What's your "armor"?

[The Cat]

It's a skill like any other and if you want to maintain any sense of excellence, you must practice constantly.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Real armor (e.g. body armor, chain mail) must have more than the correct appearance to protect the wearer. It must be able to sustain or at least mitigate the damage from an attack, so the wearer remains un- or less affected. Figurative armor will likewise not work if rooted simply in appearance. Sure, the appearance alone in either case may deter some attacks, but if that is all there is, an attack actually launched will strike its mark and hurt.

So I would say armor in this context must include not so much one's lifestyle as one's manner, at least the manner one adopts when one wants the protection afforded by armor. Whether it is your power suit, or a woman's makeup and accessories, or something else, there must be something beneath that outer layer that can handle an actual attack or imposition when deterrence doesn't work. This constitutes a functional component in addition to the outward appearance.

In my case, I generally have a rather blank, neutral expression (some say "INTJ stare"), avoid eye contact, and give off what you might call a cold, "keep your distance" attitude, but that is just the surface. Someone who ignores that to initiate contact will be met with a distant formality that keeps them from getting any closer, and brings the encounter to a speedy conclusion. It also reassures them that I am no threat to them, not interested in them, and they can safely go on their way without a second thought. This works also when I must initiate the exchange.

I agree. There should be a behavioral component to having good "armor." For example, I mentioned in an earlier post that my armor these days mostly consists of good boundaries: "If people aren't fun or at least courteous, I blow them off and go elsewhere. No use hanging around with people I don't like." That's almost entirely behavioral. In fact, I would argue that the behavioral component is more effective than simply creating an appearance.

I was only emphasizing appearance as compared to lifestyle within the context of the previous discussion.

Anyway, incorporating what you said (with which I entirely agree), it might be more accurate to say that our "armor" (in the sense of the OP) comes down to "external proactivity" or something along that line. Something that would include both appearance and behavior and be more or less proactive rather than reactive. Examples from my own life:

--Before the start of different types of tasks, events, etc. I often decide beforehand what expression I want to have on my face. Some events call for an open and obvious snarl to preemptively let people know to give me lots of space, while other events call for a look of friendly openness. Obviously this example is about appearances more than behavior.

--The more "behavioral" example would be exercising boundaries in the form of participation or non-participation in an event, as I described previously.

 

[Lord Lavender]

Emotional detachment (not very good at this admittedly), humor,keeping things positive, staying on the go and not dwelling.

 

[Earl Grey]

I suppose how good an armor is also depends on how proficient one is in wielding it, putting it on. When I think about it, this question goes pretty complex. There is not one armor for everything, but different types for different weaknesses in different situations. Within the past week alone, I have referred to one as a 'fighter jet' (with a very native proficiency for flying it, too), and another as a 'flimsy facsimile of armor'. Either does not mean one is overall and always armored, or the opposite.

If behaviour would count as armor, I'd say that simply not tipping people off to your armor (and its existence at all) in itself is also armor. It gives them no choice but to go in blind.

Interestingly, armor can also be destructive or too heavy for its own bearer, who cannot bear with the consequences of having such armor.

EDIT: Ah, there it is, above. Emotional detachment is a good and common example of what I just mentioned.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

I would also argue that kindness and agreeability can be a tactical maneuver (a type of "armor") as well. As in the example of non-participation, sometimes non-aggression is a good way to effect a quick exit and seek a better posture for engagement elsewhere.

 

[Earl Grey]

I would also argue that kindness and agreeability can be a tactical maneuver (a type of "armor") as well. As in the example of non-participation, sometimes non-aggression is a good way to effect a quick exit and seek a better posture for engagement elsewhere.

What defines the true nature of a tool (or the wielder, rather) is not its apparent, superficial nature but what it ends up being used for, after all. Daggers murder, scalpels save. Kindness and agreeability are simply options present on the same table, with the added bonus that not everyone is as privy as say, you, to its capacity for armor as opposed to something more blatant, such as aggression.

 

[The Cat]

Sometimes the most effective armor is no armor at all. Few can stand bold in the face of an army of naked celts.

 

[Earl Grey]

Concrete Proof the Gauls Fought Naked

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Sometimes the most effective armor is no armor at all. Few can stand bold in the face of an army of naked celts.

We all would prefer to be straightforward and open in our communications. We would all prefer *not* to be machiavellian and devious. But the "human element" gets in the way: People take advantage.

What defines the true nature of a tool (or the wielder, rather) is not its apparent, superficial nature but what it ends up being used for, after all. Daggers murder, scalpels save. Kindness and agreeability are simply options present on the same table, with the added bonus that not everyone is as privy as say, you, to its capacity for armor as opposed to something more blatant, such as aggression.

Yes, exactly.

When I was an executive in a big bureaucracy, we executives were taught not to yell at or bully subordinates. The feeling was that we had enough power that we should be able to be more subtle than that. So the usual way to handle a difficult subordinate was chilly politeness and courtesy: Hear the guy out, put his problem or complaint into the appropriate channels, and let the administrative process wear him down. If he continued to be a disciplinary problem, then start a paper trail on him and counseling procedures with the eventual aim of disciplinary proceedings. But throughout, it was important to maintain that chilly politeness and courtesy.

I learned over time: Watch out for chilly politeness and courtesy in the workplace. That's the single biggest sign that you've got an enemy.

 

[The Cat]

We all would prefer to be straightforward and open in our communications. We would all prefer *not* to be machiavellian and devious. But the "human element" gets in the way: People take advantage.



Yes, exactly.

When I was an executive in a big bureaucracy, we executives were taught not to yell at or bully subordinates. The feeling was that we had enough power that we should be able to be more subtle than that. So the usual way to handle a difficult subordinate was chilly politeness and courtesy: Hear the guy out, put his problem or complaint into the appropriate channels, and let the administrative process wear him down. If he continued to be a disciplinary problem, then start a paper trail on him with the eventual aim of disciplinary proceedings. But throughout, it was important to maintain that chilly politeness and courtesy.

I learned over time: Watch out for chilly politeness and courtesy in the workplace. That's the single biggest sign that you've got an enemy.

I wouldn't prefer to not be. I was being literal not figurative.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

I wouldn't prefer to not be. I was being literal not figurative.

Ah, well then. Exhibitionism can be a tactic too, I guess.

 

[The Cat]

Ah, well then. Exhibitionism can be a tactic too, I guess.

What do you mean?

 

[Tennessee Jed]

What do you mean?

I was making a joke about the "naked celts" part of your post. Never mind.

 

[The Cat]

I was making a joke about the "naked celts" part of your post. Never mind.

Ah. Well, better luck next time?

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Ah. Well, better luck next time?

If there's an opening for potty humor, that's where my mind inevitably goes.

 

[Coriolis]

I suppose how good an armor is also depends on how proficient one is in wielding it, putting it on. When I think about it, this question goes pretty complex. There is not one armor for everything, but different types for different weaknesses in different situations. Within the past week alone, I have referred to one as a 'fighter jet' (with a very native proficiency for flying it, too), and another as a 'flimsy facsimile of armor'. Either does not mean one is overall and always armored, or the opposite.

If behaviour would count as armor, I'd say that simply not tipping people off to your armor (and its existence at all) in itself is also armor. It gives them no choice but to go in blind.

Interestingly, armor can also be destructive or too heavy for its own bearer, who cannot bear with the consequences of having such armor.

Yes, as in RPGs armor is also limiting. One must weigh the limitations against the benefits, in the situation at hand. Likewise, not tipping people off to your armor balances the virtues of stealth with deterrence. The latter, after all, requires armor to be readily apparent and effective-looking. All depends on the type of encounter one is expecting, and the other resources at one's disposal (see below).

I would also argue that kindness and agreeability can be a tactical maneuver (a type of "armor") as well. As in the example of non-participation, sometimes non-aggression is a good way to effect a quick exit and seek a better posture for engagement elsewhere.

Tactics can be defensive - in which case they are more like armor, or offensive - in which case, they are more like weapons. It's been said, after all, that the best defense is a good offense. Whether you agree or not, it points to the different functions of the tools we use, literal or figurative "to win" and get ahead in life.

Your example about cold politeness is a good one, but I would say more like a weapon. I have a coworker who is especially troublesome because he weaponizes courtesy. People don't realize how slimy/sleazy his behavior is, because it appears unfailingly polite and even friendly. Meanwhile, he is undermining you behind your back. My old supervisor was on to him; the new one is completely taken in.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Tactics can be defensive - in which case they are more like armor, or offensive - in which case, they are more like weapons. [...snipped] Your example about cold politeness is a good one, but I would say more like a weapon.

Good point. There are all kinds of fun little distinctions one could make. It gets into a type of psychology where pretty much everything we do is viewed as a defense mechanism of one sort or another. It's a tough ol' world out there.

I have a coworker who is especially troublesome because he weaponizes courtesy. People don't realize how slimy/sleazy his behavior is, because it appears unfailingly polite and even friendly. Meanwhile, he is undermining you behind your back. My old supervisor was on to him; the new one is completely taken in.

Palace intrigues! I'm glad to have left all that stuff behind. Nowadays the drama I deal with as a retiree is more like toddlers shoving each other and whacking each other in the head with wooden blocks. Lots of noise and tears.

 

[StrawberryBoots]

Gothic style is another example of using makeup / clothing as a armor. Some do it to try to scare / intimidate people. [MENTION=31969]StrawberryBoots[/MENTION]

I think so too. Thanks for helping me understand.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Mind Maverick]

In short: In my head, the topic of "armor" focuses more on appearances rather than actual lifestyle.

I agree with what Cor said. I'll also just add that basically, armor is just a tool used as defense. That could be virtually anything, not just appearance related things.