4 провокации, которые нельзя игнорировать

0:00Do you remember that incident at the

0:022022 Oscars ceremony ? This scene became

0:05global news because of Will Smith's

0:07reaction to the host’s joke about his

0:09wife . Chris Rock mocked Jada’s

0:11hairstyle , referencing the movie G.I.

0:14Jane .

0:18The audience laughs . And Will Smith

0:20seems to be laughing too , but his wife

0:22rolls her eyes in annoyance . In such a

0:24case , there are several possible

0:26scenarios . The first is to support the

0:28joke . Will Smith seemed ready to do

0:31that , but something made him change his

0:33mind . From the outside , such a reaction

0:36might look like a man failing to defend

0:38his wife’s honor , letting the joker

0:40continue to behave that way . The second

0:44scenario is to object and start an

0:45argument , but then you might hear back

0:47something like , " It's just a joke , why

0:49are you reacting like that ? " And the

0:51third scenario is to respond so sharply

0:53that the reaction itself outweighs the

0:56joke . But in that case , the main event

0:58becomes the reaction itself , rather

1:00than what preceded it . Will Smith chose

1:03the third option . In his case , the

1:05reaction is disproportionately larger

1:07than the joke , so his walk onto the

1:09stage and the punch are remembered more

1:11than the host’s remark . At a ceremony

1:14watched by hundreds of thousands ,

1:15everything , of course , looks dramatic ,

1:17but in everyday life , things are much

1:19calmer . For example , in a group ,

1:22someone regularly teases you about the

1:24same topic , and after you express

1:25dissatisfaction , they act surprised ,

1:27saying , " What , you don't get the joke ? "

1:30Such episodes rarely resemble open

1:32aggression . A person might do it

1:34consciously , out of habit , or not even

1:36realize what position they are putting

1:38the other person in . At the same time ,

1:41the structure itself remains convenient

1:42. The unpleasant meaning has already

1:45been conveyed , and the person who said

1:47it always has a safe defense that they

1:49were just joking . It’s especially

1:51unpleasant when it happens in front of

1:53people whose opinion is important to us

1:55. You don't want to look weak or overly

1:56sensitive in front of friends . In front

1:58of colleagues , it is important to

1:59maintain competence and the ability to

2:01handle the situation . A public figure

2:03also has to consider that their

2:04response will be seen and judged by

2:06thousands of viewers . At such a moment ,

2:09the conversation turns into a test of

2:11resilience . You need to not lose face ,

2:13protect your boundaries , and at the

2:15same time , avoid doing something that

2:17will make things even worse for you .

2:19Sociologist Erving Goffman called this

2:22task " maintaining face . " By " face , " he

2:25meant the positive social value that a

2:27person presents to others . Simply put ,

2:29it is the image of ourselves that we

2:32strive to show to others . A reliable

2:35friend , a confident person , a

2:36professional who stands by their words .

2:39This video topic was inspired by an

2:41episode of the show " Question with an

2:42Edge " featuring Dima Maslennikov .

2:44Surprisingly , when this episode came

2:46out 3 years ago , it passed me by . I

2:49watched the episode just recently , and

2:51I was hooked by the repetitive style of

2:53conversation .

2:54But if you're going to [ __ ] ,

2:55deceive , like in your vlogs , lie ,

2:57you'll be the one to pay for it all .

2:59Basta interrupts the guest , makes

3:01poking jokes , and to Maslennikov's

3:03reaction , he replies something like

3:04Don't be offended , Dim .

3:06Yeah , don't be offended ,

3:07don't be offended . They give . Viewers

3:08noticed this as well and wrote about it

3:11in the comments . Basta was criticized

3:13at the time for constant interruptions ,

3:15biting remarks , and a noticeably

3:17harsher tone toward this guest than

3:19others .

3:21And I think he's the same in real life ,

3:23that he's quite ironic , and his sense

3:25of humor is just fine . He just , I think

3:28, didn't understand what kind of show

3:30this is . He didn't fully grasp its

3:32essence , that this isn't a show where

3:34we want to find out how wonderful Dima

3:36Maslennikov is . And in this episode , I

3:39would like to analyze four such

3:41provocations , the most basic ones :

3:43accusation , self-irony , forced candor ,

3:45and the reaction trap . Let's see why

3:48they work , how they trap the person

3:50responding , what mistakes make someone

3:53justify themselves or lash out , and

3:55which ways of responding best preserve

3:57both boundaries and face . The Mental

4:01channel is a space where you learn more

4:04about communication and human behavior

4:06to develop your own skills . Let's begin

4:09. There is one simple thing that

4:19strongly influences any difficult

4:20conversation : the state you are in when

4:22you enter it . When the whole day

4:24consists of tasks , messages , decisions ,

4:26and meetings , by the evening , it

4:27becomes harder to listen carefully to

4:28the person you're talking to . To hold a

4:30thought and switch quickly between

4:33several things . As a result , attention

4:35begins to crumble , productivity drops ,

4:38but the work doesn't go anywhere . For

4:40me , this is especially noticeable when

4:42working with large texts . At the

4:44beginning of the day , you can calmly

4:46read some research , compare several

4:47sources , and see the weak point in

4:48every argument . After a few hours , you

4:52sometimes catch yourself rereading the

4:53same paragraph several times . That's

4:56why I started specifically looking at

4:58supplements that can support

5:00concentration and mental endurance

5:01during periods of high load . One such

5:04product , which , by the way , I have

5:07already talked about , is Mind Booster

5:10Pro from NT Labs . It is a comprehensive

5:12supplement to support work capacity ,

5:14attention , memory , and motivation . It

5:17contains 10 active components , and they

5:19can conditionally be divided into

5:21fast-acting and cumulative blocks . The

5:23first is caffeine , L-theanine , rhodiola

5:25, and L-tyrosine . They help you get

5:27into work faster , maintain focus , and

5:30cope with high workloads more easily .

5:32The second block is choline and Bacopa

5:34monnieri to support memory , attention ,

5:36and learning . Here , the effect is

5:39assessed over the long term with

5:41regular intake . Plus B vitamins for the

5:44nervous system . So , the logic here is

5:46not like an energy drink . To get a

5:48sharp stimulation for a few hours and

5:50then be left without energy .

5:52Mindbooster provides the brain with an

5:55extra resource for long mental tasks ,

5:56when you need to read a lot , analyze ,

5:58make decisions , and constantly switch

6:00between tasks . At the same time , Teeny

6:03Laps has a fairly responsible approach

6:05to production . It is certified

6:06according to HACCP standards . The

6:09capsules are transparent , free of

6:11titanium dioxide , and made from

6:12vegetable cellulose . Their website has

6:15many other solutions for different

6:17tasks . There is also a promotion

6:19running there right now . On orders over

6:204,000 rubles . enter the promo code

6:22Mental and Sleep Deep will be added as

6:25a gift . This is a sleep improvement

6:27complex that helps you relax more

6:29easily in the evening , fall asleep

6:31faster , and recover better . Full

6:33details are in the link in the

6:35description . The first provocation

6:37starts working even before the person

6:39manages to answer . Some statement or

6:41conclusion about their behavior is

6:42already embedded in the question . The

6:45interlocutor is left only to choose the

6:47reason why they supposedly acted that

6:49way .

6:50Like the question : have you stopped

6:51drinking cognac in the mornings or not ?

6:54Answer : yes or no , Olya ?

6:57It’s simple , isn't it ? Answer me , yes

6:59or no ? Have you stopped drinking cognac

7:00in the mornings ?

7:01To put it bluntly , it sounded like this

7:03.

7:03Why did you decide to support Egor in

7:05this situation , and not Emil ? After all

7:07, you were close friends for a very

7:08long time . And will you return the

7:10channel to him ?

7:11I didn't take the channel away from

7:12anyone . The password to the channel and

7:15access to it are with him , not with me .

7:17And I won't dwell on the situation with

7:20the channel in detail here . It has

7:22already been analyzed in other videos ,

7:23and the participants in the situation

7:25have also spoken out . I still want to

7:27analyze the mechanism of provocation in

7:29detail and how to get out of it ,

7:30and why did you take the channel from

7:32him , changing the password so that the

7:34person couldn't upload content , which

7:35hasn't appeared for 8 months ?

7:37The phrase : " Why did you take the

7:38channel " consists of two parts . The

7:40first part already declares that the

7:41channel was taken . The second asks for

7:44the reason . If Dima immediately starts

7:46telling why the project closed , he

7:48risks accepting the first part as an

7:50established fact . In linguistics , such

7:53a background assumption is called a

7:55presupposition . A presupposition is

7:57information that in a phrase is

7:59presented as already known . In the

8:02question , why are you late again , the

8:04main question becomes the reason for

8:06the lateness . And the word again

8:08imperceptibly adds the history of past

8:11lateness as well . The danger of such a

8:14provocation is that along with the

8:16hidden accusation , the person is also

8:18offered a role . The role of the one who

8:21makes excuses . The person being asked

8:23such a question temporarily becomes the

8:25accused , who must prove their decency .

8:28You were co-founders of the channel . I

8:30said that I will not participate in

8:32this project anymore . Accordingly , the

8:34project closed , the channel is just

8:36sitting idle .

8:38The longer Maslennikov explains why he

8:40acted normally , the longer he remains

8:42inside that role . A person begins to

8:45prove the quality of their own

8:47character instead of questioning the

8:48original accusation . He proves that

8:51he’s not greedy , not dishonest , and

8:53not a bad friend . At the same time , the

8:55obligation to justify the original

8:57claim disappears . In argumentation

8:59theory , loaded questions call for a

9:01different approach . If a disputed

9:04premise hasn't been established , you

9:06must first refuse to accept it as a

9:08given fact . Therefore , the task lies

9:11elsewhere . You need to stop defending

9:13your entire personality and define your

9:15own responsibility for a specific

9:17action . First , you need to understand

9:19exactly what is being asserted . If the

9:21fact is incorrect , correct it . If the

9:24wording is controversial , clarify the

9:26actions . If the accusation is confirmed

9:29, admit your share of the

9:30responsibility and discuss the solution

9:32and its consequences . At this point ,

9:35the role changes . A person stops being

9:37an accused individual who is making

9:39excuses . They become a responsible

9:41participant in the conversation . This

9:43is the position that best preserves

9:45one's reputation . It allows you to

9:47endure unpleasant information about

9:49yourself without turning one act into a

9:50verdict on your entire character . Such

9:53a check is useful in everyday

9:54conversation as well . If someone asks ,

9:56" Why did you let the team down again ? " ,

9:58you first need to understand what

10:00specific action they consider a failure

10:02. If a colleague says you’ve already

10:04" stolen someone else's idea , " it's

10:06useful to clarify what similarity they

10:08call stealing . Sometimes the accusation

10:11is confirmed ; sometimes , after

10:12clarification , only dramatic wording

10:14remains . Later in the episode with

10:16Maslennikov , a more complex version of

10:18the justification trap appears . Basta

10:20asks about splitting income with a

10:21friend .

10:22What percentage do you take ? Like with

10:23Danik right now .

10:24Well , with Danya — with Danik in this

10:25case — it’s 50/50 for us .

10:27Friendly 50/50 , as friends . Maybe you

10:29told him as a friend : " Brother , what

10:31does my share matter ? The main thing is

10:33that you keep moving , that you grow ,

10:34that you develop . Whatever you see

10:37there , you'll send me later , but for

10:38now , take it all , since we're friends ,

10:40okay , in a friendly way . " Can you

10:42imagine what he does to his enemies ,

10:44guys ?

10:44Here , Dima actually confirms the 50/50

10:47split . The provocation lies elsewhere .

10:50Financial terms are immediately linked

10:52to the quality of the friendship .

10:54Simply put , Basta is hinting that such

10:56a split is , in his view , unfriendly .

10:58Basta's jab changes the rules of

10:59evaluation right in the middle of the

11:01conversation . A commercial agreement

11:03begins to be judged by the standards of

11:05close friendship , where demanding half

11:07can seem petty . In response , Dima goes

11:10back to costs , team work , and the

11:12history of their joint project . He

11:14tries to use a commercial criterion ,

11:16not a friendly one . Because , look , to

11:19develop any channel , you need millions .

11:22He helped me as a person working for a

11:25salary . And in the end , we grew the

11:28channel . I gave them a percentage of

11:30the channel .

11:31It turns out that one participant ,

11:33Basta , changes the frame of evaluation ,

11:35while the other , Dima , is forced to

11:36prove he remains a good friend .

11:38Maslennikov provides many details , and

11:41every new detail creates another point

11:43for a jab .

11:44Cool , we're family , we're a league .

11:4650/50 , 33/33 ,

11:4950/33

11:52In response to this , Maslennikov uses a

11:54technique called the counter-question .

11:56And what , how are things at Gazgolder

11:58with that ? We’re all good , thank God .

12:01How much did you take from the discount

12:03?

12:0330 % .

12:05Well , we , well we , we haven't been

12:07friends since the eighth grade , if you

12:09catch my drift , yeah ?

12:10An important role reversal happens here

12:12. Before this , only Dima was explaining

12:13himself . Now , Basta has to explain his

12:15own practice . If the percentage of

12:17someone else's income is in itself a

12:19sign of bad relations , then that same

12:21criterion should apply to him , too . By

12:24Basta’s logic , the problem lies not

12:25in the commercial percentage per se ,

12:27but in combining business with close

12:29friendship . A counter-question

12:31temporarily relieves a person of the

12:33duty to endlessly justify themselves

12:34and forces the critic to show by what

12:36rule they are even judging the

12:37situation . And this counter-question is

12:40good for checking consistency . Does the

12:43person apply to themselves the same

12:45criterion they just applied to you ?

12:47Maslennikov encounters questions in

12:49which presuppositions are hidden . And

12:52in this provocation , he doesn't so much

12:54answer the questions themselves as he

12:56is forced to spend energy fighting

12:57these provocations . The trap of

13:00justification is dangerous because it

13:01forces a person to defend their

13:03character against accusations . But the

13:05provoking interlocutor can instantly

13:08minimize the seriousness of what’s

13:10happening by saying they were just

13:12joking , and now your seriousness

13:14becomes the new topic . That’s how the

13:18second provocation appears .

13:28What do you film ?

13:29Entertainment content , travel .

13:31Well , on YouTube , this person runs a

13:32channel . I can't hear anything . I am ,

13:35turns out

13:36a 500 - buck joke , damn it .

13:37I just can't hear anything . Once again ,

13:39Yes , yes , yes . Instagram . Instagram .

13:41In short , I’ll translate for you . The

13:43girl is filming content for Instagram ,

13:45wants to become a superstar . What needs

13:46to be done for that ?

13:47Uh , well now in this case I

13:49Well , you should have been in the

13:50eighth grade with me .

13:51Here we have some video at all .

13:53Can you help the person ? Are you

13:55personally such a helper ? I was asked .

13:57Yes , I saw . I saw . 50-50 .

13:59Look ,

14:00look at that . And here you take the

14:01video . He’s now , he’s now , can I

14:03talk here or not , Vasya ? Oh , for f * ck's

14:05sake , don't be offended , Dima .

14:06Don't be offended .

14:07They’re asking a question . Well

14:09don't be offended . Well , this isn't a

14:10show , this is a total sh * tshow .

14:11What’s with you ?

14:12I already got it ,

14:13what we see in this segment .

14:15Maslennikov tries to answer the

14:17girl’s question , but Basta interrupts

14:19and does so with jabs . After this , Dima

14:21has to show that he isn't offended and ,

14:24in general , knows how to take a joke .

14:27That’s how the trap of self-irony

14:28works . A person is mocked in front of

14:30everyone . He objects , and in response

14:32hears : " Relax , we're just joking . "

14:34After that , a person claims the right

14:36to be considered confident and

14:37easygoing in social settings . This

14:39provocation also has a pre-assigned

14:41role . If a person doesn't play along

14:43with the teasing , it’s easy to label

14:46them as sensitive , uptight , or

14:47humorless . It turns out the person is

14:52cornered into a binary choice : either

14:54laugh along and become a permanent

14:57target , or object and be labeled as

14:59overly sensitive . The provocation is

15:03effective precisely because both

15:04reactions are already anticipated . This

15:07structure is convenient for the

15:08provocateur due to its dual nature . If

15:10the target accepts the jab , the

15:12interaction continues . If they react

15:15negatively , the author can claim they

15:17were misunderstood . But there is a

15:20third way out of this situation , which

15:23is to refuse to prove your own capacity

15:25for self-irony .

15:27What ? That’s their specific gait .

15:30Only saw it on YouTube . He was joking ,

15:33don't sweat it .

15:33You wouldn't even get it if you saw

15:35Asher ,

15:36doesn't sound like a joke , bro . What is

15:39" obichivy " ? Sensitive . Thanks for the

15:48reception .

15:48A person can acknowledge a joke while

15:51simultaneously refusing the role being

15:54forced upon them . The ability to laugh

15:56at yourself doesn't mean giving others

15:59permission to joke about you on any

16:01topic , as often as they like . In

16:03communication pragmatics , phrases like

16:05" I was just joking " or " Don't be

16:06sensitive " are treated as claims of

16:08non-serious intent . Sometimes , a person

16:11is genuinely trying to show they didn't

16:12want a conflict . But at the same time ,

16:14an important substitution occurs . A

16:16second ago , the source of tension was a

16:18specific jab or interruption . Now , the

16:21subject of the conversation has shifted

16:22to the target's reaction . Why did they

16:24get offended , and can they even take a

16:26joke ? That's why it’s better to react

16:28early , before irritation builds up . In

16:31assertive communication , there is the

16:33DESC model . Instead of judging the

16:34personality , you are encouraged to name

16:36specific behavior , state the necessary

16:38changes , and agree on future

16:40interaction . In such situations , it can

16:42be shortened to a simple sequence . Fact

16:45. Requirement for continuing the

16:47conversation . If you are interrupted

16:50multiple times , don't wait until you're

16:52feeling down ; set the rules the moment

16:53you encounter such behavior . This

16:56reaction doesn't require explaining

16:58your feelings and doesn't turn a small

17:00episode into a conflict . The person

17:02simply marks the point at which the

17:04communication format needs to change .

17:18If that moment is missed and you're

17:20told , " Don't get offended , I'm just

17:22joking , " there's no need to prove

17:23otherwise . At that moment , the person

17:26starts defending their sense of humor

17:27and accepts the offered role . The more

17:30a person explains why they aren't

17:32offended , the more material they

17:33provide to keep the game going .

17:35Therefore , in this situation , instead

17:37of excuses , it's better to use the

17:39assertive " broken record " technique . It

17:41is one and the same position without

17:43adding new justifications . We're

18:01getting ready for Cincinnati . In

18:10Maslennikov's case , there is an

18:11important detail . " Voprosy Rebrom " is ,

18:14after all , a comedy show , so

18:16interruptions and jabs can be part of

18:18the genre . Consistency is what matters

18:20more here . Dima tries to finish his

18:22thought several times , he gets

18:24interrupted , his irritation gradually

18:25becomes noticeable , and only after that

18:27comes : " Don't be offended , it's a show .

18:29" Maslennikov is thrown off not so much

18:32by the jabs themselves , but by their

18:34sheer number and the fact that he isn't

18:36allowed to finish a thought . When the

18:38topic fizzles out and the question is

18:40exhausted , the show moves on to the

18:42next one . And there , another trap

18:45awaits the guest , in which they are

18:47offered to prove their sincerity . How

18:58long did it take you to get intimate

19:00with a girl from the moment you met ? I

19:03mean , you met , then moved on to , well ,

19:06you know , what ? To intimacy .

19:10And you , I think , I stood there with a

19:12stopwatch .

19:12I just stood there with a stopwatch ,

19:14timing it

19:16specifically . Give us some case , for

19:17example . And here , what , is it some

19:19kind of drag , like , something's wrong

19:20somewhere , something's not right there .

19:21And why should I talk about my , about

19:23my intimate life right now ? Of course

19:25not , no .

19:26The sincerity trap is built on a

19:28gradual expansion of access to personal

19:30information . The first question seems

19:33safe . The next one asks to add a small

19:36detail . A few steps later , a person is

19:38already telling things they didn't

19:39intend to discuss at all at the start

19:41of the conversation . Refusing to answer

19:44such provocative questions is easy to

19:46frame as a sign that a person is hiding

19:49something , doesn't trust others , or is

19:51being insincere . Therefore , the

19:54question gradually turns into a test of

19:56character . If you are an open person ,

19:58then tell us . If you don't tell us , it

20:00means there is something wrong with you

20:02. As a result , the target begins to

20:04reveal information because they want to

20:06save face , to maintain the image of an

20:08honest and normal person . But it is

20:10important to distinguish between two

20:11things here . Openness is a personal

20:14quality , while access to specific

20:16information is one's own decision .

20:19Refusing to tell one story does not

20:21make a person secretive . It only

20:23defines the limit of access to personal

20:25information in a specific conversation .

20:28Professor Sandra Petronio developed the

20:30Communication Privacy Management theory

20:33. According to the main principles of

20:35this theory , people decide what they

20:37consider private , who to give access to

20:39this information , under what conditions

20:41to share it , and what a person should

20:43do after receiving the details . At the

20:45same time , opening one part of the

20:47boundary does not mean automatic access

20:49to everything else . Maslennikov

20:51initially keeps the conversation going

20:53with a joke , then hears more and more

20:55specific requests . At some point , he

20:57formulates his own rule . This is one of

20:59the clearest answers in the entire

21:00episode .

21:01Let's do this . in front of the camera ,

21:02in front of people , about my intimate

21:04life , as something personal . I will not

21:06talk . If that's all you have , you can

21:07go back to your seat . Agreed ?

21:09Fire . Thanks .

21:11Thanks .

21:11I heard you .

21:13Here , he quite successfully denotes

21:15three things at once : the topic , the

21:16conditions , and the limit . He does not

21:18state that the question is forbidden

21:20for all people . He says he will not

21:22respond to it publicly . After that , the

21:24other person understands exactly what

21:26boundaries exist and are in effect .

21:29Actor Robert Downey Jr. does something

21:31similar in one of his interviews . The

21:34conversation starts as a talk about the

21:36movie Age of Ultron , but then the

21:37questions shift to old political

21:39statements , relationships with his

21:41father , alcohol , and drugs . Downey

21:43first clarifies , and when the personal

21:49line continues , he leaves the interview

21:51. Downey doesn't try to prove that the

21:53journalist has no right to ask personal

21:54questions . He doesn't argue . He checks

21:57if what is happening matches the format

21:59he expected . After the line is crossed ,

22:02he chooses a clear consequence and ends

22:04the interaction . The next provocative

22:07trap is one of the most difficult .

22:09After a series of jabs , it is no longer

22:10enough for a person to just decide what

22:12to say . They have to manage what their

22:16face shows to those around them while

22:19simultaneously not letting emotions

22:21take control of their actions . what

22:32kind of generally

22:33you can help a person

22:34give advice

22:35help don't look advice is [ __ ] [ __ ]

22:38your advice video he can talk here or

22:40not wh

22:43In this scene , Maslennikov has a

22:44perfectly understandable reason for

22:46irritation ; he tries to answer a

22:48question and several times cannot

22:50finish his thought , however , the

22:51provocation becomes especially

22:53effective the moment the irritation

22:55begins to dictate his further behavior .

22:57Then the original topic disappears , and

23:00the main event becomes the person's

23:02reaction . That is how the reaction trap

23:05works . The other person touches on a

23:08quality important to you , and you take

23:10actions that worsen your position .

23:13At first glance , this provocation is

23:14similar to those we have already

23:16analyzed , but the difference lies in

23:17the result . In the justification trap ,

23:19a person tries to prove with words that

23:21an accusation against them is false . In

23:24the self-irony trap , they are forced to

23:26show that they are not offended and get

23:28the joke . In the reaction trap , the

23:30following moment occurs . A threat to

23:33one's reputation forces a person to act

23:35impulsively . And it is precisely this

23:37action that then becomes a new argument

23:40against them . A few seconds later ,

23:42those around you are already discussing

23:45your reaction .

23:46You're a chicken , McFly . Say that again

23:54, Griff .

23:58Chicken , McFly .

24:00Nobody calls me a chicken .

24:06Earlier , I mentioned the topic of a

24:08social face . Well , saving face does not

24:11mean looking dominant . Sometimes a

24:14person preserves their reputation

24:16precisely because they do not accept

24:18someone else's way of testing it . In

24:20the reaction trap , the role they try to

24:22impose on a person appears in two

24:24stages . First , they try to hook the

24:26person on a quality they value and cast

24:29them in a bad light . They are weak ,

24:31cowardly , greedy , incompetent , or too

24:33sensitive . If they don't react , the

24:36characteristic seems to stick to them ,

24:38so a desire arises to immediately prove

24:40otherwise . Then , after a strong

24:42reaction , the role changes . Now , in

24:45front of everyone , there is a

24:47hot-tempered , aggressive , or

24:49self-uncontrollable person .

24:51All your , and now you from them take my

24:54words .

24:54Please do not interrupt me .

24:55If you stop interrupting me , I will

24:57explain what I meant . You see , we are

24:59asking a question . You aren't letting

25:00me answer the questions , Senator . Maybe

25:02you could listen instead of playing to

25:04the crowd ?

25:05The position you are being nominated

25:07for requires cold , calm diplomacy . What

25:10worries me even more than the remark

25:12about the army . Is your behavior . Is

25:16this what we should expect from our

25:18ambassador — a short temper ?

25:20The initial provocation fades into the

25:22background . What remains in the center

25:24is the person's reaction . How they

25:26raised their voice ? Insulted the

25:27interlocutor or committed an impulsive

25:29act . A person is placed in a

25:31disadvantageous position from the start

25:33. They try to protect their reputation

25:35and may do something that damages it

25:38more than the original jab . Therefore ,

25:41saving face sometimes means enduring a

25:43few seconds during which others might

25:45think something unpleasant about you .

25:48The most vivid example of the reaction

25:51trap occurred in the 2006 World Cup

25:53final . Marco Materazzi says something

25:55to Zinedine Zidane . The Frenchman walks

25:57a few steps , turns around , and

25:59headbutts his opponent in the chest .

26:02The referee sends off the French

26:03captain in extra time . Later , Materazzi

26:05confirmed that he had mentioned

26:06Zidane's sister in his remark . Zidane's

26:08strike is easy to understand ; he was

26:10defending his family's dignity . But in

26:12terms of the result , this blow proved

26:14very costly . France lost one of its key

26:17players before the penalty shootout ,

26:19and it's now impossible to remember

26:20Zidane without this episode . As in the

26:22case with Will Smith , the reaction

26:24exceeded the provocation . In

26:26Maslennikov's case , his sharpness is

26:28also understandable . He tries several

26:30times to regain his chance to speak .

26:32Meanwhile , his phrase " now , now " "

26:34Can I speak here or not ? " " Vasya , you ...

26:36" "

26:37Now , now , I ... " already shifts the

26:39conversation from the girl's answer to

26:41settling scores with the host .

26:42Maslennikov gets annoyed , but not

26:44enough to lose his composure . Instead ,

26:47he approaches the girl to answer her

26:49question personally and at least

26:50temporarily shield himself from

26:52interruptions . From Basta .

26:54To get out of the reaction trap , it is

26:55helpful to know your own triggers in

26:57advance . In the psychology of

26:59self-regulation , there is a rule of

27:01implementation intentions , or

27:02simplified , " if-then . " The principle is

27:04very simple . You identify in advance

27:06the situation where you most often lose

27:08control and pre-select actions to

27:10perform instead of an impulsive

27:11reaction . In negotiation studies , such

27:15plans helped people act more

27:17purposefully , even when they were angry

27:19. But provocations work precisely

27:22because they often catch you unprepared

27:24. A person is already angry , and

27:26demanding complex self-analysis from

27:28them at that moment is pointless . In

27:30such situations , a different principle

27:32can help . Do not try to control the

27:35emotion . Limit the actions it can

27:37choose for you . To save face , you don't

27:40have to respond with the same force

27:42used to offend you . Sometimes it is

27:44enough to give the provocateur a clear

27:46signal that you heard the conclusion

27:47but did not agree with it . And

27:49determine for yourself what happens

27:51next . Let's imagine the Will Smith

27:53situation at the Oscars that I

27:54mentioned at the beginning . After Chris

27:56Rock's joke , he had options between two

27:58extremes . Keep laughing as if nothing

28:00happened , or walk onto the stage and

28:02hit the host . He could have stopped

28:05supporting the joke and said directly

28:06from the audience , " Don't joke about my

28:08wife . " To the audience , it would have

28:11already been clear that a boundary was

28:13set . At the same time , his own action

28:15would not have become the main event of

28:17the evening . Therefore , in a moment of

28:19threat to your image , it is useful to

28:21seek the minimum sufficient reaction ,

28:23one after which others will clearly

28:25understand your position . This leads to

28:29a simple rule : first , state your

28:30position with a minimal action , and

28:32only then decide if the next step is

28:34even necessary . This is exactly what

28:37Maslennikov does , in part . After being

28:40interrupted several times , he is

28:41visibly annoyed , but instead of further

28:43bickering with Basta , he approaches the

28:45girl directly and continues his answer .

28:48He didn't get rid of the irritation . He

28:50changed the situation so that his

28:53irritation stopped dictating his

28:55subsequent behavior . Analyzing

28:57provocations that have already occurred

28:58and been recorded on video is useful

29:00and necessary . But it is much harder to

29:02analyze them in the moment , when

29:04someone is trying to provoke you right

29:05now . That is why practice is needed in

29:09an environment where you can try , make

29:10mistakes , and analyze situations

29:12without consequences . And you can do

29:14this at my practical workshop . We

29:17practice skills of eloquence ,

29:19persuasiveness , and argumentation

29:21through live exercises . These include

29:24debates , thematic and psychological

29:26games , and real-life case studies , all

29:28to keep it interesting and as close to

29:30reality as possible . One of the

29:33sections is entirely dedicated to

29:34provocations . How to recognize them ,

29:36how to maintain control of the

29:38discussion , and how to respond without

29:39losing your position . All the details

29:41can be found in the link in the

29:42description . The next session starts

29:44very soon . A provocation is a kind of

29:46game . The provocateur throws you a ball

29:49and watches what you do with it . They

29:52might make you justify yourself or

29:54accuse you of lacking self-irony ,

29:55forcing you to be overly candid against

29:58your will , or pushing you to react too

30:00sharply and accusing you of excessive

30:02aggression . The provocateur offers you

30:05rules , and you can only change those

30:07rules through active action , once you

30:09recognize the provocation and the role

30:11they are trying to impose on you .

30:15Throughout the show " Vop s Rebrom , "

30:17small hooks are repeated several times ,

30:19imposing a specific role on Maslennikov

30:22. In one episode , he has to explain

30:25pre-existing accusations ; in another ,

30:27prove his sense of humor ; in a third ,

30:29show openness ; and in a fourth ,

30:31maintain composure after a series of

30:33interruptions . You need to notice what

30:36role is being offered to you and what

30:38will happen if you accept it . After

30:41that , you have a choice of how to act .

30:43Clarify , set limits , stop supporting

30:45the joke , or define conditions . Observe

30:48what qualities people force each other

30:51to prove in conversation . Very often ,

30:54that is exactly where the hidden point

30:56of influence lies . And with that , I

30:57believe that is all from me . Watch

30:59people closely so you don't get left

31:01behind and stay one step ahead . See you

31:03soon . Until next time . y