-whore/public masturbator accuses you of being inappropriate, are you:

a.) scared into witless awkwardness because a Hot Girl so very like the ones you've silently pined for/repeatedly been shot down by throughout your life confronts you

or,

b.) comfortable enough with Who You Are to say, "Only people whose vaginas I can't find with Google get to lecture me on propriety."

There is no "inappropriate," only "behavior people have been conditioned to expect from you." If you don't want to be on the wrong end of an accusation of impropriety, don't start down the slippery slope of appeasing loud-mouths.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
I've often disageed with Al... (Below threshold)

December 11, 2009 3:51 AM | Posted by David: | Reply

I've often disageed with Alone's post, but I find this to be brilliant and the use of the phrase "kill switch" to be compelling. I'm looking foward to the second post.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Sure your can infer and mak... (Below threshold)

December 11, 2009 7:31 AM | Posted, in reply to CC's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Sure your can infer and make guesses, but it's dishonest to suggest that you can know to a certainty what was going on. A guess is a guess, it's not an ironclad fact. That's the thing, people are treating a declaration of "innapropriate" and their assumptions about the next question as facts. They aren't.

The kill switch was used because she didn't like what the next question might have been.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Exactly: there's a differen... (Below threshold)

December 11, 2009 1:38 PM | Posted, in reply to Stephen's comment, by Basil Valentine: | Reply

Exactly: there's a difference between backing off because you've reconsidered and what you're saying actually is inappropriate and backing off because you want to cultivate a particular image.

There's a reason it's called narcissism, because Narcissus wasn't in love with himself exactly but in love with his reflection. If your self-image, as reflected by other people, is more important than what you actually think, then you may just be a narcissist (or just extremely Machiavellian).

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
i was being ironic on the "... (Below threshold)

December 11, 2009 4:38 PM | Posted, in reply to CC's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

i was being ironic on the "he was just asking about the settlement", in case if you dont noticed (im not trying to suggest any thing here, just making myself clear, i know texts dont help along with that)

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
"it's dishonest to suggest ... (Below threshold)

December 11, 2009 10:36 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by CC: | Reply

"it's dishonest to suggest that you can know to a certainty what was going on"

More BS. It's dishonest to suggest that you can't know what was going on. "to a certainty"? What does that mean anyway? Useful certainty? Reasonable doubt certainty? Preponderance of the evidence certainty? Plurality of certainty? Competent certainty? Omniscient certainty? What?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
who are you?! ... (Below threshold)

December 12, 2009 2:21 AM | Posted by the author: | Reply

who are you?!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You've got to stop watching... (Below threshold)

December 12, 2009 5:57 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

You've got to stop watching this stuff. It's killing you.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Alone, I can see your mind ... (Below threshold)

December 12, 2009 9:16 PM | Posted by acute_mania: | Reply

Alone, I can see your mind never made it out of high school. Wow! Some random hot girl made Larry King look like a pervert.Wake up dude. This interview was over before it started. She's not even face to face with King. She's face to face with her PR staff, who I'd imagine do not come cheap. King is not even in the same building. The Howard Stern comparison doesn't apply. He doesn't invite your publicist in to be interviewed with you. Somebody powerful on the right has thown his weight behind her in an attempt to make her a conservative poster girl. If it wasn't for that we would have forgotten about her six months ago.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
I'm always jealous of peopl... (Below threshold)

December 15, 2009 9:30 AM | Posted by Ben: | Reply

I'm always jealous of people who have control over debates and conversations like this. I've noticed this "cognitive kill switch" but never with a name.

Thanks for posting this!

Ben

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
hush... (Below threshold)

December 15, 2009 10:55 AM | Posted, in reply to the0ther's comment, by brennan breton: | Reply

hush

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
are you still planning on a... (Below threshold)

January 5, 2010 8:03 PM | Posted by anon: | Reply

are you still planning on a followup to this article? I was looking forward to it.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Is the fact that there is n... (Below threshold)

February 15, 2010 1:20 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Is the fact that there is no part 2 a joke, since there's no way to handle it?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Yes, follow-up coming, j... (Below threshold)

February 15, 2010 2:12 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Alone: | Reply

Yes, follow-up coming, just as soon as I can find a good place to pull over

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Leaving this post with only... (Below threshold)

December 16, 2010 8:44 PM | Posted, in reply to Alone's comment, by Unonymous: | Reply

Leaving this post with only a part one would be really inappropriate. I need to know what to do when on the 'wrong end' of inappropriate. Heh heh.

But with all appropriate seriousness, I do hope to see a part two.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
I'm going to comment before... (Below threshold)

December 17, 2010 2:42 AM | Posted by Judy Jetson: | Reply

I'm going to comment before reading any of the other comments so that I don't become swayed or confused. Having been majorly controlled by a religion for a good deal of my life, somehow that concept makes perfect sense right now.

I remember the entire ordeal and I was truly and irrationally annoyed at Ms. Prejean. Jealousy? Am I jealous of these 'types' of girls (beautiful)? Dang, that question deserves introspection which would surely slow up my judgment of her.

I'm not gay. I don't like Perez Hilton. If I had been asked that question ON STAGE DURING A CONTEST ("Do you think gays ought to be able to marry?) at this age/stage of my life (my 40s)), I might answer "I think I'm too uneducated about the topic to even answer. I think I sort of don't care. Sorry. But then someone might have a really good argument for why I should and then I'll feel stupid or bad. So, I guess my answer is...I'd have to think about it for awhile. Can I get back to you?"

If I had been asked when I was in the religious mindset of feeling obligated to "set an example for the entire world" especially because I am under the assumption that I am especially pursuasive since I am the prototype of what women aspire to be (blonde = good/angel, beauty pageant teeth, and a nice body) and that someone like me needs to "dare speak on behalf of God" and to stand up to the worldly pressures of Satan) and also hoping to publicly 'say the right thing' knowing that members of THE CHURCH that I was a fully indoctrinated member of (and my hope-to-be-fiancee) were watching," I would have HOPED to be inspired enough to say, "Larry, you're being inappropriate." It sounds so ultra mature, doesn't it?

Except somehow it didn't sound mature at all coming from her.

To me, it sounded like a little girl playing authoritative grown-ups - (points to doll) "Now, Maggie Lynn Briard, you know better than that, don't you?!"

She learned some canned shaming technique seemed to work on Larry because...ta da...he embraces Mormonism now. The walking off part was just a little extra woman drama. He looked a little unnerved.

I don't think he would have been unnerved before he converted to this religion. I think she probably agreed to Larry's interview because she knew she had a chance of manipulating him.

And, let me clarify...it had nothing to do with religion. She's fakeThing is, she only manipulated HIM. I saw her as not achieving her goal. She looked pitiful and like someone I would HATE to have in my world. I would sooner welcome Elizabeth Hasselback in my home.

Instead of letting Howard Stern interview her, try Whoopi Goldberg. She would have absolutely no tolerance for girly manipulation shit. I have met and known women for whom this angle works (think lots of $$ and too many people kissing their backend food processor) and I have used the words "Go try it on a man, Lady. Your tantrum and persuasive attempt at indignation isn't getting you anywhere with me."

And, just like a classic "Extinction Burst" (a la B.F. Skinner), Poof! I have managed to bring out the REAL beast that is behind holier-than-thou facade and practically challenge me to a fistfight...there wasn't anything ladylike or "appropriate" about them.

From my perspective, it's just an attempt at manipulation/persuasion. I pulled it a lot myself as a teen - I would just try things out on my parents to see what worked. Maybe women, in general, are more seasoned at this; outright aggression isn't really tolerated in some cultures so they become masters of passive aggression. But, when they're exposed, they are the really dirty little fighters that their siblings would recognize in a heartbeat who do NOT like to lose face, do not accept responsibility, do not pay for services ("Men do that - I'm pretty and extra special, remember?")

I've had more than a few verbal knock-down, drag outs with entitled wenches. (I know, that was mean.) And, contrary to what I would think if I were reading my own post: I used to get plenty of attention from the "it" guys myself and now that just sounds conceited.

I just tried to force myself to not 'get by on my looks'. Or, maybe I wasn't THAT pretty at all. I just didn't really have it in me to play the entitled, you're-lucky-to-get-me games, which might also explain why I didn't get married and got dumped a lot. I sucked at winning the 'I am the prize' game that was usually a very intense game of playing 'You don't matter to me that much' until the other side cracks.

I also hated the thought of a man paying for everything so that he had control and input on what I do/think. Actually, I sound extreme, but I think I'm pretty nice except that I did want to be the one to personally give Carrie one big shove right off the stage. Ergh, did I say that?

No, that's the old me. The new me would shrug and say "Who cares?" because I REALLY don't want to be annoyed by people as much anymore.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
Great Post. Very good one. ... (Below threshold)

September 6, 2011 12:53 AM | Posted, in reply to Alone's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Great Post. Very good one. It links to the post about bully - I know, there's a link to this one there.

I wish I could read more about these topics.

Waiting for part 2.

Cheers,

keep up the good work, Doc

ps: and how your book is going?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Is this related to reframin... (Below threshold)

February 15, 2012 6:13 PM | Posted, in reply to Alone's comment, by DGS: | Reply

Is this related to reframing?

Do you think I am fat in these pants?

I think you wear them better than I.

Define fat.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)