Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lurker37" data-source="post: 4203860" data-attributes="member: 9522">Not quite.Intimidation is about making people afraid of what you will do if they do not do as you say. It is, by definition, about striking fear of you into them - but not necessarily fear of violence.&nbsp; You could threaten to reveal a dark secret (blackmail), threaten to foreclose on a loan, threaten to pull out of a treaty they desperately need you to remain in, threaten to pull out of a business deal that will ruin them if it falls through, threaten to publicly humiliate them, etc. The whole point is to convince the other party that you are both capable and willing to make something undesireable happen. It can be used to great effect in social situations, if done subtlety. It's just not something you use when you're trying to build trust, which the example clearly states you are.Convincing people of danger from a third party is not intimidation. That's more an issue of convincing them of the truth of what you are saying, which is either bluff (if you are lying) or diplomacy (if you are not). You can't cow people into believing you, only into not calling you a liar to your face.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lurker37, post: 4203860, member: 9522"] Not quite. Intimidation is about making people afraid of what [b]you will do[/b] if they do not do as you say. It is, by definition, about striking fear [b]of you[/b] into them - but not necessarily fear of violence. You could threaten to reveal a dark secret (blackmail), threaten to foreclose on a loan, threaten to pull out of a treaty they desperately need you to remain in, threaten to pull out of a business deal that will ruin them if it falls through, threaten to publicly humiliate them, etc. The whole point is to convince the other party that you are both capable and willing to make something undesireable happen. It can be used to great effect in social situations, if done subtlety. It's just not something you use when you're trying to build trust, which the example clearly states you are. Convincing people of danger from a third party is not intimidation. That's more an issue of convincing them of the truth of what you are saying, which is either bluff (if you are lying) or diplomacy (if you are not). You can't cow people into believing you, only into not calling you a liar to your face. [/QUOTE]

Verification