Social and Psychological Manipulation

MANIPULATION Handbook of Social and Psychological Manipulation

Dean Amory

2

Title: Manipulation (Handbook of Social and Psychological Manipulation) Compiled by: Dean Amory [email protected] Publisher: Edgard Adriaens, Belgium [email protected] ISBN: © Copyright 2013, Edgard Adriaens, Belgium, - All Rights Reserved.

This book has been compiled based on the contents of trainings, information found in other books and using the internet. It contains a number of articles and coaching models indicated by TM or © or containing a reference to the original author. Whenever you cite such an article or use a coaching model in a commercial situation, please credit the source or check with the IP -owner. If you are aware of a copyright ownership that I have not identified or credited, please contact me at: [email protected]

3

MANIPULATION Handbook of Social and Psychological Manipulation

Dean Amory

4

Index Index ............................................................................................................................................6 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................14 2. Information From Wikipedia .................................................................................................18 2.1 What exactly is Psychological Manipulation?.....................................................................18 2.2 What is required for successful manipulation?....................................................................18 2.3 What do manipulators want? ...............................................................................................18 2.4 What kind of person is a manipulator? ................................................................................19 Machiavellian personality:.........................................................................................................19 Narcissistic personality disorder:...............................................................................................19 Paranoid personality disorder: ...................................................................................................20 Borderline personality disorder: ................................................................................................20 Dependent personality disorder .................................................................................................20 Histrionic personality disorder...................................................................................................22 Passive-aggressive behavior ......................................................................................................22 Antisocial personality disorder ..................................................................................................22 Behavioral addiction:.................................................................................................................23 10 Types of Emotional Manipulators ........................................................................................24 2.5 Which vulnerabilities are exploited by manipulators? ........................................................25 According to Beth E Peterson....................................................................................................25 According to Braiker, ................................................................................................................26 According to Simon ...................................................................................................................26 According to Kantor: .................................................................................................................27 2.6 How a manipulator works....................................................................................................28 2.6.1 What is the basic manipulative strategy of a psychopath? ...............................................28 According to Robert D. Hare and Paul Babiak,.........................................................................28 According to Beth E Peterson....................................................................................................29 2.6.2 Basic manipulative skills ..................................................................................................30 Forced choice suggestive questions...........................................................................................32 Presumptuous suggestive questions...........................................................................................32 Confirmatory suggestive questions............................................................................................32

5

2.7. How to recognize manipulation for the purpose of domination or control .......................40 3. How to Pick Up on Manipulative Behavior...........................................................................43 3.1 Manipulation operates in sneaky ways ................................................................................43 3.2 Manipulation is about control ..............................................................................................43 3.3 Understand the manipulative personality. ...........................................................................43 3.4 Note the possible types of ways in which people try to manipulate one another. ...............44 3.5 How to deal with a manipulative personality ......................................................................45 4. Common Manipulation Tricks...............................................................................................46 4.1. Reinforcement.....................................................................................................................47 1. Forms of operant conditioning:..............................................................................................47 2. Positive reinforcement: ..........................................................................................................48 3. Negative reinforcement: ........................................................................................................49 4. Primary and Secondary reinforcers........................................................................................50 5. Intermittent or partial reinforcement: ....................................................................................50 4.2. Using fallacies to mislead people .......................................................................................51 4.3. Punishment .........................................................................................................................68 1. Nagging and Yelling..............................................................................................................68 2. The silent treatment ...............................................................................................................71 3. Intimidation, bullying, swearing and threats .........................................................................74 Fear ............................................................................................................................................76 Love ...........................................................................................................................................76 Emotional...................................................................................................................................76 Change .......................................................................................................................................76 Abuser........................................................................................................................................76 Children .....................................................................................................................................76 Support.......................................................................................................................................76 Needs .........................................................................................................................................76 More...........................................................................................................................................76 4. Emotional blackmail ..............................................................................................................79 5. The guilt trip ..........................................................................................................................82 6. Whining, Sulking and Crying ................................................................................................84 7. Self-pity - Playing the victim.................................................................................................88 4.4. Other Manipulative Tricks..................................................................................................89 1. The "No Way Out" question ..................................................................................................89 6

2. Making false promises ...........................................................................................................90 3. Disguising questions as statements.......................................................................................93 4. Foot in the Door Technique: Start off small and up-sell. ......................................................94 5. The confrontational statement ...............................................................................................95 6. Spreading false rumors. .........................................................................................................97 7. Traumatic one-trial learning: .................................................................................................98 8. Lying:.....................................................................................................................................99 9. Lying by omission, through the use of vagueness or by distortion of crucial details..........101 10. Denial:................................................................................................................................103 11. Rationalization:..................................................................................................................105 12. Minimization or trivializing behaviour:.............................................................................107 13. Selective inattention or selective attention: .......................................................................108 14. Diversion and Evasion:......................................................................................................109 15. Using weasel words. ..........................................................................................................111 16. Mind Reading - The assumption statement .......................................................................113 17. Exploiting position of authority.........................................................................................114 18. Third party authority..........................................................................................................115 19. Shaming: using people’s conscience against themselves ..................................................116 20. Vilifying the victim: ..........................................................................................................118 21. Playing the servant role: ....................................................................................................119 22. Seduction: ..........................................................................................................................121 23. Shifting the blame to others and detract in subtle, hard-to-detect ways ............................123 24. Projecting the blame (blaming others):..............................................................................127 25. Feigning innocence, feigning confusion or “playing dumb”:...........................................128 26. Gaslighting:........................................................................................................................129 27. Causing confusion .............................................................................................................131 28. Feigning illness. .................................................................................................................133 29. Brandishing anger:.............................................................................................................134 30. Sugarcoating reality. ..........................................................................................................136 31. Comparing Apples to Oranges...........................................................................................138 32. Cherry Picking ...................................................................................................................140 33. Drawing loosely-related conclusions.................................................................................141 35. Targeting lack of time and attention. ................................................................................142 36. Non-denial denial:..............................................................................................................142 7

38. Mistakes were made: .........................................................................................................144 39. The "if apology"................................................................................................................144 40. Phrasing in a way that assumes unproven truths, or avoiding the question.......................144 41. "Burying bad news": ..........................................................................................................144 42. Using Euphemisms and Dysphemisms to disguise or promote one's agenda ...................145 43 The “Door-in-the-face” technique ......................................................................................148 44. Bait-and-Switch .................................................................................................................149 45. Highball .............................................................................................................................150 46. Low-ball.............................................................................................................................151 47. That's not all.......................................................................................................................151 48. Disrupt, then reframe .........................................................................................................153 49. Fear, then relief - Scaring The Hell Out of You ................................................................155 50. Selling The Top Of The Line (TOTL)...............................................................................157 51. Dump and Chase (DAC)....................................................................................................158 52. Persuasion Techniques.......................................................................................................159 53. But You Are Free...............................................................................................................163 54. Confusion, Humor and Request (ChaR) ............................................................................164 55. Hook and Sinker ................................................................................................................165 56. The Jack Hammer, The Hammer and The Dripping Tap ..................................................166 57. AAB Pattern.......................................................................................................................168 58. Commitment Devices ........................................................................................................169 59. Creating Curiosity..............................................................................................................170 60. Double Bind.......................................................................................................................172 61. Final Request .....................................................................................................................173 62. Incremental Persuasion ......................................................................................................174 63. Ingratiation.........................................................................................................................175 64. Luncheon Technique..........................................................................................................177 65. Persuade by Pride, Not Shame...........................................................................................178 66. Pique Technique ................................................................................................................179 67. Pre-thanking.......................................................................................................................180 68. Reframing ..........................................................................................................................181 69. Reverse Psychology...........................................................................................................183 70. Social Engineering.............................................................................................................184 71. Truth by Association..........................................................................................................187 8

72. Using evidence...................................................................................................................188 73. Using Images to Persuade..................................................................................................189 74. Using Policy to Persuade ...................................................................................................192 75. Information Manipulation..................................................................................................193 76. Leveling as a Manipulation Tactic: ...................................................................................194 77. Appeal to Authority ...........................................................................................................195 78. Use Double Talk ................................................................................................................200 79. Impression Management...................................................................................................203 80. Giving Assent: Appearing to Cave In while Digging in Your Heels ................................211 5. Magical Manipulation .......................................................................................................212 5.1. Misdirection and deflection as used by manipulators:......................................................212 There are four common forms of misdirection used by manipulators.....................................212 5.2. Misdirection and Deflection as used by magicians ..........................................................213 5.2.1 The four degrees of misdirection ....................................................................................213 5.2.2. The Misdirection Paradigms..........................................................................................214 Inattentional blindness .............................................................................................................214 Change blindness .....................................................................................................................214 Illusion .....................................................................................................................................215 Uniqueness of method .............................................................................................................216 Social cues ...............................................................................................................................216 Humour ....................................................................................................................................216 Forcing .....................................................................................................................................216 6. Hypnotic manipulation......................................................................................................217 6.1. Target somebody and get to know their inner world. .......................................................218 6.2. In a next step, combine Discovering Values with Visualization. .....................................219 6.3. Meanwhile, Create Rapport. .............................................................................................219 6.4. Practice mind reading and prediction of the future...........................................................220 6.5. Use Powerful Links .........................................................................................................220 6.6. Use Suggestive Predicates. ...............................................................................................221 6.7. Tell Stories with embedded commands. ...........................................................................221 9

6.8. Stimulate Visualization.....................................................................................................222 6.9. Practice Anchoring. ..........................................................................................................222 6.10. Use presuppositions. .......................................................................................................223 6.11. Use The Magical Conversational Hypnosis Questions...................................................223 6.12. Use Subliminal Valorisation...........................................................................................224 7. Manipulative Relationships ..............................................................................................225 7.1 How to Recognize a Manipulative Relationship ..............................................................225 7.2 Are you the manipulative kind yourself?...........................................................................234 7.3 … We all manipulate!........................................................................................................236 7.4. How to Deal With a Manipulator .....................................................................................238 8. Biographical References....................................................................................................241 8.1. Robert Cialdini - Biography from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...............................241 8.2. George K. Simon – Biography from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...........................243 8.3. Milton H. Erickson – Biography from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia........................245 9. Economic Manipulation ....................................................................................................258 9.1. The Manipulation Matrix.................................................................................................258 9.2. Administrative Manipulation............................................................................................262 1. Psychology...........................................................................................................................262 2. Delay Tactics: don't know when, probably in a very very long time, if ever ......................262 3. Fronts: what's the real reason...............................................................................................262 4. Fronts and Possibilities: to deceive (linked to "fronts" and brainwashing) .........................262 5. Divide and Conquer: division and conflict ..........................................................................262 6. Divide and Dismiss: to weaken complaints.........................................................................262 7. Creating Chaos and Justification: for action and control.....................................................262 8. Security and Authority: attacks to increase power ..............................................................262 9. Administrative Maze and Complexity.................................................................................263 10. Ambiguities: no answer at all ............................................................................................263 11. The Pretence of Incompetence: to escape repercussions ...................................................263 10

12. The Administrative Frustrate and Discourage Game ........................................................263 13. Fear: to manipulate and control .........................................................................................264 14. Psychological Harassment or Workplace Psychological Harassment ...............................264 15. Invisible Weapons: Psychological the Mind Physical the Body ................................264 9.3. Manipulation in Advertising and Selling..........................................................................265 Personal Persuasion .................................................................................................................265 Foot in the door........................................................................................................................265 Flattery and other likability tricks............................................................................................266 Returning the favor ..................................................................................................................266 The free bonus .........................................................................................................................267 Comparing to make it look cheaper.........................................................................................267 Negotiating starting with a very high request..........................................................................268 The last item in stock ...............................................................................................................268 The sales person has them too .................................................................................................268 Persistence ...............................................................................................................................268 Hurrying...................................................................................................................................269 You "should" buy from this person .........................................................................................269 Hiding the manipulation ..........................................................................................................269 Not complying can't be justified ..............................................................................................270 Reward and punishment...........................................................................................................270 Taking the lead.........................................................................................................................270 You're phoned by someone you suspect wants to sell you something. ...................................270 Taking away your objections...................................................................................................270 Manipulative Questions. ..........................................................................................................271 Aggressive sales at your door ..................................................................................................273 A free gift.................................................................................................................................273 Telemarketing ..........................................................................................................................275 The positive, not the negative ..................................................................................................276 Presenting it as better than it actually is ..................................................................................277 The attractive person................................................................................................................277 The famous person...................................................................................................................277 Gifts with a logo ......................................................................................................................277 Identification............................................................................................................................278 Appealing to your insecurities .................................................................................................278 11

Win! .........................................................................................................................................278 Bait and Switch........................................................................................................................278 Hiding important information..................................................................................................278 10. Manipulation Quotes .......................................................................................................278

12

1. Introduction Manipulation is not the same as influence. We all use influence other people to advance our goals, to motivate others and to help them realize their own goals. Influencing happens all the time and in many different ways. As long as we inspire, motivate, convince, persuade, seduce or use assertiveness most people will agree that we are acting within the frame of healthy social life. Every now and then, however, we will use a different tactic: we will manipulate people to get what we want. There are a lot of negative connotations connected to manipulating. The reason is that, contrary to the first series of tactics, manipulation works with unfair means and does not respect the personal rights of the second party (now called "the victim"): it violates his integrity, works with hidden agendas and deliberately uses dishonest tricks like faulty reasoning, coercion, blackmail and lying in an attempt to control the victim's actions. Manipulation also is unbalanced: it is about suiting the manipulator's advantage or purpose only, often even at the expense of the victim. So, in theory, the difference is clear enough: influencing is positive, manipulating is negative. Influencing is ethical, manipulating is not. In practice, it is often more difficult to know when you are being manipulated and how to best defend yourself against it:   

Manipulation is unbalanced, the manipulator is trying to benefit at your expense. Yet one of the tricks he will use to reach his goal, is to convince you that you are the one who is to benefit most. How can you know whether a person is hiding information from you in an attempt to mislead you? How can you be certain about the final intentions of another person?

It's often really difficult to recognize manipulation when it happens. After all, if we are aware that it is happening ... would we allow ourselves to be manipulated? One of the reasons that we ignore to recognize manipulation is that it goes against the very basics of honest behaviour: We want to be respected, appreciated and loved for whom we are. This implies that we avoid hurting others, avoid lying, feel we deserve the benefit of the doubt and therefore treat others as innocent until proven guilty. Because we act like this, we assume others do too. Every now and then however, we will meet with people that have a different approach to life. As a rule, it is safe to say that when things look like bullshit and smell like it, they usually are bullshit. When you feel uneasy about a relationship; when you have to give in too much; when you feel like having to walk on egg shells; when you feel guilty, humiliated or imperfect after yet another difficult conversation; when choices become power-games; when affection turns green with jealousy or becomes overwhelming, exclusive and possessive; when there are half-truths, lies, denials surfacing; when everything that goes wrong somehow is your fault; when you feel you are pressured to take decisions you do not agree with ... chances that you are being manipulated are very real. If you already know this, than you also know a manipulator rarely comes unprepared. Feeling that you are being manipulated is one thing. Putting the finger on the right spot is much more difficult.

13

Because, of course, the manipulator will claim that he acted in good faith; that "again", he is being misunderstood, ... That is where this book comes in handy: it lists and explains the tricks manipulators use and teaches you how to recognize them and how to best defend and protect yourself.

14

1. Manipulation: What, Why, Who, How? Personal Growth - The Manipulation Trap: Are you a victim? - by Anita Anand http://www.lifepositive.com/Mind/Personal_Growth/The_Manipulation_Trap92010.asp Do you find yourself doing things that you do not really want to? When someone close to you or in a situation of power suggests that you do something against your will, how do you feel? Probably not good. How often do you experience or hear of people who seem to have been blackmailed into accepting life-changing decisions (such as choice of education, career, and marriage partner), because their parents, partners, bosses, best friends, or children thought it was best for them. Everybody who wants something from somebody else is a potential manipulator. Especially when the feeling is that they can get what they want more easily in a covert way than in open and rational ways. Manipulation often is about power. Manipulators want the power to dominate you, to force you to give them whatever it is they are after to feel important, safe, comfortable, valued, loved, …: obedience, loyalty, cooperation, support, vote, silence, energy, time, work, money, attention, companionship, friendship, love, sex, … your Chinese Vases … really anything. No wonder that manipulators come in all kinds, as we will see in the next chapters. All salesmen are trained in “sales techniques”, many of which are in fact “manipulation techniques”. Important however is to realize that everybody will try to manipulate others every now and then. Though ethically never a good solution, in the real world we will all sometimes use manipulation to win time, because the favour required is not important, to prevent a mayor bad, to avoid arguments and frictions, “because this is for a real noble cause”, etc… Manipulation becomes a problem only when the manipulator advances his own interests at the expense of this victim’s and causes mental, physical, financial or other harm. According to clinical psychologist Dr George Simon, often, manipulators in many ways are dysfunctional people who conceal aggressive intentions and behaviours; know the psychological vulnerabilities of the victim to determine what tactics are likely to be the most effective, and have a sufficient level of ruthlessness to have no qualms about causing harm to the victim if necessary. Manipulators also need to advance their own purposes and their own gain, even at virtually any cost to others. They need to attain feelings of power, and superiority in relationships with others and need to feel in control. Dr Richard Paul and Dr Linda Elker write: “The human mind has no natural guide to the truth, nor does it naturally love the truth. What the human mind loves, is itself: what serves it, what flatters it, what gives it what it wants, and what strikes down and destroys whatever threatens it”. Manipulators know this very well. They shrewdly focus on pursuing their own interest, without respect to how that pursuit affect others. They know how to use the established structure of power to advance their interests. They have a great command of the rhetoric of persuasion and are more sophisticated, more verbal and generally have more schooling, greater status and achieve more success than uncritical persons. They are accustomed to playing the dominant role in relationships. They cannot effectively manipulate others if they appear to them to be invalidating their beliefs. That is why they are rarely rebels or critics of society. In fact, since they are fundamentally concerned, not with advancing rational values, but with getting what they want, they are careful to present themselves as sharing the values of those they manipulate. For the same reason, they strive to appear before others in a way that associates themselves with power, authority and conventional morality. Their goal is

15

always to control what others think and they do so by controlling the way information is presented to them. In order to control and change your mind, however, they first have to read it. Manipulators will observe you, collect information through how you answer their questions and what your friends or colleagues tell about you, but also through finding out more about you: who you associate with, where you live, what your life is like, how you feel, what you read, which music you listen to, what you do … Nowadays this kind of personal information is always more found through electronic traces that you leave on the internet: social network profiles, comments, things you published, … Manipulators continually collect, consolidate, then sift all of this information in order to find thought patterns that can be interpreted as your personal disposition, i.e., to better understand your personality, character matrix and hence find your weak spots. Here is a warning for in case you would consider starting to take advantage of some people yourself: If you treat some people unselfishly, you will basically treat everybody you deal with unselfishly. But if you take advantage today of some people, you will end up taking advantage of anyone. “Show me a man who mistreats his enemies, and I’ll show you a man who stabs his friends in the back too.” (R.B. Sparkman – The art of manipulation)

16

2. Information From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation

2.1 What exactly is Psychological Manipulation? Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the perception or behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive, or even abusive tactics. By advancing the interests of the manipulator, often at the other's expense, such methods could be considered exploitative, abusive, devious, and deceptive. It depends on the context and motivations, whether social influence constitutes underhanded manipulation.

2.2 What is required for successful manipulation? According to George K. Simon, successful psychological manipulation primarily involves the manipulator: 1. concealing aggressive intentions and behaviors. 2. knowing the psychological vulnerabilities of the victim to determine what tactics are likely to be the most effective. 3. having a sufficient level of ruthlessness to have no qualms about causing harm to the victim if necessary. Consequently the manipulation is likely to be accomplished through covert aggressive (relational aggressive or passive aggressive) means.

2.3 What do manipulators want? Manipulators can have various possible motivations, including:    

the need to advance their own purposes and personal gain at virtually any cost to others a strong need to attain feelings of power and superiority in relationships with others a want and need to feel in control (aka. control freak) a desire to gain a feeling of power over others in order to raise their perception of self-esteem

17

2.4 What kind of person is a manipulator? Manipulators may have any of the following psychological conditions: Machiavellian personality: A person's tendency to be emotionally cool and detached, and thus more able to detach from conventional morality and to deceive and manipulate others. In the 1960s, Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis developed a test for measuring a person's level of Machiavellianism. People scoring high on the scale (high Machs) tend to endorse statements such as, "Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so," (No. 1) but not ones like, "Most people are basically good and kind" (No. 4), "There is no excuse for lying to someone else," (No. 7) or "Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives" (No. 11).

Narcissistic personality disorder: (NPD) is a personality disorder in which the individual is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity. This condition affects one percent of the population Symptoms of this disorder, as defined by the DSM-IV-TR include:              

Reacting to criticism with anger, shame, or humiliation Taking advantage of others to reach own goals Exaggerating own importance, achievements, and talents Imagining unrealistic fantasies of success, beauty, power, intelligence, or romance Requiring constant attention and positive reinforcement from others Becoming jealous easily Lacking empathy and disregarding the feelings of others Being obsessed with self Pursuing mainly selfish goals Trouble keeping healthy relationships Becoming easily hurt and rejected Setting goals that are unrealistic Wanting "the best" of everything Appearing unemotional

In addition to these symptoms, the person may also display dominance, arrogance, show superiority, and seek power. The symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder can be similar to the traits of individuals with strong self-esteem and confidence; differentiation occurs when the underlying psychological structures of these traits are considered pathological. Narcissists have such an elevated sense of self-worth that they value themselves as inherently better than others. Yet, they have a fragile self-esteem and cannot handle criticism, and will often try to compensate for this inner fragility by belittling or disparaging others in an attempt to validate their own self-worth. It is this sadistic tendency that is characteristic of narcissism as opposed to other psychological conditions affecting level of selfworth.

18

Paranoid personality disorder: A mental disorder characterized by paranoia and a pervasive, long-standing suspiciousness and generalized mistrust of others. Individuals with this personality disorder may be hypersensitive, easily feel slighted, and habitually relate to the world by vigilant scanning of the environment for clues or suggestions that may validate their fears or biases. Paranoid individuals are eager observers. They think they are in danger and look for signs and threats of that danger, potentially not appreciating other evidence. They tend to be guarded and suspicious and have quite constricted emotional lives. Their reduced capacity for meaningful emotional involvement and the general pattern of isolated withdrawal often lend a quality of schizoid isolation to their life experience. People with this particular disorder may or may not have a tendency to bear grudges, suspiciousness, tendency to interpret others' actions as hostile, persistent tendency to self-reference, or a tenacious sense of personal right

Borderline personality disorder: (BPD) (called emotionally unstable personality disorder, borderline type in the ICD-10) is a personality disorder characterized by unusual variability and depth of moods. These moods may secondarily affect cognition and interpersonal relationships. Other symptoms of BPD include impulsive behavior, intense and unstable interpersonal relationships, unstable self-image, feelings of abandonment and an unstable sense of self. An unstable sense of self can lead to periods of dissociation. People with BPD often engage in idealization and devaluation of others, alternating between high positive regard and heavy disappointment or dislike. Such behavior can reflect a black-and-white thinking style, as well as the intensity with which people with BPD feel emotions. Self-harm and suicidal behavior are common and may require inpatient psychiatric care.

Dependent personality disorder (DPD), formerly known as asthenic personality disorder, is a personality disorder that is characterized by a pervasive psychological dependence on other people. This personality disorder is a long-term (chronic) condition in which people depend on others to meet their emotional and physical needs, with only a minority achieving normal levels of independence. View of others: Individuals with DPD see other people as much more capable to shoulder life's responsibilities, to navigate a complex world, and to deal with the competitions of life. Other people appear powerful, competent, and capable of providing a sense of security and support to individuals with DPD. Dependent individuals avoid situations that require them to accept responsibility for themselves; they look to others to take the lead and provide continuous support. DPD judgment of others is distorted by their inclination to see others as they wish they were, rather than as they are. These individuals are fixated in the past. They maintain youthful impressions; they retain unsophisticated ideas and childlike views of the people toward whom they remain totally submissive. Individuals with DPD view strong caretakers, in particular, in an idealized manner; they believe they will be all right as long as the strong figure upon whom they depend is accessible.

19

Self-image: Individuals with DPD see themselves as inadequate and/or helpless; they believe they are in a cold and dangerous world and are unable to cope on their own. They define themselves as inept and abdicate self-responsibility; they turn their fate over to others. These individuals will decline to be ambitious and believe that they lack abilities, virtues and attractiveness. The solution to being helpless in a frightening world is to find capable people who will be nurturing and supportive toward those with DPD. Within protective relationships, individuals with DPD will be self-effacing, obsequious, agreeable, docile, and ingratiating. They will deny their individuality and subordinate their desires to significant others. They internalize the beliefs and values of significant others. They imagine themselves to be one with or a part of something more powerful and they imagine themselves to be supporting others. By seeing themselves as protected by the power of others, they do not have to feel the anxiety attached to their own helplessness and impotence. However, to be comfortable with themselves and their inordinate helplessness, individuals with DPD must deny the feelings they experience and the deceptive strategies they employ. They limit their awareness of both themselves and others. Their limited perceptiveness allows them to be naive and uncritical Their limited tolerance for negative feelings, perceptions, or interaction results in the interpersonal and logistical ineptness that they already believe to be true about themselves. Their defensive structure reinforces and actually results in verification of the self-image they already hold. Relationships: Individuals with DPD see relationships with significant others as necessary for survival. They do not define themselves as able to function independently; they have to be in supportive relationships to be able to manage their lives. In order to establish and maintain these life-sustaining relationships, people with DPD will avoid even covert expressions of anger. They will be more than meek and docile; they will be admiring, loving, and willing to give their all. They will be loyal, unquestioning, and affectionate. They will be tender and considerate toward those upon whom they depend. Dependent individuals play the inferior role to the superior other very well; they communicate to the dominant people in their lives that they are useful, sympathetic, strong, and competent. With these methods, individuals with DPD are often able to get along with unpredictable or isolated people. To further make this possible, individuals with DPD will approach both their own and others' failures and shortcomings with a saccharine attitude and indulgent tolerance. They will engage in a mawkish minimization, denial, or distortion of both their own and others' negative, self-defeating, or destructive behaviors to sustain an idealized, and sometimes fictional, story of the relationships upon which they depend. They will deny their individuality, their differences, and ask for little other than acceptance and support. Not only will individuals with DPD subordinate their needs to those of others, they will meet unreasonable demands and submit to abuse and intimidation to avoid isolation and abandonment. Dependent individuals so fear being unable to function alone that they will agree with things they believe are wrong rather than risk losing the help of people upon whom they depend. They will volunteer for unpleasant tasks if that will bring them the care and support they need. They will make extraordinary self-sacrifices to maintain important bonds. It is important to note that individuals with DPD, in spite of the intensity of their need for others, do not necessarily attach strongly to specific individuals, i.e., they will become quickly and indiscriminately attached to others when they have lost a significant relationship. It is the strength of the dependency needs that is being addressed; attachment figures are basically interchangeable. Attachment to others is a self-referenced and, at times, haphazard process of securing the protection of the most readily available powerful other willing to provide nurturance and care.

20

Both DPD and HPD are distinguished from other personality disorders by their need for social approval and affection and by their willingness to live in accord with the desires of others. They both feel paralyzed when they are alone and need constant assurance that they will not be abandoned. Individuals with DPD are passive individuals who lean on others to guide their lives. People with HPD are active individuals who take the initiative to arrange and modify the circumstances of their lives. They have the will and ability to take charge of their lives and to make active demands on others. Histrionic personality disorder (HPD) is a personality disorder characterized by a pattern of excessive emotionality and attentionseeking, including an excessive need for approval and inappropriately seductive behavior, usually beginning in early adulthood. These individuals are lively, dramatic, vivacious, enthusiastic, and flirtatious. HPD affects four times as many women as men. It has a prevalence of 2–3% in the general population, and 10–15% in inpatient and outpatient mental health institutions. HPD lies in the dramatic cluster of personality disorders. People with HPD have a high need for attention, make loud and inappropriate appearances, exaggerate their behaviors and emotions, and crave stimulation They may exhibit sexually provocative behavior, express strong emotions with an impressionistic style, and can be easily influenced by others. Associated features include egocentrism, self-indulgence, continuous longing for appreciation, and persistent manipulative behavior to achieve their own needs. Passive-aggressive behavior Is a category of interpersonal interactions characterized by an obstructionist or hostile manner that indicates aggression, or, in more general terms, expressing aggression in non-assertive, subtle (that is, passive or indirect) ways. It can be seen in some cases as a personality trait or disorder marked by a pervasive pattern of negative attitudes and passive, usually disavowed, resistance in interpersonal or occupational situations. Passive-aggressive behavior should not be confused with covert aggression (a behavior better described as catty), which consists of deliberate, active, but carefully veiled hostile acts and is distinctively different in character from the non-assertive style of passive aggression. Passive-aggressive behavior can manifest itself as learned helplessness, procrastination, hostility masquerading as jokes, stubbornness, resentment, sullenness, or deliberate/repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible. Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is described (DSM-IV-TR), as an Axis II personality disorder characterized by "...a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood. It is characterized by at least 3 of the following: 1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others; 2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations; 3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them; 4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence; 5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment; 6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.

21

There may be persistent irritability as an associated feature. The diagnosis includes what may be referred to as amoral, antisocial, psychopathic, or sociopathic personality (disorder.) The criteria specifically rule out conduct disorders. Dissocial personality disorder criteria differ from those for antisocial and sociopathic personality disorders. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth ion (DSM IV-TR), defines antisocial personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B) as: A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following: 1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; 2. deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; 3. impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead; 4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults; 5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others; 6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations; 7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another; B) The individual is at least age 18 years. C) There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years. D) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode. Behavioral addiction: Increasingly referred to as process addiction or non-substance-related addiction behavioral addiction includes a compulsion to repeatedly engage in an action until said action causes serious negative consequences to the person's physical, mental, social, and/or financial well-being. One sign that a behavior has become addictive is if it persists despite these consequences. The type of behaviors which some people have identified as being addictive include gambling, food, sex, viewing of pornography, use of computers, playing video games, use of the internet, work, exercise, spiritual obsession (as opposed to religious devotion), cutting, and shopping.

22

10 Types of Emotional Manipulators Source: http://onlinecounsellingcollege.tumblr.com/post/22987740636/10-types-of-emotional-manipulators The Online Counselling College identifies ten types of emotional manipulators: 1. The Constant Victim - This kind of individual will always finds a way to end up as a victim in their relationships. 2. The One-Upmanship Expert – This person uses put downs, snide remarks and criticisms, to show that they’re superior, and know much more than you. 3. The Powerful Dependent – They hide behind the mask of being weak and powerless – then use their helplessness to dominate relationships. That is, they send the subtle message “you must not let me down.” 4. The Triangulator – This person tries to get other people on their side. They’re quick to put you down, and to say some nasty things. They separate good friends or drive a wedge in families. 5. The Blasters – They blast you with their anger or they blow up suddenly. That stops you asking questions - in case there’s a showdown. 6. The Projector – This person thinks they’re perfect and others have the flaws. They take no ownership – because they’re never, ever wrong. 7. The Deliberate Mis-Interpreter – They seem like a nice person – but they twist and use your words. They spread misinformation and misinterpret you. Thus, they deliberately present you in a false, negative way. 8. The Flirt – This person uses flirting to get their way in life. They want to be admired and to have an audience. However, your feelings and your needs are of no concern to them. 9. The Iron Fist – They use intimidation and throw their weight around, to use you for their ends, and to get their way in life. 10. The Multiple Offender – This person uses several of the techniques we’ve described – and they’ll often switch between them if it suits their purposes.

23

2.5 Which vulnerabilities are exploited by manipulators? “When you get enough inner peace and feel really positive about yourself, it is almost impossible for you to be controlled or manipulated by anyone else.” Wayne Dwyer According to Beth E Peterson Source: http://www.wingedblue.com/manip2.html Characteristics within ourselves which make us vulnerable to manipulation fall within six main areas:      

Our Physical Being Will and Expressions Imagination Memory Thought Emotion

Have you ever been tired enough that when the kids hound you for pizza, you give in? That is an example of the traits of your physical body being used by others to manipulate you.... Have you ever known how another person was feeling simply through their body language or tone of voice? This is something we all do as a matter of course; we recognize (even if only on a subconscious level) that people communicate in a huge number of ways. These expressions of self are signals we are constantly sending out can be used by a manipulator.... Have you ever found yourself believing another person, just because what they told you was something you were really hoping for? And oh-oh! How many times do we make excuses? Loads! But sometimes when we excuse something or rationalize something, whether about ourselves or another person, we are not noticing and stopping a manipulative ploy or attack. These are examples of imagination as an opening for manipulation.... Have you ever walked into a situation where you felt like a little kid again...and not in a good way? If this has happened to you...and it does happen to almost all of us...then someone has accessed your template of child-status. Or in other words, you were just dropped into those same feelings and even attitudes that you had as a child. Believe it or not, this is a weapon a lot of manipulators aim for. And here's a biggie! Our ability to learn is one of the easiest toeholds to access. Our memories are also vulnerable because they are fluid; they change over time as our own perceptions and interpretations change.... How many times have you been influenced by another person's thoughts? The number will be too many to count. From thoughts about the way the country is run to which is the best way to fry an egg, we listen to and are influenced by other people's thoughts and concepts. This is generally a good thing, but when we aren't careful, a manipulator will use this everyday process to steer you wherever they want you. Remember ever having been pressured by your peer group into doing something you weren't sure about? That is an example of the idea that contact equals influence. A manipulator uses it even more subtly.... Have you ever noticed that our emotional state seems tied to everything else? For example, when you're fatigued for a long time, it can be easy to slip into sadness. Or have you ever listened to music that just got you bouncing? Or a speaker that really roused you? These are forms of emotional ecstacies. They and the positive emotions can also be used to lead you down the garden path

24

Manipulators exploit the following vulnerabilities (buttons) that may exist in victims: According to Braiker, 

the "disease to please"



addiction to earning the approval and acceptance of others



Emotophobia (fear of negative emotion; i.e. a fear of expressing anger, frustration or disapproval)



lack of assertiveness and ability to say no



blurry sense of identity (with soft personal boundaries)



low self-reliance



external locus of control: According to Julian B. Rotter, a person's "locus" (Latin for "place" or "location") is conceptualized as either internal (the person believes they can control their life) or external (meaning they believe that their decisions and life are controlled by environmental factors which they cannot influence). Individuals with a high internal locus of control believe that events in their life derive primarily from their own actions; for example, if a person with an internal locus of control does not perform as well as they wanted to on a test, they would blame it on lack of preparedness on their part. If they performed well on a test, they would attribute this to ability, effort and study. If a person with a high external locus of control does poorly on a test, they might attribute this to the difficulty of the test questions. If they performed well on a test, they might think the teacher was lenient or that they were lucky.

According to Simon 

naïveté: victim finds it too hard to accept the idea that some people are cunning, devious and ruthless or is “in denial” if he or she is being victimized.



over-conscientiousness: victim is too willing to give manipulator the benefit of the doubt and see their side of things in which they blame the victim.



low self-confidence: victim is self-doubting, lacking in confidence and assertiveness, likely to go on the defensive too easily.



over-intellectualization: victim tries too hard to understand and believes the manipulator has some understandable reason to be hurtful.



Emotional dependency: victim has a submissive or dependent personality. The more emotionally dependent the victim is, the more vulnerable he or she is to being exploited and manipulated.

25

Manipulators generally take the time to scope out the characteristics and vulnerabilities of their victim. According to Kantor:

26



too dependent: dependent people need to be loved and are therefore gullible and liable to say yes to something to which they should say no.



too immature: has impaired judgment and believes the exaggerated advertising claims.



Too naïve: cannot believe there are dishonest people in the world, taking for granted that if there were they would not be allowed to operate.



too impressionable: overly seduced by charmers. For example, they might vote for the seemingly charming politician who kisses babies.



Too trusting: people who are honest often assume that everyone else is honest. They are more likely to commit themselves to people they hardly know without checking credentials, etc., and less likely to question so-called experts.



too lonely: lonely people may accept any offer of human contact. A psychopathic stranger may offer human companionship for a price.



too narcissistic: narcissists are prone to falling for unmerited flattery.



too impulsive: make snap decisions about, for example, what to buy or whom to marry without consulting others.



too altruistic: the opposite of psychopathic: too honest, too fair, too empathetic.



Too frugal: cannot say no to a bargain even if they know the reason it is so cheap.



Too materialistic: easy prey for loan sharks or get-rich-quick schemes.



too greedy: the greedy and dishonest may fall prey to a psychopath who can easily entice them to act in an immoral way.



Too masochistic: lack self-respect and so unconsciously let psychopaths take advantage of them. They think they deserve it out of a sense of guilt.



The elderly: the elderly can become fatigued and less capable of multi-tasking. When hearing a sales pitch they are less likely to consider that it could be a con. They are prone to giving money to someone with a hard-luck story.

2.6 How a manipulator works 2.6.1 What is the basic manipulative strategy of a psychopath? According to Robert D. Hare and Paul Babiak, psychopaths are always on the lookout for individuals to scam or swindle. The psychopathic approach includes three phases:

1. Assessment phase Some psychopaths are opportunistic, aggressive predators who will take advantage of almost anyone they meet, while others are more patient, waiting for the perfect, innocent victim to cross their path. In each case, the psychopath is constantly sizing up the potential usefulness of an individual as a source of money, power, sex, or influence. Some psychopaths enjoy a challenge while others prey on people who are vulnerable. During the assessment phase, the psychopath is able to determine a potential victim’s weak points and will use those weak points to seduce.

2. Manipulation phase Once the psychopath has identified a victim, the manipulation phase begins. During the manipulation phase, a psychopath may create a persona or mask, specifically designed to ‘work’ for his or her target. A psychopath will lie to gain the trust of their victim. Psychopaths' lack of empathy and guilt allows them to lie with impunity; they do not see the value of telling the truth unless it will help get them what they want. As interaction with the victim proceeds, the psychopath carefully assesses the victim's persona. The victim's persona gives the psychopath a picture of the traits and characteristics valued in the victim. The victim's persona may also reveal, to an astute observer, insecurities or weaknesses the victim wishes to minimize or hide from view. As an ardent student of human behavior, the psychopath will then gently test the inner strengths and needs that are part of the victim's private self and eventually build a personal relationship with the victim. The persona of the psychopath - the “personality” the victim is bonding with - does not really exist. It is built on lies, carefully woven together to entrap the victim. It is a mask, one of many, custom-made by the psychopath to fit the victim's particular psychological needs and expectations. The victimization is predatory in nature; it often leads to severe financial, physical or emotional harm for the individual. Healthy, real relationships are built on mutual respect and trust; they are based on sharing honest thoughts and feelings. The victim's mistaken belief that the psychopathic bond has any of these characteristics is the reason it is so successful.

3. Abandonment phase The abandonment phase begins when the psychopath decides that his or her victim is no longer useful. The psychopath abandons his or her victim and moves on to someone else. In the case of romantic relationships, a psychopath will usually seal a relationship with their next target before abandoning his or her current victim. Sometimes, the psychopath has three individuals on whom he or she is running game: the one who has been recently abandoned, who is being toyed with and kept in the picture in case the other two do not work out; the one who is currently being played and is about to be abandoned; and the third, who is being groomed by the psychopath, in anticipation of abandoning the current "mark".

27

According to Beth E Peterson Source: http://www.wingedblue.com/manip2.html Techniques are the manipulative tools used by a manipulator to take control over their targeted victims. They fall within three main areas:   

Environment Information Ideology

Have you ever found yourself feeling pressured to do something because everyone around is doing it? That is an example of how your environment can influence you. Are you aware of how many different environments you move through in a single day? More than you may realize. Each of those environments is a potential place of manipulative attack.... Have you ever heard the saying, "Information Is Power"? It is more true than many of us know. Have you ever been misinformed about a relationship, and chosen a direction you might not have gone otherwise? This happens often enough in regular circumstances; in the hands of a manipulator, it becomes a powerful weapon. In your profession or hobbies, do you use jargon? Words that mean something different than in usual conversation? (If I told you I was firing in a reducing atmosphere, would you have a clue what I was talking about? Probably only if you are a potter. *wink*) Jargon is normal; we accept it without much thought. Manipulators, however, use jargon to influence and drive their victims. Each of the above is a possible avenue for manipulation through information.... Do you think world peace is a good idea? The majority of us will probably say a resounding 'yes!'...but in the hands of a manipulator, such worthy ideas and goals are nothing more than tools. Do you like the feeling that you are special? That you are part of something wonderful? Such ideas are part of the drawing in process and the manipulative tool of Us vs Them. What happens when your boss says, 'do it my way or else'? You will definitely feel a pressure to conform to their requirements. Such pressure can be applied in many ways... When you have gotten to a certain point in a manipulative relationship, the manipulator will use the tool of ideology to break your internal strength down even further by 'showing' you that you are 'wrong' or 'mistaken'. Have you ever felt that you haven't measure up? That you just weren't good enough at something? Such feelings and experiences also become weapons in the hands of a manipulator. Time refers to how our Toeholds and the manipulator's Techniques act together through Time to draw in the manipulator's victim. There are six stages in this process of Time:      

Softening Up Compliance Identification Consolidation Disaffiliation Recovery

Have you ever seen an ad? Read a book? Talked to a stranger while waiting for an airplane? Gone on a date? Then you may have already entered the softening up phase with a manipulator....

28

Do you ever do something you wouldn't do otherwise, because someone asked you to? Many of us will. A manipulator knows this and works on their targeted victim's politeness and willingness in order to draw them deeper into the relationship.... Do you sometimes identify yourself through another person or through a group? For example, 'Hi, I'm Joe, Mary's husband' or 'I'm part of the XYZ organization'? In a manipulative relationship, this is part of the manipulator's plan.... People can be manipulated to the point of identifying themself primarily or solely through their relationship with the ultra-authority. Their own sense of identity as an individual has been destroyed.... Nothing of the old you remains; you are now about what the manipulator wants. This is the stage of the relationship that most extreme manipulators are aiming for: complete control over their targeted victim.... Have you ever 'dumped' somebody? It is much harder to leave a relationship you've been manipulated into, but it can be done.... For someone who has disaffiliated from a manipulator, there are often some very serious concerns which must be met right away. Personal safety, food, clothing, shelter and financial assets have often been stripped out of the control of the individual. There are also long-term effects: recovering from such levels of manipulation takes time, a great deal of effort, and understanding of what happened to you.

2.6.2 Basic manipulative skills “There is only one way to get anybody to do anything, and that is by making the other person want to do it” (Dale Carnegie) How manipulators unveil hidden reasons and feelings: If you ask a person the reason for his behaviour, chances are he will come up with an excuse. Manipulators know this and will formulate their question differently. They might ask “why won’t you do things my way?” and next, ask: “is their any reason in addition to that?” and then keep silent and observe their victim’s reaction. In the same way, in order to find out how somebody really feels about something, they may surprise him with a direct question and then observe his reaction. Avoidance of conflict and Persistence: the hidden weapons of manipulation You may think there is nothing you want from your friends or colleagues, a manipulator is always aware that one day you may be in a position to contribute in one way or another in the pursuit of his interests. That is why he will choose his disagreements and pick his battles very carefully. After all, arguments yield bitter fruits, so what’s the use of disagreeing or arguing on subjects that don’t directly affect their interests or of arguing with people they have no personal connection with? Instead, manipulators “speak the we-language” and will often stress how alike they feel to their victims: “I don’t blame you for that, I’ve been there myself – I know how you feel”

29

They are very good at pointing out areas of agreement and at appealing to common values : “We both want you to have what you want and deserve.”, “I don’t want to cause you trouble any more than you do yourself.” They overcome objections by providing good reasons why it is in the victim’s best interest to do what they propose. An often used scheme is: a. b. c. d.

Agree with the feelings of the victim Stress areas of agreement Overcome objections by giving good reasons Adding an “It’s for your best interest only / I don’t need you”-disclaimer

Example: “Yes, I know what you mean and I am sure that nine out of ten times, that would be the right thing to do. However, this case has some very unusual circumstances that make it a little different. Just like you, I wish things were easier, better, cheaper, not so risky, … But I know that you want to get the best deal and I want you to get the best price, to be completely satisfied, You’ve looked around yourself and you already know that the best things in life demand some risk. Taking a little chance is always something you have to live with. You can’t buy one like this for any less anywhere anyway. … It’s up to you to decide of course. After all, my only desire is to help you succeed in any way that I can. After all, I don’t want to see you run into trouble with your wife. …” Manipulators generate doubt Manipulators rarely argue directly against an idea or proposal, they will rather first praise their victim for his ideas, but then create confusion or doubt: “That's an excellent idea, but if we look more deeply ....." or "I agree with what you say but have you considered ....". Manipulators reduce Resistance with suggestive questions “Surely, everybody will agree that …” This simple line that we read and hear regularly, is the standard example of a suggestive question. Wikipedia, the free Encyclopaedia, describes a suggestive question as a question that implies that a certain answer should be given in response, or falsely presents a presupposition in the question as accepted fact. Such a question distorts the memory thereby tricking the person into answering in a specific way that might or might not be true or consistent with their actual feelings, and can be deliberate or unintentional. For example, the phrasing "Don't you think this was wrong?" is more suggestive than "Do you think this was wrong?" despite the difference of only one word. The former may subtly pressure the respondent into responding "yes," whereas the latter is far more direct. Repeated questions can make people think their first answer is wrong and lead them to change their answer, or it can cause people to continuously answer until the interrogator gets the exact response that they desire. The diction used by the interviewer can also be an influencing factor to the response given by the interrogated individual.

30

Wikipedia recognizes the following types of suggestive questions: Direct suggestive questions Direct questions lead to one word answers when explanations are sometimes needed. This could include questions like “Do you get it?” and “Where did it happen?” According to Dr. Kathy Kellermann, an expert in persuasion and communication, direct questions force exact responses through carefully worded questions. Repeated suggestive questions Repeated questions elicit certain types of answers. Repeated questions make people think their first answer was wrong, lead them to change their answer, or cause people to keep answering until the interrogator gets the exact response that they desire. Elizabeth Loftus states that errors in answers are dramatically reduced if a question is only asked once Forced choice suggestive questions Yes/no or forced choice questions like “is this yellow or green?” force people to choose between two choices when the answer could be neither of the choices or needs more explanation. This generates more “interviewer-talks” moments, where the interviewer is talking and controlling most of the interview. This type of question is also known as a false dilemma. Forced choice is often used in sales relations: “should I call you Monday or Wednesday (assumes that you want to talk again) “the first meeting will be next Tuesday” (assumes you will participate) “do you prefer the blue one or the red one?” (assumes you want the article) Presumptuous suggestive questions Presumptuous questions can either be balanced or unbalanced. Unbalanced questions ask questions only from the point of view of one side of an argument. For example, an interrogator might ask “’Do you favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder?”’ This question assumes that the person’s only point of view in the situation is that a person who is convicted must either get the death penalty or not. The second type of presumptuous question is balanced question. This is when the interrogator uses opposite questions to make the witness believe that the question is balanced when the reality is that it is not. For example, the interrogator would ask, “’Do you favor life in prison, without the possibility of parole?”’ This type of question may seem balanced when in reality it is still influencing the person to discuss life in prison and no other choice. Confirmatory suggestive questions Confirmatory questioning leads to answers that can only support a certain point. Here, the interviewer forces the person to make sure his or her answers make them out to be extroverted or introverted. If they want them to look extroverted they would ask questions like “How do you make a party more fun?” and “When are you talkative?” If they want the person to look introverted they ask questions like “Have you ever been left out of a group?” or “Can you be more hyper sometimes?”.

31

Manipulators can be very persistent. They a. Decide what they want and resolve not to quit until they get it. b. Mentally accept the consequences of failure, but do everything in their power to avoid failure. c. Vow to learn something from every experience through self-examination. They will not hesitate to compromise on some detail in order to start a pattern of concessions and know the importance of getting a “yes” on a small concession and work their way up from their, by always adding to the concession They are careful to avoid painful moments of decision. In case of doubt, they will readily assume their victim agreed and take appropriate action: “I’ll call him now and make the necessary reservations …” They know that nobody likes to feel he owes a debt to somebody else and thus - In order to prevent them from feeling ungrateful - often, succeed in making their victims “pay in advance” for the favours they are going to do them: “I will help you out if you first help me with this little problem that I’m having” Manipulators master the Laws of Influence Manipulators instinctively use Cialdini’s laws of influence.

Robert B. Cialdini is Regents’ Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Marketing at Arizona State University. He is best known for his book on persuasion and marketing, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Influence has sold over 2 million copies and has been translated into twenty-six languages. It has been listed on the New York Times Business Best Seller List. Fortune Magazine lists Influence in their "75 Smartest Business Books." Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (ISBN 0-688-12816-5) has also been published as a textbook under the title Influence: Science and Practice (ISBN 0-321-01147-3).

32

In writing the book, he spent three years going "undercover" applying for jobs and training at used car dealerships, fund-raising organizations, and telemarketing firms to observe real-life situations of persuasion. The book also reviews many of the most important theories and experiments in social psychology. Harvard Business Review lists Dr. Cialdini's research in "Breakthrough Ideas for Today's Business Agenda". 1. The law of reciprocity or law of obligation People feel obliged to return a favour hen somebody does something for them first. By granting favours, manipulators create a situation in which the victim feels he owes them something in return or, in a negotiation, they will make small concessions to stimulate a return-concession. Another way in which this technique is used is when somebody first makes a large request and, when this request has been rejected, immediately follows it with a much smaller request. The law of reciprocity is extremely powerful, often overwhelming the influence of other factors that normally determine compliance with a request. It applies even to uninvited first favours, which reduce our ability to decide whom we wish to owe and putting the choice in the hands of others and can spur unequal exchanges. That is: to be rid of the uncomfortable feeling of indebtedness, an individual will often agree to a request for a substantially larger favours, than the one he or she first received. “Favours” can be almost anything that is of value to the victim: sharing a secret, paying attention, taking out to dine, taking to a concert, support in an argument with a third person, a small token of friendship, a compliment, a smile, an invitation, … Manipulators must be careful though that their victims don’t see their actions as a form of bribery, and thus pressure to comply. Favours and gifts should be given before something is asked “in return”, because if the victim feels tricked, their compliance will decrease. The obligation created must be perceived as a sincere and unselfish act of friendship. Studies revealed that when somebody persuaded you to change your mind, they will be inclined to do the same if approached by you. This is the strength of observations like: “you know, I have been thinking about what you said, and you are really right …” 2. The law of scarcity Oftentimes scarcity is an illusion engineered by the product maker. Because products (and opportunities) seem a lot more appealing when there is limited availability. The manipulator knows that, if he lets his victim escape now, chances are he will never return and say: “okay, I decided. Let’s do it now!”. By creating scarcity, he will therefore put pressure on his victim to make his decision. One of the ways in which this law is used, is to make the victim aware of the fact that they have other people waiting in line to take his place in order to convince him of the value of his “preferential relationship” with the manipulator. A few other ways of using this law are : •

the “exclusive”, “limited” or “once in a lifetime” offer

•

posing deadlines: tomorrow the offer is not valid anymore

•

invitation required, vips only …

33

•

potential loss: if you don't take advantage of my offer, you will remain restricted in your actions and possibilities in one way or another. People will always overvalue the thing a manipulator is restricting. That is why manipulators often resort to creating a state of emotion in which the victim fears the loss. This is an overwhelming feeling they won't be able to ignore. Motivated by restriction, the victim will want what you deny him. They will do anything to get it and the more you deny them, the more energy you give to your cause.

•

limited offer: Mr X is also interested, but had to consult his wife first. If she decides to take the offer, it’ll be too late for you.

3. The law of authority Manipulators come well prepared and found their arguments with support from experts in the field or celebrities. This is why so much publicity is presented by celebrities or actors acting like a scientist or professional: “90% of dentist recommend …” Or the manipulator poses as an authority or expert himself. When reacting to authority in an automatic fashion there is a tendency to often do so in response to the mere symbols of authority rather than to its substance., instead of being critical and asking ourselves what makes this person truly an expert and how truthful we can expect him to be. Three types of symbols have been demonstrated through research as effective in this regard: • • •

Titles Clothing Automobiles.

4. The law of liking or law of connectivity Manipulators know the importance of using people’s names, of smiling, confirming and praising others, touching them carefully, mirror and match their mood, verbal style, body language, breathing … in order to create rapport. As a rule, people believe much easier what is being said by those who are similar to them and whom they like. Effective manipulators understand that the more recognition, praise, acceptance and genuine compliments they pay their victim, the more likely they are to persuade them to their ideas and ways of thinking. The main factors in connectivity are: attraction, similarity, sincerity, people skills (feeling the other is interested in you and respects you for who you are) and rapport. The ability to work well with people tops the list for common skills and habits of highly successful people. Studies show that as much as 85 percent of your success in life depends on your people skills and the ability to get others to like you As for attraction: attraction may start with good looks and speaking and dressing well, but it goes beyond that: it encompasses having the ability to attract and draw people to you. People most easily like people that are similar to them. Researchers McCroskey, Richmond, and Daly say there are four critical steps to similarity: attitude, morality, background, and appearance. When receiving a persuasive message, we ask the following questions subconsciously: 1) Does the speaker think like me?

34

2) Does the speaker share my morals? 3) Does the speaker share my background? 4) Does the speaker look like me? Of the four similarity factors, attitudes and morals are the most important. Manipulators often instinctively know what Carnegie teaches: by becoming interested in other people, they get them to like them faster than by spending all day trying to get them interested in them. Having goodwill entails appearing friendly or concerned with the other person's best interest. Aristotle said, "We consider as friends those who wish good things for us and who are pained when bad things happen to us." This caring and kindness means being sensitive and thoughtful. It means acting with consideration, politeness, civility, and genuine concern for those around us. It is the foundation for all interactions and creates a mood of reciprocity. Manipulators often win hearts and loyalty through genuine or feigned compassion. They invoke goodwill by focusing on positives and avoid appearing harsh or forceful when dealing in areas where the other person is sensitive or vulnerable. Additionally, they make positive statements and perform actions that show their victims that they have their best interest in mind. One way of creating rapport is by utilizing methods of association to trigger and stimulate deep reservoirs of emotion within their Victim’s minds. These triggers can include pleasant music, colors, symbols, sounds, celebrities, etc. The Victim naturally associates each trigger to a specific feeling or emotion based on past experience. Therefore, when these triggers are associated and coupled together with a specific product, idea or service, than the Victim begins to associate these same feelings and emotions to these stimuli as well, and the persuasive process runs it’s full course. 5. The law of social proof We will do what the crowd does. We might not like to admit that, but it is true. Only 5 to 10 percent of the population engages in behaviour contrary to the social norm. We see this law operating in groups, in organizations, in meetings, and in day-to-day public life. In all of these circumstances, there is a certain standard or norm. In churches, the moral code determines the standard behaviour acceptable for the group. In organizations, the bylaws and years of tradition establish a standard operating procedure. Because we want to fit into these groups and maintain our membership with them, we conform our actions to the norm. When we find ourselves in a foreign situation where we feel awkward or unsure of how to act, we look for those social cues that will dictate our behaviour. Manipulators will convince their victims that their views are supported by others, that “everybody knows” or “nowadays, almost all the really important people that I know agree …” Because people tend to think that “what’s right for others, cannot be bad for me”, manipulators will often refer to other people who gained by taking the action they are asking their victim to make. Also when it comes to making friends, the law of social proof comes in very handy: when somebody tells you “others” have informed him how good you are, or that he accidently overhear d a conversation in which two colleagues praised your qualities or were named as a specialist in some field, than you will not only feel flattered, but you will also want to proof these “others” right and are much more likely to give him what he wants from you.

35

Anytime we find ourselves part of a group, we feel some susceptibility to peer pressure and/or the opinions of others in the group. The more respect we feel for the group, the more their opinions matter to us, and therefore the more we feel pressured to align our own opinions with those of the group. Even when we don't really agree with the group, we will often go along with the group in order to be rewarded instead of punished, or liked instead of scorned. Consider also the following other examples: People conform because they believe everyone else is correct People conform because they fear the social rejection of not going along People conform simply because it's the norm People conform because of cultural influences People conform because somebody of authority says something is correct People conform because somebody they love believes in something 6. The law of commitment and consistency Effective manipulators realize that by involving their Victim’s in specific activities related to their idea, product or service will effectively open them up to the forces of persuasion. The greater the emotional involvement the Victim experiences, the more susceptible they will become to the persuasive process. Once a manipulator succeeds in making somebody commit to a general idea or goal, he knows it will then be easier to ask for subsequent action. Also, people will easier repeat what they’ve already done before. The well known foot-in-the-door technique is based on this law: If you can get someone to do you a small favour, they are more likely to grant you a larger favour later on. Initial favours are granted more easily when the manipulator can convince his victim that he is not acting in his own self interest, but in the victim’s or society’s. Another technique based on the law of commitment and consistency is the “yes-train”: by getting a person to say “yes” to a number of questions, they are much more likely to also say “yes” to the question you really want to ask them. Wow, the weather is great today, isn’t it? - Yes Doesn’t it really feel good to be outside now? - Yes Do you want to join me for a drink on one of these terraces after work? - Yes The same technique can be used in a slightly different way: Manipulators know that, if their victim accept the first part of a statement they are making, they will often also accept the second part. Example: “As a woman, as a colleague, as a man with principles … you can easily understand …” Still another technique based on this law is the “because” technique: people like to have a reason for the things they do. Manipulators will offer them the reason. Research indicates that adding “because”, followed by an arbitrary and even meaningless reason to a request, leads to significantly higher positive response. “Excuse me, can I use the copier first because I need to make some copies” sounds daft, but yields a much better result than the same question without the added reason. Manipulators will also try to get their victims to commit to a decision or product, or to make some kind of promise. Next, the manipulators will change the rules of the game or the terms and conditions agreed. They know that, once somebody mentally committed to something, they are likely to stick to their decision even if what they want will now cost them more or be somehow different from the initial offer.

36

Before changing the deal, they get their victims to confirm their commitment. Each confirmation increases the commitment on the part of the victim:, more so when the confirmation is made publically: talking about the agreement, discussing aspects, telling his friends, confirming a date, … Each of these steps result in a greater level of commitment and make it more difficult for the victim to pull back from the deal. Manipulators also know the importance of confirming to their victims that they made the right decision and, if someone did them a favour, they will let them know afterwards what happened, hoping that in this way their victims will appreciate the feedback and may be able to help them further in future. The law of commitment and consistence also works in a much different way: People want to be consistent, so when they are aware of dissonance in their lives, when attitudes conflict with actions of beliefs, they feel uncomfortable and will try to restore the harmony in their lives. To shut out dissonance, they may      

Deny there is a conflict by ignoring the conflictive information or deliberately misperceiving it. Change existing cognitions (admit they were wrong) and adapt to the new situation Reframe their understanding or interpretation of the meaning (consider the matter of no importance) Discredit the source of the conflictive information and search support for their own viewpoint. Separate the conflictive attitudes: “what happens in one area of my life has nothing tot do with other areas.” Rationalize: find excuses for why the inconstancy is acceptable

Because dissonance is causing them to feel uncomfortable, it is a powerful tool to motivate people to make and keep commitments. Manipulators will sell you a dream, then make you pay for it: a. Step one: They will create rapport, discover what you are dreaming of and join you in your dream: “imagine you went to sleep yesterday and woke up this morning in an ideal world, how would you know? – what would it look like?” b. Step two: They will create dissonance by remembering you that your dream has not been realized yet in your life: “too bad that …”, “yes, but see what you’ve got now …” c.

Step three: They will offer you a solution, that is: show you how you can become happy again: (This is where they present the bill for becoming happy!) “what if I could prove you …”, “if you do what I ask, then I can assure you …”, “If I could …; would this allow you to ….”

7. The law of contrast Effective manipulators present their Victim with a contrast of choices. Their goal is to convince their Victim to purchase Product “E”. This is a higher ticket item that may be slightly outside their Victim’s price range. However, instead of showing them Product E to begin with, they instead show them Products A through D. They inform their Victim that Product A, B, C and D have several undesirable options that don’t quite match their Victim’s needs. They eventually work their way up to Product E that meets their Victim’s Needs perfectly.

37

8. The law of expectation If I accept you as you are, I will make you worse; however if I treat you as though you are what you are capable of becoming, I help you become that. —JOHANN WOLFGANG VON GOETHE Effective manipulators understand that people normally behave according to the expectations set by others. They will use this to their advantage by unconsciously sending persuasive signals of expectation towards their Victim which are based on their psychological desires and wants. Moreover, they utilize the expectations and opinions of others (people with psychological influence over their Victim’s lives) to maneuver their Victim into a decisive frame of mind.

38

2.7. How to recognize manipulation for the purpose of domination or control Manipulators attempt to project an attractive and irrexistible image of superior natural and/or supernatural skills, abilities and accomplishments. Some of the used techniques are easily recognized and will be described more in detail further in this book: (1) Projection of guilt upon others by: (a) Correction (b) Criticism (c) Fault finding (d) Disapproval (e) Condemnation (f) Confrontation (g) Ignoring an individuals existence (h) Circulating malicious opinions (i) Non-acceptance into their clique (j) Blame (2) Statements in the form of questions or analogies designed to put others on the defensive. (3) Not initiating closure When problems surface in a personal relationship, regardless of who is responsible for the problem, they will not attempt to solve the problem, but depend on the unresolved tension to cause the other party to contact them first to resolve the issue. (4) Establishing uncertainty of the past, present or future to build insecurity in a person and dependence upon the practitioner’s abilities and information by: (a) Altering true information (b) Withholding true information (c) Issuing false information (d) Using big names as information sources (5) Illegally assuming authority without responsibility, by: (a) Outright claims that they have the official sanction of those in charge (b) Implied claims they have the official sanction of those in charge (c) Manipulating, maneuvering and motivating others to think, feel and choose the way the practitioner wants them to (d) “Spiritual” revelations (e) Physical authority—violence, temper tantrums, force, sex, drugs, etc. (f) Rebelling against established authority (6) Illegally attempting to assume responsibility without authority.

39

(7) Declarations of dependency: “You don’t understand how much I need you (depend, trust, etc).” This may be followed by “and how little you care what happens to me.” (8) Declarations of reverse dependency: “You don’t understand how much you need me (depend, trust, etc).” This may be followed by “and how much I care what happens to you.” (9) The “Let me show you how to do it” ploy. This makes others realize they do not have the time, talent or temperament to accomplish something, thereby shaming them into letting the practitioner volunteer to do the job. (10) The “Show me how to do it” ploy. This makes others realize the practitioner does not have the time, talent or temperament to accomplish something, thereby shaming them into volunteering to do the job. (11) The “I tried to cover for your mistake” routine, “and it:” (a) Worked, so you’ve got to repay the favor by doing something for me. (b) Didn’t work, so you’ve got to do something to fix the problem. (12) The “I tried to teach you, but you won’t listen to me, so don’t ask me any more questions” ploy. This ploy is to punish others by instilling a deep sense of loss created by withdrawal of the practitioners (opinionated) “wise counsel.” (13) Insults directed at others to further distance the practitioner, who by now knows they have failed in their efforts to dominate. (14) Polarizing groups of people into adverse parties. This is further punishment for failure to recognize the superiority of the practitioner and an attempt to establish control by comparing persons to create competition. (15) Withdrawal, when suggestions, comments or questions come up about their pronouncements, with simulated: (a) Hurt (b) Rejection (c) Depression (d) Physical sickness (e) Protests of innocence (f) Accusations of others (16) False remorse With hypocritical statements of now perceiving how their past activities have hurt others and a seeking of forgiveness for past behavior.

40

(17) Self-proclaimed martyrdom Usually follows withdrawal or false remorse when the practitioner realizes others are not fooled by their insincerity. Withdrawal or self-proclaimed martyrdom is tacit admission of failure to successfully dominate others. (18) Instigation of difficult, uncomfortable or costly activities for others, which may or may not benefit the practitioner. This is their last desperate effort to control others after having been exposed as two-faced hypocrites, gossips and liars. They will eventually resort to their old, more satisfying, tactics in an attempt to force others to depend upon them. This dominating technique, however, may be used at any time by them to control situations, circumstances and social environments. (19) You may also notice one or more of the following communication techniques. (1) State the obvious (2) Make a mountain out of a molehill (3) Play “can you top this” (4) Promise beyond their delivery capability (5) Stampede into action before all the facts are in (6) Edit the facts to dramatize their point (7) Keep in constant motion, unconcerned about direction (8) State the opposite of the facts, because all else failed. Under no circumstances respond directly to their overtures. Do not address the issues they raise. You must respond by stating that they have no responsibility or authority to make such a statement to you, and that they are out of order. If your relationship with them has not been that close in the past, you may add that because of their present improper social behavior and breach of etiquette, your mutual relationship certainly won’t be close in the future. Source: Steve Morris - http://www.angelfire.com/in/HisName/page5.html

41

3. How to Pick Up on Manipulative Behavior Sources: http://www.wikihow.com/Pick-Up-on-Manipulative-Behavior edited by Iqbal Osman, Teresa, Tipsy, Flickety and 19 others http://aloftyexistence.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/manipulative-personality/ http://www.way-of-the-mind.com/manipulative-people.html

3.1 Manipulation operates in sneaky ways Manipulative people are not obvious because they act in a sneaky way. When someone is openly aggressive, at least we know what is happening and can react accordingly. But with manipulation, it’s different: we know something is wrong but we can't pinpoint what it is. We find ourselves on the defensive and we tend to hate ourselves for it because we think we are making up things. However, usually our feelings are right: we are being manipulated.

3.2 Manipulation is about control Manipulators attempt to indirectly control or influence the actions and behavior of others. Instead of being direct with their methods, the manipulator uses underhanded tactics to force their will. Because they are subtle, the manipulative personality easily goes undetected and overlooked, and the person or people being manipulated don’t realize what’s going on until it’s too late. Or not at all. They may believe that they are obligated to do what the manipulator wishes, and feel guilty if they don’t. The manipulative personality may be a family member, friend, or colleague. Manipulation refers to making attempts at indirectly influencing someone else's behavior or actions. As human beings, our emotions often cloud our judgments making it difficult to see the reality behind hidden agendas or motives in different forms of behavior. The controlling aspects or shrewdness linked to manipulation are sometimes very subtle and may be easily overlooked, buried under feelings of obligation, love, or habit. In this article you'll learn some ways to pick up on manipulative behavior occurring around you, so that you can sort it rather than jump to it.

3.3 Understand the manipulative personality. They're not always obvious because they play a silent game of building up obligations toward them, that end up with you feeling guilty, pressured, and obliged to carry out things for their sake even though you're still wondering how things got to this point. Some of the characteristics of a manipulative personality include: A martyr style personality. This personality type behaves as if he or she is being considerate toward others but is actually messing up considerateness with a need to be significant to you. By "martyring" themselves, they are doing things nobody has asked of them or wants them to do but in the process creates a bind when they do them.

42

In "doing you a favor", their expectation increases that you have to return the favor. They may also complain constantly about all the things they do for you and wonder rhetorically when you're going to return this favor... This type of personality will give you everything — but at a price. They will do you favors, give you special attention, and be overly considerate, but they expect much in return. Their giving is tied to their desire to be considered a “good person” or be considered important to another person. They “cash in” on the favors they’ve done for you to get you to comply with their wishes. Common phrases heard from the Martyr include, “After all I’ve done for you” and “I would do it for you.” Excessively needy and dependent personalities. The Needy person is the most difficult type of manipulator to let go of. They are experts at making you feel sorry for them, and making you feel like you are the only person that can help them. Some Needy personalities don’t realize that they are manipulative. They have learned to depend on others for their needs, and simply don’t know how to get along without help. They may cry or become offended when accused of manipulation. Those that realize they are manipulative may become passive-aggressive in their attempts to regain control. People who feel uncomfortable in their own skin, putting forth their own opinions and ideas can often hide behind manipulative behavior so that it seems as if you are responding on your own accord even though they've set up everything to have you respond directly to their neediness. Narcissists. This is the archetypal manipulative personality and it's very hard to deal with this master manipulator. e Narcissist is the ultimate manipulator. They are egotistic, self-absorbed and feel entitled to nearly everything they desire. They lack empathy and consideration for others, so they will easily manipulate to their own gain. They think it is their right to have others do what they say. You. Seriously, at one time or other, every single one of us practices manipulative behaviors in one form or other. It is just that for most people, manipulative actions tend to be one-off or only occasional instances rather than a purposeful map for daily living and interaction with others.

3.4 Note the possible types of ways in which people try to manipulate one another. There are some key behaviors that can end up in manipulation, and it's helpful to know how to spot them before walking right into them. The most common methods of manipulation are flattery, guilttripping, repetition, assumption, confrontation, and gaslighting: a way of twisting information in such a way that the person being manipulated begins to doubt their own perceptions and memory. The most common manipulation tricks are explained in detail in chapter 4.

43

3.5 How to deal with a manipulative personality Acknowledge the manipulative attempt and respond calmly The best way to deal with a manipulative personality is to acknowledge their ways outright and respond calmly, and even turn their own tactics against them. The manipulator is counting on you to be surprised, confused, and overreact to them, so don’t be. If they say “After all that I’ve done for you!” reply “I’m very grateful for all that you’ve done. Why do you think I’m not? That’s not very nice of you.” Once the manipulator realizes that they can’t affect you in the way that they want, and can’t influence your thoughts or actions, they will move on. And even if they don’t — you’re safe. Manipulation is all about control, and once you figure out the manipulative personality, they are no longer in control. Listen to yourself. In all of the possible manipulative situations, whether or not the signs are easy for you to spot, it is very important to listen to yourself and how you feel about the situation. Do you feel oppressed, pressured, obliged to do things for this person that you'd rather not do? Does their behavior seem to impact you endlessly, so that after one form of assistance, you are expected to grant yet more help and support? Your answers should serve as a true guide to where your relationship with this person is headed next.

44

4. Common Manipulation Tricks Sources: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation WikiHow, the wiki based collaboration to build the world's largest, highest quality how to manual. http://www.wikihow.com/Pick-Up-on-Manipulative-Behavior ed by Iqbal Osman, Teresa, Tipsy, Flickety and 19 others http://aloftyexistence.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/manipulative-personality/ http://www.marcandangel.com/2011/06/12/12-devious-tricks-people-use-to-manipulate-you/ (Michael Lee): http://voices.yahoo.com/psychological-manipulation-techniques-protect-8268077.html http://www.way-of-the-mind.com/manipulative-people.html (Dr Richard Paul and Dr Linda Elder): www.criticalthinking.org The Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement U.S. national library of medicine - National Institution of Health: Misdirection – Past, Present, and the Future by Gustav Kuhn1, and Luis M. Martinez Cristal Parks: http://drowninginabsurdity.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/the-winners-write-realitysanctioned-reality-manipulation-patterns/ Devin Powerll: How magicians control your mind (New Scientist) http://www.mindpowernews.com/Magicology.htm http://changingminds.org/techniques/general/general.htm Jeremy Nicholson, M.S.W., Ph.D.: how to defend against manipulative games http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201106/how-defend-againstmanipulative-dating-games-part-one Dr George Simon: Dealing with Manipulative People: http://www.manipulative-people.com/ Dr. George Simon is the leading expert on manipulators and other disturbed characters. George K. Simon (born February 1, 1948) is a bestselling author and frequent weblog contributor. His wife, Dr. Sherry Simon, is also a professional, living and working in Little Rock. Dr. George K. Simon, Jr., Ph.D. earned his degree in clinical psychology from Texas Tech University. He has studied and worked with manipulators and other disturbed characters and their victims for over thirty years. Dr. Simon is not only an author, but a public speaker, consultant, professional trainer and composer who has appeared on numerous national, regional and local television and radio programs. He has given over 250 workshops and on the subject of dealing with manipulative people and other difficult personalities. Dr. Simon has written numerous articles on character impairment for several popular weblogs, and is the principal composer of the patriotic anthem known as America, My Home.

45

His bestselling book In Sheep's Clothing: Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People© is nearing 20 years in print and has sold over 250,000 copies. “In Sheep's Clothing” deals with psychological manipulation. Dr. Simon discusses the tactics manipulators use to deceive and get the better of others. The book explains the tactics manipulators use to deceive and get the better of others and offers tips on how to avoid being victimized and how to be more empowered in any relationship. His second book, "Character Disturbance: the Phenomenon of Our Age," focuses on how current culture allows disturbed people to reach adulthood without proper socialization. This book was published in August of 2010 and attempts to provide an in-depth but readily understandable explanation of the most difficult and problematic personalities a person is likely to encounter as well as practical ways to keep from being victimized by them. This book also advances the perspective that the phenomenon of "neurosis" about which most traditional psychological frameworks are concerned and which was largely an outgrowth of the highly repressive Victorian culture, has faded in both prevalence and intensity in modern times, and that the issue of greater social concern in an era of permissiveness and entitlement is necessarily character dysfunction, which manifests itself not so much in bizarre psychosomatic symptoms but rather in distorted thinking patterns, problematic attitudes, and irresponsible behaviors, and which can neither be adequately understood nor effectively dealt with via traditional approaches. With his latest book, The Judas Syndrome: Why Good People Do Awful Things, George Simon tries to explain why people do bad things, and how to deal with the fallout of hurtful human action. Dr George Simon identifies four general types of people who might do bad things. The first category he calls simply “bad people,” although he admits the difficulty of using that term. These are people with significant character failings whose actions cause unapologetic harm to those around them. If they are broken down to the point of admitting their failures and developing faith in Christ, Simon believes, bad people may reform into a better character. People without serious character deficiencies are not immune from doing bad things, of course. Basically good people have good intentions that cause them to do harm (a second set), as is clear in the cases of over-parenting that the author cites. On the other hand, such people may also not do enough to prevent bad things (a third set), whether through neglect, fear, or indifference. A fourth set are basically good people who fail in the face of serious temptations.

4.1. Reinforcement 1. Forms of operant conditioning: •

Positive reinforcement: the adding of an appetitive stimulus to increase a certain behavior or response. Example: Father gives candy to his daughter when she picks up her toys. If the frequency of picking up the toys increases or stays the same, the candy is a positive reinforcer.

•

46

Positive punishment: the adding of an aversive stimulus to decrease a certain behavior or response.

Example: Mother yells at a child when running into the street. If the child stops running into the street the yelling is positive punishment. •

Negative reinforcement: the taking away of an aversive stimulus to increase certain behavior or response. Example: Putting ointment on a bug bite to soothe an itch. If using ointment on bug bites increases, the removal of an itch is a negative reinforcer.

•

Negative punishment (omission training): the taking away of an appetitive stimulus to decrease a certain behavior. Example: A teenager comes home an hour after curfew and the parents take away the teen's cell phone for two days. If the frequency of coming home after curfew decreases, the removal of the phone is negative punishment.

The following table illustrates that punishment and reinforcement are a function of the presentation or removal of a stimulus and the valence of the stimulus. Appetitive (pleasant) stimulus Aversive (unpleasant) stimulus Presented

positive reinforcement

positive punishment

Taken away

negative punishment

negative reinforcement

Distinguishing "positive" from "negative" can be difficult, especially when there are lots of consequences and the necessity of the distinction is often debated. For example, in a very warm room, a current of external air serves as positive reinforcement because it is pleasantly cool or negative reinforcement because it removes uncomfortably hot air. Some reinforcement can be simultaneously positive and negative, such as a drug addict taking drugs for the added euphoria and eliminating withdrawal symptoms. Many behavioral psychologists simply refer to reinforcement or punishment—without polarity—to cover all consequent environmental changes. Others would disagree with the above examples because there is no behavior that is increasing or decreasing in frequency. 2. Positive reinforcement: Includes praise, superficial charm, superficial sympathy (crocodile tears), excessive apologizing, (false) promises, money, approval, gifts, attention, facial expressions such as a forced laugh or smile, and public recognition. Manipulators know very well that “A man convinced against his will, remains of the same opinion still”: If somebody really likes you, almost anything you say will work. If not, nothing will. Manipulators often are friendly people, who are good at networking and socializing. They sell themselves first, before they sell anything else. Therefore they will d. Become friends with the person they want to manipulate. e. At first, only talk about subjects both parties agree on and confirm they agree with the feelings of the other and think like them. Even if they do not agree, they will probably say “you’re probably right” or, “that sounds like an interesting point of view”. f. Listen well: Make the others talk about themselves and pay attention to what they are saying

47

g. Show their interest to find out as much as possible about the other person. For example by asking: “is there anything else in addition to that?” When somebody repeatedly tells you how great you are, how smart and beautiful, how much you stand to gain from a deal he is proposing, what extra-ordinary benefits you are about to reap, … then you better ask yourself what he wants from you, or what he will gain from the deal he is offering you. Beware of people with double standards: For example somebody who “never lies to his friends” … admits that he does lie to his enemies. In fact this kind of people in reality will also lie to his friends if this seems convenient to him. People with double standards cannot be trusted. Often, they can be recognized by the stories they are telling, because they will change their stories in order to fit the purposes at hand.

3. Negative reinforcement: involves removing one from a negative situation as a reward, e.g. "You won't have to do your homework if you allow me to do this to you." Reinforcement is superior to punishment in altering behavior. Reinforcement results in lasting behavioral modification, whereas punishment changes behavior only temporarily and presents many detrimental side effects. Positive reinforcers A positive reinforcer is a consequence that increases the frequency of a behavior or maintains the frequency. What is reinforcing is defined by what happens to the frequency of the behavior. It has nothing to do with whether the organism finds the reinforcer "pleasant" or not. For example, if a child gets slapped for saying a "naughty" word but the frequency of naughty words increases, the slap is a positive reinforcer. A "pleasant" consequence is not necessarily a positive reinforcer. Getting a birthday gift is not a positive reinforcer. There is no behavior that will increase (or be maintained) in frequency. When

48

deciding whether or not something is a reinforcer, the basic criteria is the frequency of occurrence of a behavior. Consequences are not universally reinforcing. For example, happy face stickers may be effective reinforcers for some children. Other children may find them silly.] Negative reinforcers A negative reinforcer is not punishment. These terms are often confused. A negative reinforcer increases or maintains the frequency of the behavior that terminates the negative reinforcer. In this case the negative reinforcer is present before the behavior. The organism performs a behavior that terminates the negative reinforcer. The behavior that terminates the negative reinforcer is likely to increase or be maintained in frequency. Suppose someone has a headache (negative reinforcer). The person takes two aspirin but nothing happens. Then the person takes two Tylenol tablets and the headache goes away. The next time the person has a headache it is likely the person will take Tylenol. That is the behavior that has been reinforced. 4. Primary and Secondary reinforcers Primary reinforcers A primary reinforcer, sometimes called an unconditioned reinforcer, is a stimulus that does not require pairing to function as a reinforcer and most likely has obtained this function through the evolution and its role in species' survival. Examples of primary reinforcers include sleep, food, air, water, and sex. Some primary reinforcers, such as certain drugs, may mimic the effects of other primary reinforcers. While these primary reinforcers are fairly stable through life and across individuals, the reinforcing value of different primary reinforcers varies due to multiple factors (e.g., genetics, experience). Thus, one person may prefer one type of food while another abhors it. Or one person may eat lots of food while another eats very little. So even though food is a primary reinforcer for both individuals, the value of food as a reinforcer differs between them. Secondary reinforcers A secondary reinforcer, sometimes called a conditioned reinforcer, is a stimulus or situation that has acquired its function as a reinforcer after pairing with a stimulus that functions as a reinforcer. This stimulus may be a primary reinforcer or another conditioned reinforcer (such as money). An example of a secondary reinforcer would be the sound from a clicker, as used in clicker training. The sound of the clicker has been associated with praise or treats, and subsequently, the sound of the clicker may function as a reinforcer. As with primary reinforcers, an organism can experience satiation and deprivation with secondary reinforcers. 5. Intermittent or partial reinforcement: Partial or intermittent negative reinforcement can create an effective climate of fear and doubt. Partial or intermittent positive reinforcement can encourage the victim to persist - for example in most forms of gambling, the gambler is likely to win now and again but still loses money overall. The knowledge that one can have what he wants, only not all the time, is one of the strongest and most effective motivators in nature! In very much the same way, manipulators will charm their victim into walking on clouds at some times, but then suddenly ignore them or treat them distantly at other times.

49

The basic tact is to first provide a person with something he really wants (money, attention, support, …) and then withdraw it in an attempt to convince the victim that he needs them more then they need him. Next, the manipulator waits for the victim to make a move. Since people want what they cannot have, if the person does not contact the manipulator after he withdrew whatever he has been providing his victim with, then what he was giving apparently was not appealing enough to make them want it enough. The person with the upper hand in any situation and any given time, is the one who can (make the other think he can) walk away if the situation is not to his liking. Good manipulators radiate confidence and independence and convince their victims that they need what the manipulator has to offer, whereas it seems to make little difference to the manipulator what his victim decides.

4.2. Using fallacies to mislead people Sources: http://www.thefreedictionary.com – Collins English Dictironary - Thesaurus www.wikipedia.org – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm - Master List of Logical Fallacies Definition: fal·la·cy (f l -s ) - n. pl. fal·la·cies from Latin fallācia, from fallax deceitful, from fallere to deceive 1. A false notion, a false belief, a misconception, an incorrect conception 2. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference. 3. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness. 4. The quality of being deceptive. 5. an incorrect or misleading notion or opinion based on inaccurate facts or invalid reasoning 6. unsound or invalid reasoning 7. the tendency to mislead 8. (Philosophy / Logic) Logic an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid 9. pseudoscience- an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions 10. logical fallacy - a fallacy in logical argumentation 11. pathetic fallacy - the fallacy of attributing human feelings to inanimate objects; `the friendly sun' is an example of the pathetic fallacy 12. sophism, sophistry, sophistication - a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone 13. paralogism - an unintentionally invalid argument

50

Fallacies include: Formal fallacies Formal fallacy An error in logic that can be seen in the argument's form. All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs. Appeal to probability Takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case). Argument from fallacy Assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion itself is false. Base rate fallacy Making a probability judgement based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities. Conjunction fallacy Assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them. Masked man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals) The substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one. Propositional fallacies Propositional fallacy An error in logic that concerns compound propositions. For a compound proposition to be true, the truth values of its constituent parts must satisfy the relevant logical connectives which occur in it (most commonly: , , , , ). The following fallacies involve inferences whose correctness is not guaranteed by the behavior of those logical connectives, and hence, which are not logically guaranteed to yield true conclusions. Affirming a disjunct Concluded that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A; therefore not B. Affirming the consequent The antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A. Denying the antecedent The consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B. Quantification fallacies Quantification fallacy An error in logic where the quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion. Existential fallacy An argument has a universal premise and a particular conclusion.

51

Formal syllogistic fallacies Syllogistic fallacies Logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms. Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) When a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise. Fallacy of exclusive premises A categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative. Fallacy of four terms (quaternio terminorum) A categorical syllogism that has four terms. Illicit major A categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is not distributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion. Illicit minor A categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is not distributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion. Negative conclusion from affirmative premises (illicit affirmative) When a categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion but affirmative premises. Fallacy of the undistributed middle The middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed. Informal fallacies Informal fallacies Arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and which usually require examination of the argument's content. Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) Assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true). The fallacy that since we don’t know (or can never know, or cannot prove) whether a claim is true or false, it must be false (or that it must be true). E.g., “Scientists are never going to be able to positively prove their theory that humans evolved from other creatures because we weren't there to see it! So, that proves the Genesis six-day creation account is literally true!” Sometimes this also includes “Either-Or Reasoning:” E.g., “The vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that my neighbor poisoned him! There’s no other logical explanation!” A corrupted argument from logos. A fallacy commonly found in American judicial and forensic reasoning. See also "Argumentum ex Silentio." Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) Signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore. Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) Where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence. (see also, Argument from Ignorance). The fallacy that if sources remain silent or say nothing about a given subject or question this in itself proves something about the truth of the matter. E.g., "Science can tell us nothing about God, which proves God doesn't exist." Or "Science can tell us nothing about God, so you have no basis for denying that God exists!" Often misused in the American justice system, where remaining silent or "taking the Fifth" is often falsely portrayed as proof of guilt. E.g., "Mr. Hixel has no

52

alibi for the evening of January 15th. This proves that he was in fact in room 331 at the Smuggler's Pass Inn, murdering his ex-wife!" Argumentum verbosium See Proof by verbosity, below. Begging the question (petitio principii) The failure to provide what is essentially the conclusion of an argument as a premise, if so required. (shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi, see also “argument from ignorance). A fallacy that challenges opponents to disprove a claim, rather than asking the person making the claim to defend his/her own argument. “I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.” E.g., "Space-aliens are everywhere among us, even here on campus, masquerading as true humans! I dare you prove it isn't so! See? You can't! That means you have to accept that what I say is true." Circular reasoning (also “begging the question” ) When the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with. - Falsely arguing that something is true by repeating the same statement in different words. E.g., “The witchcraft problem is the most urgent challenge in the world today. Why? Because witches threaten our very souls.” A corrupt argument from logos. Big Lie Technique (also "Staying on Message"): The contemporary fallacy of repeating a lie, slogan or deceptive half-truth over and over (particularly in the media) until people believe it without further proof or evidence.. E.g., "What about the Jewish Question?" Note that when this particular phony debate was going on there was no "Jewish Question," only a "Nazi Question," but hardly anybody in power recognized or wanted to talk about that. Circular cause and consequence Where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause. Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) Improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise. Correlation proves causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) A faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other. Correlative-based fallacies Suppressed correlative Where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible. Equivocation The misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). Ambiguous middle term A common ambiguity in syllogisms in which the middle term is equivocated. Ecological fallacy Inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong. Etymological fallacy Which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.

53

Fallacy of composition Assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole. Fallacy of division Assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts. False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) Two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more. If-by-whiskey An argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive. Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) Someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda. Ludic fallacy The belief that the outcomes of a non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of an event's taking place. Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification) It is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes. False attribution An advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument. Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) Refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning. Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean) Assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct. Gambler's fallacy The incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event. If a coin flip lands on heads 10 times in a row, the belief that it is "due to land on tails" is incorrect. Historian's fallacy Occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision. (Not to be confused with presentism, which is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.) Homunculus fallacy Where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this sometimes leads to regressive middle-man. Explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains

54

the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept.clarification needed Inflation Of Conflict The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question. Incomplete comparison Where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison. Inconsistent comparison Where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison. Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) An argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. Kettle logic Using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position. Mind projection fallacy When one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is. Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) Argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) When solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect. Onus probandi From Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion. Petitio principii See begging the question. Post hoc ergo propter hoc Latin for "after this, therefore because of this" (false cause, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y. Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation) Submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. (See also Gish Gallop and argument from authority.) Prosecutor's fallacy A low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found. Psychologist's fallacy An observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event. Regression fallacy

55

Ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy. Reification (hypostatization) A fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. Retrospective determinism The argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand. Shotgun argumentation The arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them. (See "Argument by verbosity" and "Gish Gallop", above.) Special pleading Where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption. Wrong direction Cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa. Faulty generalizations Faulty generalizations Reach a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced. Accident An exception to a generalization is ignored. No true Scotsman When a generalization is made true only when a counterexample is ruled out on shaky grounds. Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) Act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. False analogy An argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited. Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident) Basing a broad conclusion on a small sample. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire (also Hasty Conclusion, Jumping to a Conclusion). The dangerous fallacy of quickly drawing a conclusion and/or taking action without sufficient evidence. E.g., “My neighbor Jaminder Singh wears a long beard and a turban and speaks a funny language. Where there's smoke there's fire. This is war, our country is in danger, and that’s all the evidence we need to string him up!’” A variety of the “Just in Case” fallacy. Snow job

56

The fallacy of “proving” a claim by overwhelming an audience with mountains of irrelevant facts, numbers, documents, graphs and statistics that they cannot be expected to understand. This is a corrupted argument from logos. See also, "Lying with Statistics." Misleading vividness Involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem. Overwhelming exception An accurate generalization that comes with qualifications which eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume. Other fallacies Pathetic fallacy When an inanimate object is declared to have characteristics of animate objects. Thought-terminating cliché A commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move onto other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliché—not a point. Red herring fallacy A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion. The argument given in response to another argument is irrelevant, but the speaker believes it will be easier to speak to and will draw the attention away from the subject of argument. Usually the false argument used will be an emotionally loaded issue. E.g., "In regard to my recent indictment for corruption, let’s talk about what’s really important instead: terrorists are out there, and if we don't stop them we're all gonna die!" Poisoning the well (also “personal attack” or “Ad hominem”: attacking the arguer instead of the argument.) The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. A type of ad hominem argument, where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says. E.g., "He's so evil that you can't believe anything he says." See also Guilt by Association. Also applies to cases where potential opposing arguments are brushed aside without comment or consideration, as simply not worth arguing about. Abusive fallacy A subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into name-calling rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument. Argumentum ad baculam (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat, argument from the club) An argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position. The fallacy of "persuasion" by a, violence, or threats. E.g., "Gimme your money, or I'll knock your head off!" or "We have the perfect right to take your land, since we have the guns and you don't." Also applies to indirect forms of threat. E.g., "Believe in our religion if you don't want to burn in hell forever and ever!" Argumentum ad populum (argument from common sense, appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people)

57

Where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so, arguing that because "everyone" supposedly thinks or does something, it must be right. E.g., "Everyone thinks undocumented aliens ought to be kicked out!" Sometimes also includes Lying with Statistics, e.g. “Surveys show that over 75% of Americans believe Senator Smith is not telling the truth. For anyone with half a brain, that conclusively proves he’s a dirty liar!” Appeal to action We Have to Do Something: The dangerous contemporary fallacy that in moments of crisis one must do something, anything, at once, even if it is an overreaction, is totally ineffective or makes the situation worse, rather than "just sitting there doing nothing." (E.g., "Banning air passengers from carrying nail clippers probably does nothing to deter potential hijackers, but we have to do something to respond to this crisis!") This is often a corrupted argument from pathos. Appeal to equality Where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed pretence of equality. Association fallacy (guilt by association) Arguing that because two things share a property they are the same Appeal to accomplishment Where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer. Appeal to Closure The contemporary fallacy that an argument, standpoint, action or conclusion must be accepted, no matter how questionable, or else the point will remain unsettled and those affected will be denied "closure." This refuses to recognize the truth that some points will indeed remain unsettled, perhaps forever. (E.g., "Society would be protected, crime would be deterred and justice served if we sentence you to life without parole, but we need to execute you in order to provide some sense of closure.") (See also "Argument from Ignorance," "Argument from Consequences.") Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) The conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion. The major fallacy of arguing that something cannot be true because if it were the consequences would be unacceptable. (E.g., "Global climate change cannot be caused by human burning of fossil fuels, because if it were, switching to nonpolluting energy sources would bankrupt American industry.") Appeal to emotion Where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning Appeal to fear A specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side. Appeal to flattery A specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support. Appeal to Heaven (also Deus Vult, Gott mit Uns, Manifest Destiny, the Special Covenant). An extremely dangerous fallacy (a deluded argument from ethos) of asserting that God (or a higher power) has ordered, supports or approves one's own standpoint or actions, so no further justification is required and no serious challenge is possible. (E.g., "God ordered me to kill my children," or "We need to take away your land, since God [or Destiny, or Fate, or Heaven] has given it to us.") A private individual who seriously

58

asserts this fallacy risks ending up in a psychiatric ward, but groups or nations who do it are far too often taken seriously. This vicious fallacy has been the cause of endless bloodshed over history. Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) An argument attempts to induce pity to sway opponents - The fallacy of urging an audience to “root for the underdog” regardless of the issues at hand (e.g., “Those poor, cute little squeaky mice are being gobbled up by mean, nasty cats that are ten times their size!”) A corrupt argument from pathos. See also Playing to Emotions. Appeal to ridicule An argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous Appeal to spite A specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party Wishful thinking A specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason. Appeal to motive, also Argument from Motives or “Questioning Motives” Where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer. The fallacy of declaring a standpoint or argument invalid solely because of the evil, corrupt or questionable motives of the one making the claim. E.g., "Bin Laden wanted us out of Afghanistan, so we have to keep up the fight!" Even evil people with corrupt motives sometimes say the truth (and even those who have the highest motives are often wrong or mistaken). A variety of the Ad Hominem argument. The counterpart of this is the fallacy of falsely justifying or excusing evil or vicious actions because of the perpetrator's purity of motives or lack of malice. (E.g., "She's a good Christian woman; how could you accuse her of doing something like that?") Appeal to novelty (argumentum ad novitam) Where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern. Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) Supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth.) Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitam) A conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true. Appeal to nature Wherein judgement is based solely on whether the subject of judgement is 'natural' or 'unnatural'.citation needed For example (hypothetical): "Cannabis is healthy because it is natural" Appeal to Tradition (also "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"). The fallacy that a standpoint, situation or action is right, proper and correct simply because it has "always" been that way, because people have "always" thought that way, or because it continues to serve one particular group very well.. A corrupted argument from ethos (that of past generations). (E.g., "In America, women have always been paid less, so let's not mess with long-standing tradition."). The reverse of this is yet another fallacy, the "Appeal to Innovation," e.g., "It's NEW, and [therefore it must be] improved!" Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam)

59

Supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor). (Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial situation.) Argument from Inertia (also “Stay the Course”). The fallacy that it is necessary to continue on a mistaken course of action even after discovering it is mistaken, because changing course would mean admitting one's decision (or one's leader, or one's faith) was wrong, and all one's effort, expense and sacrifice was for nothing, and that is unthinkable. A variety of the Argument from Consequences. Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) A conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence. Bulverism (Psychogenetic Fallacy) Inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a false. Chronological snobbery Where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly heldcitation needed Genetic fallacy Where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. Judgmental language Insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment Naturalistic fallacy (is–ought fallacy, naturalistic fallacy) Claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. Reductio ad Hitlerum (playing the Nazi card) Comparing an opponent or their argument to Hitler or Nazism in an attempt to associate a position with one that is universally reviled (See also – Godwin's law) Straw man. (also "The Straw Person") An argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. The fallacy of setting up a phony version of an opponent's argument, and then proceeding to knock it down with a wave of the hand. E.g., "Vegetarians say animals have feelings like you and me. Ever seen a cow laugh at a Shakespeare comedy? Vegetarianism is nonsense!" Texas sharpshooter fallacy Improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy) The argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position Two wrongs make a right (also: “Tu Quoque “) Occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out. A shaky or false standpoint is defended or one's own bad action is excused by pointing out that one's opponent's acts or personal character are also open to question, or even worse. E.g., "Sure, we may have tortured prisoners of war, but we didn't cut off heads off like they do!" A corrupt argument from ethos. Related to the Red Herring and to the Ad Hominem Argument.

60

Conditional or questionable fallacies Broken window fallacy An argument which disregards lost opportunity costs (typically non-obvious, difficult to determine or otherwise hidden) associated with destroying property of others, or other ways of externalizing costs onto others. For example, an argument that states breaking a window generates income for a window fitter, but disregards the fact that the money spent on the new window cannot now be spent on new shoes. Definist fallacy Involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other. Naturalistic fallacy Attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of either one or more claims about natural properties (sometimes also taken to mean the appeal to nature)citation needed or God's will. Slippery slope (thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose, domino theory) The common fallacy that "one thing inevitably leads to another , asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact/event that should not happen, thus the first step should not happen. " E.g., "If you two go and drink coffee together, one thing will lead to another, and soon enough you'll be pregnant and end up spending your life on welfare living in the projects," or "If we cut and run in Iraq or Afghanistan, pretty soon all of southwest Asia will be run by Al-Qaeda." While this fallacy is a popular one, it is, in its essence, an appeal to probability fallacy. (e.g if person x does y then z would (probably) occur, leading to q, leading to w, leading to e.) The slippery slope is used when a person implies that if someone does one thing (A), it will inevitably lead to a domino effect of negative things that, in the end will result in something terrible. In other words, “A” is not so bad, but A leads to B and B leads to C and C is horrible! Imagine a mother lecturing her teenage daughter: “OK, maybe there is nothing wrong with a kiss, but remember where kissing leads and where that leads and that. Before you know it you’ll be the mother of an unwanted baby! Your young life will be ruined forever!”

61

Manipulators who use this argument conveniently forget that many people walk carefully on slippery ground and don’t fall down. Source: Richard Paul and Linda Elder, “The thinker’s guide to fallacies”, “The art of mental trickery” Transfer: A corrupt argument from ethos, falsely associating a famous person or thing with an unrelated standpoint (e.g. putting a picture of George Washington on an advertisement for mattresses or using Genghis Khan (a Mongol) as the name of a Chinese restaurant, or using the Texas flag to sell cars or pickups that were made in Detroit, Kansas City or Kyoto). Testimonial (also Questionable Authority, Faulty Use of Authority) A fallacy in which support for a standpoint or product is provided by a well-known or respected figure (e.g. a star athlete or entertainer) who is not an expert and who was probably well paid for the endorsement (e.g., “Olympic gold-medal pole-vaulter Fulano de Tal uses Quick Flush Internetshouldn’t you?"). Also includes other false, meaningless or paid means of associating oneself or one’s product with the ethos of a famous person or event (e.g. “Try Salsa Cabria, the official taco sauce of the Vancouver Winter Olympics!”) This is a corrupted argument from ethos. They're Not Like Us A badly corrupted, bigoted argument from ethos where a fact, argument or objection is arbitrarily disregarded, ignored or put down without consideration because those involved "are not like us," or "don't think like us." E.g., "It's OK for Mexicans to earn half a buck an hour in the maquiladoras. If it were here, I'd call it exploitation and daylight robbery, but south of the border they're not the same as we are." Or, "Sure, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, but over there they're not like us and don't think the same way we do about life and death." A variety of the Ad Hominem Argument, most often applied to non-White populations. TINA (There Is No Alternative. Also "Get Over It," the "fait accompli"). A very common contemporary extension of the either/or fallacy, quashing critical thought by announcing that there is no realistic alternative to a given standpoint, status or action, ruling any and all other options irrelevant, or announcing that a decision has been made and any further discussion is simply a waste of time (or even insubordination or disloyalty) when there is a job to be done. (See also, "Taboo.") Taboo The fallacy of unilaterally declaring certain arguments, standpoints or actions to be "sacrosanct" or not open to discussion or arbitrarily taking some standpoints or options "off the table" beforehand. (E.g., "Don't bring my drinking into this," or "Before we start, I won't allow you to put my arguments down by saying 'That's just what Hitler would say!'") Blind Loyalty (also Blind Obedience, the "Team Player" appeal, or the Nuremberg Defense). The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source (an expert, parents, one's own "side," team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) say it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth or above one's own reason and conscience. In this case, a person attempts to justify incorrect, stupid or criminal behavior by whining "That's what I was told to do," or “I was just following orders." Blood is Thicker than Water (also Favoritism, Compadrismo, "For my friends, anything."). The reverse of the "Ad Hominem" fallacy, a corrupt argument from ethos where a statement, argument or action is automatically regarded as true, correct and above challenge because one is related to (or knows and likes, or is on the same team as) the individual involved. (E.g., "My brother-in-law says he saw you goofing off on the job. You're a hard worker, but who am I going to believe, you or him? You're fired!")

62

Bribery (also Material Persuasion, Material Incentive, Financial Incentive). The fallacy of "persuasion" by bribery, gifts or favors, the reverse of the Argumentum ad Baculam. As is well known, someone who is persuaded by bribery rarely "stays persuaded" unless the bribes keep on coming in, and usually increasing with time. The Complex Question: The fallacy of demanding a direct answer to a question that cannot be answered without first analyzing or challenging the basis of the question itself. E.g., "Answer me yes or no! Did you think you could get away with plagiarism and not suffer the consequences?" Or, "Why did you rob that bank?" Also applies to situations where one is forced to either accept or reject complex standpoints or propositions containing both acceptable and unacceptable parts. A corruption of the argument from logos. Diminished Responsibility The common contemporary fallacy of falsely applying a specialized American judicial concept (that criminal punishment should be less if one's judgment was impaired) to logic in general. E.g., "You can't count me absent on Monday--I was hung over and couldn't come to class--it's not my fault." Or, "Yeah, I was speeding on the freeway and killed a guy, but I was high and didn't know what I was doing, so it didn't matter that much." In reality the death does matter very much to the victim, to her family and friends and to society in general. Whether the perpetrator was high or not does not matter at all, since the material results are the same. Either-Or Reasoning (also False Dilemma, Black / White Fallacy). A fallacy that falsely offers only two possible alternatives even though a broad range of possible alternatives are really available. E.g., "Either you are 100% straight or you are queer--it's as simple as that, and there's no middle ground!" Or, “Either you’re with me all the way, or you’re my enemy and must be destroyed! ”E" for Effort. (Also Noble Effort) The contemporary fallacy that something must be right, true, valuable, or worthy of credit simply because someone has put so much sincere good-faith effort or even sacrifice and bloodshed into it. (See also Appeal to Pity, Argument from Inertia, or Sob Story.). Equivocation The fallacy of deliberately failing to define one's terms, or deliberately using words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand. (E.g., Bill Clinton stating that he did not have sex with "that woman," meaning no sexual penetration, knowing full well that the audience will understand his statement as "I had no sexual contact of any sort with that woman.") This is a corruption of the argument from logos, and a tactic often used in American jurisprudence. Essentializing A fallacy that proposes a person or thing “is what it is and that’s all that it is,” and at its core will always be what it is right now (E.g., "All ex-cons are criminals, and will still be criminals even if they live to be 100."). Also refers to the fallacy of arguing that something is a certain way "by nature," an empty claim that no amount of proof can refute. (E.g., "Americans are cold and greedy by nature," or "Women are better cooks than men.") False Analogy The fallacy of incorrectly comparing one thing to another in order to draw a false conclusion. E.g., "Just like an alley cat needs to prowl, a normal human being can’t be tied down to one single lover." Finish the Job The dangerous contemporary fallacy that an action or standpoint (or the continuation of the action or standpoint) may not be questioned or discussed because there is "a job to be done," falsely assuming all "jobs" are meaningless but never to be questioned. Sometimes those involved internalize ("buy into") the "job" and make the task a part of their own ethos. (E.g., "Ours is not to reason why / Ours is but to

63

do or die.") Related to this is the "Just a Job" fallacy. (E.g., "How can torturers stand to look at themselves in the mirror? But, I guess it's OK because for them it's just a job like any other.") (See also "Blind Loyalty," "Argument from Inertia.") Guilt by Association The fallacy of trying to refute or condemn someone's standpoint, arguments or actions by evoking the negative ethos of those with whom one associates or a collective to which he or she belongs. A form of Ad Hominem Argument. (E.g., "Don't listen to her. She's a Republican, so you can't trust anything she says.") See also "They're Not Like Us." The Half Truth (also Card Stacking, Incomplete Information) A corrupt argument from logos, the fallacy of telling the truth but deliberately omitting important key details in order to falsify the larger picture and support a false conclusion (e.g. “The truth is that Ciudad Juárez, Mexico is one of the world's fastest growing cities and can boast of a young, ambitious and hard-working population, mild winters, a dry and sunny climate, low cost medical and dental care, a multitude of churches and places of worship, delicious local cuisine and a swinging nightclub scene. Taken together, all these facts clearly prove that Juarez is one of the world’s most desirable places for young families to live, work and raise a family.”) I Wish I Had a Magic Wand The fallacy of regretfully (and falsely) proclaiming oneself powerless to change a bad or objectionable situation, because there is no alternative. E.g., "What can we do about high gas prices? As Secretary of Energy I wish I had a magic wand, but I don't." [shrug] Or, "No, you can't quit piano lessons. I wish I had a magic wand and could teach you piano overnight, but I don't, so like it or not, you have to keep on practicing." The parent, of course, ignores the possibility that the child may not want or need to learn piano. See also, TINA. Just in Case A fallacy by which one’s argument is based on a far-fetched or imaginary worst-case scenario rather than on reality. Plays on pathos (fear) rather than reason. E.g., "What if armed terrorists were to attack your own neighborhood day-care center tomorrow morning? Are you ready to fight back? Better stock up on assault rifles!" Lying with Statistics Using true figures and numbers to “prove” unrelated claims. (e.g. "Gas prices have never been lower. When taken as a percentage of the national debt, filling up at your corner gas station is actually far cheaper today than it was in 1965!"). A corrupted argument from logos. (See also Half-truth, Non Sequitur, Red Herring.) MYOB (Mind Your Own Business; You're Not the Boss of Me) The contemporary fallacy of arbitrarily prohibiting any discussion of one's own standpoints or behavior, no matter how absurd, dangerous, evil or offensive, by drawing a phony curtain of privacy around oneself and one's actions. A corrupted argument from ethos (your own). (E.g., "So I was doing eighty and weaving between lanes on Main Street--what's it to you? You're not a cop, so mind your own business!") (See also, "Taboo.") Rational discussion is cut off because "it is none of your business!" (See also, the "Appeal to Privacy.") Name-Calling: A variety of the "Ad Hominem" argument The dangerous fallacy that, simply because of who you are, any and all arguments, disagreements or objections against your standpoint or actions are automatically racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, bigoted, discriminatory or hateful. E.g., "My stand on abortion is the only correct one. To disagree with me, argue with me or question my judgment in any way would only show what a pig you really are." Also applies to refuting an argument by simply calling it a fallacy or declaring it invalid, without proving why it is invalid. See also, "Reductionism."

64

Non Sequitur The fallacy of offering reasons or conclusions that have no logical connection to the argument at hand (e.g. “The reason I flunked your course is because the government is now putting out purple five-dollar bills!”). (See also Red Herring.) Occasionally involves the breathtaking arrogance of claiming to know why God is doing certain things. E.g., "Obviously, God sent the earthquake to punish those people for their great wickedness." Overgeneralization (also Hasty Generalization) The stupid but common fallacy of incorrectly applying one or two examples to all cases (e.g. “Some college student was tailgating me all the way up North Main Street last night. This proves that all college students are lousy drivers, and we should pull their driver’s licenses until they either grow up, learn to drive or graduate!”). The Paralysis of Analysis (also, Procrastination) A postmodern fallacy that, since all data is never in, no legitimate decision can ever be made and any action should always be delayed until forced by circumstances. A corruption of the argument from logos. Playing on Emotions (also, the Sob Story) The classic fallacy of pure argument from pathos, ignoring facts and calling on emotion alone. E.g., “If you don’t agree witchcraft is a major problem, just stop for a moment and think of all those poor moms crying bitter tears for their innocent tiny little children whose little beds and tricycles lie cold and abandoned, all because of those wicked old witches! Let’s string’em all up!” Political Correctness ("PC") A contemporary fallacy that the nature of a thing or situation can be changed simply by changing its name. E.g., "We can strike a blow against cruelty to animals by changing the name of ‘pets’ to ‘animal companions.’" or "What's going on in Juárez is not a 'war,' it is a fight between drug cartels. That means it's not that bad." Post Hoc Argument (also, "post hoc propter hoc" argument, or the "too much of a coincidence" argument): The classic fallacy that because something comes at the same time or just after something else, the first thing is caused by the second. E.g., "AIDS first emerged as a problem during the exact same time that Disco music was becoming popular--that's too much of a coincidence: It proves that Disco causes AIDS!" Reductionism (also, Oversimplifying, Sloganeering): The fallacy of deceiving an audience by giving simple answers or slogans in response to complex questions, especially when appealing to less educated or unsophisticated audiences. E.g., "If the glove doesn’t fit, you must vote to acquit." Often involves appeals to emotion (pathos). E.g., “Moms! If you want to protect your little kids from armed terrorists, vote for Smith!” Reifying The fallacy of treating imaginary categories as actual, material "things." (E.g., "The biggest struggle in youth culture today is between Goths and Emos.") Sometimes also referred to as "Essentializing" or “Hypostatization.” Sending the Wrong Message A dangerous fallacy that attacks a given statement or action, no matter how true, correct or necessary, because it will "send the wrong message." In effect, those who uses this fallacy are publicly confessing to fraud and admitting that the truth will destroy the fragile web of illusion that has been created by their lies. E.g., "Actually, we're losing the war, but if we admit it we'll be sending the wrong message to our enemies."

65

Some fallacies that are often deliberately used to misguide and manipulate others will be described more in detail in the list of common manipulation tricks.

66

4.3. Punishment Manipulators often punish their victims when they don’t get what they want or in an effort to still get what they want when other forms of manipulation have failed. Punishment: includes nagging, yelling, the silent treatment, intimidation, threats, swearing, emotional blackmail, the guilt trip, sulking, crying, and playing the victim. 1. Nagging and Yelling When he wants something from you, but you decline his initial request, the manipulator may keep on asking until you finally get bored and give him what he wants. In the process, they may plead and whine at some times, taking a child position; then again they will demand the thing they want, being angry and stamping their feet or argue rationally why you must give them what they want. They may make you promises, even agree to do anything (in reason!) that you want in order to show how important it is to them. They may nag at one time (such as when a child is in a shop and wants something bought for them) or they can wear you over a period of days (or months, if necessary). Example Oh go on! Go on -- let me have it, please? Please can I have it? I'll do what you want. Just let me have it. (over time): We need a new carpet...This carpet is dreadful...I really don't like this carpet...There's a sale on at the carpet warehouse...Jan got a great new carpet last month... Why it works Nagging is a very well known method by many children, who know that although they do not have the control of their parents, that persistence will, in the end, pay. The child's method often gets repeated in domestic partnerships, where, although you might get your way, a habit of using this unsubtle method can lead to the relationship ultimately breaking up.

67

How to Effectively Nag Your Partner Source: Dr Marianne Brandon / Genconnect http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/love-sex/effectively-nag-partner-211000666.html Ladies, we’ve all been there. If you’ve asked him once, you’ve asked 50 times. At some point you stopped asking nicely and your tone officially turned to nagging. Now, somehow, it’s hard to stop. The nag feels strangely natural rolling off your tongue. And you feel oh so justified in doing it. After all, who could blame you? Your request is more than appropriate, and your partner is more than capable of following through. Anyway, what choice do you have? You know of no other way to handle this situation. Well you’ve come to the right place, because there is actually a more effective solution out there. And you need it. If you keep nagging, it’s unlikely that he is going to suddenly respond the way you want him to. You both have become embattled in one of those obnoxious power struggles that long-term committed partners do so very well. When couples get entrenched in this type of communication dance, everyone suffers. The TV becomes more and more appealing. She feels irritable around him. He shuts down around her. Sometimes she ups the ante by getting more dramatic in her efforts to get his attention. He closes down even more as a result. Making love becomes a rare event. In fact, you are lucky if you are still having sex. After all, who wants to make love to a man who is so tuned out from reality? And vice-versa, who wants to make love to a woman who won’t stop nagging you? You with me so far? Yes, I thought so. I’ve been doing couples therapy for a while now, I know this game. So allow me to offer you a very powerful and effective alternative to the nag. You know I’m very influenced by evolutionary theory, so we are going to use your man’s evolutionary programming to your advantage. But it’s going to require self-control, exposure and sincerity on your part. I hope you are up for it. Here’s the deal – we nag when we are irritated. Irritation is a form of anger. Anger is almost always an emotion that is fueled by something else – a deeper, more vulnerable feeling. When you look “under” your anger, chances are you’ll find some combination of sadness, rejection, and/or fear. (Fear is almost always at the core of everything dark, but if you get to sadness or rejection, that’s good enough). So ladies, find your sadness or your rejection, and let yourself really feel it. Drop down into it, so you feel it in your entire body. These emotions make us feel defenseless, helpless, hopeless, and obviously very uncomfortable. Anger, in contrast, energizes us, and makes us feel stronger and superior. Anger is a natural emotion and when expressed in a healthy way, it can be a very productive one, too. I am in no way against anger. Personally, I’m a big fan. BUT it’s when anger gets expressed in unproductive ways that things go very wrong. And nagging is one of those unproductive expressions of anger that we want to avoid if possible. I’ve yet to hear a woman tell me that her nagging is effective in getting what she needs. In fact, here’s a word of warning. If you were to succeed in getting what you want via nagging, then you will have a new problem on your hands. You will lose respect for a man who requires nagging to get something done. But that’s a topic for another article.

68

OK, so let’s review. We know expressions of anger can be healthy, but nagging is not one of those expressions. We know that there are more vulnerable emotions under your anger. So here’s the deal – you have to genuinely find those deeper emotions, and then share them. Note that I have italicized the word genuinely – cause if you aren’t being genuine in your feeling, this will become manipulation and that’s even worse than nagging cause at least nagging is more direct. So don’t mess up this advice by messing with his mind and manipulating. What you need to do is find that genuine feeling of rejection or hurt or whatever, embody it (meaning feel it in your entire body), look him in the eyes, and let him see it. And then, without attacking or belittling him, tell him about it. Keep your tone soft so you don’t sound like a mother guilting her son. So, for example, “When I have to remind you that it’s trash day every week, I feel so alone here. I feel so unsupported – like you don’t love me, and like you don’t really care what my days are like or how hard I’m trying. I so want our marriage to feel good to both of us. It’s the most important thing in the world to me. This hurts so much, David.” Here’s why this will work –men are intuitively oriented to protect women. It’s just what they are instinctively programmed to do. Dr. Roy Baumeister explored this concept in his book, Is There Anything Good About Men?. For example, men want to hold doors open for women, and they want to solve women’s problems (even if all a woman wants is for him to listen). This aspect of men’s psyche is likely to be evolutionary supported because if a man takes care of and protects his woman, his offspring are more likely to survive and thus his DNA marches on. So this is good news for you. Because if you approach him from a soft, honest, feminine sensitivity, it should tap the efficient, get-things-done masculine aspect of his personality. (In contrast, nagging is not a vulnerable, soft, open communication. So all nagging does is kick in his defensiveness). I’ve seen this work time and time again. But it’s got to be sincere on your part. AND I’d also suggest you pick your battles. We ladies can be a bit too picky, and it’s good to have reasonable expectations of our partner so he has room to breathe. If you have molded your partner into perfection, you’ll lose respect for him – a topic for another post. OK, so let’s review: 1.Pick your battles. Don’t try to make your partner perfect. 2.Go underneath your anger to the more vulnerable feelings hiding out there. 3.Sincerely show your man these feelings with your eyes, the tone of your voice, and your words. 4.Mother Nature should take care of the rest. If it sounds simple, it’s not. Anger is easy. Deeper, vulnerable-feeling emotions are much harder to express. But healthy relationships require these sorts of efforts to keep them out of dysfunction. So this is an example of the “relationships take work” mantra we all love to say, but then don’t actually follow through with. Of course, nothing is fool proof, so it is possible that your man is so turned off that even showing him how he impacts you will have little effect. In this case, you may want to consider a couples therapist.

69

2. The silent treatment Manipulative people may “punish you” by stopping to talk to you altogether and try to find out how long it will take before you crack. This is how they get control.

How to deal with it: Simply say "Let me know when you feel like talking" and nothing else. Act like it is no big deal. Get busy with something else and put a smile on your face. If you "crack" now, manipulative people will use this tactic again and again. Be aware that sometimes people need time to think things out, especially when they are angry. Taking some time out may not be a manipulative technique, just a way to deal with a problem. However, if the silence lasts longer than the time needed to reflect, it may be a manipulation tactic.

70

How to deal with the Silent Treatment when used as a form of Emotional Abuse Some victims have noted their abuser becomes notably happier the more worn down and miserable they become. In order to cope, the victim must appreciate that a silent treatment abuser thrives on observing the negative effect they have on their target. Therefore it is necessary to stop “feeding” their desire for control and power. This means NOT giving them the satisfaction of seeing the negative emotional affects of their immature behaviour. They can derive a great sense of self importance and triumph if you get irate, annoyed, upset, capitulate/apologise, weep or plead with them to talk to you. Starve them of these rewards for their unjust behaviour and they will likely eventually tire of engaging in the silent treatment and revert more quickly than usual to their normal demeanour. Here are some strategies to help with “starving” them out and breaking silent treatment. · Don’t appear upset The best way to do this is not to actually allow the abuser’s actions to get you upset in the first place. Stop yourself getting stressed by having to hand a previously prepared positive list of things you will do to distract yourself from feeling overwhelmed by the silent treatment. Your list could include listening to uplifting music, exercising, watching your favourite comedy shows, engaging in hobbies such as painting, reading or the like. · Be seen to be upbeat Essentially go about your normal day to day activities and be seen to be positively and contentedly getting on with your life in spite of their efforts to unsettle you. · Refrain from engaging in tit-for-tat not speaking This is easier said than done but it pays to make a superhuman effort to speak to the other person as and when the need arises about everyday matters. When you talk to them be sure to use your normal delivery and tone of voice. Do not be tempted into trying to play them at their own game, for they are experts at it and it will ultimately get you no-where as regards eradicating such behaviour. Do not allow them to drag you down to their level of immaturity in dealing with the inevitable ups and down of a relationship. Two wrongs don’t make a right! · Do not try to coax your partner into conversing with you Just be secure in the knowledge that if they don’t answer you, you will survive. You’ve survived in the past and you will survive now, only this time you will be surviving much more contentedly than in the past. When they don’t respond to you, or don’t respond well, simply move on with your day and refuse to dwell on their rudeness. · Do not rise to the bait When they use sarcasm or will only speak to you in a patronizing manner, instead of getting upset or responding in kind, simply get on with enjoying something on your previously prepared silent treatment “Survival” list of things to do! Let them see that their attempt at trying to rile you is a waste of their time and yours! Remember - do not “feed” their habit. Acting on the above guidance is not easy and you may falter at times. When this happens do just forgive yourself and then be sure to press on with the suggestions, for you know you deserve better treatment from your significant other. Make it a conscious choice to be responsible for your own happiness and soar above the Silent Treatment. Please be aware that if you tell your partner your plans to put the above strategies into action and then, for some reason, you do not follow through, it will likely lead to your partner feeling triumphant and encourage them to engage in silent treatment emotional abuse even more! Therefore it is not

71

recommended, at any stage, that you tell your partner about these strategies. Just do what you need to do without explanation or prior warning. Important – If the silent treatment is from a partner who is verbally abusive or physically abusive, rather than acting on the suggestions given here, get help from a professional experienced in such matters. Also get professional advice before acting on these strategies if you believe your partner may gravitate from silence abuse to physical or verbal abuse, even if they have not done this in the past. Not Speaking on Special Days It's sad and awkward when there is a special occasions (e.g. Christmas or Weddings) but you and your partner are not speaking. My advice is to continue with the above strategies and to re-double your efforts at being positive. Do not allow yourself to wallow in feeling sorry for yourself or get indignant at the insanity of it all (especially when it's over a petty matter). Past experience may have taught you that things are not going to magically be right just because it is a special day. Therefore, instead of merely dreading the special day, do plan ahead of time how you will keep yourself busy and buoyant. Rise above it all so that the day will not be a total washout. You CANNOT Force your Partner to Stop the Silent Treatment! Most people find that no amount of pleading or apologizing will make their partner stop this behaviour. Bear in mind that the ONLY person you can change is yourself so the way forward is to change the way you yourself respond when he/she gives you the silent treatment.

How to Plan and Organize Fund Raising and Charity Benefit Events http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/Jaimelavie

72

3. Intimidation, bullying, swearing and threats Manipulators sometimes like to openly threaten or brow-beat someone else into giving-up or giving-in to their demands. They like to terrorize others into submission. They use fear as a weapon, whether it’s fear of the known or unknown. People in relationships with manipulators are generally familiar with their track record of behavior, thus they know what the manipulator is not only capable of but also what they have been willing to do to get their way in the past. Manipulators who bully manipulate others by keeping them on the defensive and making them so afraid of possible negative repercussions that they don’t dare go against their wishes. Sometimes, manipulators will brandish intense anger and rage, not so much because they’re really that angry, but because they want their victims to be so terrorized that they dare not do anything but cave in to their demands. That doesn’t mean that victims should take the rageful behavior of their tormentors lightly, it simply means that they have to recognize that they are probably in a relationship with a person who will stop at nothing to get his or her way. Individuals who frequently use bullying as a manipulation tactic are among the least likely to change their modus operandi. That’s because in addition to being an effective tactic of manipulation, such hard-headed combativeness is also a primary way the manipulator avoids any kind of submission to a higher authority or standard of conduct. Those who refuse to subjugate themselves to anything wage a constant war against the internalization of standards and controls that make most of us civilized. Suffice it to say that the best idea is to not remain in any kind of relationship with a person willing to engage in such behavior. Covert intimidation: Manipulator may also try to throw their victim onto the defensive by using veiled (subtle, indirect or implied) threats. Often, the manipulator will first invoke fear in the victim, and then provide a solution for the threatening situation, which, of course, will solely or mainly advance their own purposes. For example: “Your performance has been lacking around here recently and the CEO suggested that I put employees who are struggling on probation. Don’t worry, I won’t do this now. But I do want you to show me what you’re capable of. Do you mind working this Saturday to help build-up your numbers?”

73

Power and Control Wheel Why do Women Stay in Abusive Relationships? The abuser exerts Power and Control over the victim combined with the Cycle of Violence to keep women in abusive relationships.

74

Barriers that Prevent Women from Leaving The victim of domestic violence also faces many of the following barriers that prevent her from leaving her abuser. Fear  Fear of physical harm  Fear of threats  Fear of harassment  Fear of making abuser angrier  Fear of living alone or being alone  Fear of losing children  Fear of losing house, car  Fear others will blame you  Fear of the unknown  Fear of financial problems without him  Fear a change in standard of living  Fear of deportation  Fear no one believes you  Fear of the court system Love  Still loves the abuser  Commitment to the relationship  Sex, affection, and kindness during non violence times  Companionship  History together  Hope it's going to improve  Hope he'll change Emotional  Low self-esteem  Being emotionally exhausted  Loneliness  Guilt  Self-blame for the abuse  Feeling like a failure  Feeling defective  Feeling unwanted by others

 

Not wanting to lose his family Not wanting to be excluded from social functions

Abuser  Uses mind games  Uses crying  Uses threats of suicide  Uses his power and his family's power  Uses his Mr. Nice Guy image  Uses promises  Uses apologies Children  Pressure from children who want their dad  Believes it is best for children  Custody issues  Need childcare Support  Nowhere to go  Unaware help is available  No support system  Isolated from support Needs  Need insurance  Need financial support  Have health/disability issues More  Not identifying abuse  Normalize abusive behaviors  Abusive cycle is familiar  Others accept violence as okay  Pressure from others  Preserve abusers reputation  Religious beliefs  Social status  Security  Having hopes and dreams  Same sex partners  Knowing its okay to leave

Change  Not wanting a divorce  Not wanting to be a single parent  Not wanting to look for someone else  Not wanting to leave pets  Not wanting to grieve  Not wanting to start over  Not wanting to change life style http://www.mchenrycountyturningpoint.org/powerandcontrol.html

75

Managing The Effects of Emotional Abuse Emotional abuse is something that goes undetected much of the time. However, The effects of emotional abuse run deep and a lot of the time, the victims of abuse choose to keep quiet because they feel ashamed or as though it’s ‘not that bad’. They may even say things such as ‘at least s/he doesn’t hit me’. Long-term exposure to emotional abuse causes the victim to feel helpless and completely out of control with their lives. This post attempts to list a few ways of managing the effects of emotional abuse and in no particular order, they are as follows:

•Never minimize the problem; abuse is abuse, and if you are unhappy in a relationship, there is usually good reason. •While it’s not easy, you must tell yourself it is not your fault; no matter how ‘mean’, ‘stubborn’ or ‘rebellious’ you may have been. •Telling those you trust the most is a great place to start. •When you feel ready, it is time to take action; either you must leave the situation or seek help for you and/or the abuser. •Change is hard but if you want the abuse to stop, there need to be proper boundaries put in place; this may mean temporarily moving out while the abuser works on their anger. •It can be confusing to be hurt by the ones we love and remember, but one’s personal safety, welfare and well being is paramount. •Emotional abuse is not as easy to detect as physical abuse, so especially if children are involved; it’s important to get out of the situation before more damage is caused. •The abuser needs to recognize there are consequences for their actions. They can no longer be in your life because it’s just going to keep being a series of hurt, pain and trauma. •Emotional abusers will say things like ‘who else could put up with you?’ as a way to keep you afraid and feeling as though you have no choice but to stay. There’s a need to develop some form of courage to rise up to this challenge because there are friends, families, organizations out there to support you.

76

•Setting guidelines for what you need in a relationship is not the same as threatening someone so never feel as though you are acting like the abuser; you are trying to make a positive change. •Give yourself time before you get into situations that may remind you of that abusive relationship or even trying to get into another relationship. • Remember that there is always a support group, a friend or a family member that appreciates you. •Seek professional help. •As much as possible try and ensure the process never repeats itself. Please Note: Emotional abuse is not acceptable and should not be tolerated whether the victim is male or female. Every person has the right to live a life free from abuse..

Source: http://domesticviolenceuk.org/managing-the-effects-of-emotional-abuse/

77

4. Emotional blackmail Mental or Emotional Blackmail: Don't fall victim to those who use love as a bargaining tool. Such a manipulator will commonly use phrases like, "I know you love me, so...", "Because I love you, do X, Y, Z for me...", in order to trick you into accepting what they desire. This often occurs in married relationships and also between friends. People who display this type of attitude will often make you feel indebted or that you owe them something. Instead of letting them manipulate your love for them, try to point out how what you're doing is proof of your love for them, and bonus points if you can be compassionate enough to weave in recognition of their love for you too: 

A: "If you loved me, you'd take me on that business trip. I don't care about your boss' miserliness, that's your problem, not mine."



You: "I do love you and that is the very reason I don't want to inflict my boss on you. You'd have a horrible time having to be super polite around him and he would resent having you there and would possibly even try to demote me for not taking the business trip seriously enough."



A: "You think that this garden is more important than me."



You: "Actually my dear, I tend the garden with care to ensure that you have somewhere fun and safe to play war games with your mates. I want it to be perfect for you, just as you try to paint the house in colors that you know I like."

Mental or Emotional Blackmail is very common. According to psychotherapist Susan Forward, emotional blackmail is a powerful form of manipulation in which blackmailers who are close to the victims threaten, either directly or indirectly, to punish them to get what they want. They may know the victim’s vulnerabilities and their deepest secrets. They could be their parents, partners, bosses or coworkers, friends or lovers. No matter how much the blackmailer cares about the victim, they use this intimate knowledge to win their compliance. Knowing that the victim wants love or approval, blackmailers threaten to withhold it or take it away altogether, or make the victim feel they must earn it. If the victim believes the blackmailer, he/she could fall into a pattern of letting the blackmailer control his/her decisions and behaviour. Emotional blackmailers use fear, obligation, and guilt in their relationships, ensuring that the victim feels afraid to cross them, obligated to give them their way and feeling guilty if they don’t. Are you a victim of emotional blackmail? Recognize the first sign – how do you feel when the person is around you? Do you often feel guilty or humiliated in their company? Do they make you feel this way when you are with a group of people? Many of these people are not confident enough for emotional manipulation when in public or in company, and that is why it is so common in marriages and relationships. When you are alone with

78

your partner, do you argue over who said what and what they meant? Emotional manipulation often involves denial that something was said or done, so that you feel guilty for either doing something wrong, or not doing enough. Additionally, if you are experiencing emotional manipulation, then you might notice a difference in how you feel within yourself. For example, are you relieved when someone else comes to stay, because it means you do not have to deal with your manipulator by yourself? Below are some of the sneaky Emotional Blackmail Tactics and dirty tricks you have to be careful with. Emotional Manipulation Technique # 1: It’s Either Me or Him/Her Some people like to make their friends choose between them and another person. Now you are more pressured to choose the manipulator, for fear of losing their friendship. But a true friend would never do such a thing. This is an emotional manipulation technique that even little kids use in the playground. To avoid making a decision (and one you would probably regret either way), walk away. Let that person know that you’re not going to take sides. If they throw a huff, that is no longer your problem. What matters is that you stayed neutral. Frankly, you’ll be a lot safer that way anyway. Emotional Manipulation Technique # 2: I’ll Do You This Favor, But Don’t Forget You Owe Me. It’s really difficult to ask someone for a favor, especially when you know they’re going to exploit you right back for it. It’s normal to ask a favor from a friend. But there are people who will do you one favor, and then will milk you for every little thing afterwards. When you put your foot down, they will go on a tirade about how you have no sense of gratitude and whatnot. To avoid this kind of manipulation, be careful with who you ask favors from. Remember that there is a price for everything. Emotional Manipulation Technique # 3: If You’re Sick, I’m Dying. We all know how this goes. Emotional manipulators will always make themselves look more of a victim than you are. They crave for attention, which is why they’re not always happy when you get the limelight, even if it’s just for a headache. There’s really no getting around to a person like this. Perhaps with the right timing, a huge and frank outburst might get through to their head. However, it’s easier to just let that person be and avoid commenting anymore. The truth is, emotional manipulation techniques are often used by cowards. They can’t do direct combat; so they will usually resort to sneaky ways to get you to do what they want. Now that you know what some of these dirty tricks are, hopefully, you’ll be able to avoid getting sucked into them. Dealing with emotional blackmail Conflict, the first sign: Relationships with manipulators are generally conflict-ridden. It is sometimes difficult to know that you are being manipulated. However, with time, your frustration with this person grows and you know that something must be wrong with the relationship. You may feel drawn and repulsed by the manipulator at the same time. Awareness of your own emotions within the relationship: Your emotions are your best tool for sensing that there is a problem between you and the other person. Examine whether you feel defensive, guilty, angry, or sympathy towards the other person. Define the emotion and understand the pattern: When you think about what happens between you and the manipulator, describe the emotions that you feel. Put your feelings into words. What specifically

79

was said that led you to a certain feeling? How did you respond at the time? What was the effect of your response? You may want to write these down in a journal. Ask yourself whether you want to continue with the relationship or not. It might be in your best interest to terminate it, or else place specific boundaries around it (like limiting our time with the other person). Some relationships cannot, or should not, be terminated unless there is a pattern of abuse. This is especially true of relationships with parents, siblings and children. Whenever a manipulation attempt occurs, point it out to the other person immediately. This is your way of taking control of the manipulation. There is no need to express anger when you give the manipulator this feedback. Be assertive and calm. Take a few deep breaths. The manipulator at this point might come back with a guilt trip or an angry response. You could say, “I don’t feel good about the way I am feeling. I would like a healthy interaction between us, so could you try to say what you need to say in a more positive and direct way.” In some ways, the goal is to begin with strengthening yourself and taking charge of your life. Emotional manipulation techniques are often used by cowards. They cannot do direct combat; so they usually resort to sneaky ways to get you to do what they want. Empowering yourself with knowledge is a surefire way of preventing abuse. See more articles on Personal Growth at http://www.lifepositive.com/Articles/PersonalGrowth Anita Anand can be reached at [email protected] http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/emotional_manipulation_techniques_dirty_tricks_people_use_to_ manipulate_others.html Emotional Manipulation Techniques: Dirty Tricks People Use To Manipulate OthersBy Michael Lee http://www.20daypersuasion.com/secrets.htm

80

5. The guilt trip You need to realize that we are imperfect beings, and no product and human-related actions can turn us into a perfect human. You should also know that there are certain types of manipulation that prey on those individuals that are quite unsure about their abilities, and even those who are suffering from their imperfection - or so they are lead to believe. Guilt tripping is a special kind of intimidation tactic. A manipulator seeks to make the conscientious victim feel guilty by suggesting that he or she does not care enough, is too selfish or has it easy. This behavior is aimed at making the victim feel that he is not doing all that he should do, or that he is not acting in a correct way. This usually results in the victim feeling bad, keeping them in a self-doubting, anxious and submissive position, rather than standing up four their own values. How to curtail the guilt trip. Guilt trips are really high on the list of manipulative tools. If you can get someone else to feel guilty, then you're home and hosed. However, people wear out after being made to suffer guilt too many times and the manipulator risks losing respect, friends, and being distanced by those who can't get away, such as family and co-workers. One of the key things to keep in mind when escaping the guilt trip bind is that the sooner you nip it in the bud, the better, and that it's their guilt trip, not yours. Recognize it. Guilt trips are usually prefaced with "If you really cared about me, you'd...", "If you were more responsible, you'd...", "If you were more understanding, you'd...". "Don't you care if...." "If you loved me..." "Everyone knows that..." "Every decent person would..." "I just knew you would say that!" "Can't you take a joke?" "You could never do..." "I thought that's what you wanted" In each case, you can substitute the words they add in after with "do as I want". Another way of inducing a guilt trip is to tell you what you wouldn't do, for example: "I knew I'd misheard it! After all, you'd never get engaged without telling me first." In that small phrase, you've just been told that the expectations are that you'll defer to this person before making any decisions. Manipulative people use statements to make you feel guilty about doing or not doing something. You don't expect it and it blinds your ordinarily good judgment.

81

How to deal with it: 1. Say “NO” Recognize the manipulative statement. If you can, minimize your exposure to the statement because it is like glue and it sticks to you. When you hear it, just say "No". Ignore manipulative people's words and be aware of the fact that you may want to reply to their question or statement. Don't do it, it is bait. 2. Turn it back on the guilt giver. Take a return-to-sender approach with guilt trips and don't let their interpretation of your behavior determine the situation. In this case, you can give them a little of their own medicine so that they understand how it feels to be made to feel guilty. This approach involves taking what the manipulator has said and tell them how they aren't respecting, appreciating, caring for, etc. your behavior toward them, and in the process, you dissolve the need to meet the obligation they're aiming to impose. For example:  A: "You don't care about all the hard work I've done for you."  You: "I sure do care about the hard work you've done for me. I've said as much many times. Now it seems to me that you don't appreciate how much I care."  A: "That's not true! I appreciate it!"  You: "Yes, just as I appreciate your hard work."  Shorten their hold on you. When a manipulator tries to guilt-trip you by suggesting that they don't matter, don't buy into it. Instead, answer with a quick retort that breaks this hold instantly. For example:  A: "Okay then, go on that camping trip with your friends while I do all the work looking after the dogs. Don't worry about me."  You: "That's great! I'm glad you're happy to look after the dogs while I'm away. Thanks!"

82

6. Whining, Sulking and Crying Source: James Lehman: http://www.minti.com/parenting-advice/10010/Moody-Kids-How-to-Respond-toPouting-Whining-and-Sulking/ Some people will use crying, sorrow, screaming and other forms of emotions to further their own ends or to simply get what they want. This is common among children and teenagers who will "test the waters", to see how far they can go with this form of manipulation. The behavior is more about boundary testing and can be dealt with appropriately with good parenting skills. Pouting, sulking and whining are three of the most annoying ways that kids communicate their displeasure, anger or frustration with a situation. This behavior is not just limited to young children, either—teens do it because they haven’t always learned the skills to express their frustration in an appropriate way. Simply put: it works for them. When kids or even teens walk around the house in a huff in order to get their way, that means someone—probably one or both parents—is still reacting to it. But know this: if you start blaming, accusing or trying to reason with your child about this type of behavior, you’re just feeding the tiger—you're simply giving it more meat. The behavior will continue if you continue to get sucked in by it. As your child grows older, they’re supposed to learn ways to express their displeasure, frustration, anger or anxiety about a situation. Most kids are eventually able to do this most of the time, but some kids persist in sulking. It’s not unusual to see children continue this all the way up into grade school and beyond. Remember, the behaviors kids tend to continue are the behaviors that are meeting their needs. And until your child learns other, more effective ways of communicating, it will probably continue. Make Your Home a Safe Place to Express Different Views Your child’s freedom to speak his mind assumes one primary condition: that it’s safe to express himself in your house. Don’t forget, this behavior may be a replacement form of communication for kids who don’t feel safe saying what they really want to say. Instead, they use other, more passive methods to let people know they’re unhappy, without actually having to take responsibility for it. Help Your Child Find Other Ways to Express Herself Initially, you can sit down with your child and identify alternative ways for them to express themselves that don’t involve a dramatic display of their bad mood. So the message they want to get across might be, “I don’t want to go to bed now,” or “I don’t want to do my homework,” or “Why can’t we go to the movies?” Instead of pouting, as kids grow older, the expectation is that they should be able to express that verbally to you. So at first, bring it to their attention. Say, “I notice now that you’re sulking. If you want to say something to me, figure out a better way to say it.” In my opinion, the best thing to do is

83

ignore it and say, “I’m not going respond when you act this way anymore. You’re going to have to communicate differently.” Don’t Give It Too Much Power I wouldn’t give pouting and sulking too much power by overreacting to it or punishing your child. I personally wouldn’t give consequences for it, either. After having the conversation with your child about other ways they can express themselves, I would ignore the behavior completely. But here’s the key: whether they’re sulking or not, your child still has to comply with your rules and do what you’ve asked of them. If they behave oppositionally or have defiant behaviour because of your requests, then deal with that behavior. Although it’s annoying, try to stop responding to the fact that your teen is walking around the house with a huffy attitude. Remember, deal with behaviors that are more easily observable and are more “acting-out” in nature. So, allowing your child to be in a sulky mood and not responding to it is the best way to get out of it. Let it die by neglect. In fact, like plants, a lot of these behaviors do die from neglect. If you leave them alone, they’ll die. If you water them and nourish them, they continue to grow. It’s as simple as that. How to Reduce that Whining in Your Ear Whining has also become much more prevalent in our society over the last decade. You see a lot of people complaining all the time about things they can’t change. People blame others for their emotional state regularly, on all ends of society. When people constantly complain about problems, emotions or situations, they're not willing to do anything positive about them. The emotional state that accompanies whining is usually that of feeling sorry for yourself. So maybe something’s not going your child’s way. They’re not getting something they want, or they’re afraid they’re going to lose something they’ve got. All of this contributes to the level and intensity of the whining. Establish a “Complaining Time” What I like to do is to give kids a journal in which they can write their complaints. They get to complain about something once, and afterwards they have to write about it in their journals. Set aside a certain time every day when your child gets ten minutes to complain, discuss what’s bothering them, and whine. At the end of the ten minutes, (and it’s got to end on time), everybody goes their way. Your child gets another chance tomorrow during "Complaint Time" or whatever you choose to call it. This will help extinguish the constant whining. By the way, when you establish a complaint time (or whining time), your child will have to work to find things to complain about. The whining stops because most kids don’t want to do any work - they just want to complain. Another benefit to you as a parent is that from now on, when your kids whine, you can tell them to write it in their journals or save it for the complaint time tomorrow.

84

One Parent Gives in, the Other Doesn’t: What to Do? It’s not unusual to see kids who sulk and whine at home but don’t demonstrate that type of behavior at school. This is because they’ve learned it’s not going to work: their teachers don’t respond to them the same way their parents do. You’ll also see times where it works with one parent and not the other. Whenever any behavior is more pronounced with one parent, it means that the behavior is working better with that parent. Kids learn very early that their parents are two different people and that they can have two different strategies when dealing with them. If it’s an inappropriate behavior, I think it’s important for parents to remember not to use the cop out of, “Well, his mom lets him get away with it, what can I do?” Sound parenting requires that both parents communicate with each other separately from their children. If there’s no TV after seven o’clock at night, that’s a house rule. If one parent allows sulking to change that, then there’s something wrong with the couple’s communication. There’s nothing wrong with the kid - he’s just doing what works, after all. Here’s the bottom line: It’s up to both parents to create a culture of accountability between them and their children. And that culture of accountability says, “You’re accountable to me and I’m accountable to you. And no matter what else is going on with other people, you have to speak to me in a certain way and I’m going to speak to you in a certain way.” End of story. Develop a strategy on how you’ll deal with your child’s annoying behaviors, and you’ll soon see that behavior wither and die. If your child suffers from disruptive behavior disorders, seek help from a mental health therapist. Such disorders as oppositional defiance disorder, conduct disorder and separation disorder can have elements of manipulation in them but need special attention to overcome, using the help of specialists and your compassion. But also adults use whining, sulking and crying to get what they want. The problem with people who sulk is that it is a form of manipulation to get other people to conform to their wishes, they tend to be people who resolve conflict by avoiding it and hiding away somewhere or putting on a look. Sulking is oddly effective - whilst we all say that we 'just don't respond to it', so many people actually do - even unwittingly - just to keep the peace and get rid of a bad atmosphere. A sulk is more effective in a group setting that one on one. In the latter, the non sulker walks away if they don't want to deal with it. In a group, it is often clear to see that at least one member of the group will cave in to the sulker to 'save' the group's night being spoilt. Thus the sulker garners attention - which is what they are doing it for. There is even the 'any attention is some attention' aspect too - so even if the sulker is getting slated, they are getting noticed. How to defend against it:   

Don't take it to heart. Expect changes. if they don't change their ways in response to your behavior cues, move on. If you've tried ignoring the sulks and demanding respect but it's still happening, take a deep breath and really consider if it's worth living with this adult-child in your life.

85

Good to know: A study investigated the type of compliance gaining strategies that battered women reported using in domestic conflicts and whether these strategies related to the battered women's verbal aggression and argumentativeness. Participants in this study were 115 abused women who were seeking refuge from abusive spouses in temporary shelters for battered women. The results suggest that battered women most frequently reported using indirect strategies. Aversive Stimulation (i.e., pouting sulking, crying) and ingratiation (i.e., manipulation in the form of affection or favor doing) were the top two strategies reported. Furthermore, a canonical correlation analysis resulted in an overall significant relationship between compliance gaining strategies and argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness.

86

7. Self-pity - Playing the victim Playing the victim role ("poor me"): Manipulator portrays him- or herself as a victim of circumstance or of someone else's behavior in order to gain pity, sympathy or evoke compassion and thereby get something from another. At times each one of us has times when we're really in need of some tender self-care but long-term manipulators can make a habit of being the victim or the one needing special attention. Caring and conscientious people cannot stand to see anyone suffering and the manipulator often finds it easy to play on sympathy to get cooperation. Sidestep self pity. The manipulator who finds everything unfair and falls to pieces, he or she is attempting to gain your sympathy in order to use it to further his or her own needs. In this case, the manipulator will rely on a sense of "helplessness" and will seek financial, emotional, or other forms of help from you. Look out for attitudes and comments like "I'm so unloved/sick/victimized, etc." , "You are the only one I have", and "I have no one else to talk to", etc. In dealing with a meltdown of self-pity, be compassionate but wary as you don't want to establish an obligation as a result. Some ways to respond to such a manipulator include:    

A: "You are the only one I have." You: "Oh you're flattering me again but you and I both know that's not true! You've got Betty on Sundays, Muriel on Thursdays, and the bowls club all day Saturday. Why, when I tried to call you last Wednesday night, you were out playing cards with your neighbors." A: "I have no one else to talk to." You: "Remember yesterday when Grace came over to talk to you all afternoon? And Sally's said she's more than happy to listen over the phone whenever you need a sounding board. I'm happy to talk to you for the next five minutes but after that, I have an appointment I cannot miss."

87

4.4. Other Manipulative Tricks 1. The "No Way Out" question You are being asked a question and you think you are given a choice, but the answer has already been decided by the manipulator. The question shouldn't be the time of the appointment, but whether you want an appointment at all. After such a question, there is a pregnant pause and, since you are programmed to respond to a conversational pause by offering to help, you jump in and do whatever the manipulator wants you to do. Examples: "Would you like an appointment at 6:15 or 6:30?" "Do you want the red one or the blue one?" "Don't you think that...?" "Aren't you happy that..." "Have you stopped beating your wife?" How to deal with it: Be prepared to use one of those replies: "I'll let you know" "I'll have to think about that" "No, I don't want to" "I disagree" "Sorry, I am not interested"

88

2. Making false promises False promises: The manipulator can falsely promise their victim something, such as promising to leave after walking him/her to the doorstep Making false promises serves this manipulative purpose of taking without giving in return very well. In this game, the manipulator gets something in the immediate moment, by promising something at a later date. Of course, the promised favor never happens. The victim is then left feeling cheated and betrayed. There are many examples of "False Promises" in dating. Some are mild (e.g. if you go to the restaurant they want tonight, then they promise to go to the one you want next time - which never happens). Others are more severe (e.g. if you give your lover one more chance, he/she promises to stop drinking, cheating, etc.). Unfortunately, even sex and marriage commitments are sometimes given under the pretenses of false promises. In “Who's Pulling Your Strings? How to Break the Cycle of Manipulation and Regain Control of Your Life.” (McGraw Hill 2004, ISBN: 0-07-140278-0, $21.95.) Braiker, Harriet B. defines the making of false promises as the basic tactics that are used to exert control. There are two kinds of promises and manipulators usually use both: The first is a promise of gain. That is, the manipulator will promise to provide something if the victim goes along with what the manipulator wants. "I promise - no arguments for a week if you'll end your friendship with Pat." The other tactic is the promise of avoiding loss. In this case, the manipulator threatens the victim with the loss of something if they do not go along with the manipulator's desires. "I'm going to stay out with my friends late every night unless this house is cleaned spic and span by the time I get home." (Of course, these two examples are obvious manipulation attempts. Most manipulators use more subtle methods than we see in these examples.) Defense Against False Promises False promises are particularly tricky to defend against for two reasons. First, it is common to want to trust your partner. In most cases, that is not only acceptable, but healthy too. Second, it is hard to determine the difference between a "well intentioned promise" that falls through and a manipulation that your partner never intended to honor. However, there are some strategies to sort out the difference: 1) Get Yours First - If the promise of an exchange really is sincere, then it doesn't matter who gets theirs first. So, you should be able to go to YOUR restaurant "this time", and they can take "next time". Similarly, they won't mind being forgiven AFTER they are sober or faithful for a defined period of time. Therefore, when a promise is requested, ask for what you are being "promised" upfront. If your partner's intentions are good, then he/she will be fine with giving you your part of the exchange initially. If your date gets mad or upset at that request, however, you are being manipulated.

89

2) Define Consequences - There are some promise situations where you can't get what you're promised first (e.g. loaning money). In these instances though, you can set consequences. You can tell the other person 1) how the relationship is going to change until the promise is fulfilled, and 2) what will happen if it is not fulfilled. For example: You explain that you will loan them money, under the following conditions... You expect them to pay you back when they get paid. Until then, you are not paying for any dates. Also, if they don't pay you back when they get paid, then you're never loaning them money ever again. Here again, if the promise is sincere, your date will be fine with the "terms" you set. However, if he/she starts getting upset or defensive, then your partner has intentions to manipulate. So, state the consequences and see how they react. 3) Appeal to Self-Image - When others don't care about you, they still care about themselves. Even liars like to think of themselves as good people. So, you can test their sincerity by reflecting back how a promise makes THEM look and feel. For example: You say something like, "I trust you because I know you're not the kind of person that wants to look like a liar or a failure. You will keep your word and do what you say. You're not like those losers who make promises with no intentions of keeping them". Such a statement will make a sincere partner feel very good about himself or herself. But, it will make an insincere partner feel very bad. So, if you say something like the above and your partner gets hostile, then beware. You're about to be manipulated. Ground Rules for Dealing with Manipulation set out by Harriet Braiker: Focus on changing yourself, not the manipulator. It is not helpful to try to out manipulate a skillful manipulator - you are simply making yourself vulnerable to further manipulation. You will not change a manipulator by focusing on his or her imperfections and trying to work toward their achieving insight. You may think that it would be helpful to share with the manipulator how you feel and how his or her behavior has an impact on you - but this is generally not helpful since most manipulators are not capable of empathy and may use this information against you in the future. The only effective method of changing manipulative behavior is to disable it by making a change within yourself, thereby changing the dynamics of the manipulative relationship. If you cease to cooperate with the manipulative tactics, you will alter the nature of the relationship. If manipulators have to work hard to maintain control in the relationship, they usually give up - often by leaving the relationship and finding someone else to control. Assess the worth of this relationship to you. Depending on the severity of the manipulation and the damage it has done to your sense of happiness and integrity, you may need to consider whether it is worth it to continue the relationship. Of course, there are many situations (parent/child, for example) when you must stay in the relationship, so it is helpful at least to achieve some clarity about what you want in your life and assess how the relationship has the potential to lead you toward your personal goals. Use assertiveness techniques to change the nature of the relationship. You might be so accustomed to complying with the manipulator's tactics that you automatically do his or her bidding without thinking about it. First, you need to stop your automatic compliance. You do this by buying time to think about each situation as it arises. "I'll get back to you on that when I have the time to think about it." At this point you are now in control of the situation. It is not helpful to let the manipulator ask you why you need time since this invites your loss of control. Simply repeat the same thing over and over again without explanation.

90

"I need more time to think about it." Next, you need to confront the fear, anxiety or guilt that has driven you to comply in the past with the manipulator's demands. This requires a deep look within that may be achieved by working with a professional therapist. Exploring your own personal feelings, why you react as you do, and how to use alternate responses may be a challenge, but the benefits are farreaching - and they may save your relationship, or at least prepare you for healthier relationships in the future. Finally, you might label the manipulation for what it is. "When you threaten to leave me I feel afraid. If you would simply state your wishes and show me respect, I would be more able to listen to what you want." In a calm voice and with direct eye contact, it may be time to announce that the old manipulations have come to an end. "We both understand that you have a pattern of playing on my fears, and now you know how I feel about that. Your way of threatening me is not going to work any longer." In making these types of assertive statements, you are defining your boundaries. There is no need to make threats. Simply state that you will not participate any longer in manipulations. Make it clear that by setting limits and enhancing your own personal integrity, you expect a better relationship in the future. Learning to assert yourself in the face of a manipulative individual who feels threatened when not in control is a challenge, and doing this with the help of a professional therapist is recommended.

http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/Jaimelavie

91

3. Disguising questions as statements Source: http://implicateevolution.com/2010/08/dealing-with-manipulative-people-part-1/ Manipulative people hate asking questions because it means they may loose control. So they may use a disguised question. These are common ground for the manipulator. Instead of asking you about your behaviour, or asking something of you that they want, they pose it like a statement so that you don’t have the chance to reject them. This is also often used as a way of making what they know your answer will be seem ridiculous. Examples: "I am wondering why you...", "Perhaps you could...", "I wish you could...", "I suppose you are going to..." “So I suppose you’ll…” “I don’t know why you…” Consider this: “I don’t know why you have to speak to him that way.” Several things are implied here. The first is that you’re speaking to ‘him’ improperly. The second is that your behaviour is incomprehensible and thus ridiculous/outrageous and the third is that the speaker would like you to stop. The phrase above is used instead of the following: “Why do you speak to him that way? I don’t think you should be so rude.” This is essentially the same message, except that it’s straight forward. The person speaking is very clear that they think you’re being rude, instead of implying it and they ask you point blank why you’re behaving the way that you are. There is no hidden meaning. It’s a basic example, but if you experience it on a regular basis with someone, you’ll know what I’m talking about. The way to get around this is to respond only to actual questions. Statements like “I don’t know why you have to do such and such” beg to be responded to, which is why manipulative people use them. Train your ears to recognize the difference. You must learn to ask the Yes/No question, but not get tricked by a disguised question. Instead of addressing them, ignore them completely. Manipulators will often use such a statement in place of a question and then actually wait for you to respond. When you don’t, it throws them off. If they ask you if you have anything to say, simply reply ‘no.’ Or tell them that they didn’t ask you anything. Most often the conversation will just continue as if nothing happened. Or repeat the last 3 or 4 words of the statement back to the manipulator, forcing him/her to admit it was a question. If they push the matter, point out that it was not a question, repeat what they said and then ask them if it was a question. This will ensure that you get them out in the open with their intentions and you can continue having your conversation with both sides being clearly defined. Manipulators love to tell others that they never asked about something, but that the information was offered. Most often what actually happened was that it was provoked. Forcing them to ask puts you on even footing.

92

4. Foot in the Door Technique: Start off small and up-sell. Someone asks you for something small, and when you give it to them, they ask for something bigger. And then, maybe, something even bigger. Example: Son: “Mom, can I go out for an hour to see Anthony?” Mom: “Sure.” Son: “I just called Anthony and he’s going to the movies. Can I go with him?” Mom: “Sure.” Son: “I only have $5. Could you lend me a few bucks to get in?” Son: “…Could you give us a ride there?” Son: “…Could you pick us up afterwards?” Foot-in-the-door (FITD) technique is a compliance tactic that involves getting a person to agree to a large request by first setting them up by having that person agree to a modest request. The foot-in-thedoor technique succeeds owing to a basic human reality that social scientists call “successive approximations”. Essentially, the more a subject goes along with small requests or commitments, the more likely that subject is to continue in a desired direction of attitude or behavioral change and feel obligated to go along with larger requests. FITD works by first getting a small 'yes' and then getting an even bigger 'yes.' The principle involved is that a small agreement creates a bond between the requester and the requestee. Even though the requestee may only have agreed to a trivial request out of politeness, this forms a bond which - when the requestee attempts to justify the decision to themselves - may be mistaken for a genuine affinity with the requester, or an interest in the subject of the request. When a future request is made, the requestee will feel obliged to act consistently with the earlier one. The reversed approach - making a deliberately outlandish opening demand so that a subsequent, milder request will be accepted - is known as the door-in-the-face technique.

93

5. The confrontational statement This manipulative approach is about causing an argument. That way, the provoker will end up making you feel terrible over something you didn't do or say, but for which you ought to feel guilty anyway and they'll get a huge chunk of sympathy with which to manipulate you all over again. Those statements are used to put you on the defensive. They can even be brought up jokingly but with the intent to mock or pour cold water on your hopes. If you play the manipulator's game, you will end up in a fight without knowing how it started. Examples: "How dare you leave me alone tonight!" "I thought we agreed that this would be the best solution. And now you're deliberately doing something entirely different." "Why do you always have to do everything your way? What about me?" "Why do you always..." "Do you expect me to..." "I can't believe you would..." "I thought we were going to..." "Why should I have to..." "I've been told that..." "How could you..." "Why don't you..." "Did you hear me?" "Well, does that mean that I have to..." "I thought you..." "Don't you think you (we) should..." "Are you telling me..." "I thought we agreed..." How to deal with it: Avoid the confrontation and dispute manipulation Let things slide. Don't respond to bad behavior. Don't reply defensively and avoid saying "I'm sorry but..." You can choose not to fight by using one of the following replies: "That's my decision" "I know you're unhappy, but that's the way it is" "I'll have to think about that" "You seem upset" "We'll talk later when you aren't so upset." "We don't always have to agree." "I prefer it that way" "You're right" (and drop the subject)

94

Determine whether someone is deliberately using a ploy or "game" to bring about a dispute or conflict into the open. This frequently happens amongst friends or in relationships, when one member wishes to have influence or to attempt control over the other. Rather than engaging in an argument with this manipulator, learn to simply say "no" and by pointing out clear facts. For example: Be calm, rational, and pleasant when you say no. Don't try to up the ante by grimacing or snapping back. It's also important to keep your response simple and friendly. Use your body language to back up your meaning. Shake your head and give your "no" face. Be polite. When a manipulator asks you to do something, try "I'd love to but I'm too busy in the upcoming months. Sorry." or "Thanks for asking, but no."

95

6. Spreading false rumors. Manipulators use this technique for a variety of reasons: 1. They spread false rumors in the hope of forcing out the real story. Individuals in this category will tell you the opposite of what you wish to hear. They may do so hoping that you will correct them and as such force out the real story from you. Very private people often fall prey to this type of tactic because it's targeted at eliciting information from you directly when you've been reticent so far. 2. They spread false rumors to discredit a person (or product, or company …). University of Sydney psychotherapist John Clarke has made a life-long study of psychopaths in the workforce and is the author of two books on the subject - Working with Monsters and The Pocket Psycho. He says workplace psychopaths commonly intimidate fellow workers, sometimes behave impulsively, always lack remorse and often are glib and superficially charming. "About half the people in any workplace won't be affected. If anything, they will think they are good guys because psychopaths go out of their way to cultivate people who they can use," Dr Clarke says. "It's from the other half of the workforce the psychopath selects victims to wage war on. The weapons of war include bullying, putting down, humiliating in front of others, stealing credit for work done by others and spreading false rumors about other people. "They will tear people apart to get where they want to be," he says. "These psychopaths ... have no compunction, no pity. They will level people to the ground without feeling. That is what they enjoy," he says. The technique is also used on a larger scale: President G.W. Busch, eager to invade Iraq but finding himself with insufficient political support for starting another offensive war, informed the whole world that he had positive proof that Iraq disposed of weapons of mass destruction and kept warning everybody about the danger of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein using these weapons. When Iraq was invaded however, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found. 3. They spread false rumors to influence the price of a product or the market At the start of the 19th century, it looked like nobody was able to stop Napoleon. When the allied forces of British and Germans confronted the French army at Waterloo, everybody realized that the outcome of the battle would be of the utmost importance for all of Europe. No wonder that stock markets were very nervous and, with little news available, prices had started to slide away. The Rothschild banking family was following the events from very close and was amongst the very first to understand that Napoleon would be defeated. In stead of buying shares and spreading the good news, they kept the news to themselves for as long as possible and started selling shares, convincing everybody that things were looking really grim. Now, everybody started selling shares and share prices collapsed. At this moment, the Rothschilds suddenly changed their position and started buying back shares at bottom prices, making an immense fortune in a couple of hours time. Still today, the manipulation of interest rates, the prices of shares, raw materials, grain, gold, oil, … are a constant preoccupation of governments all over the world but also on a personal scale, manipulators are always manipulating the news and spreading false rumors in order to advance their personal interests.

96

7. Traumatic one-trial learning: Traumatic one-trial learning: using verbal abuse, explosive anger, or other intimidating behavior to establish dominance or superiority; even one incident of such behavior can condition or train victims to avoid upsetting, confronting or contradicting the manipulator and create long-term fear and anxiety. In abusive relationships, fits of violent rage, sometimes including physical assault, can leave the victim too frightened and disorientated to leave the relationship or stand up for themselves. Common excuses invoked by abusers to rationalize their behavior Loss of control Abusers may blame the victim’s actions for causing them to lose control of their temper. It is often apparent however that they do not behave in that way with other people. When abusers smash up property in apparently random acts it often turns out that they avoid damaging their own belongings, and if law officers, called by alarmed neighbours, arrive the “uncontrollable rage” will be instantly switched off. At this point the abuser, who is calm, will often pass the blame to the victim, who is likely to be visibly disturbed. Too much anger causes abuse Abuse therapists find that anger is usually only one of many abusive tactics employed against a victim. Anger results from abusive attitudes and the abuser’s sense of entitlement rather than being a cause of these. Anger management courses are unlikely to stop abuse because they do not address the abuser’s attitudes. Mental illness Some abusers do have personality disorders such as Borderline Personality Disorder or psychopathy, but most abusers are mentally normal. It is their attitudes, absorbed from society or their family background, that make them abusively seek power over their partner or child. Low self-esteem Abusers are found in all walks of life and many of them are successful and confident. They include heads of corporations, high ranking police officers and judges. Boosting abusers’ egos may increase their sense of entitlement and lead to worse abuse. Alcohol or drug abuse cause abuse Many substance abusers do not abuse their partners. However, those who do usually continue or even intensify psychological abuse if they give up the substance abuse. Having used the substance abuse as an excuse for their behaviour before, they are likely to change to using the stress of staying away from the substance as the excuse.

97

8. Lying: Here, we are not talking about little white lies once in a while, but about compulsive liars who lie to manipulate you. More often than not, it is hard to tell if somebody is lying at the time they do it, although often the truth may be apparent later, when it is too late. One way to minimize the chances of being lied to is to understand that some personality types (particularly psychopats) are experts at the art of lying and cheating, doing it frequently, and often in subtle ways. Here are a few ways to see whether someone is lying to you: - The person is adding unnecessary details to an explanation. - When you ask for an explanation or a clarification, the person stops and thinks, even though he/she should know the answer right away. - The person pretends not to know something that he/she obviously knows. - The person may be laughing nervously. - The person is not looking at you while speaking, or is looking at you too insistently. - The person may change the topic of the conversation. - You feel something is wrong and your body is reacting. Maybe your eyes are squinting and your head is tilted. My great grandmother had a really neat saying: is that a true lie, or a damn lie? True liars are well-meaning people who really believe what they are saying is true, even though it reinforces pre-selected and officially sanctioned views of reality. This isn’t meant to be offensive—this is something we have all unwittingly done before. Damn liars are generally self-serving and modern-day versions of snake oil salesmen that purposefully perpetuate and then exploit senseless and baseless fears for profit. That is actually the definition of monger - as in “fear monger”. Just like disempowering views of reality are constantly seeded into the collective and constitute a form of mass manipulation, the manipulator will create a stream of false information aimed at destabilizing his victims and making them dependant on him: 1. Don’t use your free will to take meaningful actions that will allow you to express it and therefore create (self-determine) the kind of world you want—Jesus is going to come and fix it for you. (Religion discourages self-responsibility) 2. Don’t use your free will to take meaningful actions that will allow you to express it and therefore create (self-determine) the kind of world you want, beyond good intentions, thinking happy thoughts, and sending love and light. (New Age; rebranded version of No.1)

98

3. Don’t use your free will to take meaningful actions that will allow you to express it and therefore create (self-determine) the kind of world you want - The Aliens [insert Pleadian, Plejoran, ect here] are going to fix it for you. (New Age; rebranded version of No.1 &2) 4. Excessive fear mongering of “doom from space” - Evil asteroids, Planet X, and massive CME’s and associated earth changes are going to kill most of you no matter what you do, so again, please don’t actually take action to create the kind of world you would like because it’s ending anyway. (rebranding of non-action and self-responsibility) 5. Love is all you need. (rebranding of non-action and self-responsibility) 6. Overpopulation and selfish consumerism by the useless eaters / mindless sheeple is killing the planet—there isn’t enough food or resources for everyone. 7. Global Warming (Climate Change) is the result of greenhouse gasses and too much carbon - the middle class is largely responsible for this - this is why they are being eliminated. How to deal with liars: There is no quick and easy way to deal with a compulsive liar. Asking a question to a liar is inviting more lies. Fearing loss of control, the liar reacts aggressively to avoid answering. He/she may start asking questions to put the focus on you, may start accusing you, may be evasive saying "Oh well that all depends..." "I'm not sure...", or may change the subject completely. With a compulsive liar, you have to document and confirm all responses. Avoid asking questions. Avoid any agreements, including legal ones. Don't ask a liar for anything and don't do anything for him/her either. Be self-reliant and financially and emotionally free. If your partner is a compulsive liar, you may need professional help to cope with him/her.

99

9. Lying by omission, through the use of vagueness or by distortion of crucial details. This is a manipulative tool that can be used for wriggling out of obligations they don't want to meet, while still managing to remember obligations that they expect you to meet, or have met (in front of the boss) or to influence your decisions and behavior by withholding a significant part of the information required to make a correct decision. This technique is also used in propaganda. There are so many ways to lie that it’s almost impossible to list them all. But manipulators are very knowledgeable about even the most subtle and stealthy ways to lie and are artful in their use of the various forms of lying. One subtle approach to lying is lying by omission or through selective presentation of facts. When someone wants to pull the wool over your eyes, they don’t have to make an obviously absurd or bogus claim. Many times, all they have to do is make sure they don’t tell the whole truth about something. It’s as simple as leaving out a very important detail or something crucial to understanding the whole picture. In his first book, "In Sheep’s Clothing", Dr George Simon gives an example of an aging salesman concerned about his job security who asked his boss if there were any plans to lay him off or fire him. His boss told him there were no such plans. But he didn’t tell him that his sales accounts were about to be shared with a new, younger employee and that soon he’d be in a position in which he might prefer early retirement as opposed to dwindling commissions. Sometimes, what a person doesn’t say or do can be a much more effective manipulation tool. Another type of subtle lying is the use of vagueness. When you confront a manipulator about an issue, they may give you an answer, but they might also be so vague about the details that you end up remaining largely in the dark. Sometimes, the manipulator can manipulate you effectively by doing just the opposite — by using specificity in a response in such a way that it may provide a limited answer to the question you’ve asked, but without providing additional detail that would better address the intent of your question. Lying by distortion of crucial details provides one other way to obscure the bigger picture and mislead someone. In fact, when someone really wants to lie effectively, they’ll often recite a litany of true facts (all to give the impression that they’re on a truth-telling spree) while simultaneously leaving out a crucial detail or two or distorting the true nature of an important fact. Lying is such a habit for manipulators that sometimes they end up halfway believing their lies. That’s true not only for the lies they tell others, but also for the lies they tell themselves. By lying so often about the reality of situations, the manipulator obstructs and resists any chance that they will internalize the most essential principles of responsible conduct.

100

101

10. Denial: When a manipulator refuses to admit that he or she has done something wrong, we talk about “denial”. “Denial” has traditionally been conceptualized as a psychological ego defense mechanism. In other words, it’s been presumed that when a person denies the reality of a situation, they do so unconsciously because the reality is simply too painful to bear. But when manipulators engage in denial, they’re generally not in a state of psychological unawareness prompted by a deep inner pain about who they are or what they have been doing. Rather, they more frequently use denial (i.e., an unwillingness to admit their wrongdoing) as a tactic to feign innocence, and to manage the impression of others who might otherwise have their number. If the denial is strong enough, a good neurotic might be successfully manipulated into second-guessing himself. Manipulators often won’t admit when they’ve done something wrong, and resist looking at any role their behavior patterns have played in creating problems in their lives. They lie to themselves and others about their malevolent acts and intentions as a tactic to get others off their back. If their denial is forceful and convincing enough, others will likely be successfully manipulated. To believe that a narcissist is using denial as a defense mechanism is to set yourself up to be manipulated and deceived. We need to examine the tactic of denial as something very different from the psychological defense of denial. Denial is not only an effective manipulation tactic, but it’s also a sure sign someone is not about to change his or her way of behaving. A person who won’t acknowledge their wrongs in the first place isn’t likely to feel any inclination to correct them. Habitual denial is the way many disordered characters resist internalizing the values and standards of conduct that could make them more socially responsible. Denial as a defense mechanism is how the mind copes emotionally in the fall-out of a catastrophic event, major loss, or with anxiety. The woman who finds herself suddenly widowed may deny for awhile that her husband is dead. Or she may simply feel numb and unable to cry for weeks or months. This is because she can't deal with all the emotions of loss and shock all at once. Denial as a defense is how our minds protect us from overwhelming situations that we aren't equipped at the time to deal with emotionally. This is something very different from denial as a tactic. George K. Simon, "In Sheep's Clothing", points out: "...this is when the aggressor refuses to admit that they've done something harmful or hurtful when they clearly have. It's a way they lie (to themselves as well as others) about their aggressive intentions. This 'Who...Me?' tactic invites the victim to feel unjustified in confronting the aggressor about the inappropriateness of a behavior. It's also the way the aggressor gives him/herself permission to keep right on doing what they want to do." Mr. Simon sums up: "In short, when Jeff [a juvenile caught in the act of bullying] is denying, he's not defending in any way, he's mainly fighting. He's not in a psychological state, he's employing a tactic, and he's very aware of what he's doing. The tactic he's using is often called denial, but it's really just another way of lying. And he's lying for the reasons people commonly lie -- to get out of trouble." I am sure you have many memories flooding into your mind right now of the times the narcissist has flatly denied their bad behavior, the effects of their bad behavior, and their bad intent behind the bad behavior. You are remembering how they managed to turn the whole situation around so that you were made to feel like you were the aggressor for not believing their denial...their lie. They put on their sweet angel face and deny, deny, deny until you lose the will to continue the fight. For that is what this

102

creep is doing. Fighting. Fighting for his way. Fighting for his "right" to keep right on doing what he wants to do, all consequences to you be damned. By his insistent denials you have often been made to feel like the bad guy. For trying to get an accounting from him for his actions you have succumbed to the accusation that you're being judgmental, unfair, bullying. So you gave up. You bought the lie that you are the mean one and he is innocent. Who would insist so tenaciously on their innocence except the innocent? Or so you rationalize. You are unwilling to believe that he can look you in the eye and lie his ass off from here to eternity. You want to believe that something about him, and about this relationship, is real...so you succumb his denials. Or perhaps you allow yourself to know that his behavior was bad and destructive, but you tell yourself that deep down he's really hurting so he is "in denial" because he can't face his own pain. This is never the case with a manipulator. He is not "in pain". He has no anxiety about his bad behavior whatsoever. He is totally cool with how he is. The only thing he isn't cool with is that you're not accepting his behavior. He is trying to get a pass from you by this blatant denial of his actions. He has no intention of stopping what he is doing. He will buy himself another day by simply denying he did what he did. It is so childish that it is rather a wonderment that we fall for this as often as we do when this is done by an adult. We want to believe that the person in front of us is basically good. That they are basically honest. That they are not fighting with us in this moment. Teach yourself to recognize when someone is covertly fighting for their own way. Never fall for the belief that the narcissist is in some sort of psychic pain which prevents them from knowing how their behavior affects those around her. She has no problem, no conflict in her own mind with her behavior. She is justified fully in her mind for what she does no matter the destruction it brings down on herself and others. Her only problem is with your perceptions of her behavior. That is what she is trying to deal with as she employs her massive denial of her misdeeds. You are the problem...not her. She is not fighting to repress some deep psychological pain. She is fighting to force you to repress your own pain and your own perception so she can carry on unpunished while doing what ever the hell she wants to do.

103

11. Rationalization: An excuse made by the manipulator for inappropriate behavior. Manipulators often try to “justify” their bad behavior. Traditional psychology trained us to see their “rationalizations” as unconscious defenses against feelings of guilt for their actions. But when manipulators make excuses, they’re really making a very conscious attempt to cast themselves in a more favorable light while manipulating others into seeing their point of view. It’s not a defense but a perfect example of covert aggression. And because it’s a very serious way in which they avoid responsibility and resist adopting the standards of conduct we want them to embrace, when a person makes excuses, it’s a sure bet they’ll engage in the bad behavior again. Effective manipulation tactics simultaneously put others on the defensive while also obscuring or denying the malevolent intent of the person using them. Such tactics are particularly effective on neurotic individuals — especially those who always want to think the best of people and who strive hard to understand what would make a person behave in a problematic way. Manipulators tend to engage in certain automatic (i.e., habitual, but nonetheless conscious and deliberate) behaviors that simultaneously serve the purposes of justifying antisocial behavior, resisting any subordination of their wills to a higher authority, manipulating and controlling others, and managing the impressions others have of them and the nature of their character. In the end, by frequently engaging in these behaviors manipulators reinforce in their own minds the notion that their preferred way of doing things is okay and there is no need to change their ways of relating to others. Some of the “tactics” manipulators use to avoid responsibility and manipulate others have been traditionally viewed as ego defense mechanisms, arising out of the erroneous but still common notion that everyone feels badly to some degree when they want act on their primal urges and against the interest of the greater good. As a result, it was presumed that everyone exhibiting such behaviors was “defending” against feelings of shame and guilt. But, as Dr George Simon pointed out before, all metaphors can be stretched beyond their capacity to be useful, and traditional metaphors about why people do the things they do become greatly strained when trying to understand and deal with manipulators. (See “Shame, Guilt and Character Development”.) The concept of defense mechanisms becomes the most greatly tested when we’re trying to truly understand the behavioral habits and tactics of the disordered character. When it comes to understanding and dealing with the manipulator, many of the behaviors we have traditionally thought of as defense mechanisms are better viewed as automatic (although conscious and deliberate) behaviors that simultaneously serve to justify or excuse antisocial behavior, obstruct the internalization of prosocial values (avoid responsibility), effectively manipulate and control others who don’t quite understand the true intentions and motivations of the manipulator, and manage the impressions others have so as to keep any social pressure to change at bay. Almost any behavior can and has been used at one time or another by a manipulator as a means to avoid responsibility and manipulate others. The manipulation and responsibility avoidance tactics manipulators employ are too numerous to list. In fact, almost any behavior can and has been used at one time or another by a manipulator as a means to avoid responsibility and manipulate others. Sometimes the manipulator will go to great lengths to attempt to “justify” a behavior he knows is wrong or knows others regard as wrong. Manipulators are forever making excuses for their harmful or

104

hurtful conduct. They have an answer for everything they’re challenged about. When others confront them, they come up with a litany of reasons why their behavior was justified and produce literally thousands of excuses for irresponsible behavior. Now the traditional thinking on rationalization of course is that it is an unconscious defense mechanism. The theory behind this is that a person unknowingly tries to alleviate pangs of guilt by finding some way to grant legitimacy to their behavior. But if someone really is feeling pangs of guilt, the uneasiness they feel about their behavior is internal. So, when rationalization as a defense mechanism is truly employed, the exculpating dialogue that takes place is internal. When manipulators use the responsibility-avoidance tactic of rationalization (alternately: justification, or excuse-making) they’re not primarily trying to reconcile their conduct with their consciences, but rather trying to manipulate others into getting off their case by getting them to “buy into” the excuses they make. Their rationalizations are part of an external dialogue designed to cast the manipulator as not as bad a person as others might otherwise think he is. So, their excuses are also part of their impression management scheme. Habitually attempting to justify behaviors they know are regarded by most people as clearly wrong is also another way the manipulator resists internalizing appropriate standards of conduct and controls and therefore makes it ever more likely he will engage in the wrongful behavior again. When used effectively by the manipulator, they simultaneously put others on the defensive while obscuring or denying the malevolent intent of the person using the tactic. Possibly the most important point Dr George Simon makes in his book, "In Sheep’s Clothing", in his other writings, and in all his workshops, is that it’s important to understand the mode of behavior (i.e., the mindset and emotional state) the manipulator is in when he is in the process of using the tactics. He is not in the defensive mode. It may appear so, especially to someone who has been indoctrinated with traditional notions about the motivations of behavior, and especially when some of the tactics can prompt a good neurotic who is confronting negative behavior to feel like an attacker. But at the very moment the manipulator is making excuses (rationalizing), blaming others (scapegoating), etc. he is primarily fighting. When you confront a manipulator about a harmful behavior, he is more than likely fully aware of the pro-social principle at stake. For example, when you point out that he was wrong to strike his wife, he understands very well that society frowns this kind of behavior. So, when he starts with the tactics — “She is always pushing my buttons” (blaming others); “I didn’t really hurt her” (minimizing); and “Am I supposed to always just take it?” (playing the victim) — he is well aware that society wants him to accept and submit to the principle that it’s not okay to strike your spouse. He’s also aware how civilized persons view the kind of people who, despite society’s rules, engage in such behavior. But he’s still actively resisting submission to this principle and fighting against internalizing the value. He also doesn’t want you on his case or to see him as the uncivilized sort that he is. He wants you to back off, accept his justifications, and keep the kind of image of him he wants you to have. So, whenever a manipulator uses these tactics, you know one thing for absolute certain: he will do it again. He’ll do it again because the use of the tactic testifies to the fact that he’s still at war with the principle. He’s fighting the very socialization process that could civilize him. You could say that he’s defending his ego, but that would be a relatively insignificant point and a distortion of the bigger picture. The main thing to remember is that when he engages in these behaviors, he is primarily fighting submission to the principles that serve the greater good and simultaneously trying to manipulate you into seeing things his way.

105

12. Minimization or trivializing behaviour: This is a type of denial coupled with rationalization. The manipulator asserts that his behavior is not as bad, harmful or irresponsible as he knows it was or as someone else was suggesting, for example saying that a taunt or insult was only a joke or admitting only part of what he did was wrong, and usually not the most serious part. When neurotics do something they think might negatively impact another, they tend to “catastrophize” the situation or become overly concerned with the damage they might have done. Conversely, manipulators are overly prone to minimizing the seriousness of their misconduct and trivializing the damage they cause in their relationships and to the general social order. By using the tactic, he tries to manipulate others into thinking he’s not such bad a person (impression management) and continues his active war against submission to a principle of social behavior. As is true when other tactics are used, when the manipulator minimizes the nature and seriousness of his conduct, you know for sure that he is likely to engage in the same or similar behaviors again. As long as he continues to minimize, he won’t take seriously the problems he needs to correct. It isn’t that he doesn’t recognize the seriousness of the issues. If he didn’t think others regarded the issue as serious, he wouldn’t feel the need to trivialize it. But refusing to accept the principle at hand and to accept the need to change his stance indicate he’s sure to repeat his misconduct. Manipulators use this tactic for a lot of reasons, but the biggest reason of all is that it generally works! Dr Georg Simon continues: I remember one of the first times I witnessed the effectiveness of the minimization tactic. A couple had come to my office for counseling, and the woman’s main complaint was that she was becoming increasingly fearful of what appeared to be her husband’s escalating level of aggressiveness. She complained that during an argument, he shoved her, and because he’d never done that before it concerned her. His comment: “Yeah, I might have touched her and pushed her a little bit, but you could hardly call it a ‘shove’ and there’s no way she can claim I hurt her or meant to hurt her. She’s making me out to be a monster, and I’m not. Besides, she pushed me to the brink!” This man’s statement combined several effective tactics from minimizing and trivializing the event (“touched her and pushed her a little bit”) to denial of malevolent intent (“no way she can claim I meant to hurt her”), vilifying the victim (“She’s making me out to be a monster”) and externalizing the blame (“She pushed me to the brink!”) among others. Before long, the woman was back-peddling and feeling bad for even bringing up the issue. It became all too clear that people use these tactics for a lot of reasons, but the biggest reason of all is that they generally work! Having been a veteran of traditional therapy, the woman in this case commented many times that she knew she was “making him [her husband] defensive” and that she didn’t want to make him feel badly about himself but didn’t know how else to address the issue. Clearly, she perceived him to be in a “defensive” posture when he was in fact on the offensive. What was even more disconcerting was the look of resignation on her face as she herself assumed the submissive position after his barrage of tactics succeeded in their intent. It’s still amazing to me today how many folks (including therapists) can’t distinguish an offense from a defense. Traditional notions about human behavior — especially paradigms designed to understand neurosis — are inadequate and sometimes even destructive when it comes to understanding the modus operandi of the manipulator.

106

13. Selective inattention or selective attention: Selective Listening and Attention: Hearing What You Want to Hear as a Manipulation Tactic Another behavior that manipulators frequently display is “selective attention” or “selective listening.” They simply refuse to pay attention to anything that may distract from their agenda, saying things like "I don't want to hear it". Manipulators are good at seeing only what they want to see and hearing only what they want to hear. Stanton Samenow referred to their habit of paying highly selective attention as “mental filtering” or “paying attention only to what suits him.” “Tuning-out” someone who’s trying to make a point, teach a lesson, or call attention to a problem is a principal way that the disordered character resists internalizing the values, standards, and controls society wants him to adopt. One cannot be “open” to the idea of accepting a principle while simultaneously refusing to pay it any attention. One cannot empathize with another’s concerns and tune out the other person at the same time. In short, one cannot be in the receptive/submissive mode and the combative/closed mode at the same time. The tactic of selective attention goes hand in hand with the inattentional thinking patterns. When you start to confront a manipulator about a problem behavior, they almost always know what you’re about to say before you actually say it. And, they almost immediately start tuning you out. The reason they “don’t want to hear it” is that they are not prepared to submit themselves to the principle of conduct you and they both know underlies the confrontation you are about to make. So, when they start tuning you out, you have absolute assurance they have no intention of changing course. Many times, selective attention is mistaken for attentional deficiency, especially in children and adolescents. Some young persons, through no fault of their own, have trouble sustaining focus and attention. They might be able to do so when hyperstimulated, but otherwise have problems attending to a task. Selective attention is different, although it can accompany attentional deficiency. Many parents have intuitively known that their child’s hearing seems to improve instantly when they’re talking openly about something they know the child wants or likes. One of the key tools to empowerment is the tool of selective speaking. In my early work with manipulators, one of the ways I confirmed that they were indeed tuning me out deliberately and to test whether they were in the slightest ready to receive counsel was simply not to talk unless they at least appeared attentive and receptive. Over the years, this has turned out to be by far one of my most powerful therapeutic techniques and also one of the most empowering tools for persons in relationships with a manipulator.

107

14. Diversion and Evasion:

Diversion: Manipulator not giving a straight answer to a straight question and instead being diversionary, steering the conversation onto another topic. Evasion: Similar to diversion but giving irrelevant, rambling, vague responses

Perhaps no behaviors are as frustrating to someone trying to elicit some degree of accountability from another as are the tactics of evasion and diversion. A moving target is hard to hit. If you try to confront an issue head on, a person who wants to manipulate you will do their best to side-step the issue. Evading a matter of central concern is a great way not only to dodge responsibility, but also to keep the light of illumination from shining on the behavior needing attention. They want to keep the spotlight off their problematic behaviors. They also don’t want their true character to be exposed or to be put on the spot (i.e. caught momentarily without a good offensive strategy for taking advantage of another). So, they are quick to dodge the important issues brought to their attention. When you ask them a direct question, they will not give a straight answer. Instead, they try to evade or sidestep the question and often also try to re-direct your focus (this is another tactic called diversion, which will be the subject of another post). Evasion is a one of the main tactics manipulators and other disordered characters use to maintain control in situations. A common misconception, based largely on outdated principles of classical psychology, is that they engage in such behaviors because they perceive themselves to be under attack and are trying to defend themselves and protect their egos. But the real reason they use such tactics is to keep others in the dark and in one-down positions. The disordered character never wants the playing field to be level. He or she always want to have the advantage over you. They also don’t want to play by the same rules by which we’d like them to play. So they use tactics like evasion to avoid responsibility as well as to manipulate and control others. Dr George Simon writes: I remember a conversation between a woman who tried to confront her husband about the infidelity she suspected. When he responded that he certainly understood how she might be suspicious because he’d been working so hard lately, he effectively side-stepped the issue. This woman had the moxie to continue pressing the issue — but the more she tried to pin him down, the more evasive he became, combining his issue-dodging tactic with other tactics. The tactic of diversion often goes hand-in-hand with evasion. Sometimes, when you try to pin down someone intent on manipulating you, they’ll effectively change the subject, focusing attention on some other related or even tangential issue. This emotional sleight of hand is an effective way to keep attention focused on almost anything else but the matter which has been raised. Many times, attention is shifted toward the person trying to bring a problem behavior to light, thus effectively not only throwing that person on the defensive, but also prompting them to lose focus and become derailed in their pursuit of their own agenda.

108

Diversion and evasion are two effective means of deflecting concern or confrontation about problem behaviors. It is axiomatic that the person using these tactics has no intention whatsoever of taking responsibility for a behavior or of considering changing it. Rather than be accountable and responsible, what the issue-dodger and subject-changer really wants to do is to advance their own agenda at the expense of yours while simultaneously managing your impression of them. Such tactics are employed very effectively by political talking heads when they are grilled by news commentators who have serious questions about the policies being endorsed: as a result, they stay on message, while looking good and remaining convincing, despite what they know are flaws in their positions.

109

15. Using weasel words. A weasel word (also, anonymous authority) may be an informal term for equivocating words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim, or even a refutation has been communicated. In other cases, words with a particular subjective effect are chosen. For example, one person may speak of "resistance fighters" or "freedom fighters", while another may call the same subjects "terrorists". The underlying facts are the same, but a quite different impression is given. The use of weasel words to avoid making an outright assertion is a synonym to tergiversate. Weasel words can imply meaning far beyond the claim actually being made. Some weasel words may also have the effect of softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement through some form of understatement, for example using detensifiers such as "somewhat" or "in most respects". A study of Wikipedia found that most weasel words in it could be divided into three categories: 1. Numerically vague expressions (e.g. "some people", "experts", "many") 2. Use of the passive voice to avoid specifying an authority (e.g. "it is said") 3. Adverbs that weaken (e.g. "often", "probably") Other forms of weasel words include: Use of euphemisms (e.g., replacing "firing staff" with "streamlining the workforce") Use of grammatical devices such as qualifiers and the subjunctive mood Generalizations: The vagueness of a statement may disguise the validity or the aim of that statement. Generalizing by means of quantifiers, such as many or better, and the passive voice ("it has been decided") conceals the full picture in that it avoids the necessity of providing attribution. (If one were to put "it has been decided" into active voice, one would need to supply an actor: "X has decided".) Non sequitur statements: Irrelevant statements are often used in advertising to make it appear that the statement is a beneficial feature of the product or service being advertised. Example: "The official coat hanger of a sports team". This statement announces a paid endorsement with the aim of suggesting that the quality of the coat hanger is superior to others. The statement does not, however, offer any evidence in support of its claim - there is not necessarily a link between the quality of a product and a paid endorsement. Examples from Wikipedia: "A growing body of evidence..."(Where is the raw data for your review?) "People say..." (Which people? How do they know?) "It has been claimed that..." (By whom, where, when?) "Critics claim..." (Which critics?) "Clearly..." (As if the premise is undeniably true) "It stands to reason that..." (Again, as if the premise is undeniably true—see "Clearly" above) "Questions have been raised..." (Implies a fatal flaw has been discovered) "I heard that..." (Who told you? Is the source reliable?) "There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Is the source reliable?)

110

"Experience shows that..." (Whose experience? What was the experience? How does it demonstrate this?) "It has been mentioned that..." (Who are these mentioners? Can they be trusted?) "Popular wisdom has it that..." (Is popular wisdom a test of truth?) "Commonsense has it/insists that..." (The common sense of whom? Who says so? See "Popular wisdom" above, and "It is known that" below) "It is known that..." (By whom and by what method is it known?) "Officially known as..." (By whom, where, when—who says so?) "It turns out that..." (How does it turn out?¹) "It was noted that..." (By whom, why, when?) "Nobody else's product is better than ours." (What is the evidence of this?) "Studies show..." (what studies?) "A recent study at a leading university..." (How recent is your study? At what university?) "(The phenomenon) came to be seen as..." (by whom?) "Some argue..." (who?) "Up to sixty percent..." (so, 59%? 50%? 10%?) "More than seventy percent..." (How many more? 70.01%? 80%? 90%?) "The vast majority..." (All, more than half—how many?) "Save up to $100 or more!" (What exactly is the significance of the $100? It is neither a minimum nor a maximum, it just sits arbitrarily somewhere in an undefined range.) "... is now 20% cheaper!" (Cheaper than what? The last model? Some arbitrarily inflated price?) "Four out of five people would agree..." (How many subjects were included in the study?) "... is among the (top, leading, best, few, worst, etc.)" (Top 100? Best in customer service/quality/management?) "... for a fraction of the original price!" (This wording suggests a much lower price even though the fraction could easily be 99/100 or 101/100) "More people are using..." (What does that mean in numbers?) "Nothing Is Stronger/Longer Lasting/Safer" (How many are equally as strong/long lasting/safe?) "Lose 20 pounds in 3 weeks" (20 pounds of what? Water, muscle, bone, money?) “Zokko toothpaste combats oral bacteria.” (combats, but does not necessarily win) “I could come with you.” (on the other hand, I might not) “Books from as little as...” (best case description) It is important that real examples do not in fact explain, at a later stage of the argument, what exactly is meant by "it turns out that"; the whole needs to be looked at before it can be decided that it is a weasel term.

111

16. Mind Reading - The assumption statement This manipulative tactic seeks to turn your behavior into what the beholder perceives it as, whether or not their interpretation is accurate. Soon leads to a guilt trip because no matter what, your refutation is proof of the assumption. Shift the assumption statement away from you. One of the things that is so riling about having another person tell you what it is that you're thinking or doing is that they are not taking you seriously or treating you as a whole person. Instead, they are attempting to overlay how they'd like you to behave and this comes right back to how they'd like you behave so that it benefits them. Assumption statements can be harder to pick up on but it's essential that you do so in order to deflect them quickly and effectively. Some examples include statements using "suppose", "guess", "wish", etc: "I suppose you're going to leave me alone again." or "I wish you'd understand how hard it is for me, after all I've done for you, to have you not want to stay longer with me each Christmas." The problem with the assumption statement is that there is no question; a manipulator doesn't like asking questions because it causes them to feel a loss of control. In a healthier relationship situation, questions would elicit what you're doing and a conversation could proceed from this understanding; a manipulator would prefer to make the assumption as to what you're doing because it then allows them to them to be in control of the you they've described rather than the you they need to listen to. Break the supposition away from your actions by ignoring the manipulative negative implication and return the manipulator to reality by clarifying your equally valid value attaching to what you're doing. For example:      

112

A: "I wish you'd understand how hard it is for me, after all I've done for you, to have you not want to stay longer with me each Christmas." You: "Actually, I spend as much time with you as I spend with Kate's parents and just as you and dad used to do when I was growing up, I'm happily dividing my time equally between both families." A: "I suppose you're going to leave me alone again." You: "I'm not leaving you alone. You've got your favorite movie on tonight, the dog's with you wanting attention, and I'll be back on Tuesday, as usual." A: "If you've got more important things to do, then it's best you don't waste time visiting me." You: "I'm glad you understand how busy things are for me right now. It's an expensive time to fly and I'll be able to spend more time with you when I come next May."

17. Exploiting position of authority You are far more likely to be persuaded by someone you like or by someone who is in an authority position. For example: A police officer tells you, “It’s legal for me to search your apartment right now.” Since he’s a police officer, you may feel inclined to believe he must be telling the truth, even though he never showed you a search warrant. An other way to exploit authority are Testimonials (also Questionable Authority, Faulty Use of Authority): A fallacy in which support for a standpoint or product is provided by a well-known or respected figure (e.g. a star athlete or entertainer) who is not an expert and who was probably well paid for the endorsement (e.g., “Olympic gold-medal pole-vaulter Fulano de Tal uses Quick Flush Internetshouldn’t you?"). Also includes other false, meaningless or paid means of associating oneself or one’s product with the ethos of a famous person or event (e.g. “Try Salsa Cabria, the official taco sauce of the Vancouver Winter Olympics!”) This is a corrupted argument from ethos. One of the most valuable lessons in human life, in my opinion, is learning to trust yourself and listen to your inner voice, rather than anybody else's. By uncritically accepting the beliefs and opinions of other people (we know how common it is for children to do this and how much of their true self they can lose), we renounce our own responsibility and power, to the extent that we cannot even call our successes our own. Many children learn not to trust themselves and their own decisions, thus, as adults they continue to seek advice and direction from other people, rather than accepting the risk of making a mistake. This creates a more or less subtle dependency on external authority. For this to occur, another aspect of the problem must exist that of the person who places himself in a position of authority in order to wield power over others. Most people tend to trust authority as most of us were taught to do and, in fact, we are often ready to trust a person who seems to be very certain of his opinions. If something is written in a book or a newspaper, many people will automatically accept it without question. While some people who have a great need for power try to present their ideas as an absolute truth, others, usually those whose feelings of insecurity are closer to the conscious side of their personality, can easily be swayed just by the other's self-confident approach. Source: Don't be Manipulated © Kosjenka Muk - http://www.soulwork.net/kosjenka/authority.htm

113

18. Third party authority This manipulative ploy is pseudo-sociology in action. The manipulator takes it upon themselves to tell you what everybody, various friends, your father, … someone else said is the right thing to do. It's a handy way of pushing aside the responsibility from themselves while loading it all onto you. Move away from the mind games of what the manipulator thinks other people say or do. The use of third party "authority" is thoughtlessly rampant in much of everyday life because we like to defer to these generalizations as a way of backing up our own vague and often unexplored preferences. While most of us know it's a bad habit, in the hands of a manipulator, it becomes a weapon. Whenever a manipulator resorts to quoting what your Aunt May, cousin Josh or darling Katie down the street would do or are saying, see warning lights flashing. This tactic is used to try and compare the perceived lack in your responsiveness with the manner in which other people apparently would behave more appropriately than you (read: they'd do it for the manipulator whereas you're holding out). While some of this is to do with the manipulator fantasizing that the grass is greener in someone else's life, it's far more about being a tool that lets the manipulator put the blame on someone else, therefore not taking responsibility for his or her opinion.    

A:"Mary says it'd be better if you didn't leave me alone all the time. She says it's harmful for me." You:"I didn't realize Mary was a psychologist. I must speak to her about the possibility of her spending more time with you." A:"Everyone thinks you're not being kind to me when you refuse to buy me a second diamond ring." You:"Everyone? I must meet these people who are so flush! I'd love to buy you another ring but I'm glad you have a beautiful one to keep you occupied until our budget can withstand any more large purchases."

More Examples: "We were wondering if you..." "They said you..." "She thought you..." "Everyone thinks you..." How to deal with it: Ask who is "we", "they", or "someone" and ask for the manipulator's own point of view.

114

19. Shaming: using people’s conscience against themselves Manipulators use sarcasm and put-downs to increase fear and self-doubt in the victim. They use this tactic to make others feel unworthy and therefore defer to them. Shaming tactics can be very subtle such as a fierce look or glance, unpleasant tone of voice, rhetorical comments, subtle sarcasm. Manipulators can make one feel ashamed for even daring to challenge them. It is an effective way to foster a sense of inadequacy in the victim. The technique is very successful if used against neurotics. One of the main differences between “neurotic” individuals and manipulators is their level of conscience development — especially their capacities to experience shame and guilt. Neurotics try hard not only to project a positive image, but also to do the right thing. Manipulators know full well that those with well-developed consciences tend to feel guilty easily if they think they’ve done something wrong. Such individuals also have a big sense of shame when they think they’ve behaved in a manner that reflects negatively on their character. So, when they want to manipulate a good neurotic, all they have to do is somehow convince them that they’ve done wrong or behaved in a manner they should feel ashamed of. A most ironic fact is that almost no one is as expert on the topic of neurosis as is the manipulator. Shaming and guilt-tripping are without question the favorite tactics manipulators use to manipulate people with consciences that are more developed than theirs. In one case, a child whose bad behavior was appropriately pointed out by her mother complained, “You never have anything good to say about me,” thus inviting her mother to feel guilty for saying anything. In another case, a philandering husband whose wife had had enough of his behavior pointedly tried to convince her that she had not been sufficiently attentive to him, inviting her to feel ashamed of her performance as a wife. A most important point to remember is that neither the tactic of guilt-tripping nor the tactic of shaming would have a prayer of being effective as a manipulation tool if it weren’t for the fact that neurotic individuals have such active consciences that prompt them to feel guilty or shameful when they think they’ve fallen short. Just try using the tactics of shaming or guilt-tripping a disordered character. Their undeveloped or sometimes even absent conscience makes it possible for them to hear your complaints without being even in the slightest bit affected. The fact that these tactics are effective manipulation tools for one group of characters and not for the other testifies to some of the core differences between neurotic individuals and manipulators. Another important thing to recognize is that because manipulators use these tactics and understand why they work, they must necessarily understand completely the kinds of behaviors others frequently take issue with and why they take issue with them. They are very aware of the kinds of things that most people regard as things to feel guilty or shameful about. The problem is that when they do such things, they feel neither shameful nor guilty. In fact, they persist in their behavior, actively resisting any submission to the standards with which they try to brow-beat others. Traditional perspectives have always tried to explain

115

this by suggesting that the manipulators are blinded from insight into their hypocrisy by “denial” and the tendency to “project” (both of which are purported to be unconscious defenses against emotional pain). The reality is that the manipulator is not blind at all, but rather very aware. He also knows full well what behaviors most people regard as wrong and shameful, and he wants others to tow the line. The reason he doesn’t play by the same rules is because if he is a narcissistic character, he feels entitled to do otherwise. And if he’s one of the aggressive characters, he simply fights to do as he pleases in defiance of the wishes of society.

http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/Jaimelavie

116

20. Vilifying the victim: More than any other, this tactic is a powerful means of putting the victim on the defensive while simultaneously masking the aggressive intent of the manipulator. By “pointing to another wrong”, the manipulator turns the tables and accuses his victim of doing what he himself is being accused of, … or worse. “You say that I am lying. I don’t think so! I think you are not being honest yourself!” “How dare you accuse me of being messy? When was the last time you even took a shower?” Manipulators know this is a good way to put their victim on the defensive. Neurotics especially hate to think of themselves as the injuring party and would rather carry the burden of abuse than see themselves as an abuser. Manipulators know this well. So, when they want to take advantage, a good one-two punch is to play the victim and then vilify the real victim. Sometimes it takes a lot of nerve to confront a manipulator’s behavior. One reason it takes so much nerve is that usually the neurotic individual has an intuitive sense of the manipulator’s innate forcefulness, resolve, and capacity to stand ground when challenged. Another reason is that neurotic individuals are among the most conscientious and the least aggressive of individuals, so they are naturally uncomfortable in the role of confronter. Neurotics, being who they are, are very vulnerable to the ploy of vilifying the victim. When a neurotic individual finally gets up enough nerve to confront a manipulator about their behavior, within minutes the manipulator is generally able to turn the tables and cast the victim of the hurtful behavior in a bad light. Dr George Simon, author of this article, gives an example of a mother who finally had to confront her aggressive child’s increasingly disruptive behavior. When she did, the child launched a verbal barrage that included: “You’re always saying bad things about me” and “You act like you hate me.” As conscientious as the mother was, she then began to wonder if she actually hadn’t become too critical lately and if indeed her behavior might truly look to her child like she hated the child. She never stopped to think that if the child actually believed that she never had a good thing to say and that she actually hated her, then there would be absolutely no point in the child’s pointing out those things, because such words would have absolutely no impact on a woman with a heart of stone. It never occurred to her that the child must instinctively and deeply know that she actually cared quite a bit and that her conscientiousness was her biggest vulnerability. In other words, it never occurred to her that her child knew exactly what to say and do to manipulate her. It also didn’t occur to her that by allowing the child to continually use those tactics to manipulate her, she was helping to ensure that the child would continue resisting accepting the principles of responsible conduct she was trying to instill in her.

117

21. Playing the servant role:

Cloaking a self-serving agenda in guise of a service to a more noble cause, for example saying he is acting in a certain way for "obedience" and "service" to God or a similar authority figure or that he is working nobly on your behalf while concealing his own desire for power and dominance. One hallmark of a covert aggressive personality is he will loudly profess his subservience while fighting for dominance. This manipulation technique is not to be confused with the "Noble Cause Corruption", which occurs when a person tries to produce a just outcome through unjust methods. For example: police manipulating evidence to ensure a conviction of a known offender. Normal integrity regime initiatives are unlikely to halt noble cause corruption as its basis lies in an attempt to do good by compensating for the apparent flaws in an unjust system. The overall findings of an Australian study based on a concrete case, were that police officers were motivated to indulge in this type of corruption through a desire to produce convictions where they felt the system unfairly worked against their ability to do their job correctly. Also, the police officers involved were seeking job satisfaction through the ability to convict the guilty. Though the rewards of such corruption may be positive, it is clear that the tecnique may lead to more severe punishments than would have been possible trough legal means and even to conviction of innocent people. Playing the Servant Role: Manipulating by Casting the Will to Dominate as Duty or Subservience By Dr George Simon One of the more subtle ways that a person hell-bent upon power and control can veil their will to dominate is to cloak it under the cover of subservience to a higher cause or the purported desire to be of service. In my work over the years with disturbed characters and their victims, I’ve seen many examples of this tactic and I know well the damage it can inflict on a relationship. Early in my clinical training, I happened to observe a therapy session that involved a young girl and her parents. To put it mildly, the child appeared a nervous wreck. She was not only anxious much of the time, but also she had been having nightmares and was fairly depressed. Her mother confided to the

118

therapist that she thought her father was pushing her too hard. Her father was a prominent and successful businessman who had big plans for his daughter. But whenever the mother confronted the father about what she believed to be the relentless pressure he was placing on their child, he would retort that he was only trying to be a good father, to be sure that he afforded the child every opportunity, and to help her achieve her full potential. Toward that end, he had insisted she be placed in advanced programs, insisted on all-A report cards, and had frequent conferences with the teachers when he thought they weren’t doing enough to help. When the girl buckled under the pressure, he hired a tutor, boasting that he was the kind of parent who would do anything he could to help his daughter achieve her potential. (All this was for a child who the educational professionals had repeatedly indicated was of only average intellectual ability.) The father didn’t seem to care that the child was buckling under the pressure I was so struck by the “dynamics” in this family that I made a case study of it and eventually included a modified version of it in my book In Sheep’s Clothing. What struck me the most about this family was how determined the father was to have his way (the hallmark of an aggressive personality), how selfquestioning and guilty the mother felt whenever she questioned his motives, and how differently the child’s emotional suffering affected her parents. The child’s suffering was so obvious it would be hard to ignore. The mother didn’t ignore it but didn’t feel valid in her interpretations of events. The father didn’t seem to care that the child was buckling under the pressure; what was important to him was that she accomplish the plans he had long set for her. I then came to realize how effective playing the servant role could be as a manipulation tactic. It’s hard to see someone as a ruthless oppressor when they’re constantly laying claim to tireless efforts on another’s behalf. My gut was reacting instinctively to this man’s aggression (as was his wife’s), yet it was hard to point out clearly the nature of his acts (even the therapist assigned to this case aligned with the father’s position for awhile). So, I eventually came to understand one of the main reasons people get manipulated, especially by aggressive personalities. They don’t trust their gut-level feelings and instincts. Instead of paying attention to their inner fear and angst, and instead of ascribing validity to their initial response, they “listen” to the rationalizations and buy into the message being implied (e.g., “I’m the servant here, not the oppressor, don’t you see?). They then part company with their intuition and succumb to the manipulation. One of the early pioneers of cognitive-behavioral therapy coined the term “dominance under the guise of service” to describe the tactic of playing the role of servant. It’s an effective tactic and one that’s hard to spot right away. But like the other tactics we’ve been discussing, it can inflict a fair amount of damage if not challenged.

119

22. Seduction: Manipulator uses charm, praise, flattery or overtly supporting others in order to get them to lower their defenses and give their trust and loyalty to him or her. When a person praises you excessively, you better start asking yourself what he wants from you. When a person promises you an excellent deal or extra-ordinary benefits, you better start asking yourself what he has to gain from the deal he’s offering you. When a persons insists you can count on him and trust him and repeats that he has never failed you, you better start asking yourself why it is so important that you should trust him: a person who is trustworthy has no need to remind you that you can trust him. Manipulators know that most people dislike obvious flattery. On the other hand, when flattery is executed with sufficient subtlety, most people never get enough of it.

Common flattery tactics are: 

Tell a person how something they said has helped you



Ask a person how they became successful …, how they achieved …, how they accomplished … - then sit back and listen



Ask a person for advice



Ask a person about his family, hobby, job, …



Always smile at a person the moment you start saying something that calls for a smile, then look the person in the eyes and support the smile during and after you said it



Show you know less than they do: People like to feel smart an d help a person who is new at something or knows less than they do.

Dr George Simon writes: Perhaps one of the most insidious ways to favorably manage the impression of others while simultaneously trying to get something you want from them is seduction. Now, most of us are vulnerable to seduction techniques. That’s because most of us want to be liked and valued. So, when someone shows us attention or behaves toward us in a way that invites us to feel somewhat special, we almost never think that they’re doing so because there’s something they want. Rather, we’d like to think there’s something really remarkable about us that is motivating the person to behave that way.

120

One of the most damaging legacies of traditional psychology is the over-weighting it gives to people’s insecurities and fears and the relatively complete inattention it gives to the myriad ways that they fight and maneuver for the things they want. Everyday life is approximately 95% fighting and 5% running. But traditional psychology is overly concerned about how and why we run, not how and why we fight. By “fight” I don’t mean physical violence. Rather, I mean the forceful goal-directed energy we all expend to get the things we want. Sometimes, seduction can be very deliberate, calculated, and carried out in such a manner that the other person is swept away. Responsible people assert themselves and fight for the things they want in direct, fair, restrained, and non-destructive ways. Disordered characters lie, cheat, and sometimes “shmooze” to get what they want. They don’t like to be denied, so rather than approach things directly and run the risk of not winning, they’d prefer to approach things on the sly and catch the other unaware. Playing to the desire of another to be valued and liked can be a powerful manipulation tool. Most of the time, this is not done with malicious intent or with such intensity that it does any real damage. Also, most of the time, the person on the receiving end is aware enough to know that they’re being buttered-up and will enjoy the flattery while not taking it so seriously. But sometimes, seduction can be very deliberate, calculated, and carried out in such a manner that the other person is swept away. Then they can become quite blinded about the nature of the person doing the seducing. Only after the manipulator gets what he or she wants will their true character start to show. By then, it’s often too late. One of the most fundamental and life-empowering principles I introduced in my book In Sheep’s Clothing [Amazon-US | Amazon-UK] is that once people replace the destructive legacy of traditional psychology — i.e., that everyone is almost always struggling with fears or insecurities — with a mindset that life is far more about people maneuvering and angling for the things they want than it is about them “running,” and once they realize that there’s a class of individuals best characterized as unscrupulous and exploitive fighters who will advance their own agendas with almost complete disregard for the needs of others, they arrive at a position to avoid being taken advantage of in the future.

121

23. Shifting the blame to others and detract in subtle, hard-to-detect ways Source: Ken Sanes - http://www.transparencynow.com/news/disguises.htm It is obvious that discrediting attacks, whatever their motive, generally take place under heavy disguise. First, the attacker must portray his attack as an attempt to support the order of values of society by exposing a violator who deserves to be exposed, in essence enhancing his own image as he assaults another's. If this were all there were to these disguises, we might have an easier time discerning the role of discredit, domination, assertiveness and sadism in public life. But the disguise of motives is often supplemented by a far more insidious deception, one that masks the fact that an attack is taking place at all or that the attacker is the one making the attack. Manipulators often portray themselves as merely asking questions, reporting what others say or describing events, when everyone knows a verbal mugging is actually taking place that may leave the designated victim stripped of the self-defense provided by an effective image. Fortunately, these disguises tend to be very transparent once one begins to identify the various games and strategies that are being used. Once that has been achieved, we can begin to expose these disguised attempts to expose others; we can discredit these disguised attempts to discredit; and hold these attempts to embarrass others up to embarrassing scrutiny. If all this sounds familiar, it is because what we will be doing is applying a more sophisticated version of the techniques used by manipulators, turning the tables on the great table-turners and holding them up to a kind of scrutiny that reveals the degree to which they are steeped in both dishonesty and cruelty. Our basic technique will be to contrast image, as it is presented, with an underlying reality or, at least, with what we claim is an underlying reality. We will look at what manipulators claim they are doing and what they are really doing, and see that the twain meet a lot less often than one might think. Given the complex motives all people have when they communicate, there is no doubt but that the disguises we will examine, here, are merely an example of the disguises that all of us use when we communicate. For all of us, there is a disparity between the actions we engage in and those we claim we are engaging in. That doesn’t let manipulators off the hook, but it does put what they do in a larger context. Here, than, is an incomplete compendium of some of the ways manipulators, and others, go about dominating and harming those they encounter, while they claim to be upholding the value order of society and just doing their jobs. Also included are some of the justifications that they tell themselves and have ready to offer others, to explain why what they are doing is right and proper. The techniques listed aren’t exhaustive or mutually exclusive and some can be considered variations on each other: DELIBERATELY JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS - ACCUSING THE VICTIM WITHOUT VALID PROOF Formulate questions or statements which automatically presume guilt on the part of the addressed person. Example: “I saw the bruises on your son’s back. So when did you decide that spanking your child with all your might is okay?” CONTRAST IMAGE AND REALITY. As alluded to earlier, this is a basic method for discrediting someone or something. In it, the manipulator shows the claims that are being made and contrasts them with other information, to show that those claims are false. The justification is often that he is just getting at the facts or just finding the truth, despite a manipulation intended to conceal the truth.

122

PORTRAY WRONGDOING AND HIGHLIGHT EMBARRASSING MOMENTS AND FACTS. Simple, elegant, often unchallengeable. Manipulators simply show or describe their victims engaging in actions that are deemed by many to be wrong, and then they wait for their victims to be attacked by others, and to desperately try to explain themselves. They describe the offending remarks or dubious decision, and then sit back and enjoy the reaction. (and start thinking about a follow-up move). Justification: “everybody concerned has a right to know”. Or “a big error may have been committed.” REPEAT ATTACKS BY OTHERS AND INVITE ATTACKS. Manipulators are good in collecting garbage. They almost always have a pool of discrediting attacks by one party against another, available for their own personal purposes. Either the parties to some dispute are already savaging each other or they can quickly be inspired to do so with a few well-placed questions. As part of this system, there are growing pools of official and professional denouncers who can be called on for a quote. In fact in order to “prove their own neutral position” manipulators claim they are obliged to carry these attacks. To not repeat one side's attacks on the other is to fail to tell the truth. To not repeat the other side’s attacks is to fail to offer a balanced story in which each side has its say. The favorite game, which has helped bring all this about is the time honored game "Let’s you and him fight." "So what is your response to your opponents recent claims of questionable financial dealings?" the manipulator asks pseudo-innocently, and then lets the sparks fly where they will. Justification – just wanting to hear both sides’ story or to give each side its say. THE OUTRAGE STORY. A brilliant creation, one that uses the best devices of fiction and drama to arouse an audience to anger. Outrage stories are those in which a person or institution engages in an action which is so blatantly unfair or such a blatant violation of the moral order, that the story will inevitably arouse righteous indignation on the part of all who hear about it, causing them to identify with “the victim” and seek vengeance against “the perpetrators”. The best victims are those who are not only treated in a way that is blatantly unfair, but who are helpless or weak and/or innocent and ethical, the more so the better. These make the best outrage stories because that increases the pathos and also creates an ideal contrast, with sharply defined characters embodying good and evil. It also makes the audience more willing to identify with the victim. The more imperfect the victim, the more morally ambiguous the situation may become, and the less effective an outrage story is likely to be. After all, who wants to identify with damaged goods. Outrage stories are a variation on a basic justification for attacks, which is based on the idea that the recipient of the attack deserves it. Evil doers, persecutors, hypocrites, give us someone and something to hate. We need them so much that we constantly invent them in fiction, just so we can enjoy the pleasure of hating them and watching them get their just deserts. If we expand our definition, we can see that, to some degree, all stories or attacks by journalists, politicians and others, which claim the attack is justified because the recipient deserves it, are outrage stories. Many of the falls from grace of public persons, for example, involve somewhat more complicated outrage stories – "famous role model guilty of assault", and so on. Here, the outrage is against not only the obvious victim, but also the millions of innocent fans who trusted the public figure and now feel betrayed. As in all of the kinds of stories described here, outrage stories are often about real outrages. There really are terrible and stupid things that are done every day and many perpetrators really do deserve to be discredited and exposed. But usually the misdeeds of the alleged perpetrator are used as an excuse

123

to visit sadism and aggression on someone who has become an acceptable target. Manipulators instrumentally manipulate the anger of some in the audience to have a target they can hate; and to see someone brought down. Justification – all reasonable people would agree that what was done by the perpetrators was morally wrong. We are standing up for what is right in a way every right-thinking person would agree with. QUESTIONS: Many attacks are disguised as questions, which give various degrees of evidence of their real purpose. Questions may appear totally innocent, seeking only information or they can contain fairly obvious accusations/ innuendoes inside them. Asking about accusations and allegations is a favorite technique. The manipulator gets to repeat the allegation while denying he is making it or that he is repeating it for unsavory reasons. Of course, the question works best if it is asked in public. If it is asked in a one-on-one interview, then instead of using the question to discredit the subject, the manipulator will use the answer to do so. For example "John Doe said yesterday that allegations that he and his adulterous lover embezzled money from the charity fund are ‘totally ridiculous.’ But, according to a police report…" As noted earlier, questions may not only be disguised attacks. They may also be invitations for the interviewee to engage in a discrediting attack against someone else. That also makes them disguised attacks, but one step removed. Justification for discrediting questions: I am just asking questions. I am giving so and so an opportunity to tell his side and defend himself, which is only fair. PUTTING ON THE SPOT/ PUNCHING HOLES. The prime technique of discrediting while interviewing, is to put the victim on the spot. Here, the interviewer conducts an interrogation-like interview; he plays the role of the swordsman-reporter, lunging at the interviewee with pointed questions while the victim defends himself with a shield of denials and deflections. The basic approach is to assume that the victim is presenting a false image to cover-up an incriminating underlying reality, and then to try to pressure him into admitting this hidden truth. If he admits it, he is exposed. If he denies and portrays his actions in a different light then the way the interviewer does, he can now be subjected to another attack in which he is portrayed as a deceiver, manipulator and coverup artist himself. The manipulator- interviewer thus gets him on two counts simultaneously - for the misdeed and the Nixonian cover-up. To switch metaphors, the interviewer plays Perry Mason. The interviewee virtually never confesses on the stand, but still seems to be exposed to the world. In order for this to work, the interviewer typically tries to use the image versus reality ploy, by revealing contradictions in statements or showing the disparity between what the victim claims and what else is known. As part of this routine, manipulators, singly and collectively, will often ask the same questions over and over, knowing that they won’t get answers. In public life, we can often witness how journalists ask their non-questions and politicians and other interviewees give their nonanswers, and everyone involved knows these exercises have nothing to do with trying to get information or even to get at truth. They are little morality plays designed to illustrate the evil and hypocrisy of public life, while depicting journalists as crusading heroes for truth and right. Justification (Same as for contrasting image and reality) : “as concerned party, we have a right to know” – “If he acted against the law, then we must know”.

124

JOB INTERVIEWER. Manipulators tend to focus on the private and business life of people. Justification: mistakes made in one's personal or business life highlight character and provide information on how this person will act in office. USE SARCASM, MOCKERY, CARICATURE, TREAT SOMEONE OR SOME ACTION AS A JOKE The question that has to be asked about much of this is the following: if manipulators have to wrap their attacks in disguises, does this mean the reasons they implicitly or explicitly give for what they are doing are all merely disguises? Can’t they genuinely be pursuing positive values in making an attack? The answer is yes, although, as noted elsewhere, ferreting out what is what, is a complicated issue, given the complex motives behind human communication. The real question is: how can we determine if efforts to discredit are sincere and legitimate, and, beyond that, is sincerity a justification? And if not, what criteria can we use to determine if discrediting attacks are legitimate. If there are two discrediting attacks and I consider one sincere but wrong and the other insincere but right, how do I make a moral judgment? WAYS OF ENHANCING OR DEFENDING IMAGE: Just as manipulators, journalists, and others, have a set of techniques, disguises and justifications, for discrediting image, so they have them for enhancing or defending someone’s image (and for other actions, we well). In fact, the reverse of all the techniques described above, to discredit, can be used. People can accept the good things people say and imply about themselves and others at face value, with probing behind the image. They can portray good works and highlight flattering moments. They can repeat compliments from others and invite compliments for their subjects. They can tell or write heartwarming stories about good deeds performed by saints and heroes, that are the opposite of outrage stories. They can flatter, themselves, idealize by presenting their subjects as all good, and very good, and treat their subjects with an aura of seriousness, respect or reverence. Just as discrediting attacks are typically acts of aggressive domination toward the objects of the attack, so crediting stories are often acts of subordination. Stories that flatter, that depict people from their own perspective, as they would like to be depicted, are legion. All of a sudden, the manipulator has only credit-enhancing things to say about the subject and is content to act as his or her spokesman. Potentially discrediting information isn't raised or is treated very gently. The question here is: what did he obtain in return?

125

24. Projecting the blame (blaming others): Manipulator scapegoats in often subtle, hard-to-detect ways. By habitually blaming others for his own indiscretions, the manipulator resists modifying his problematic attitudes and behavior patterns. Perhaps no behavior which manipulators are prone to displaying is more common than their tendency to blame others when they do something wrong. Confront them on something they did that was insensitive, inappropriate, hurtful, or even harmful, and you’ll find them playing the blame game — pinning the fault on someone or something else. You’ll often hear them claim that some person or circumstance made them do what they did instead of acknowledging that they had a choice about how to respond to the situation and failed to choose wisely. The tactic of blaming has sometimes been called projecting the blame. The term projection stems from psychodynamic psychology and refers to one of the automatic mental behaviors conceptualized by traditional theorists as ego defense mechanisms. The rationale behind that notion is that sometimes individuals unconsciously “project” onto others motivations, intentions, or actions that they actually harbor themselves but which they would feel far too unnerved or guilty about to acknowledge as their own. Neurotic individuals do indeed unknowingly engage in projection defenses. But manipulators know what they are doing. They are fully conscious about what they know others would see as the wrongfulness of their behavior, despite the fact that they might be perfectly comfortable with their course of action themselves. They don’t have enough guilt or shame about what they’re doing to change course. Nor are they so consumed with emotional pain that they must ascribe to others the motivations they can’t tolerate in themselves. Rather, when they blame others for their wrongful acts, it’s simply an attempt to justify their stance by casting themselves as being in a position where they simply had no choice but to respond the way they did. In this way, they simultaneously evade responsibility as well as manipulate and manage the impressions of others. The tactic goes hand in hand with the tactic of portraying oneself as a victim. It’s typically an effective tactic that gets others to pay attention to everyone or everything else except the disordered character and his wrongful behavior as the source of a problem. Sometimes the tactic of blaming can be quite subtle. By calling attention to a wide variety of contributing circumstances, a manipulator can effectively obscure his or her role in the creation of a problem. This “it wasn’t me” tactic is hard to detect when your attention is drawn to other “culprits” through this diversionary sleight of hand. Holding manipulators accountable for their choices and actions is a must. A person who won’t acknowledge his or her bad choices and bad habits and repeatedly blames others for his shortcomings will never correct his erroneous thinking or behavior. Whenever he plays the blame game, you know the manipulator has no intentions of changing his ways. Habitually blaming others for his own indiscretions is a principal way the manipulator resists modifying his problematic attitudes and behavior patterns.

126

25. Feigning innocence, feigning confusion or “playing dumb”: Manipulators try to suggest that any harm done was unintentional or that they did not do something that they were accused of. Feigning ignorance is an effective tactic that manipulates the person confronting the behavior into having doubts about the legitimacy of the issue they’re trying to bring to the other person’s attention and questioning their own judgment (and possibly their own sanity).. Many times, when your gut is telling you that you’re being taken advantage of, played for a fool, or simply being mistreated, and you confront a disordered character about it, they’ll act like they have no idea what you’re talking about. They may put on a look of surprise or indignation and pretend to be totally unaware and in the dark. Sometimes, when you have received information from a reliable source about something you suspect they’ve been doing, they’ll pretend they have no earthly idea where anyone could have come up with such an idea about them. Feigning ignorance is an effective tactic that manipulates the person confronting the behavior into having doubts about the legitimacy of the issue they’re trying to bring to the other person’s attention. It invites them to see themselves as a false accuser and victimizer, instead of being the victim of the disordered character’s malicious behavior. The technique of feigning ignorance often goes hand in hand with the tactic of feigning innocence. When disordered characters use this technique they will either simply act like (or loudly protest) that they have done nothing wrong and have nothing to feel guilty about or ashamed of. If there’s no way they can deny doing something you can prove they did, then they might claim that they had no malicious intent and that any harm that came of what they did was unintended. This tactic serves the purpose of obscuring the true character of their actions. I advise people who want to empower themselves in their potential dealings with manipulators to “judge actions, not intentions.” Feigning ignorance and innocence are effective ways to deny malevolent intention. They’re effective tactics, especially when used on neurotic individuals, for several reasons. First, when the victimizer denies malevolent intention, and appears innocent, the person confronting the problem behavior begins to feel uncomfortable in the role of unfair accuser and begins to misperceive who occupies the victimizer and victim positions. If the manipulator can make you feel bad for indicting him, he’s half way home to successfully conning and manipulating you. Second, neurotics are prone to judging intentions as opposed to actions. They want to think of most people as good and kind and hate to think that people really harbor malevolent intentions. What’s more, they hate to think of themselves as ever acting unfairly or in a manner that brings harm to others. So, when the disordered character has them thinking that they’re the bad guy, they readily back down. Never accept “I don’t know” for an answer when confronting disordered characters. That’s because they’re not only keenly aware of the things they do that other people have a problem with, but they also know full well what their motivation was for doing those things. They also know that neurotics are very hesitant to believe this. That’s not only because neurotics find it uncomfortable to accept the notion that not everyone is of benign character but also because traditional psychological schools of thought have never adequately identified and correctly defined character disturbance and the kinds of behaviors typically associated with it. So I advise people who might be in relationships with manipulators to be aware of the tactics they frequently use to evade responsibility and manipulate others. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned well over the years, it’s that whenever you confront a manipulator on their inappropriate behavior, you need to stay focused on those problem behaviors no matter how clueless or innocent they might act.

127

26. Gaslighting: Gaslighting is a sophisticated manipulation tactic which certain types of personalities use to create doubt in the minds of others. Here’s how it works and what to watch out for. In a stage play and suspense thriller from the 1930s entitled “Gas Light,” a conniving husband tries to make the wife he wishes to get rid of think she is losing her mind by making subtle changes in her environment, including slowly and steadily dimming the flame on a gas lamp. In recent years, the term “gaslighting” has come to be applied to attempts by certain kinds of personalities, especially psychopaths — who are among the personalities most adept at sophisticated tactics of manipulation — to create so much doubt in the minds of their targets of exploitation that the victim no longer trusts their own judgment about things and buys into the assertions of the manipulator, thus coming under their power and control. Effective gaslighting can be accomplished in several different ways. Sometimes, a person can assert something with such an apparent intensity of conviction that the other person begins to doubt their own perspective. Other times, vigorous and unwavering denial coupled with a display of righteous indignation can accomplish the same task. Bringing up historical facts that seem largely accurate but contain minute, hard-to-prove distortions and using them to “prove” the correctness of one’s position is another method. Gaslighting is particularly effective when coupled with other tactics such as shaming and guilting. Anything that aids in getting another person to doubt their judgment and back down will work. Gaslighting has come to some prominence lately because several authors have highlighted it as one of the more crafty tactics psychopaths use to disadvantage their victims. But many character-disturbed individuals, most especially the aggressive personalities, are prone to using numerous tactics, including covert techniques, to get the better of their targets. Their goal is always to win or secure whatever it is they want. And they’ll do whatever they have to do to get it. Sometimes the most effective way to do that is to avoid red-flagging their intentions but rather get the other person to unwittingly but voluntarily surrender. Instill shame, instill guilt, instill fear, or instill great doubt, and the other person will likely back off the stance they really wanted to take. Gaslighting is just one of the many weapons in the arsenal of personalities hell-bent on having their way, even if it means doing so by subtle and covert means of conning others. One of the most important points Dr George Simon makes in all his articles, books, and other writings about the narcissistic and most especially, the aggressive personalities, is that they will do whatever it takes to secure and maintain a position of advantage over others. And some of the most effective means at their disposal are tactics that conceal their malevolent intent while simultaneously prompting their “target” to accede to their desires. Dr George Simon outlines the most common techniques covertly aggressive folks use to manipulate others in his book "In Sheep’s Clothing".

128

Deception is often the key ingredient in manipulation. Deception can be accomplished by outright denial, distortion of key aspects of events, and a variety of other methods, especially the more sophisticated lying techniques. A really accomplished liar can deceive another person by merely reciting a litany of absolutely true things — while deliberately and cleverly leaving out one or two crucial elements that would change the entire character of what they’re trying to make you believe. But a common element among all the tactics manipulators use is that they cause the person being targeted to doubt their gut instincts about what’s going on. Their gut tells them they’re under attack or that someone is trying to get the better of them, and they intuitively go on the defensive. But because they often can’t find any clear, direct, objective evidence that the other person is merely trying to disadvantage them, they start doubting and questioning themselves. This is the real secret of effective manipulation. If the “target” were solidly convinced they were in the process of being done in, they’d more likely put up more resistance instead of capitulating. Manipulators know this. They win by getting the other person to back down or give in.

129

27. Causing confusion Manipulation through confusion doesn't mean you utter gibberish and leave the other person bewildered. It's the art of confusing by choice. You can use a series of techniques here. Using Jargon For example by using complex words to explain something simple or using jargon to add weight to your conversation Especially in the medical and high-tech business world, complex jargon and obfuscation are tactics often used to intimidate you into agreeing with something you don’t fully understand. Example: “Our dynamic flow capacity matrix uses an unparalleled downtime resistance protocol.” Referring to previous events that may or may not have existed You can also refer to previous conversations or incidents that may or may not have existed. Example: Claire: I suppose this is just one more time you forgot. I am so fed up of this. You: And what about the time when I was going all out to finish those pending tasks and you completely blew it for me by bringing your own problems to me? Leave it Claire, we all have our bad hair days. I suppose today you're having yours! (What you've said here really makes no sense at all but it may still help you manipulate the situation) your-way-with-people-by-

source: http://princesswithapen.hubpages.com/hub/How-to-havemanipulating-conversations

Evasion and Gaslighting Evasion - Providing vague, the victim and Gaslighting manipultion of situations, events

rambling, incoherent responses to psychological abuse involving the and data often lead to confusion.

Psycholoception Using many alternative intervals of time, causing the victim to be left erupts. "The Mind Nuke"

mind manipulation at the same confused while their mind slowly

A simplified example: You're reading the word and your mind is seperating the individual words while you later read all the capitalized letters. You see Fear my psycholoception and RUN. Little do you know there is no U in Psycholoception. Also psycholoception is an action, not a tool so fearing it would be usless. Plus the

130

more you think about it the more the psycholoception is working but, if you stop thinking on it a ninja could sneak up on you and assissinate you. But how would that work if you're being psycholocepted? But didnt you just stop thinking about it so you wouldn't be? Boom. There goes your mind. Mind Fucking When someone messes with your mind ... usually when someone of the opposite sex plays games with your head, but can be used when anyone tries to manipulate you through mind tactics Example: “This guy I was dating was mind fucking me to no end...he would give me special gifts and be sweet then turn around and be a total ass. Why do people play mind fucking games? It sucks nuts!” (Source: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mind%20manipulation)

131

28. Feigning illness. Unfortunately, some people use illness as a way of manipulating others. There are people who feign small illnesses and symptoms on a small scale, and then there are people who suffer from Factitious Disorder (DSM-IV), previously known as Munchausen's Syndrome. Faking illnesses is the intentional production of false and exaggerated physical symptoms designed to achieve an ulterior motive. People who do this may be trying to avoid responsibilities, have more leisure time, obtain medical benefits, or are lazy enough to want someone else to do everything for them. If the person is persistently using this method, it is possible that he or she needs medical help from a psychiatrist or psychologist for Factitious Disorder. The difficulty for you lies in the fact that a person suffering from this might actually have some illness but can function fine most or all of the time despite the illness but chooses to exaggerate its effects (also known as malingering). If the disorder is causing them to behave this way, try not to be judgmental. It is often developed as a way of reacting to stress and has habituated into a pattern. The best thing if you suspect this condition is to suggest that he or she sees a mental health professional to deal with their worry and anxiety; don't be combative about their "faking illness".

132

29. Brandishing anger:

Manipulator uses anger to brandish sufficient emotional intensity and rage to shock the victim into submission. The manipulator is not actually angry, he or she just puts on an act. He just wants what he wants and gets "angry" when denied. E Yumei, negative-emotions-anger/

Source: Feigning Negative Emotions: Anger - By Demian http://covertabuse.com/2012/06/21/feigning-

Righteous anger and of coming from a place feigned indignation and strength. But in truth all

indignation can be feigned. Instead of weakness, like is the case with feigned fear, righteous anger appear to come from manipulation comes from weakness.

Feigned indignation and used for distraction, control

righteous anger is a multipurpose weapon and punishment.

Abusers will often act indignant or shocked at being held accountable. They act as if they are wounded by any assertion or question of wrongdoing. They claim to have no idea what you’re talking about or they’re indignant that you perceived it wrongly. Even if they are as guilty as can be, their indignant response leads others to believe they are innocent or causes them to back down. But this anger is not real. It’s a sham. They may be angry, but it’s not for what they claim. They may be angry because you just got too damn close to the truth. They may be angry because you have the nerve to challenge their entitlement to do whatever they want. They may be angry because they feel guilty, and they are angry at you for making them feel that way, not for doing anything for which they should feel guilty. But they won’t admit to that anger. They feign anger on the false reason that you insulted them in some way. So while they may actually be angry, their professed anger is not real. It is a manipulation to throw you off track. This feigned anger, however, may be so convincing and so intimidating, that you may actually think you really did insult or hurt them. They may succeed in redirecting your attention from your original concern to attempting to deal with this smokescreen. Are you calling me a liar? spoken in rage by someone who has something to hide is very effective in putting you back in your place and shutting you up. You may backtrack and apologize for suggesting they’d do anything unethical or feel guilty or bad for making them feel bad. (Warning: this backing off by you will be used against you as some kind of collusion on your part if they are ever outed and their deception is revealed.) It’s a dance. Their feigned anger sucks up your time and your concern for a non-issue that can’t be resolved, because it’s main purpose is to keep you away from the real issue. Righteous anger can be used as justification for intentionally hurting someone. It becomes the excuse to actually continue to assault the target under the pretence of being the initial victim and now finally retaliating – “no longer being able to take it”.

133

She hurt me first.

Who can blame the covert abuser in victim’s clothing? After all, they are only protecting themselves. When in fact, the abuser has merely found a way to continue their offense under the masquerade of defense. Or righteous anger can be the justification for unintentionally hurting you. They didn’t mean to…BUT they were angry. And , of course, you made them angry, therefore they are justified in whatever manner they hurt you. They are justified for lashing out on you, for tearing you to shreds, for screaming at you, for every word of cruelty spoken, for chewing you up and spitting you out. They were angry. That says it all. They were entitled. The presumption is that there was good cause, and even if there wasn’t, their being angry, in and of itself, is justification for any bad behavior. Again, you’re supposed to understand this. One of my ex’s used “I was angry” as end of discussion. I was just supposed to accept that with an “Oh, okay then.” Pick up the pieces of the parts of me that were just blasted all over the place, satisfied as if that just explained and justified everything. There was to be no further talk about how his actions may have impacted me. No talk at all about my feelings. I suppose “I was angry” sounds better than “I was vindictive or punishing or vengeful or feeling particularly sadistic in the moment and enjoyed seeing you traumatized.” But anger is not a free to do anything you want card. The only thing anger “entitles” you to do is to express it in healthy ways for the resolution of whatever authentically pains you. And to do it in such a way that honors both you and the person with whom you are angry. Feigned anger is self serving. It hides its true motives for control. Real anger is merely genuine. It seeks to reveal itself for resolution.

134

30. Sugarcoating reality. When someone gets you to agree to something that’s not ideal by telling you it’s slightly better than it is. Example: “The table will be ready in five minutes.” Because it sounds a lot better than fifteen minutes. Sugarcoating can be a devious tactic. Not to make something appear to be sweet — but to prevent you from tasting anything bitter. People often use sugarcoating to distract you from your true feelings — meaning those unpleasant ones. People sugarcoat all the time, to:     

Keep the peace Save face Control a situation Guide your thought processes by encouraging “positivity” and discouraging “negativity” Moderate your emotional response to their liking

When sugarcoating is used as a tactic (even subconsciously), it’s usually to prevent you from experiencing, acknowledging, or expressing negative emotions. People use this tactic for all sorts of fear-based reasons that center around their struggle to own their negative emotions. People use sugarcoating to manipulate you by highlighting the “positive” so that there’s no place for the “negative.” Pay close attention to your conversations. Spot out the times when the someone else says something positive about something that’s actually negative (or that normally would be). Learn to discern whether that’s genuine positivity or if they’re sugarcoating to somehow control the situation or steer your thoughts and emotions. In such a case, you may feel the pressure to be positive as well, even if you aren’t feeling it. You may additionally feel:     

Guilty for having any negative thoughts and feelings related to the issue Out of place for having negative thoughts and feelings Insensitive for not sharing the other person’s sugary sentiment Impolite for not being more friendly and positive Wrong, out of line, or even downright crass

Keep in mind that even if you feel all of the above — it’s not because there is something wrong with you. It’s because the other person has indirectly indicated that they don’t really want to hear what you have to say if it’s not sweet. In other words, it’s their problem. Your negative emotions aren’t a problem as long as you work with them constructively.

135

Respond with mindfulness It’s not your job to always say what’s sweet enough for someone else’s ears, but it isn’t always necessary to confront people with the negative aspects they are covering up. Communication is an exchange between people, nor necessarily an echo room, neither a fighting ring. So when sugarcoating happens to you, evaluate the situation:         

Do you really want to tell that person how you really feel? Do you need to? Do you even want to open yourself up to them like that? Do they even deserve to know your honest opinion? How far do you want to take the communication? Do you want to end it politely and as soon as possible? Do you want to maintain a relationship with this person? (How close and for how long?) Do you need to maintain a relationship with this person (e.g. for work) even though you don’t feel they want to hear what you really think and feel? Do you want to find a way to communicate how you really feel without making them uncomfortable? How can you establish a way to discuss difficult (or unpleasant to them) issues in a safe and healthy way?

So be mindful of the situation. Observe an instance of sugarcoating as best you can. And then determine how best to keep communicating with the other person, or if to do so at all. If you bring up the negative, you’re the one acting against the current. You’re the downer, ruining what could have been a perfect conversation. So you might as well keep your mouth shut. Sugar coating really says: “I don’t want to acknowledge how painful something is for me. “ You may want to find a healthier way to relate to those who use sugarcoating to manipulate you. Or you may want to avoid those relationships altogether. Or you may want to confront that issue in hopes that you two can emerge with a better foundation for being emotionally honest with one another. Whatever you choose to do, remember to stay true to your feelings. Bitter or sweet, they’re yours. Life gets much easier when you accept that. Stay true to your feelings Source: http://mindfulconstruct.com/2010/09/24/avoid-the-trap-of-sugarcoating/

136

31. Comparing Apples to Oranges When someone diverts attention away from the topic of discussion to a totally new (but vaguely related) topic in an effort to persuade you. Example: “So you don’t think green energy is a top priority right now with the current state of the economy. Well, we all saw what happened with the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster in 2010. Is that what you want? You want to see innocent sea creatures covered with oil? Then go ahead then, vote against the green energy bill this year.” Yet, comparing apples to oranges is not always used for manipulation, as we can learn from Mike Brown’s article below: Source: Creative Thinking Skills – Mike Brown: http://brainzooming.com/creative-thinking-skillscomparing-apples-and-oranges-7-ways/15057/ At a recent Brainzooming client creative thinking session, the company’s Chief Operating Officer told a story about seeing a car with both an anti-corporation bumper sticker and an Apple logo on it. His point was how interesting it is that Apple had transcended being a huge, very profitable corporation by the car owner. His story made me blurt out, “Did you hear about the Harvard Business Review journalist who wrote a very thorough comparison between the innovation styles of Steve Jobs and the management team at Sunkist? He was widely criticized for comparing Apple and oranges!” Feel free to insert your guffaws here! When we get brains zooming (even our own), who knows what types of connections will be made? Comparing Apples and Oranges “Comparing apples and oranges” ranks with “think outside the box” as one of my least favorite business jargon phrases. “Comparing apples and oranges” is typically used by a strategic dolt to shut down creative thinking and obscure connections that may very naturally exist between two or more things. Apples and oranges actually have MANY things in common. Even though they aren’t identical on the surface, there are multiple strategic and creative comparisons to be made about their similarities and differences. In fact, considering ways of comparing apples and oranges can help your creative thinking skills. Next time a strategic dolt tries to get in the way of your creative thinking by saying you’re comparing apples and oranges, remember these ways the two fruits (or anything you’re examining that may seem unrelated) can be compared: 1. Apples and oranges move through comparable PROCESSES The supply chain bringing apples and oranges together at a grocery store or fruit stand for sale is obviously a point of comparison. When you’re comparing potentially disparate things, look for comparable processes they each experience. 2. Apples and oranges are SUBSTITUTES for one another Since both apples and oranges satisfy the need for food, in general, and fruit, specifically, they serve as potential SUBSTITUTES for one another. As you look at potentially dissimilar items, consider how they might meet the same or related needs.

137

3. Apples and oranges can be made MORE SIMILAR You can manipulate apples and oranges for greater similarity (i.e., by cutting them into similarly-sized pieces, or putting them into recipes as ingredients). When making a comparison others think is a stretch, transform the two things to accentuate their similarities strategically, numerically, chronologically, or in other ways. 4. Compare the REASONS FOR DIFFERENCES between apples and oranges You can explore the reasons apples and oranges are or are not appropriate for comparison and make comparisons about that! Similarly, when comparing two things others think don’t match up, dive into why they appear to be different, whether because of strategic direction, motivation, nature/nurture, etc. 5. Acknowledge the differences and COMPARE THEM ANYWAY Maybe apples and oranges are all you have to analyze. In that case, to better understand them, comparing and contrasting the differences is your only option. Being able to compare things to provide context and contrast is vital to analysis. When others lack the creative thinking skills to see the similarities in two things you’re analyzing, turn it around and simply compare differences. 6. Make a FANCIFUL COMPARISON between apples and oranges Many strategic business conversations have an air of seriousness and a resistance to anything not grounded in reality. Don’t let that stop you. If people shut down more realistic comparisons as inappropriate, get crazy on them with a really outlandish comparison. The conversation you’ll stimulate will likely yield the greatest creative value. 7. Even if apples and orange were completely unrelated, RANDOM ITEMS trigger creative ideas Pick any two things that really ARE completely unrelated. Looking for the comparisons and contrasts between them will get peoples’ minds working on new paths, sparking creative ideas. What will those creative ideas be? It’s tough (maybe impossible) to imagine in advance what a particular group will come up with creatively when considering random inputs, but be prepared for dramatically new thinking Seven Apples and Oranges Comparisons for Creative Thinking There you have it. Seven ways to consider comparing apples and oranges (or other things perceived to be dissimilar) to counter a strategic dolt trying to squash creative thinking. Simply remember you can push a strategic comparison based on: ■Process similarities ■A potential substitute realtionship ■Changes to accentuate similarities ■The reasons for underlying differences ■Comparing elements that shouldn’t be compared ■Fanciful similarities ■Completely random connections So when was the last time YOU were accused of comparing apples and oranges? I’ll bet now you can’t wait for the next time it happens!

138

32. Cherry Picking Distorting facts or Selectively presenting facts and quotes that support one's position Generally these people will lie to the ends of the earth in order to get what they want. This often happens in the work environment, simply to get others on their side or gain favor with management and higher authorities. When responding to a fact distortion, seek clarification. Explain that this is not how you remembered the facts and that you're curious to get a better understanding of their view of them. Remain polite and feel entitled to say that it's to clarify your confusion. Ask them simple questions about when you both agreed to an issue, how they believed the approach was formed, etc. When you meet on common ground again, take this as the new starting point, not their distorted one. For example: 

John (manipulator): "I asked Cassie to have all these finished by today. She's never on time with these reports."



Boss: "Is this true Cassie?"



Cassie: "It isn't my understanding boss. John, when did you suggest that this is my task alone? My last understanding was that this was to be a joint effort, with you signing off on my work before we presented it to the board. When you didn't arrive yesterday and I couldn't reach you, I felt that I had little choice but to continue and finish what I could but it was clear I didn't have a handle over the X, Y, Z issues that you're best at defining. And I've handed in my last six reports all two days before the due date; I take timeliness very seriously."



Another example: A: "You never back me up in those meetings, you're only in it for your own gains and you're always leaving me to the sharks."



You: "That's not true. I believed that you were ready to talk to the investors about your own ideas. If I had thought you were erring, I'd have stepped in but I thought you did a brilliant job by yourself."

139

33. Drawing loosely-related conclusions. When someone tries to convince you of something by drawing a conclusion that is loosely related to the information they gave you. Example: “This baby food is fortified with the vitamins and minerals. It’s extremely healthy. If you’re still buying other kinds of baby food, you’re neglecting your baby’s health.”

34. Causing doubts by twisting facts Imagine you want to start a business on your own and are convinced it has sufficient potential and is of your caliber and choice. When you talk about it with your friends, one of them says “Good that you are starting anew, but based on the available data, with the kind of business you have in mind, it may be hard to survive. In this branch, most new businesses end up with losses.” This is unconscious manipulation of your thought process, because does the person who told you all of this know the statistics? Or is he scared and hesitating and hoping that you will be hesitant too? Most of the manipulators use data that other people do not have any relevance to. And usually the quoted data seems discouraging, realistic and indicates pessimistic results. The changes that you are planning are positive, but when people start running you down with unwanted effects. It can pull you down or make you rethink your options. Another example would be: “It takes a lot to be in business, so do you really want to do that? Otherwise you are just 5 years from a comfortable retirement and you know….” Does that inculcate a feeling of insecurity about your decision? Will you think twice about doing the new business? If any of these is a yes, then you know that you have been manipulated psychologically. Though there are no direct talks about the negativity, the doubts that are planted in your mind are an indication that you have been manipulated and the seed has been planted.

140

35. Targeting lack of time and attention. Someone purposely convinces you to commit to something at just the right time, when you would have otherwise said “no.” This commonly occurs when you’re in a hurry or mentally fatigued. Example: At 5PM on a Friday, as you’re walking out of the office, your co-worker asks you if you mind handling X, Y and Z for him next week while he’s on vacation. “Sure,” you say quickly. “Shoot me an email with the details.” On Monday morning you learn that X, Y and Z are fairly substantial tasks that you wish you hadn’t committed to. 36. Non-denial denial: A statement that seems direct, clear-cut and unambiguous at first hearing, but when carefully parsed is revealed not to be a denial at all, and is thus not untruthful. It is a case in which words that are literally true are used to convey a false impression; analysis of whether or when such behavior constitutes lying is a long-standing issue in ethics. London's newspaper The Sunday Times has defined it as "an on-therecord statement, usually made by a politician, repudiating a journalist's story, but in such a way as to leave open the possibility that it is actually true." 37. Non-apology apology: A statement that has the form of an apology but does not express the expected contrition. It is common in both politics and public relations. It most commonly entails the speaker saying that he or she is sorry not for a behavior, statement or misdeed, but rather is sorry only because a person who has been aggrieved is requesting the apology, expressing a grievance, or is threatening some form of retribution or retaliation. Example: An example of a non-apology apology would be saying "I'm sorry that you feel that way" to someone who has been offended by a statement. This apology does not admit that there was anything wrong with the remarks made, and additionally, it may be taken as insinuating that the person taking offense was excessively thin-skinned or irrational in taking offense at the remarks in the first place. Statements that use the word "sorry" but do not express responsibility for wrong-doing may be meaningful expressions of regret, but such statements can also be used to elicit forgiveness without acknowledging fault.

141

The five languages of apology Source: http://conscious-manager.com/five-languages-of-apology.html What most people want to know when you apologize is “are you sincere?” However, they judge your sincerity by whether or not you are speaking your apology in their primary apology language. When you do then they sense your real sincerity. When couples/friends/ etc learn to apologize in a way that is meaningful to each other, they make forgiveness much easier. 1. Expressing regret: Tthis apology language is an emotional language – it seeks to express to the other person that you feel pain that with your words or behavior you hurt them deeply. If the person you are apologizing to has this language what they want to know is: “Do you understand how deeply your behavior has hurt me?” Anything less will seem empty to them. You need to say you are sorry and what specifically you are sorry for. 2. Accepting responsibility: This apology begins with the words “I was wrong” and goes on to explain what was wrong with your behavior. If the person you apologize to has this apology language they are waiting to hear you admit that your behavior was wrong. For them saying “I’m sorry” will never sound like an apology. They want you to accept responsibility for what you did or said and acknowledge that it was wrong. 3. Making restitution: This apology language seeks to “make it right.” If this is the persons primary apology language what they really want to know is “do you still love me?” Your behavior seemed so unloving to them that they wonder how you could love them and do what you did. What they request of you to make up for your mistake etc., will likely be in tune with their primary love language e.g. if their primary love language is physical touch they may simply ask for a hug. 4. Genuinely expressing the desire to change your behavior: This apology seeks to come up with a plan to keep the bad behavior from reoccurring. When this is the persons primary apology language, if your apology does not include a desire to change your behavior, you have not truly apologized. Whatever else you say, they do not see it as being sincere. In their minds if you are really apologizing, you will seek to change your behavior. 5. Requesting forgiveness: The words “will you please forgive me?” are music to the ears of the person whose primary apology language is this one. In their mind if you are sincere, you will ask them to forgive you. You have hurt them deeply and they want to know, “do you want to be forgiven?” “Do you want to remove the barrier that your behavior has caused?” Requesting forgiveness is the way to touch their heart and is the way that feels sincere to them.

142

38. Mistakes were made: The expression "mistakes were made" is commonly used as a rhetorical device, whereby a speaker acknowledges that a situation was handled poorly or inappropriately but seeks to evade any direct admission or accusation of responsibility by using the passive voice. The acknowledgement of "mistakes" is framed in an abstract sense with no direct reference to who made the mistakes. An active voice construction would be along the lines of "I made mistakes" or "John Doe made mistakes." The speaker neither accepts personal responsibility nor accuses anyone else. The word "mistakes" also does not imply intent.

39. The "if apology" This is a favorite of politicians, with lines such as "I apologize if I offended anyone". This kind of apology shifts the blame onto the offended party, and denies personal acceptance of wrongdoing, as in "I'm sorry if you were offended by what I said". The "if" implies that the apologizer either doesn't even know they did wrong (and did not bother to find out) or else does not acknowledge that they did wrong and so are pretending to apologize because they feel obligated to rather than because they are actually sorry. There is no confirmation that the apologizer actually regrets anything or has learnt anything from what they did that was wrong.

40. Phrasing in a way that assumes unproven truths, or avoiding the question Not all truths are completely true. Often, manipulators misrepresent facts or claim is a proven fact simply because it’s a popular belief. “Don’t just take it from me, 9 out of 10 doctors agree that Diet Pill XYZ is safe.”

41. "Burying bad news": Announcing one unpopular thing at the same time as several popular things, or delaying the release of bad news so it can be hidden in the "shadow" of more important or favorable news or events.

143

42. Using Euphemisms and Dysphemisms to disguise or promote one's agenda Definitions (Wikipedia): A euphemism is a generally innocuous word or expression used in place of one that may be found offensive or suggest something unpleasant. Some euphemisms are intended to amuse, while others use bland, inoffensive, and often misleading terms for things the user wishes to dissimulate or downplay. Euphemisms are used for dissimulation, to refer to taboo topics (such as disability, sex, excretion, and death) in a polite way, and to mask profanity. The opposite of euphemism roughly equates to dysphemism. Source: Reasoning Skills Success in 20 Minutes a Day. Copyright © 2010 by LearningExpress, LLC. http://www.education.com/study-help/article/word2/ Introduction The words people use can have a powerful effect on their listeners. By choosing certain words instead of others or by phrasing questions in a way that is meant to elicit a specific response, people may try to influence your thoughts or actions. This lesson will show you how to recognize this kind of subtle persuasion. Your cousin likes to sky dive, mountain climb, and race cars. How would you describe him? •Reckless •Adventurous •Free-spirited As different as these words are, each one can be used to describe someone who engages in the above activities. The word you choose, however, depends upon your opinion of these activities. Clearly, freespirited is the word with the most positive slant; adventurous is more or less neutral; and reckless is negative. Your word choice will convey a particular image of your cousin—whether you intend it to or not. Words are powerful, and they can influence us without us even realizing it. That's because they carry at least two layers of meaning: denotation and connotation. Denotation is a word's exact or dictionary meaning. Connotation is the implied or suggested meaning, the emotional impact that the word carries. For example, thin, slender, and lean all mean essentially the same thing—their denotation is the same—but they have different connotations. Slender suggests a gracefulness that thin and lean do not. Lean, on the other hand, suggests a hardness or scarcity that thin and slender do not. Denotation: the dictionary meaning of a word Connotation: the emotional impact or implied meaning of a word Because words carry so much weight, advertisers, politicians, and anyone else who wants to convince you to believe one thing or another choose their words carefully. By using subtle persuasion techniques, they can often manipulate feelings and influence reactions so that viewers and listeners don't realize they're being swayed. The best way to prevent this kind of influence is to be aware of these techniques. If you can recognize them, they lose their power. It's like watching a magician on stage once you already know the secret behind his tricks. You appreciate his art, but you're no longer under his spell.

144

There are three different subtle persuasion techniques we'll discuss in this lesson: euphemisms, dysphemisms, and biased questions. Euphemisms and Dysphemisms Euphemisms are the most common of the subtle persuasion techniques. You've probably used them yourself many times without even realizing it. A euphemism is when a phrase—usually one that's harsh, negative, or offensive—is replaced with a milder or more positive expression. For example, there are many ways to say that someone has died. Die itself is a neutral word—it expresses the fact of death straightforwardly without any real mood attached to it. However, this word is often softened by replacing it with a euphemism, such as one of the following: •Passed away •Passed on •Is no longer with us •Expired •Departed •Deceased Just as we can say died in a softer or more positive way—a way that suggests movement to a better place, for example—we can also say it in a cruder or more negative way, like one of the following: •Croaked •Kicked the bucket •Bit the dust When we replace a positive or neutral expression with one that is negative or unpleasant, we're using a dysphemism. One way to remember the difference between these two terms is to imagine them mathematically: - Euphemism: a milder or more positive expression used to replace a negative or unpleasant one - Dysphemism: replacing a neutral or positive expression with a negative or unpleasant one - Euphemism: Positive replaces negative - Dysphemism: Negative replaces positive Euphemisms and dysphemisms are used more than ever these days, especially in advertising, the media, and by politicians to influence our thoughts and feelings. Take, for example, the phrase used cars. Used car dealers used to sell used cars—now they sell previously owned vehicles. See the euphemism? The more pleasant phrase previously owned doesn't carry the suggestion of someone else using—just owning. Euphemisms are used a great deal in political and social issues. If you oppose abortion, for example, then you are pro-life. If you support the right to abort, on the other hand, you're pro-choice. See how important these euphemisms are? How could someone be against life? Against choice? Euphemisms and dysphemisms are used more than ever these days, especially in advertising, the media, and by politicians to influence our thoughts and feelings. Take, for example, the phrase used cars. Used car dealers used to sell used cars—now they sell previously owned vehicles. See the euphemism? The more pleasant phrase previously owned doesn't carry the suggestion of someone else using—just owning. Euphemisms are used a great deal in political and social issues. If you oppose abortion, for example, then you are pro-life. If you support the right to abort, on the other hand, you're pro-choice. See how important these euphemisms are? How could someone be against life? Against choice?

145

Biased Questions Imagine someone stops you on the street and asks you to participate in a survey about tax cuts. You agree, and she asks you the following questions: •Do you support tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy and neglect the needs of those with low incomes? •Do you think the government should be allowed to make tax cuts that exclude the poor and uneducated? No matter how you feel about tax cuts, chances are you can't answer anything but no to these questions. Why? Because if you say yes, it sounds like you are not empathetic to the needs of those who are helpless. These questions are phrased unfairly, making it difficult for you to give a fair answer. In other words, inherent in the questions is a certain attitude toward tax cuts—in this case, a negative one—that prejudices the questions. In short, the questions aren't fair—they're biased. Notice how these particular questions use dysphemisms to bias the questions and pressure you to answer them a certain way. In this example, tax cuts become equivalent to negative terms such as neglect and exclude. Here is how euphemisms might be used to bias the questions toward the opposing point of view: •Do you support tax cuts that will benefit all socioeconomic levels of society and help improve the economy? •Do you think the government should be allowed to make tax cuts that give people's hard-earned money back to them? This time, notice how saying yes is much easier than saying no. If you say no to the first question, it sounds like you are indifferent to what happens to you and your society. If you say no to the second question, it sounds like you are without compassion and don't believe that people deserve to keep what they earn. Here are the questions revised once again so that you can answer yes or no fairly: •Do you support tax cuts? •Do you think the government should be allowed to decide when to make tax cuts? Professional surveys will be careful to ask fair questions, but when political organizations, advertisers, and other groups or individuals have an agenda, they may use biased questions to elicit specific results. Similarly, anyone who wants to influence you may use biased questions to get you to respond in a certain way. That's why it's important for you to recognize when a question is fair and when it's biased.

146

43 The “Door-in-the-face” technique Here, the manipulator will first make a request of the other person that is excessive and to which they will most naturally refuse. He will then look very disappointed, but next make a request that is more reasonable and which the victim will then be more likely to accept. Example Will you donate $100 to our cause? [response is no]. Oh. Well could you donate $10? Can you help me do all this work? Well can you help me with this bit? Can I stay out until 4am? OK. How about midnight? Why it works When the victim refuses the first request, he may feel guilty about having refused another person and fear rejection as a result. The second request gives them the opportunity to assuage that guilt and mitigate any threat of social rejection. In effect, the person making the request is making an exchange of concession for belonging. The lower request uses the contrast principle, making it seem very small in comparison with the larger initial request and hence relatively trivial and easy to agree with. This method works best when the requests being made have a socially valid element, for example where you are seeking to learn something, teach people or help others. This is so that the other person does not reject the whole request out of hand (it is just that the initial request is 'too much'). The second request should be made soon after the first request, before the effects of guilt and other motivators wears off. The Door-in-the-face technique is a 'sequential request' and is also known as 'rejection-then-retreat'.

147

44. Bait-and-Switch The manipulator offers something that appears to be very good value and which looks like a real bargain, an offer the victim can't possibly refuse, even if they were not thinking about it. Later he replaces the initial item with something of less value to the victim (but more profit to the manipulator). Example A car sales showroom puts a basic car outside with a very low price-tag. Once the customer is interested, the sales person trades them up to a more expensive model. Would you like to go out to this really expensive restaurant? ... Oh dear, it's booked up. Never mind, we can go to the usual place.

Why the trick works When the person sees the initial item of high value they cognitively close on the idea of acquiring it and hence The early bait thus moves them from a negative position to one of commitment. When the high value item is removed, then they enter a state of anxiety in which they seek to re-enter the comfortable closed state. They thus seek to satisfice, accepting almost any solution that will get them back to that comfortable state. There may also be an element of commitment to the person making the offer. If I offer something to you, you feel some obligation to me. If I then switch the offer, especially if the switching seems reasonable, then you are likely to accept the second offer out of a sense of obligation to me. To do otherwise would expose myself as inconsistent and break bonding between us. The bait and switch technique is a 'sequential request'.

148

45. Highball Whether he is asking for something from you, or trying to sell something to you, the manipulator’s first offer is likely to be as high as possible without completely putting you off. Most likely, the manipulator has don his research about what constitutes a reasonable demand and about what you are able to give or pay beforehand in order to find your zone of acceptability and had then started at at, or even above, the top of your range. If you seem particularly keen to settle, he may even have asked you what you are willing to give or offer. Most likely however, he will not since your first bid anchors the discussion, quite possibly on the low side of what he wants to get out of the deal. Examples A child who wants a parent to fund a night out starts by asking for about three times as much as they really want. When selling goods, a market trader starts with a high price. He then reduces the price without being bargained with, using excuses about being kind, needing to sell everything today and so on. An estate agent takes buyers to houses that they cannot afford. This, however, raises their desires and the house they eventually buy is more expensive than they had anticipated. Why it works Where you start sets expectations for the other person. When you start high, you can always go down. When you start low, you can never go up. Starting high creates an anchor for the other person, whereby they may well assume that this is in a reasonable range. If their counter-bid is also high, then you will end up with a high price. Even if they are above what you expected, do not settle immediately -- at best split the difference and you may be able to nudge them even higher. A high start may well take longer to reach resolution, giving you more opportunity to find out more about the other person and to build effective tension. If the other person starts low, then it may be socially difficult for you to counter with a high bid, although this can actually be a good move. Responding to a low bid with a high bid indicates that you know they are low and may be seeking If the other person counters with a low bid (or starts to walk away), this may be a signal that they know what you are doing. Hold your nerve! If you collapse your position, they may well take advantage and seek to pull you even further down. Be careful about starting too high, as this may cause a betrayal response whereby they leave without further ado, ignoring anything you may say. Extreme positions outside of a range that may be considered fair can also be damaging to relationships (which may be important). The difference between your start position and your end position is a signal to the other person about how much you have conceded to them. A significant difference will make them believe they have got a bargain (a view you can encourage with sighs and supporting words).

149

46. Low-ball The manipulator first makes his victim agree to what he wants by making it quick, cheap, easy, etc. Next he maximizes their buy-in, in particular by getting both verbal and public commitment to this. It’s important that the victim is agreeing t of his own free will. Now the manipulator changes the agreement to what he really want. The other person may complain, but, if the low-ball is done correctly they should agree to the change. The trick of a successful low-ball is in the balance of making the initial request attractive enough to gain agreement, whilst not making the second request so outrageous that the other person refuses. It nevertheless is surprising how great a difference there can be between these two requests. Example A person agrees to buy a car at a low price. The sales person then apologizes that the wrong price was on the car. The person still agrees to buy it at the higher price. A family books a package holiday. They find that there are surcharges. They pay these without question. Why it works The Low-ball works by first gaining closure and commitment to the idea or item which you want the other person to accept, then using the fact that people will behave consistently with their beliefs to sustain the commitment when you change the agreement. There is also an illusion of irrevocability whereby a person believes that a decision made cannot be reversed, for example when a person agrees to buy a car and considers the handshake as the final transaction (as opposed to handing over the money). Agreeing to a low price creates excitement and not buying after this state is induced may lead to an equally deep depression, which the person may avoid by continuing with the more expensive purchase. When the final price is not that much higher than elsewhere, the person weighs up the inconvenience of going elsewhere with the short-term benefit of holding their purchase very soon. Cialdini, Cacioppo, Bassett, and Miller (1978) asked students to participate in an experiment. The control group was told during the request that it would be at 7am. The low-ball group was only told this later. 24% of the control group agreed to this, whilst 56% of the low-ball group agreed (and 95% of these actually turned up). Guéguen and Pascual (2000) found it to be important that the person believes that they have made a free and non-coerced agreement to the first request. In particular adding 'but you are free to accept or to refuse' to the first request increased compliance. Burger and Petty (1981) showed that the same person must make both requests. The Low-ball technique is a 'sequential request'. 47. That's not all

150

When offering or conceding something to somebody, rather than give it to them as a final item, give it in incremental pieces. Do not allow them to respond to each piece you give them - keep on offering more. Thus, for example, you can: •Offer a discount in several stages. •Add extra 'gifts' to a product offering. •Start with a high price and reduce it. •Tell them all the things you are going to do, one at a time. The increments can be in different amounts, but each should surprise and delight the person. It can also help if the final increment is particularly desirable. Example Ladies and gentlemen, I'm not only going to reduce this by 10%, not even by 20% … and not even by 40. Today, ladies and gentlemen, the price is reduced for you by a whopping 50%! I'm not going to give you this cookie cutter. No. That's not all I'm going to give you. For the same price, I'm going to throw in a fine steel spatula. A bargain I hear you say? But I'm going to make it even better, with this splendid temperature probe, absolutely free. Now, who wants this wonderful offer now? Mr Jones, you've been treated badly and I'm going to make sure you're ok today. First, I'm going to call the service team. Then I'm going to talk to the manager and then I'll get him to call you today. Is this ok for you? Why it works This technique is reminiscent of the highball tactic in that it starts with high and comes down. The only difference is that the 'that's not all' method does not do this in negotiated concessions. It can, however, seem like a negotiation. Burger (1986) found that this technique works partly because a customer sees the salesperson as entering into a type of negotiation by offering an additional product. With each increment, the customer feels an increasing obligation to purchase the product in return for the salesperson's 'concessions'. In Burger's experiment, he sold a cupcake with two cookies together for 75 cents (this was the control) or stated the price of cupcake was 75 cents and then added two cookies 'for free' (TNA). Successful sales in the control were 40%, whilst in the TNA case they were 73%. In a second experiment, Burger showed it going the other way, either selling the cupcakes straight for 75 cents (the control) or starting at one dollar and then immediately discounting to 75 cents (the TNA case). Successful sales in the control were 44% whilst in the TNA case were again 73%. The method depends largely on an automatic social response and hence works better when the customer does not have time to think hard about what is going on.

151

48. Disrupt, then reframe Make a statement that goes off the normal track of how the other person thinks. Then make a rationalsounding statement that makes apparent sense and leads the other person to agree to your request. This is typically done in a single speech, effectively disrupting and reframing your own statements. The principle can also be used in disrupting the other person, breaking into their speech and reinterpret what they are saying to indicate something else. This is best done when they are in the middle of talking and are in a state of 'flow', effectively trotting out a familiar script on the subject. The disruption can even be something nonsensical -- the key is that it breaks a pattern and readies them for something else.

Example Davis and Knowles told customers that a package of eight cards sold for $3.00, and subsequently made sales to approximately 40% of customers. When they told customers that "the price of eight cards is 300 pennies, which is a bargain", then sales doubled to 80% of customers. Them: You know I hate it when you... You: Marakanas!...I hate it when we don't get on. So let's try again?

152

Why it works Davis and Knowles based this approach on a study of hypnotist Milton Erikson's methods whereby he would deliberately disrupt thinking and behaving and hence destabilize his patients' habitual patterns and then change that thinking whilst the patient was still unsure what to think next. This method uses the principle of confusion to unfreeze the person and then uses reframing in a hurt and rescue route to closure. In their 'pennies' example, the use of '300 pennies' is a disruption of the normal '3 dollars'. Whilst the person is trying to figure out what this means, the reframe 'which is a bargain' is slipped in as an explanation, which many people accept and hence conclude that it is worth purchasing before they decide that 300 pennies is really $3, which is not worth paying. Rather than use standard persuasive pressure, as in traditional one-off selling, it acts more subtly to create alternative forms of tension that are literally doubly (as in Davis and Knowles' experiment) as effective. The aim is thus to reduce avoidance rather than focus first on increasing attractiveness. The persuader thus becomes a trusted supporter rather than an oppositional enforcer, which supports future persuasion as in relationship selling or collaborative negotiation. Fennis, Das and Pruyn extended this principle to show that this disruption and reframing approach was applicable across a wider range of settings. Specifically, the Disrupt-Then-Reframe technique reduced the extent of objections and counter-argument to a sales script and boosted the impact of questioning and alignment methods. The technique is often abbreviated simply to DTR, and can be used to describe a range of techniques that use the same basic disrupt-reframe principle.

153

49. Fear, then relief - Scaring The Hell Out of You One of the easiest and arguably the most evil manipulative technique to get someone to say "yes"is what psychologists call the "fear-then-relief technique." The technique preys on a person's emotions. Here, the manipulator causes someone a great deal of stress or anxiety and then abruptly relieves that stress. After this sudden mood swing, the person is disarmed, less likely to make mindful or rational decisions, and more likely to respond positively to various requests. Technique: Invoke fear in the other person. Then, when they seek a solution, provide one that leads them in the direction you choose. Fear is invoked by threatening needs. Relief may be gained by doing what you request. Relief may also given 'freely' to create trust and invoke the rules of social exchange. Be careful not to be seen as an aggressor, for example by using external sources to invoke the fear. Also be careful not to invoke so much fear that they flee from you or become aggressive. Examples: The book The Science of Social Influence details a few experiments that showed this in action. In one, shoppers in a mall were scared by a stranger touching their shoulder from behind. When they turned around, the shoppers found that their assailant was a (supposed) blind man who just wanted to ask the time. After that deflection and relief, someone else—the fake blind man's confederate—asked the targets if they would buy and sign postcards for a political charitable cause. Those who had met the blind man and experienced the fear-then-relief rollercoaster were more likely to do so than the control group which wasn't manipulated. This fear-then-relief manipulation technique is most popularly portrayed in the classic bad cop/good cop routine: one person scares the hell out of you, another saves you, and then you're more willing to talk. You see this in everyday life, too—from the fear tactics of insurance agents to bad managers who suggest your job is on the line, backtrack, and then ask you to work overtime. Example Your performance has been below standard recently and you may be placed on the 'at risk' register. I won't do this now but I do want you to show me what you are capable of. The boss came around when you were out and asked where you were. Don't worry, I gave a good excuse. Could you cover for me? I want to go home early. Why it works This is a direct application of the hurt and rescue principle, creating discomfort and then providing the means of reducing that discomfort. Whilst a relatively crude method, it is still quite common and often effective when done well.

154

This works as the pleasant relief is linked with the second request, which receives the pleasant emotion by association. In the state of blessed relief the person may also be temporarily unthinking as the strong emotion overwhelms any rational consideration.

Repeated fear-relief cycles can be emotionally very exhausting and is used in such as interrogation and conversion to break a person down. When a person thinks they are rescued from a fearful situation, they relax and drop their guard, making the next wave even more terrifying as they are less and less able to emotional defend against it. Invoking fear can be hazardous as it may well trigger the Fight-or-Flight reaction. Particularly when the persuader is seen as the primary cause of the discomfort, they may become the target of aggression and compliance will become very unlikely. One way this can be handled is that the persuader pleads innocence or unintentional action, which leader the aggressor into apology and compliance as a way of restoring social harmony.

155

50. Selling The Top Of The Line (TOTL) First promote an expensive product. Then show them a cheaper product. This can be done without really trying to sell the expensive product. Do it as if you are just a kind of product geek who is proud of what can be done and want to show off great products. Then become the friend who sells them a product that suits them best. You can also try to sell the expensive product if they seem to be interested. Expensive products are sought by the affluent and those who value the social kudos the product gives. If they seem like the latter, add 'what people will say' into your patter. If they reject the expensive product, then it is a simple step to move down to the cheaper product. Example Just look at this wonderful washing machine, it has many different cycles and controls...It is a bit expensive - but this other machine does almost as much and is 30% less. I really want to go to the Seychelles for a fortnight. But I guess that's a bit expensive...Maybe a week in Cannes would be better. Why it works Selling the top of the line' is a common approach that is a variant of the Door In The Face (DITF) method. Acting as a 'product geek' in showing off the more expensive item establishes the sales person as an expert and can help to build trust. Note that serious attempts to sell the expensive product may negate or even invert these effects. The more expensive product creates desire, but cannot be afforded. The second product hooks into the created desire with something that is closer to the buyers budget. The method uses the contrast principle to make the second product appear relatively inexpensive. The exchange principle also applies as the sales person is giving up a higher sale in apparent concern for the customer, who reciprocates the favor by buying the product. Donoho (2003) showed 290 business majors different videos designed to sell CD players. Some were shown a 'top of the line' video, showing first an expensive product followed by a less expensive product. Others were shown products in different orders. The 'top of the line' video resulted in 'purchases' of average 10% greater value.

156

51. Dump and Chase (DAC) Ask for something. When they flatly refuse, ask why (or why not, depending on how the situation is phrased). Then turn the discussion into a negotiation whereby you remove the reasons for them not agreeing with you or otherwise complying with your request. Example When a customer says they do not want buy a product, the sales person asks what is stopping them from buying today. He may first single out the reason by asking “and this is the only reason why you did not buy the product?” After that he proceeds to address their issues. A boy wants to go out with his friends. His mother says 'no'. He asks why not and then gives reasons and evidence that outweigh the mother's reasons. In the end, she gives in. Why it works

There are two forms of refusal: a flat refusal where no explanation is given and and 'obstacle' where reasons are given for refusing. People often present obstacles as this is a more polite form and less likely to result in reactive argument. However, this form also gives space for the persuader to continue persuading. Persistence by the persuader allows them to wear down the other person, who also may become convinced that this is an urgent and important matter for the persuader. The person may feel guilty in holding out when conceding is not that important for them, or become sympathetic to their need. This method pulls on the needs to explain, effectively forcing the other person to give reason, which also enables the persuader to continue. 'Dump and chase' is also a strategy in ice hockey whereby a team hits the puck into the attacking zone, then aggressively tries to retrieve it (which is similar to 'kick and rush' in rugby union). This term was used.

157

52. Persuasion Techniques 52.1 Heart, Head, Hands First make an emotionally-based statement with which the other person will instinctively agree. A good way of getting emotional agreement is to appeal to the person's values, talking about good or bad, right or wrong. Then add supportive arguments that seem logical and rational. In this, be selective about what you say, using things that support your initial statement. Indicate evidence. Talk about cause and effect. Ignore any opposing rationale. Finally issue the call to action, asking them to do something. Example Would you believe it! They are going to close the library! Isn't that terrible? How will our children learn? What about the old people? We are going to protest next week. Can you help? Isn't that great sounding music? It's created through the unique linear acceleration circuitry. Nobody else has it and it makes sense as the best buy. Now are you ready to buy it today? You did what? That's shameful! I know you didn't really mean it and that you were in a hurry. You can recover the situation, but you do need to go and apologize today. Why it works A common way we make decisions is to start with a gut-based, instinctive decision, and then we seek confirmation in evidence and rationale. This method plays directly to this sequence of thinking. This is a affective-cognitive-behavioral approach, starting with emotions to get the person aroused, then providing rational support so the person agrees at both levels before you ask them do something for you. Other sequences may be used, but this is a good way of getting immediate compliance. The final action requested need not be a direct response or even that obvious, although of course linking action to the issue increases the chance of compliance. If the person is sufficiently aroused, then they will easily accept a fallacious argument and so be ready to follow your clear lead, even if the action is not that logical or appropriate.

158

52.2 Monroe’s Motivated Sequence of Persuasion Steps In the 1930s, John Monroe developed a series of steps that he believed were the keys to persuading another individual. The steps are:     

Attention Need Satisfaction Visualization Action

1 Attention To get someone to listen to your argument, you need to get their attention. You have about five seconds when talking to someone to engage their attention before they will lose focus. You can do this in several ways.     

Use their name with a tone that conveys urgency or importance Use emotion to demonstrate your position – smile, frown, be exasperated – whatever emotion conveys the strength of your position Physically touch them if you have the level of rapport where this is appropriate. Put your hand on their forearm or shoulder to draw their attention. Bring up a topic that you know they are passionate about and segue into your argument – but be sure there is a valid connection so you don’t seem to be changing the topic too quickly Start with a statement that conveys the benefit of your position for the other person

2 Need Once you have the other person’s attention, work to keep it. You can lose their attention as quickly as you have it if the other person doesn’t see the need to continue listening. To keep the other person’s attention, you have to be familiar with what is important to them. What do they want? What do they value? Why should they care about your side of the argument? Once you can answer these questions, you are ready to ‘hook’ the listener by focusing on what they care about. 3 Satisfaction In this step, you describe to the listener how your position will meet the need you addressed in the previous step. Will your solution solve their problem? Will it prevent them from having to deal with additional problems? In other words, what benefits will the listener receive if they are persuaded by your argument. Or what negative consequences will they avoid? 4 Visualization Visualization means that you can create a picture for the listener of what the situation will look like once they have been persuaded to accept your position or agree to your decision. Help them do this by describing what the world will be like ‘after’ they agree with you. For example, use language like: 

����Imagine what it will be like when you no longer have to…

159

 

����Can you see how this would reduce your work load (solve your problem, increase your profits, etc.) ����Picture yourself leaving work on time once we make this change (or some other way their life will improve once they agree with you)

5 Action Once you sense that you are approaching agreement, you need to cement it by suggesting the next step or action that will put your solution in motion. Don’t wait – act as soon as you can so that the other person is not left stewing and thinking things over more (and perhaps changing their mind). 52.3 AIDA All sales require that your client has a desire to own your product or use your service. If you haven’t yet created that desire, you will face objections and not make the sale no matter how persuasive you think you are being. This idea comes from the sales method known as AIDA, an acronym which stands for: •A – Attention •I – Interest •D – Desire •A – Action This is very similar to Monroe’s Motivated Sequence Model that we discussed in Chapter Six. The point is that if you haven’t created the desire for your services, you will not persuade the customer that they need your services. Why would they buy something that they don’t want? You will need to go back and establish desire by demonstrating the benefits your offering will provide to the customer. If you do this well enough, you won’t have to do any more persuading – the customer will already want what you are offering. 52.4 Problem-Cause-Solution Another format for organizing a persuasive speech is the problem-cause-solution format. In this specific format, you discuss what a problem is, what you believe is causing the problem, and then what the solution should be to correct the problem. Specific Purpose: To persuade my classroom peers that our campus should adopt a zerotolerance policy for hate speech. Main Points: 1.Demonstrate that there is distrust among different groups on campus that has led to unnecessary confrontations and violence. 2.Show that the confrontations and violence are a result of hate speech that occurred prior to the events. 3.Explain how instituting a campus-wide zero-tolerance policy against hate speech could stop the unnecessary confrontations and violence.

160

In this speech, you want to persuade people to support a new campus-wide policy calling for zerotolerance of hate speech. Once you have shown the problem, you then explain to your audience that the cause of the unnecessary confrontations and violence is prior incidents of hate speech. Lastly, you argue that a campus-wide zero-tolerance policy could help prevent future unnecessary confrontations and violence. Again, this method of organizing a speech is as simple as its name: problem-causesolution. 52.5 Comparative Advantages

The final method for organizing a persuasive speech is called the comparative advantages speech format. The goal of this speech is to compare items side-by-side and show why one of them is more advantageous than the other. For example, let’s say that you’re giving a speech on which e-book reader is better: Amazon.com’s Kindle or Barnes and Nobles’ Nook. Here’s how you could organize this speech: Specific Purpose: To persuade my audience that the Nook is more advantageous than the Kindle.

Main Points: 1.The Nook allows owners to trade and loan books to other owners or people who have downloaded the Nook software, while the Kindle does not. 2.The Nook has a color-touch screen, while the Kindle’s screen is black and grey and noninteractive. 3.The Nook’s memory can be expanded through microSD, while the Kindle’s memory cannot be upgraded. As you can see from this speech’s organization, the simple goal of this speech is to show why one thing has more positives than something else. Obviously, when you are demonstrating comparative advantages, the items you are comparing need to be functional equivalents—or, as the saying goes, you cannot compare apples to oranges.

161

53. But You Are Free Make the basic request to the target person. Then tell them they are free to accept or reject the request. This leads to increased acceptance and compliance with the request. Let them know they have a free choice, even though it may be obvious that they can choose as they wish. Other variants of language you can use include "it is up to you to see," "up to you to choose," and "but you are free of." Example An activist seeking petition signatures gets more on their list by saying people are free to add their names or not. A sales person sells more by saying that customers are free to come back later if they are not ready to buy now. Why it works In the original study, Guéguen and Pascual (2000) found that when subjects were asked in a street to give money to a cause, only 10.0% complied. However, when the phrase "...but you are free to accept or to refuse" was added, 47.5% now complied. Pascual and Gueguen (2002) found this wording led to more money being donated to a social cause. Gueguen et al (2002) noted the importance of the semantic evocation of freedom. It is not enough to ask, you have to specifically tell people they are free to accept or refuse. Guéguen and Pascual (2005) asked people to complete a survey. 75.6% of those asked to complete the survey, but not told they were free to accept or refuse, complied. Yet 90.1% complied when they were told they were free to accept or refuse. We have a fundamental need for a sense of control. When we are asked to do something it may well feel that the requesting person is taking control. As a reaction, we are then more likely to refuse, asserting our ability to sustain control. When the person is told they are free to accept or refuse, then they are formally given control and so do not have to wrest it back. This wording also sets up an exchange dynamic whereby they feel obliged to repay the kindness in giving a free option to disadvantage the requesting person by not refusing the request. The word 'free' is a common power word and may have an additional effect as it causes particular attention and excitement. 'Free' appeals not only to the need for control but also to greed. While this does not directly affect things, the unconscious triggering of desire may help to tip the balance further towards compliance.

162

54. Confusion, Humor and Request (ChaR) Confusion : Say something that confuses the other person. To work well, it should make sense on one level, but when thought about more carefully is unexpected, ambiguous or uncertain in some way. For example, you could open a phone call by saying 'I think bears should be pink' or 'Do you know what color socks I am wearing?' Confusion creates tension as the person feels they should understand what is said and yet they are unable to do this. Humor Now say something that is funny, making a joke out of the confusing comment. For example you could say 'If bears were pink then at least you could see them coming', or 'One sock is blue and the other is green - I seem to have put on odd socks today.' Humor is a release. It provides a matching closure to the previously-created, tense confusion. Be careful with this not to make fun of other people, although of course you can poke fun at yourself. Request Now make a request. You are more likely to be successful if this is fairly easy for the person to comply. In selling, typical requests are for information, a referral or for a meeting. It is surprising how often you will gain compliance, as compared with if you had just started with the request. In the confusion and humor stages you wound up the other person and then released their tension. They are now in a relaxed state where they are open to suggestion. They should also like you more and be grateful to you for giving them a bit of fun and for letting them off the hook of trying to make sense of what you said.

In sales, this works well when people are expecting you to go in with a hard-sell approach as the anticipation of conflict is replaced by entertainment and fun.

163

55. Hook and Sinker Start with a statement that is easy to accept and/or difficult to reject. Then add a second, related statement that contains the key message. Example Littering is disgusting. So are those who do it. Do you like good food? Stop here for great food. Why it works The first statement is the 'hook', which can be a simple assertion or a question. Like the worm on the angler's line, its sole purpose is to get the other person interested, agreeing and making an initial closure. The second statement is the 'sinker', which drops the other person into the mire of having to agree. If they disagree, then they will have acted inconsistently, which leads to cognitive dissonance and a fear of social rejection.

164

56. The Jack Hammer, The Hammer and The Dripping Tap

Three techniques based on repetition: 1. In “The Jack Hammer” either a single word or a short phrase is repeated quickly, one after another You can increase power of the Jackhammer by steadily increasing the volume and other forms of emphasis. Example no! No! NO! Do not do that! NO! NO!! NO!!! Go, go, go! That's right! Keep going! Keep going! I won't, I won't I won't, I won't I won't! Why it works The Jackhammer emphasizes importance and leaves little room for misunderstanding, particularly when there is little time for argument. This rapid repetition acts like a hammer, whacking home the message. It is not a subtle method, but can be used in an emergency or when you want to express significant emotion. Rapid repetition also occupies time and prevents the other person from responding. Hence this may be used to block out the other person from making any opposing point. The triple, three repetitions in a row, is a shorter form of the Jackhammer. 2. In “The Hammer” a single word is repeated across a number of phrases and sentences. The word should encompass a key theme to be emphasized -- typically this is an action that is to be done. The word itself may be emphasized each time to hammer home the point. Example We must survive. I know that you have been thinking about how we must survive, and I also have been thinking about this. Because through our actions today we will survive or not, into the future. Whatever happens today or tomorrow, remember this: We must survive. However, I think we're going to do it, and I think that we must pay what needs to be paid. I don't think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job. And this will be done in the decade of the Sixties. It may be done while some of you are still here at school at this college and university. It will be done during the terms of office of some of the people who sit here on this platform. But it will be done. And it will be done before the end of this decade. (J.F.Kennedy -- man on the moon speech - 'do/done' repeated) We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. (Winston Churchill - 'fight' repeated)

165

The hammer is a slower form of the jackhammer but not as slow as the dripping tap As the word is the same and the words are used all around the same time, the idea that is being mooted will steadily get through. 3. In The Dripping Tap technique, key words and phrases are repeated over time. Keep the words carefully separated and control the predictability when they arrive. Initially, the words will be unexpected. You can then build up both expected and unexpected occurrence of words. You can use the same words or different words - the key is that the meaning is the same and that it gradually moves the subject in the right direction. You can also use different styles, including straight facts or emotional appeals. Example This report on climate change looks worrying...What is our environmental policy?...Do we comply with environmental regulations?...Look at this article -- a company down the road has got into real trouble...I spoke with Jan and our emissions are not great...The shareholder meeting is next week, what if they ask about environmental issues?... We need to have an internet presence, you know...Our competitors all have an internet presence...I spoke to a customers recently who was surprised to find that we do not have an internet presence... Why it works Dripping water will erode an entire mountain, possibly without the mountain noticing. Likewise, a repeated word or phrase, cunningly hidden, may not be consciously noticed, but may be get through to the subconscious. The dripping tap is slower than the hammer, and may be around the same speed as nagging, or maybe even slower. The purpose with the dripping tap is to get through to a person via relentless, but careful, repetition. It is thus more subtle than nagging. With varying words, the tap may not be consciously noticed.

166

57. AAB Pattern Do or say something. Then repeat it. Then a third time do or say something different. In persuasion, use the surprise of the third element to help change minds. Example I like the idea. I like the though. But I won't buy it at that price. The managers like it; the employees like it. But the shareholders are against it. So let's figure out together what we can do. Why it works The basic principle of the AAB pattern is that by repeating two items (the two As), the very human pattern-detection system is stimulated. This leads to prediction of a continuation of the pattern with a third A. When the B appears (ie. not A), this causes surprise, which makes the person more open to persuasion. In this way AAB uses the repetition principle to set up the AA pattern and then creates confusion with the unexpected B. You can also use pattern-change variants such as AAAB, AAAAB, etc. AAB is simply the most economic version of this pattern. Adding more As strengthens the pattern and so also increases expectation and hence the B creates even greater surprise and confusion. Spotting patterns is essential to basic survival as it enables us to predict the future, as, by definition, patterns generally consist of items that repeat themselves more than once. This patterning is deliberately used in music where a sequence is repeated and then changed to create a stimulating and pleasurable feeling. It also appears in humor, where the unexpected appearance of the B is found to be funny. Both music and humor are difficult to explain in terms of evolutionary benefit. This view of pattern interruption helps link it as an adaptation to situations other than threat assessment.

167

58. Commitment Devices Commitment devices are tricks played on oneself or other people in order to increase commitment to some action, belief, etc. This can be as creative and extreme as needed -- the only measure is whether the method is successful. A classic technique is to make commitment or not visible in some way, for example putting a graph of you weight or the number of bottles of wine consumed on the wall. Another method is to make your commitment public, so you will be embarrassed if you break the commitment. Asking others to check up on you is a similar principle. Example Leavitt and Dubner (2007) give the rather gross example of a Los Angeles slimmer who bought lifelike plastic models of human body fat from a medical-supply company and put them on display in her kitchen. 'Mutually Assured Destruction' (MAD) is a commitment device that has prevented nuclear war, as any nuclear power knows that to attack another is to also suffer devastating attack. The principle also applies in less significant settings. Why it works There are many times we want to do something but we fail to do so, from losing weight to completing college assignments on time. We easily forget, procrastinate or otherwise find excuses not to stick to commitments. Commitment devices are methods to help us stick to the commitments we have made, even if they are just to ourselves. The basic principle of a commitment device is to make failure to stick to the commitment more painful than remaining committed. This can use aspects of both punishment and reward, although the former is more common. Another principle that may be used is of consistency, where a person will change beliefs in order to sustain consistency with actions. If you can get them to do something, they then change beliefs to 'It is normal and right for me to do this thing' and so create self-sustaining behavior. Commitment devices can be used when getting others to stick to a promise of some kind. Formally, we can use contracts that may or may not be legally binding (but which in any case increase the commitment felt). Criminals build commitment in those they coerce with devices that include severe punishment, from kneecapping to assaults on the victims’ family. Commitment devices do not always work -- the many slimming aids on the market coupled with the many overweight people indicate this. Similarly, there are many who have used various devices to unsuccessfully try to stop smoking.

168

59. Creating Curiosity If you can create curiosity you can draw people towards you, making them want to know more. Two principles to use are stimulation and partiality. Stimulation Curiosity is a state of arousal, so you need to provoke them and spark their interest. Stimulation is like lighting a fire. Once you have got it going, it keeps going and becomes all-consuming. Novelty Stimulation can come from the interest created when we encounter something new. Novelty makes us want to explore further to identify opportunities and threats. We also get the buzz of learning from playing with new things ('Oh, that's what it's for!'). So talk about new things. Scan the news (a word that itself promises novelty). Look for gadgets to discuss. Ask what new things they have found. Be interested, amazed and surprised. Losing out When others have something that we do not, we become curious, wanting to find out what it is. The same effect happens with knowledge and is the driving force behind gossip and social chatter. When we go away and return, an early question we have is 'What's been going on?' So talk about other people, what they have and what they may be getting. Talk about what others have done and what their plans are. Play up (as appropriate) scurrilous chatter and impressed amazement. Puzzles Problems, puzzles and mysteries provide interesting stimulation where we enjoy exploring and trying out things to see what works. The phrase 'I wonder if...' is a classic example of puzzle curiosity in action. So present them with puzzles and other unsolved problems. Ask their advice. Ask for their opinion on why things have happened. Get them involved in brainstorming solutions and trying things out. Words Use words that stimulate and create a desire to know more. These should evoke emotion either by showing your emotion and thereby triggering empathetic emotion, or by rational appeal to needs and objectives. Stimulating words to provoke curiosity include: •Unexpectedness: surprising, amazing •Novelty: new, different, changed •Different: odd, unusual, weird, strange •Scarcity: special, secret •Benefit: exciting, interesting, thrilling, helpful, useful Partiality Curiosity comes from partial knowledge which promises benefit. Telling them everything satisfies curiosity. To get them going, give them a taste, not the whole meal.

169

Hinting When something is mentioned in which we already have an interest, or which sparks a new interest (typically by nudging needs), we want to find out more. Hints give just enough information to stimulate interest and curiosity. So rather than tell people outright about things, drop hints and watch the alacrity with which they pick up on them. Then, a bit later, drop another hint. This is like laying a trail of breadcrumbs right to your door. Promising benefit Benefits are positive outcomes that result from actions. When someone talks about the good things I could have, I want to know more, in particular what I have to do to get them. Sales people use this approach when they put benefits before features. So suggest they could get specific benefits, without saying how. Get them to think the benefits are within easy reach before they realize the real cost. Ask questions like 'Would you like to..?' or 'Imagine that...'. Partial images When you show people a part of something, they want to see the rest of it to find out what it is. Even if they know or believe they know what is there (a wonderful skill most people have), they seek confirmation. Photographers use this when they crop images to show half an arch or a part of a person. Gardeners do it too when they give glimpses of country views. So conceal parts of what they see. Show enough that they can guess but not so much they know or are pretty certain. Slow reveal When something is being uncovered, so we gradually discover more, we become anxious as we predict what it might be and wait to see if we are right. We have to keep paying attention as each moment of the reveal gives us more information which we can use to confirm or revise our prediction. This can be visual or simply words. There is a TV game where the camera starts very close and zooms slowly out while contestants have to name the object. Sales people use this as the give demonstrations and reveal benefits one at a time. Verbal reveals happen all the time, as while we are speaking, listeners are always predicting ahead. Careful use of words can make use of this dynamic process, structuring words and sentences to reveal in an ordered way, always leading the listener and making full use of curiosity. So show them things slowly. Pause to let them appreciate each good thing. Layer hints to increase excitement. Start with objects turned away or in a box. Use words like '...not only...' to let them know more is coming. Lead them on a journey of discovery. After you successfully invoked curiosity in a person, you can lead the curious person to where you want to take them.

170

60. Double Bind A double bind is a situation where a person has a choice (typically between two options), but whichever way they choose, they lose out, often with the same result. Usually in the double bind there is no alternative, as the person is forced to choose and does not have the luxury of not choosing (this would be a third choice that could well be preferable). This situation may occur by chance, but in persuasion it is often carefully engineered by the persuader. Any alternative choices are either removed or hidden so only the double bind options appear valid. Example An impoverished unemployed person on state benefits is offered a job that pays the same amount as the benefit. In either case, they remain poor. A person whose car is broken down is offered the choice between towing it away or fixing it -- either option costs about the same. Why it works The principle of the double bind is to offer a person a choice or put them in a position where they are forced to choose, but where the outcomes of the choice either lead to the same result or else have results that are equally desirable to the person who is managing the situation. The double bind situation is often disadvantageous to the person affected. They may or may not be aware of this, which means they may or may not be happy with the choice. 'Hobson's choice' is a principle of 'no options' that is related to the double bind. The difference is that in Hobson's choice there is only one visible option, whilst the fact of a single option is disguised in the double bind by the appearance of more. By way of history, Thomas Hobson was a 16th century stable owner who offered his Cambridge customers the horse nearer the door or none at all.

171

61. Final Request After you have completed your main conversation with the other person, make one more final request. The request may be for information or it may be for agreement to act in some way. Request language may be something like: •By the way, ... •Oh, just ... •One more thing, ... •I just thought of something else, ... •Could I quickly ... •Can I ask you something, ... The main conversation may be significant or it may be inconsequential. Importantly, it should set up the situation to support the final request, where significant benefit is gained. The request may well be made as you are actually walking away or even half-way out of the door. As you pause, it helps if the other person has to take a few steps towards you. Example A sales person knocks on a person's door to let them know that they have left their car lights on. They are thanked and are just leaving, when they turn around and say 'Oh one more thing. I'm doing a survey of needs in the area. Could I pop back tomorrow to discuss?' A person is going to work after a breakfast conversation. As they go out of the door, they call 'I may be late -- could you pick up the kids?' A detective has been questioning a suspect. She closes the interview and are walking away when she turns and says 'Michael was there, wasn't he?' Why it works After the main conversation, the other person will relax as they reach closure about this interaction. As such, they may well be open and unprepared for the final request, and so agree to it without much thought. If the main conversation was one in which the person became tense, for example where you were questioning them closely, they will be particularly relaxed, especially if they think they have got away with something. This makes them particularly vulnerable to the casual question of a final request. The main conversation may be mostly helpful for them, in which case the final request acts as an exchange, whereby the person discharges their obligation to you for the recent kindness. Getting the other person to walk towards you as you leave causes them to make an effort, albeit small. They have to explain this to themselves and typically do so by believing they want to help you. Consequently, they are more likely to give you what you seek. Another effect of the final request is that, as you are on your way out, there is little space for objection or re-opening of discussions. This hurries the other person into a response.

172

62. Incremental Persuasion When persuading, do so one small step at a time. Get them to agree to a small point. Then get agreement on a further smaller point. Then another and another until you have got them to your final destination. Make each small point very easy to accept and as logical as possible so they cannot really object to it. Example Could you hold this? How does it feel? Comfortable? Can you imagine using it at home? Would it feel good? Would it feel better than what you have already? Would you like to replace your old one with this? How would it feel taking this home and knowing you could use it every day? ... Do you like having fun? Would you like to have fun today? Have you ever had fun when you did something new? There's a new playfield in town. I've seen others there having fun. Would you like to have a go some time? How about this afternoon?

Why it works Incremental persuasion works because perception is based on contrast, which in this method is between small increments. We largely judge the impact of something on us in this relative way rather than against an absolute standard, making incremental approaches less easy to notice. There is a classic story of boiling a frog in a saucepan. As the water warms up, the frog does not notice the incremental change in temperature and does not jump out, and so quietly boils. The same is true of many changes in life, where we accept many small differences, not taking action until it is too late. Incrementalism works in many different places. For example if you're seeking information, ask for a little at a time. It can be effective if you ask different people, as this allows you to gather a lot of knowledge without appearing to be particularly acquisitive. You can also get a lot done by asking for small favors. Paradoxically, this can lead people to feel they should do more for you..

173

63. Ingratiation Ingratiation is a simple method of influence that seeks to get others to like you and hence comply with your requests. Jones (1964) defined three methods of ingratiation: other-enhancement (flattery), opinion-conformity (agreement) and self-presentation. Flattery Tell the other person how wonderful they are. Express admiration of their achievements and for the person. Exaggerate their positive attributes and excuse, downplay or ignore their negatives. Show that you like them, respect them and trust them. If they have written or done things of which they are proud, indicate how you have taken time to read their works or study their actions as these are so excellent as to be worthy of anyone's time and attention. Tell them that others appreciate them also, particularly those they respect.

Agreement When they express an opinion, agree with them, wholeheartedly. Show you have similar beliefs and values. Be impressed with their arguments and do not challenge their assertions. Smile and nod when they are talking (except when they are talking negatively, when it is better to show concern). Show your agreement subtly by re-using their words, matching their body language and otherwise indicate that you are in rapport with them. Lean towards them. When they frown, you frown. When they are animated, show visible enthusiasm. You need not agree with everything, but it can be a good idea to be relatively gentle in your opposition an allow yourself to be persuaded on points that are important to them and disagree on things that not so important to them. Self-presentation Present yourself in a way that the other person will like. If they like smartly-dressed people, dress up. If they prefer jeans and Tshirt, dress down. Speak well. Be knowledgeable but not arrogant. Speak clearly and concisely rather than rambling on at length and hogging the talk time. Be interesting and interested. Listen well and show you understand. Help You can also ingratiate yourself with others by actively helping them, looking after their interests and generally providing support. Look both at their current goals and as well as their wider motivation. Do things that will likely get their thanks.

174

Why it works Although ingratiation is often expressly viewed with distaste, in practice it is very common. The key to successful ingratiation is that the person does not realize that you are doing this. This usually means being subtle rather than exaggerated. Flattery and agreement when people have a high opinion of themselves as it is in alignment with their own views. When they have less self-esteem, flattery acts as a boost and, even if the person does not agree with the comments, they will likely appreciate the kindness. Flattery and agreement work because to reject the flatterer is to reject the positive comments about oneself. Importantly for persuasion, there is also an exchange dynamic created whereby they feel obliged to repay the kindness. A way to make the ingratiation more effective and credible is to start with a criticism and end with flattery. If the criticism is of an already known and accepted failure or weakness then this will not be taken badly. The contrast then between the criticism and flattery makes it all the more powerful. It also means you do not need to exaggerate the flattery as much to still have a strong effect. Rather than stroking the other person, self-presentation works simply on ensuring you look good and are likeable. If they like you, then they are more likely to do as you ask. Appelbaum and Hughes (1998) note how ingratiation is used in organizations for internal political ends, including 'strategic ingratiation' that leads to promotion or pay rise. This includes: •Befriending and helping important people. •Managing the impression others gain of you. •Managing the sharing of information for best effect. •Getting others promoted so you can fill their shoes. •Doing favors and then requesting significant returns. Organizational politics tend to increase when managers are more powerful and autocratic, when favoritism is common and when individuals are forced to compete with one another for management approval. Ambiguity and uncertainty increases this also as individuals hedge against unexpected criticism. Ingratiation is not always appreciated and may be seen as a low-status, low-self-esteem activity. A way to make ingratiation fail is to over-do it or use it in cultures where any form of ingratiation is viewed with distaste or where authenticity is highly valued. Helping too much is a typical issue, where the ingratiating person upsets the balance of social capital and the target person becomes annoyed by the implied obligation that is put on them. This may explain why trying to help someone only results in anger and unkindness in return. In some situations where one person assumes a subservience, such as waiting table, ingratiation may be the norm and is expected. Waiters who ingratiate are often likely to receive a higher tip.

175

64. Luncheon Technique Persuade people over a meal. When they are eating (not before or after), present your ideas and make your persuasive statements. Make sure the place where you are eating is pleasant and comfortable, and that the food is of good quality. It is key that the other person is comfortable and feeling satisfied. Example A sales person takes a customer to a nice restaurant. During the meal, they ask more probing questions about needs and then sows some seeds about future problems. At a later meal, the sales person finds the person more open and starts to talk about a possible solution. Why it works Gregory Razran described this principle in 1938, when he presented political statements to subjects, first in a normal setting and then in other contexts. Statements rated during eating a meal increase significantly in approval. One reason this may work is by an extended effect of the urge system, where hunger creates an urge to eat, and whilst we are eating we may more easily take in ideas as well as food. If there is alcohol at the meal then this may also impair normal judgement, though this is not a necessary addition -- the major reason the Luncheon Technique works is food and eating, not drunkenness. Having lunch with a person takes a certain amount of time, typically around an hour, which is often more than you might get in a sales meeting. You also have a captive audience who is not distracted by other intrusions. There may also be some bonding effect here, where they like you, and consequent exchange effect, where they feel obliged to listen more openly to your persuasive arguments.

176

65. Persuade by Pride, Not Shame When you want to persuade someone to do something (or resist doing something), then it is better focus on the pride they will feel when they comply with your request rather than the shame they may feel if they do not comply. Talk up how good they will feel. Show them that they can be rightfully proud of doing the best thing. Let them know that others will agree and that this is also something to be proud of. Example A mother encourages her son to do his homework by saying how proud he will be to have done it early. In an experiment by Dan Ariely, subjects who anticipated pride in resisting cake ate far less than those who thought about the shame of succumbing. The pride group also ate less than the control group who received no admonitions. Why it works Positive persuasion generally works better than negative methods. Negative methods can have unpredictable results, for example causing a fight-orflight reaction, or otherwise resulting in some form of coping, such as reactance. Positive methods, on the other hand, create trust and bonding. Suggesting that a person be proud also may work simply because you are showing you respect them, resulting in them wanting to reciprocate in some way. Perhaps more so, the thought of feeling proud just seems better and more attractive than feeling bad and ashamed. This does not mean that pride works better than shame in all situations. There are always exceptions and each case should be understood on its merits. However, the point remains that, whilst we mostly use shame, pride is notably more effective in most situations. Something else to consider when balancing shame and pride is that shame is based on avoidance and pride is based on attraction. We each have a preference for attraction or avoidance, so shame may be more effective for a person with a stronger avoidance driver. Also remember that this is only one factor and even a strong avoider may still be more persuaded by an appeal to pride than to shame.

177

66. Pique Technique

Rather than make a standard request for something, make an unusual request that leads people to wonder why you are making that particular request (and hence pay attention to you). If they ask you why you are asking for something novel, then you can engage them in other methods of persuasion. Example Santos, Leve and Pratkanis (1994) got a 'panhandler' beggar to ask passersby for money. In the control conditions, when they asked "Can you spare any change?" 44 percent of passersby complied. When they asked "Can you spare a quarter?" the compliance rate increased to 64 percent. When they asked "Can you spare 17 cents?" or "Can you spare 37 cents?" about 75 percent of people made a contribution. Ask to meet people at seven minutes past the hour, rather than on the hour. Why it works Making a novel request creates surprise, breaking the person out of their schema and forces them pay attention, thinking further about your request in a central processing fashion. The novelty in the request piques their interest (hence the name of the technique). Effect. Note that you do not always want people to think too hard about what they are being asked for. In such cases, the reverse process should be used, asking for a common thing and not something that will pique interest. One reason why Santos et all's panhandler experiment worked was that when walking past a beggar, people try to be 'unthinking', not noticing them, as they remind people of unpleasant possibilities that 'could happen to anyone'. The Pique Technique forces them to think and hence act.

178

67. Pre-thanking If you want to persuade somebody to do something, first ask them to do it and then, before they have time to respond, thank them for doing it. Example Hi, can you close the door? Thanks -- that's very kind of you. Could you lend me fifty? Thanks, I know it's awkward but I know you're a great friend and I'll pay you back tomorrow. Why it works A thanks is an act of closure, sending a signal for the completion of an agreement. An effusive thanks (but not over-done) can help cement the closure. This makes it difficult for the other person to 're-open' the case and contradict this. Do be careful when doing this -- if you ask for more than the relationship will bear then the relationship will suffer as a result, even if the person complies with the request. It can be useful sometimes to include an apology for having to ask. This increases the obligation to comply as you have now addressed any irritated thoughts by the other person and maybe made them feel a bit guilty for thinking them (as it seems clear you have 'found them out' for having such uncharitable thoughts). A variant on this is to put the thanks before the request. This is not as effective and can be quite irritating. “Thank you for not putting your feet on the table.” By putting the thanks beforehand, the other person is initially confused and is more likely to feel deceived by the subsequent request. Having said this, this form of the pattern is common in some cultures where it is accepted as normal.

179

68. Reframing Description A frame, or frame of reference is a complex schema of unquestioned beliefs, values and so on that we use when inferring meaning. If any part of that frame is changed (hence 'reframing'), then the meaning that is inferred may change. To reframe, step back from what is being said and done and consider the frame, or 'lens' through which this reality is being created. Understand the unspoken assumptions, including beliefs and schema that are being used. Then consider alternative lenses, effectively saying 'Let's look at it another way.' Challenge the beliefs or other aspects of the frame. Stand in another frame and describe what you see. Change attributes of the frame to reverse meaning. Select and ignore aspects of words, actions and frame to emphasize and downplay various elements. Thus, for example, you can reframe: •A problem as an opportunity •A weakness as a strength •An impossibility as a distant possibility •A distant possibility as a near possibility •Oppression ('against me') as neutral ('doesn't care about me') •Unkindness as lack of understanding •etc. You can often change a person's frame simply by changing their emotional state, making them happier, more aggressive, etc. When they are happier, for example, they will be more positive and optimistic (and vice versa). Example You say it can't be done in time. But what if we staged delivery or got in extra help? I'm sure we can produce an acceptable product in the timeframe. It does seem stupid, but it's also stupid not to look again and see what else can be done. It's not so much doing away with old ways as building a new and exciting future. We have shown we can argue well. Maybe this means we can also agree well. Why it works Watzlawick, Weakland and Fisch (1974) describe the 'gentle art of reframing' thus: To reframe, then, means to change the conceptual and/or emotional setting or viewpoint in relation to which a situation is experienced and to place it in another frame which fits the 'facts' of the same concrete situation equally well or even better, and thereby changing its entire meaning. We make meaning from the world around us by taking a limited number of facts and inferring or assuming other detail to be able to make sense of things.

180

Reframing leaves the facts alone but may well challenge the assumptions. With care, you can change the other person's reality without causing conflict. Within the inference filters we use, we classify things into groups and types which have defining attributes. Reframing may deliberately challenge these. Watzlawick, Weakland and Fisch describe this as: In it's most abstract terms, reframing means changing the emphasis from one class membership of an object to another, equally valid class membership, or, especially, introducing such as new class membership into the conceptualization of all concerned. Reframing may also challenge superficial desires, appeal to more fundamental needs and interests. For example a request for a pay rise may be reframed as an imperative to keep talented people. Reframing may even be done physically and symbolically, for example where a social leader goes for dinner with someone who has hereto been ignored, reframing the person as a friend. Hale (1998) describes how reframing can be used in dramatic games, for example where people play roles of victim and hero. Philips (1999) describes three ways reframing happens in active listening: •Reflecting some words and ignoring others. •Inviting or discouraging collaborative meaning-making on selected topics. •Reformulating what people say (i.e. common usage of reframing). Bizer and Petty (2005) found that people who framed their political view as in opposition to a political candidate were more resistant to persuasion than those who were positively supportive of a candidate. The term 'frame' also appears in the common usage of a 'frame of mind', typically used to describe a cognitive position or mood. Whilst our current emotional state is not the whole of a perceptual frame, it is an important element of it and changing emotions will change the frame and hence created meaning. Beyond personal perception, all ideologies from political systems to religions are frames for creating meaning. Cultures, likewise, embody methods of interpreting and shared ways of making sense of the world, as are the models by which we perceive ourselves and others. When we share frames with others, we share meaning. When we have different frames we can easily fall into conflict if we consider the frames of others to be non-legitimate. Reframing is a particularly useful method when two or more people are stuck in opposing and seemingly-intractable positions. Reframing here effectively changes the ground from under their feet. It is thus a common method in conflict resolution. A typical approach is to: •First get each parties to understand their own frame, and that it is a frame. •Then each must appreciate that other people have different frames that are, for them, valid. •Then each accepts that no one person has the 'right' frame •And hence accept that the other person's frame is valid. •Then to equitably explore similarities and differences.

181

69. Reverse Psychology Get somebody do something you want by suggesting that they do the opposite. This works better when the other person is worked up and making emotional decisions rather than thinking things through. A common form of reverse psychology is to forbid an action. When you say 'do not X' you are also implanting the suggestion to do X. If they say they will do something, you can express doubt that they will do this. They then have to assert they will do it (and then actually do it) to prove you wrong. If the other person is likely to believe you will use reverse psychology, you can go for a reverse-reverse effect by suggesting what you want them to do, but perhaps in an oblique and non-obvious way. Example A father suggests that his rather stingy teenage son cannot afford to buy his sister a birthday present. The boy reacts by buying her a really nice present. A student who is fed up with a friend who never helps says 'OK. Don't help. See if I care'. The friend reacts by helping. A shy guy is provoked into asking a girl out when a friend suggests he is just not interested in girls. Why it works Reactance theory says that people who feel their sense of control is being taken away from them will grab it back by not doing what they are asked. This can even be actions that are clearly against their best interests, for example as may occur in reaction formation. Reverse psychology is more likely to be successful with people who have a high need for control. Rebellious teenagers who naturally do the opposite of what their parents say are classic targets, as are Type A people and those with narcissistic or even psychopathic tendencies. Doing a reversal can also be used as a deliberate provocation to wake the other person up to their unreasonable stance. This requires them to think about what is said, which is quite different to the normal provocation of reactance which works best when they are in an emotional, unthinking state. Where the other person may suspect reverse psychology is being used (which is typical of savvy teenagers), then reversing the reverse may be useful or perhaps using some form of cloaking to confuse the actual method being used. It can help if it seems that you do not care what decision they actually make. There is a danger of reverse psychology backfiring, such as when the person realizes that you are trying to manipulate them and deliberately follows your suggestion as subtle revenge. Even if they believe you, they may also judge you as bad in some way for not making good decisions. Another danger is that there is often more than one alternative to what you are suggesting and the person chooses just something else rather than the 'opposite' that you intend. Rather than cause reactance, you can give indication that you are not forcing their decision, but still implant the suggestion in a self-reversing denial, for example by saying 'I'm not saying you should X'. The person now has to consider X but as they are not being asked to do it, they may now take it on board.

182

70. Social Engineering Social Engineering is a term used by computer hackers who seek to get confidential information from company employees by which they can have their way with company computer systems. The methods they use are simple and effective as illustrated here. The core principle is to play on the trust that people naturally give to one another. The massive cost is the erosion of trust and, in consequence, society. Hackers are not the only people to use these methods and head-hunters, sales people and more may act as 'social engineers' to extract the information they need from unwitting employees whose first goal is to get their job done with the minimum hassle.

Principles Bold impersonation The basic method the social engineer uses is to phone up a company employee and ask them for the information wanted. Of course employees do not just dish out company secrets--but do they? If they believe they are talking to another employee then many will happily help a colleague. Impersonation is thus one of the fundamentals of social engineering. Learn the lingo The first trick, before asking for the detail wanted, is to sound like an employee, using company jargon and dropping names of other employees. This may be found in websites, magazines and across conversations, including eavesdropping on the chat of others in nearby bars and restaurants.

183

Fragmentation Information is typically picked up one small piece at a time across multiple conversations and one of the a skills of the social engineer is patient piecing together of all the fragments found into a coherent picture. This method also helps avoid detection as each person giving you information sees what they say as harmless -- it is only in combination that they become powerful.

Techniques Impersonation One way to get information is to impersonate a manager, whose authority is less likely to be challenged. Particularly if the name of a real manager is known, along with details the manager would know, then many employees would think twice about refusing the request. At the other end of the scale to managers are the deep techies and support people. These folks have credibility on two counts. First, they might reasonably want to know the detail the social engineer seeks. They also have the authority of an expert and can be framed as 'doing important work' or 'helping angry customer'. In a similar way HR and Finance experts can be impersonated to acquire personal and financial information. Embedding The social engineer seldom asks the key question up front but will embed it in the middle of the conversation. Even after getting the information they need they will ask more questions so the last thing remembered by the other person is a harmless distraction. Grooming The social engineer may build trust with a particular employee, questioning them about various irrelevant information over a number of calls before asking for the target information. The prior grooming builds a relationship and establishes strong credibility such that a request that would normally be refused is agreed 'just this once' for the friend.

184

Emergency When we are faced with a crisis we typically look around for help. The social engineer might thus create or fake an emergency or some other pretext, from customer issues to computer crashes. They can then step in as the rescuing hero, although to save the day they do want you to give them that little bit of extra help - that password or downloading a special patch - that enables the rescue and gives them what they want. And... Other techniques include: •Recording your 'hold' music and using it back on you (creating familiarity). •Tell you your personal credit rating is at risk or otherwise create individual fear. •Phone spoofing: so the call number you see is not the real source number used •Dumpster diving: going through your trash for information. •Phishing: Sending fake emails that request details and links to 'lookalike' trick sites. •Shoulder surfing: Watching you enter key details. •Remote imaging: Using high-resolution cameras from a distance to capture key information. •Auditing: Acting like an auditor - in person too. •Dig elsewhere: on Facebook, in the bar around the corner, on your website, etc. Covering tracks A critical task for the social engineer is to avoid detection. Before the event this could mean information is refused. Afterwards it could lead to prison. Thus they seldom appear in person, preferring the more anonymous phone or email. Pay-as-you-go phones are bought (for cash) and destroyed afterwards. Even voice-tone shifters may be used if there is risk of recording. Done well, however, nobody ever knows that the social engineer was ever there. To the people they spoke to, they were just another caller in a non-stop stream, although perhaps just a bit nicer than the run-of-the-mill grumpy voice. Defending against it Social engineers know many more tricks than those discussed here. They get around robust firewalls and other security by exploiting the weakness of human nature. If you want to defend against what can be highly damaging and criminal activities, then the first line of is a good education about social engineering and the methods used. It can also help to perform a serious analysis of processes and procedures around security management, checking methods by which secure information is supplied and how often it is assessed and revised. This should be coupled with assessment and trial attacks to prove that the education has worked. If the attacks succeed, do not blame the people -- it simply means your education was not good enough, so redouble your efforts to make your people proof to these pernicious problems.

185

71. Truth by Association To produce a convincing argument that something is true, first associate it with something else that is already accepted as true. If necessary, spend time developing the unassailable truth of the first truth before associating the second item with it. Example We all know that Shakespeare wrote great plays. Wilkins was a a good friend of Shakespeare and wrote several plays which of course are of high quality. You already have a Ford which you've said has been very reliable, which of course you need. So let's look at some other Fords.

Why it works The basic equations that prove truth by association are as follows: A = true; B is associated with A; Therefore B = true. Our brains are associative and easily connect things together. In particular, we assume that if two things are similar in some way, they are likely to be similar in others ways, including abstractions such as reliability and truth. This principle is used in branding where the attributes of one item are assumed to also be found in another item. In this way we conclude all Volvo cars are strong, Porche's are fast, Toyotas are reliable and so on.

186

72. Using evidence Evidence in persuasion is a powerful tool and, as all lawyers know, needs to be used with care to achieve the maximum effect. Increasing effectiveness Evidence given can be more effective under particular conditions, including when: •The audience is engaged and involved. •The evidence is given in a form that is easy to understand. •The persuader is unknown or has lower credibility. •The evidence is delivered with conviction. •The evidence has not been heard before. •The evidence confirms their own perceptions. •The listener is highly dogmatic (and by definition is persuaded by facts). Engagement By far the most effective of these is engagement of the audience. If they are intellectually involved in thinking about the situation and, for even greater effect, if they experience the evidence for themselves, then they will be significantly more likely to be persuaded and also more likely to permanently change their viewpoint. Narrative A common and effective way of making evidence easy to understand is to put in into a story form, whereby the listener can more easily engage with the flow and sequence of events and identify with major characters. In telling the overall story, a structure is given into which appropriate evidence is given at appropriate times. Stories thus help the listener to contextualize the evidence, using the situation to give it sense and reason. No effect Research has also shown some surprising results in the lack of effect, and things that have been shown to have little effect on how persuasive is evidence is for the listener: •The amount of emotion in the evidence. •Biased evidence. •Evidence given against oneself ('reluctant evidence'). •Whether the evidence is given live, on tape, etc. Other things... Other things to remember about using evidence include: •Some evidence is better than no evidence. •Weak evidence may be used to undermine stronger evidence (so think hard about what evidence not to use). •Evidence can be more effective in creating permanent change in people.

187

73. Using Images to Persuade Pictures and images are often used in advertising and other persuasive situations. Beyond just showing the product, they can have other specific persuasive messages. Showing the product The most basic promotion is simply to show the product, making it clear what you are promoting. If your customer is not sure what you are selling, this will make it clear. The secret of success with product images is the same as with any image: emotional appeal. If your product is desirable, then simply showing an appealing picture of it may suffice. Food and high-tech companies both use this principle. The risk in simple product shots is that customers are not excited and quickly move on, or think 'so what'. It does not matter if your products excite you, which they probably do. It is the majority of viewing customers who really count. Brand-alignment An important part of using images in advertising and company literature is ensuring the picture matches the brand of the product and the organization. Hence, for example, if the brand value of a detergent is 'soft' then softened photography of people with soft clothing may help. A brand value of 'innovative' may be highlighted with unusual and surprising images. A brand value of 'leading edge' may be reflected in views of high technology contexts, young people being dynamic, active marketplaces and so on. Illustrating action People don't always understand what you are selling, what it is really for or how to use it to best effect. Pictures can show this, saying 'here's how to do it' or 'look, it's easy.' Even if it is obvious, when you show the product being used, you make it easier for people to imagine themselves using it in the same way as they are interpellated into the position of the person in the picture. Telling a story Stories help us create meaning in the way they narrate a sequential reality that aligns with the linear nature of conscious thought. In the manner that we make stories of our lives as we live each moment and day, we can likewise make sense of stories that unfold in the same way. Stories can remind us of things that have already happened to us or that we would like to happen. They can awaken inner fears and desires in a style that flat description cannot approach. Images can tell stories, even when they are static photographs or drawings. In fact many of the best pictures are great because of the stories they tell. A person looking out of a window with a dreamy expression tells a story of wishes or fond memories. A group of friends laughing over a beer reminds us of our own friends and how good they make us feel as we relax with them.

188

Beautiful people Few adverts use pictures of ordinary people in ordinary clothing. We are constantly faced with 'shiny, happy people' who beautifully smile at us and always look great, whatever they are selling. A reason for this is that when we see images of people, we may be pulled into the image or project ourselves into it or see it as a kind of mirror as we identify with the people there. We can only sustain this if we find that identification pleasant and harmonious, otherwise we push it away, distancing ourselves from the unpleasantness. In this way, the most successful images are those of people who we think we would like or who we would like to be. This only backfires if we feel that we are being manipulated or have such a poor self-image we cannot identify with the models used. This is one reason why adverts that use 'ordinary' people can effect a reversal that harmonizes with cynics, snagging them as they push away from more conventional images. Knowing your audience is the secret of success and not-beautiful people can work if this knowledge is used correctly. There has been much criticism of the use of beauty in advertising in the way that it creates dissatisfaction and unhappiness where people believe they must be as attractive as the people shown (Richins 1991). In response to this, more 'ordinary' people are seen now. This can be successful when viewers find it easier to associate with those who seem more like them than like their aspirations. Facial attraction No matter whether the person in the photo is beautiful or not, we are programmed to look at faces, scanning them for familiarity, threat or opportunity. Faces hence have an attentive power all of their own. It is amazing what we can determine from a face, recognizing complex emotions and noticing how it responds to what we say and do.

189

The mathematics of attractive faces, defined by various ratios and dimensions, is quite precise. A 'wide-eyed' face, for example, can cause pleasure or repulsion, with only fractions separating the two. The faces of babies and children are designed by nature to be attractive to adults, softening hearts and melting any aggression. Pictures that are mostly face make us think about the person and their character. We hence easily relate to them. When more of the body is shown, the face becomes smaller and we look more at what they are wearing or doing, as well as the other things around them. The power of eyes Melanie Bateson and colleagues famously found in 2006 that putting a picture of a pair of eyes above a coffee pot in a university staff room significantly increased the takings in the honesty box. They tried different eyes and found that the most effective eyes were direct and staring. Dan Ariely has noted that most of us cheat, just a bit, although we still like to think of ourselves as honest (and most certainly want others to think this). So when we believe we are being watched, we are more honest. The Bateson experiment highlights how this is so deeply ingrained we are even persuaded by a pair of eyes. Historical people knew this too, and the 'evil eye' and protective eye symbols have been used for many, many years. Even the James Bond '007' moniker originated with the '00' as a pair of eyes, with the magical number 7 to protect them. We also follow the gaze of people in pictures, wondering what they are looking at. Hence if a number of people are shown, looking at your product, then viewers will also end up staring at the product too. Nice scenery Another image that people often respond well to is the great outdoors. Pictures of trees, mountains, lakes and meadows make us feel good, which is why so many adverts use such images as backdrops, even when the product has nothing to do with it. Nature can also be abstractly included with potted plants in inside scenes or even general green hues across a picture. The warm glow of the sun or sunsets can alternatively be portrayed with red or orange hues.

190

74. Using Policy to Persuade What is policy? Policy is a set of over-arching rules that are intended to guide and direct what people do. To be understood and remembered, they are often (or should be) brief and clearly stated. Policy can often be quite specific, for example a retail policy that limits returns to 30 days. On a company website it may may be found under other names such as 'Customer charter', 'Our Values' and so on. Selling When selling, you can use policy as a limit beyond which you cannot go. This allows you to say 'no' in a final way that brooks no argument. Rather than saying 'I don't want to do that' you can say 'It's against policy'. You can also offer to break policy to help customers, for example saying 'It's against policy, but I'm going to do this for you.' This creates delight in customers who realize you are 'going above and beyond' to help them. It also causes obligation for them to do something in return (like buy more). Buying When you are going to buy something, it can be helpful to look first at the company's policies that affect you. These include policies around customer satisfaction, such as 'We aim to delight all our customers' to price promises and guarantees of product quality ('We sell only the best'). Also read carefully harder policies such as those about returning goods and general service. Now when you are buying, bring up those policies. If you are not happy, ask about their policy about customer satisfaction. If you have found the product cheaper elsewhere (including on the web) bring up their price promise. 'I am not happy with this' can be a surprisingly powerful phrase that sends customer agents scurrying to make you happy, as their policy demands. You can even talk policy if you do not know if they have one, by using common sense comments, such as 'Is it your policy to advertise goods that are not in stock?' This question of 'is it your policy to...' can be used in a host of settings. You can also ask about policy in the positive sense, such as 'Is it your policy to try to satisfy customers?' of course they reply 'yes' and then you can say what it will take to satisfy you. Service interactions Invoking policy when taking to people on the phone can be especially powerful, particularly when they seem not to care too much about helping you (in fact they may invoke policies about things they are not allowed to do). You can use much of the approach for buying in the service context and the 'Is it your policy...' phrasing can be very successful. Bringing up policy can seem quite threatening, so it can be better to use this method if they do not offer the help that you need after initial repeating requests.

191

75. Information Manipulation In order to persuade or deceive, a person deliberately breaks one of the four conversational maxims: •Quantity: Information given will be full (as per expected by the listener) and without omission. •Quality: information given will be truthful and correct. •Relation: information will be relevant to the subject matter of the conversation in hand. •Manner: things will be presented in a way that enables others to understand and with aligned nonverbal language.

It is used to persuade by omitting information, telling untruths, going off the subject and confusing the other person. Use excuses. Be economical with the truth. Example A student is late handing in an essay. They approach the lecture trembling and weeping, saying how they have just been dumped by their long-term partner and forgot to hand in the essay (they had done it in time, honestly!). Defending against it Question what you are told, especially when you find yourself changing your mind as a result. Probe for detail. Seek corroborating evidence. Watch the body language.

192

76. Leveling as a Manipulation Tactic: Equating One’s Character with Someone Else’s One of the more subtle but nonetheless highly effective responsibility-avoidance and manipulation tactics is “leveling.” Leveling refers to the manipulator’s attempt to put himself on equal standing with others of different character. It generally takes two forms: setting oneself up as a person of equal stature to a person in authority; and trying to equate one’s own character, personal value, integrity, etc. with someone else’s, especially one of more mature or superior character. Leveling is a slick way to try and “level the playing field” or field of interpersonal contest. Once, I witnessed a woman confronting her husband about his frequent displays of verbal abuse. She stated: “I’d like you to simply ask me for what you need instead of launching into me, cursing, and berating me. When I want something from you, I ask for it.” His retort, in a very provocative tone: “Are you saying you’re better than me?” The implied message he was sending was that the two of them were of equal character standing — just two human beings of equal worth. He was also implying that the wife was being demanding or “uppity” by challenging him to do things differently (and insinuating that her way was better than his way). Now classical psychology would have us thinking that the woman’s confrontation represented a “threat” to her husband’s “ego” and that his response was “defensive.” Further, the popular wisdom would reinforce the notion that both of these individuals are human beings of equal value, although the behavior patterns of each may not be equally laudable. The woman in the above example may or may not have been familiar with the tenets of classical psychology or the many commonly accepted beliefs that flow from it, but she was definitely vulnerable to the tactic. Instead of thinking to herself, “This is just another way he’s trying to take the wind out of my sails and put me in my place,” she thought, “Maybe I am putting him down and of course I don’t mean to imply that I’m better he is, so I’ll back off.” So, in the end, she did just as he wanted and the tactic worked. The tactic of leveling surfaces as an insidious and subtle challenge to the therapist’s authority whenever manipulators enter counseling. Dr George Simon tells: Whenever I introduce myself as “Dr. Simon” (an advanced-degree trained professional) to a manipulator, it’s almost inevitable that he or she will say something like: “May I call you George?” It may seem like a petty issue to be concerned with, but such statements almost always represent the first subtle step down the slippery slope of resisting the guidance and direction that are so essential when providing services to the manipulator. Remember, what manipulators need in the therapy experience is not at all the same as what therapists most often provide to average “neurotics.” (See “Neurosis vs. Character Disorder: Contrasting Needs in Therapy”.) I always politely say that I prefer “Dr. Simon” and then observe carefully their response to my endorsement of the authority position for indications that they have any modicum of motivation to accept therapeutic guidance. By the way, many of my long-term “neurotic” patients call me George (and I’m very okay with that) even though their own high levels of conscientiousness and respect for authority prompted them to address me as “Doctor” at first. There’s a lot more I could say about the tactic of leveling. As I mentioned earlier, it’s often done with such subtlety that it’s hard to detect, but it’s almost always effective. It’s also a behavior that intensely interferes with the process of developing any respect for authority or for the value of certain principles or standards. Not everything is equal. Some values, beliefs, principles, and standards of conduct are superior to others. Respect for that makes civilization possible. Contempt and disregard for that through the use of “leveling” techniques allows the manipulator to set his own rules and wreak havoc in the lives of others.

193

77. Appeal to Authority Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:  Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.  Person A makes claim C about subject S.  Therefore, C is true. This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious. This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true. When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one. Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted: The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question. Claims made by a person who lacks the needed degree of expertise to make a reliable claim will, obviously, not be well supported. In contrast, claims made by a person with the needed degree of expertise will be supported by the person's reliability in the area. Determining whether or not a person has the needed degree of expertise can often be very difficult. In academic fields (such as philosophy, engineering, history, etc.), the person's formal education, academic performance, publications, membership in professional societies, papers presented, awards won and so forth can all be reliable indicators of expertise. Outside of academic fields, other standards will apply. For example, having sufficient expertise to make a reliable claim about how to tie a shoe lace only requires the ability to tie the shoe lace and impart that information to others. It should be noted that being an expert does not always require having a university degree. Many people have high

194

degrees of expertise in sophisticated subjects without having ever attended a university. Further, it should not be simply assumed that a person with a degree is an expert. Of course, what is required to be an expert is often a matter of great debate. For example, some people have (and do) claim expertise in certain (even all) areas because of a divine inspiration or a special gift. The followers of such people accept such credentials as establishing the person's expertise while others often see these self-proclaimed experts as deluded or even as charlatans. In other situations, people debate over what sort of education and experience is needed to be an expert. Thus, what one person may take to be a fallacious appeal another person might take to be a well supported line of reasoning. Fortunately, many cases do not involve such debate. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise. If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the person is not an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise and is not reliable. It is very important to remember that because of the vast scope of human knowledge and skill it is simply not possible for one person to be an expert on everything. Hence, experts will only be true experts in respect to certain subject areas. In most other areas they will have little or no expertise. Thus, it is important to determine what subject area a claim falls under. It is also very important to note that expertise in one area does not automatically confer expertise in another. For example, being an expert physicist does not automatically make a person an expert on morality or politics. Unfortunately, this is often overlooked or intentionally ignored. In fact, a great deal of advertising rests on a violation of this condition. As anyone who watches television knows, it is extremely common to get famous actors and sports heroes to endorse products that they are not qualified to assess. For example, a person may be a great actor, but that does not automatically make him an expert on cars or shaving or underwear or diets or politics. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question. If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority. There are many fields in which there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute. Economics is a good example of such a disputed field. Anyone who is familiar with economics knows that there are many plausible theories that are incompatible with one another. Because of this, one expert economist could sincerely claim that the deficit is the key factor while another equally qualified individual could assert the exact opposite. Another area where dispute is very common (and well known) is in the area of psychology and psychiatry. As has been demonstrated in various trials, it is possible to find one expert that will assert that an individual is insane and not competent to stand trial and to find another equally qualified expert who will testify, under oath, that the same individual is both sane and competent to stand trial. Obviously, one cannot rely on an Appeal to Authority in such a situation without making a fallacious argument. Such an argument would be fallacious since the evidence would not warrant accepting the conclusion. It is important to keep in mind that no field has complete agreement, so some degree of dispute is acceptable. How much is acceptable is, of course, a matter of serious debate. It is also important to

195

keep in mind that even a field with a great deal of internal dispute might contain areas of significant agreement. In such cases, an Appeal to Authority could be legitimate. The person in question is not significantly biased. If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his are of bias will be less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be fallacious. This is because the evidence will not justify accepting the claim. Experts, being people, are vulnerable to biases and predjudices. If there is evidence that a person is biased in some manner that would affect the reliability of her claims, then an Argument from Authority based on that person is likely to be fallacious. Even if the claim is actually true, the fact that the expert is biased weakens the argument. This is because there would be reason to believe that the expert might not be making the claim because he has carefully considered it using his expertise. Rather, there would be reason to believe that the claim is being made because of the expert's bias or prejudice. It is important to remember that no person is completely objective. At the very least, a person will be favorable towards her own views (otherwise she would probably not hold them). Because of this, some degree of bias must be accepted, provided that the bias is not significant. What counts as a significant degree of bias is open to dispute and can vary a great deal from case to case. For example, many people would probably suspect that doctors who were paid by tobacco companies to research the effects of smoking would be biased while other people might believe (or claim) that they would be able to remain objective. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline. Certain areas in which a person may claim expertise may have no legitimacy or validity as areas of knowledge or study. Obviously, claims made in such areas will not be very reliable. What counts as a legitimate area of expertise is sometimes difficult to determine. However, there are cases which are fairly clear cut. For example, if a person claimed to be an expert at something he called "chromabullet therapy" and asserted that firing painted rifle bullets at a person would cure cancer it would not be very reasonable to accept his claim based on his "expertise." After all, his expertise is in an area which is devoid of legitimate content. The general idea is that to be a legitimate expert a person must have mastery over a real field or area of knowledge. As noted above, determining the legitimacy of a field can often be difficult. In European history, various scientists had to struggle with the Church and established traditions to establish the validity of their discliplines. For example, experts on evolution faced an uphill battle in getting the legitimacy of their area accepted. A modern example involves psychic phenomenon. Some people claim that they are certified "master psychics" and that they are actually experts in the field. Other people contend that their claims of being certified "master psychics" are simply absurd since there is no real content to such an area of expertise. If these people are right, then anyone who accepts the claims of these "master psychics" as true are victims of a fallacious appeal to authority.

196

The authority in question must be identified. A common variation of the typical Appeal to Authority fallacy is an Appeal to an Unnamed Authority. This fallacy is also known as an Appeal to an Unidentified Authority. This fallacy is committed when a person asserts that a claim is true because an expert or authority makes the claim and the person does not actually identify the expert. Since the expert is not named or identified, there is no way to tell if the person is actually an expert. Unless the person is identified and has his expertise established, there is no reason to accept the claim. This sort of reasoning is not unusual. Typically, the person making the argument will say things like "I have a book that says...", or "they say...", or "the experts say...", or "scientists believe that...", or "I read in the paper.." or "I saw on TV..." or some similar statement. in such cases the person is often hoping that the listener(s) will simply accept the unidentified source as a legitimate authority and believe the claim being made. If a person accepts the claim simply because they accept the unidentified source as an expert (without good reason to do so), he has fallen prey to this fallacy. As suggested above, not all Appeals to Authority are fallacious. This is fortunate since people have to rely on experts. This is because no one person can be an expert on everything and people do not have the time or ability to investigate every single claim themselves. In many cases, Arguments from Authority will be good arguments. For example, when a person goes to a skilled doctor and the doctor tells him that he has a cold, then the the patient has good reason to accept the doctor's conclusion. As another example, if a person's computer is acting odd and his friend, who is a computer expert, tells him it is probably his hard drive then he has good reason to believe her. What distinguishes a fallacious Appeal to Authority from a good Appeal to Authority is that the argument meets the six conditions discussed above. In a good Appeal to Authority, there is reason to believe the claim because the expert says the claim is true. This is because a person who is a legitimate expert is more likely to be right than wrong when making considered claims within her area of expertise. In a sense, the claim is being accepted because it is reasonable to believe that the expert has tested the claim and found it to be reliable. So, if the expert has found it to be reliable, then it is reasonable to accept it as being true. Thus, the listener is accepting a claim based on the testimony of the expert. It should be noted that even a good Appeal to Authority is not an exceptionally strong argument. After all, in such cases a claim is being accepted as true simply because a person is asserting that it is true. The person may be an expert, but her expertise does not really bear on the truth of the claim. This is because the expertise of a person does not actually determine whether the claim is true or false. Hence, arguments that deal directly with evidence relating to the claim itself will tend to be stronger.

197

Examples of Appeal to Authority Dave and Kintaro are arguing about Stalin's reign in the Soviet Union. Dave has been arguing that Stalin was a great leader while Kintaro disagrees with him.  Kintaro: "I don't see how you can consider Stalin to be a great leader. He killed millions of his own people, he crippled the Soviet economy, kept most of the people in fear and laid the foundations for the violence that is occuring in much of Eastern Europe."  Dave: "Yeah, well you say that. However, I have a book at home that says that Stalin was acting in the best interest of the people. The millions that were killed were vicious enemies of the state and they had to be killed to protect the rest of the peaceful citizens. This book lays it all out, so it has to be true."  I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the hit series "Bimbos and Studmuffins in the OR." You can take it from me that when you need a fast acting, effective and safe pain killer there is nothing better than MorphiDope 2000. That is my considered medical opinion. Siphwe and Sasha are having a conversation:     

Sasha: "I played the lottery today and I know I am going to win something." Siphwe: "What did you do, rig the outcome?" Sasha: "No, silly. I called my Super Psychic Buddy at the 1-900-MindPower number. After consulting his magic Californian Tarot deck, he told me my lucky numbers." Siphwe: "And you believed him?" Sasha: "Certainly, he is a certified Californian Master-Mind Psychic. That is why I believe what he has to say. I mean, like, who else would know what my lucky numbers are?"

Source: The Nizkor Project - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index

198

78. Use Double Talk Have you ever been confused, befuddled, or annoyed by the speech or method of communication of another person? Have you ever listened to someone talk and had no idea what they just said? Double talk, also known as double speak, is defined as, "deliberately ambiguous or evasive language." Other colorful words to describe it are: balderdash, baloney, hokum, bunkum, drivel, flimflam, rigmarole, and waffling. Hokum and bunkum are my favorites on that list. Sometimes the language is gibberish mixed in with normal speech. Both double talk and double speak may be used in different forms, but with the same intent, which is to deceive, mislead, and/or withhold information. Watch out for manipulative double talkers, people who try to dazzle you with big words and intellectual double-talk. They want to drag you off into endless arguments that never amount to anything." It is very unpleasant to be taken advantage of, and this is a vile form of it. Always mean what you say and avoid those who don't. If someone tries to manipulate you with double talk, just tell them they are full of hokum bunkum. Sometimes it is difficult to muddle through the muck and mire of what was said. This "technique," if you will, is often used by politicians. They go around the world, so to speak, to supposedly answer a question, and when they are finished, they are hoping that no one noticed that the question was never really answered. It is very frustrating, isn't it? It is also insulting to your intelligence and sense of reason. Wikipedia encyclopedia Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs, "servicing the target" for bombing, in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning (for example, naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth. Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language. The term doublespeak probably has its roots in George Orwell's book, Nineteen Eighty-Four. Although the term is not used in the book, it is a close relative of one of the book's central concepts, Doublethink. Another variant, doubletalk, also referring to deliberately ambiguous speech, did exist at the time Orwell wrote his book, but the usage of doublespeak as well as of doubletalk in the sense emphasizing ambiguity clearly postdates the publication of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Parallels have also been drawn between Doublespeak and Orwell's classic essay Politics and the English Language, which discusses the distortion of language for political purposes.

199

Edward S. Herman, political economist and media analyst, has highlighted some examples of doublespeak and doublethink in modern society. Herman describes in his book, Beyond Hypocrisy the principle characteristics of doublespeak; What is really important in the world of doublespeak is the ability to lie, whether knowingly or unconsciously, and to get away with it; and the ability to use lies and choose and shape facts selectively, blocking out those that don’t fit an agenda or program. In his essay "Politics and the English Language", George Orwell observes that political language serves to distort and obfuscate reality. Orwell’s description of political speech is extremely similar to the contemporary definition of doublespeak; In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible… Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness… the great enemy of clear language is insincerity. Where there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, ... Theoretical Approaches although the theories that premise doublespeak are still indefinite, there are some theories that have parallels with the theory of doublespeak and Orwell's ideology in Nineteen Eighty-Four and might possibly provide a better understanding of where doublespeak's theories could have come from. Conflict Theory Due to the inherently deceptive nature of doublespeak as well as its prominent use in politics, doublespeak has been linked to the sociological perspective known as conflict theory. Conflict theories detract from ideas of society being naturally in harmony, instead placing emphasis on political and material inequality as its structural features. Antonio Gramsci's concepts on cultural hegemony, in particular, suggest that the culture and values of the economic elite – the bourgeoisie – become indoctrinated as ‘common sense’ to the working-class, allowing for the maintenance of the status quo through misplaced belief. Being himself one of the leaders of the Communist Party of Italy, (CPI), his theories had, in turn, been strongly influenced by the German social thinker Karl Marx, and have their ideological roots grounded in Marxist theory of false consciousness and capitalist exploitation. While Gramsci's views argue that culture (beliefs, perceptions and values) allows the ruling class to maintain domination, Marx's explanation is along more economic lines, with concepts such as commodity fetishism demonstrating how the ideology of the bourgeoisie (in this case, the existence of property as a social creation rather than an 'eternal entity') dominate over that of the working classes. In both cases, both philosophers argue that one view - that of the bourgeoisie - dominates over others, hence the term conflict theory. On the other hand, Terrence P. Moran of the NCTE has compared the use of doublespeak in the mass media to laboratory experiments conducted on rats, where a batch of rats were deprived of food, before one half was fed sugar and water and the other half a saccharine solution. Both groups exhibited behavior indicating that their hunger was satisfied, but rats in the second group (which were fed saccharine solution) died from malnutrition. Moran highlights the structural nature of doublespeak, and notes that social institutions such as the mass media adopt an active, top-down approach in managing opinion. Therefore, Moran parallels doublespeak to producing an illusionary effect;

200

This experiment suggests certain analogies between the environments created for rats by the scientists and the environments created for us humans by language and the various mass media of communication. Like the saccharine environment, an environment created or infiltrated by doublespeak provides the appearance of nourishment and the promise of survival, but the appearance is illusionary and the promise false. Contemporary writings Doublespeak might also have some connections with contemporary theories as well. Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky note in their book that Orwellian Doublespeak is an important component of the manipulation of the English language in American media, through a process called ‘dichotomization’; a component of media propaganda involving ‘deeply embedded double standards in the reporting of news’. For example, the use of state funds by the poor and financially needy is commonly referred to as 'social welfare' or 'handouts', which the 'coddled' poor 'take advantage of'. These terms, however, do not apply to other beneficiaries of government spending such as tax incentives and military spending. E xamples of the structural nature of the use of Doublespeak have been made by modern scholars. Noam Chomsky argues in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media that people in modern society consist of decision-makers and social participants who have to be made to agree. According to Chomsky, the media and public relations industry actively shape public opinion, working to present messages in line with their economic agenda for the purposes of controlling of the 'public mind'. Contrary to the popular belief that indoctrination is inconsistent with democracy, Chomsky goes so far as to argue that 'it's the essence of democracy.' The point is that in a ... totalitarian state, it doesn't much matter what people think because ... you can control what they do. But when the state loses the bludgeon, when you can't control people by force and when the voice of the people can be heard, ... you have to control what people think. And the standard way to do this is to resort to what in more honest days used to be called propaganda. Manufacture of consent. Creation of necessary illusions. Edward Herman's book Beyond Hypocrisy also includes a doublespeak dictionary of commonly employed media terms and phrases into plain English. Henceforth, conflict theory demonstrates the dominating ideology of the bourgeoisie and Moran's theory highlights that doublespeak produces an illusionary effect; both theories having parallels to Orwell's ideology in Nineteen Eighty-Four. Similarly, Herman's theory of doublespeak having an inherent nature to be manipulative and Chomsky's theory of 'dichotomization' relates directly to the practice of doublespeak and how doublespeak is deliberately deceptive in nature.

201

79. Impression Management How long do you think others take to have an impression about you and judge you? 30 seconds? 15 seconds? 5 seconds? Well, forget whatever figure you may have heard because some of the new research says it could happen with the blink of an eye. One look is all it takes to make an opinion about you and 'label' you. Unfair - you say? Think about it, even we do it. It happens at a sub-conscious level but more often than not you make an impression about someone the moment you meet them. According to one study, where untrained subjects were shown 20- to 32-second videotaped segments of job applicants greeting interviewers, the subjects were asked to rate the applicants on attributes such as self-assurance and likability. Surprisingly, their assessments were very close to those of trained interviewers who spent at least 20 minutes with each applicant. Our brain the takes first-impression snapshots, creating a composite of all the signals given off by a new experience. These usually are a holistic phenomenon in which clues which could include, mellifluous voice, Rolex watch, soggy handshake, hunched shoulders, etc, are processed at once to form an impression larger than their sum. When you see a person with a Rolex watch, your brain automatically processes the information and tells you that this person is well to do. First impressions are very important to a person whether in there career or private lives. We do not get a second chance, thus, we should be aware about making a good impression the first time around. Using Impression management in your daily lives •Once you understand the impact of first impressions, it is time to get your act together and use this knowledge to your advantage. A better first impression will give you an edge over others around you. •It's all about the effort - You cannot make good first impressions without making an effort. Be aware of the situation and your surroundings. From your clothes to your accessories to your handshake to even your smile - everything matters. Positivity and confidence will always shine through- people like those who are sure of themselves. •Power of Introduction - We under-estimate the power of introduction which is a very important tool. It is advisable to have two different introductions, one you can use in a formal/business gathering and the other for a social gathering. Write it down on a piece of paper, add your achievments, make it consise but effective. Practice saying it in front of the mirror with confidence till it comes naturally to you. The next time you introduce yourself, you will surely make a great first impression. •Maintaining the impression - Once you manage to create a good impression, make sure to maintain it. You cannot come across as confident and jovial one day and snobbish on the next day. It is about creating a consistency in your impression which will then add on to your image. Your impression and image will influence the brand you create for yourself, you may refer to my article on 'personal branding' - which will definitely give you an edge over others in the midst of all the competition. 'Impress' away and capture success! Source: http://rikabothra.hubpages.com/hub/Create-an-Impression

202

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In sociology and social psychology, impression management is a goal-directed conscious or unconscious process in which people attempt to influence the perceptions of other people about a person, object or event; they do so by regulating and controlling information in social interaction (Piwinger & Ebert 2001, pp. 1–2). It is usually used synonymously with self-presentation, in which a person tries to influence the perception of their image. The notion of impression management also refers to practices in professional communication and public relations, where the term is used to describe the process of formation of a company's or organization's public image. Self-presentation While impression management and self-presentation or giving Face are often used interchangeably, some authors have argued that they are not the same. In particular, Schlenker (1980) believed that selfpresentation should be used to describe attempts to control ‘self-relevant’ (pp. 6) images projected in “real or imagined social interactions’. This is because people may manage impressions of entities other than themselves such as businesses, cities and other individuals (Leary & Kowalski 1990). Motives and strategies Self-presentation is expressive. We construct an image of ourselves to claim personal identity, and present ourselves in a manner that is consistent with that image. If we feel like this is restricted, we exhibit reactance/be defiant. We try to assert our freedom against those who would seek to curtail our self-presentation expressiveness. A classic example is the idea of the "preacher’s daughter", whose suppressed personal identity and emotions cause an eventual backlash at her family and community. People adopt many different impression management strategies. One of them is ingratiation, where we use flattery or praise to increase our social attractiveness by highlighting our better characteristics so that others will like us (Schlenker 1980, pp. 169). Another strategy is intimidation, which is aggressively showing anger to get others to hear and obey us. A strategy that has garnered a great amount of research attention is self-handicapping. In this case people create 'obstacles' and 'excuses’ (Aronson et al. 2009, pp. 174) for themselves so that they can avoid self-blame when they do poorly. People who self-handicap choose to blame their failures on obstacles such as drugs and alcohol rather than their own lack of ability. Other individuals devise excuses such as shyness, anxiety, negative mood or physical symptoms as reasons for their failure. Concerning the strategies followed to establish a certain impression, the main distinction is between defensive and assertive strategies. Whereas defensive strategies include behaviours like avoidance of threatening situations or means of self-handicapping, assertive strategies refer to more active behaviour like the verbal idealisation of the self, the use of status symbols or similar practices. These strategies play important roles in one's maintenance of self-esteem. One's self-esteem is affected by his evaluation of his own performance and his perception of how others react to his performance. As a result, people actively portray impressions that will elicit self-esteem enhancing reactions from others.

203

Theory Impression management (IM) theory states that any individual or organization must establish and maintain impressions that are congruent with the perceptions they want to convey to their publics. From both a communications and public relations viewpoint, the theory of impression management encompasses the vital ways in which one establishes and communicates this congruence between personal or organizational goals and their intended actions which create public perception. The idea that perception is reality is the basis for this sociological and social psychology theory,[citation needed] which is framed around the presumption that the other’s perceptions of you or your organization become the reality from which they form ideas and the basis for intended behaviors. Basic factors A range of factors that govern impression management can be identified. It can be stated that impression management becomes necessary whenever there exists a kind of social situation, whether real or imaginary. Logically, the awareness of being a potential subject of monitoring is also crucial. Furthermore, the characteristics of a given social situation are important. Specifically, the surrounding cultural norms determine the appropriateness of particular nonverbal behaviours. The actions have to be appropriate to the targets, and within that culture, so that the kind of audience as well as the relation to the audience influences the way impression management is realized. A person's goals are another factor governing the ways and strategies of impression management. This refers to the content of an assertion, which also leads to distinct ways of presentation of aspects of the self. The degree of selfefficacy describes whether a person is convinced that it is possible to convey the intended impression. A new study finds that, all other things being equal, people are more likely to pay attention to faces that have been associated with negative gossip than those with neutral or positive associations. The study contributes to a body of work showing that far from being objective, our perceptions are shaped by unconscious brain processes that determine what we "choose" to see or ignore — even before we become aware of it. The findings also add to the idea that the brain evolved to be particularly sensitive to "bad guys" or cheaters — fellow humans who undermine social life by deception, theft or other non-cooperative behavior. Strategic interpersonal behavior to shape or influence impressions formed by an audience is not a new field. Plato spoke of the "stage of human life" and Shakespeare crafted the famous sentence "All the world is a stage, and all the men and women merely players". In the 20th century, Erving Goffman also followed a dramaturgical analogy in his seminal book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, in which he said, "All the world is not, of course, a stage, but the crucial ways in which it isn't are not easy to specify." Goffman presented impression management dramaturgically, explaining the motivations behind complex human performances within a social setting based on a play metaphor. Goffman's work incorporates aspects of a symbolic interactionist perspective, emphasizing a qualitative analysis of the interactive nature of the communication process. The actor, shaped by the environment and target audience, sees interaction as a performance. The objective of the performance is to provide the audience with an impression consistent with the desired goals of the actor. Thus, impression management is also highly dependent on the situation. In addition to these goals, individuals differ in responses from the interactional environment, some may be irresponsive to audience's reactions while others actively respond to audience reactions in order to elicit positive results. These differences in response towards the environment and target audience are

204

called self-monitoring. Another factor in impression management is self-verification, the act of conforming the audience to the person's self-concept. The audience can be real or imaginary. IM style norms, part of the mental programming received through socialization, are so fundamental that we usually do not notice our expectations of them. While an actor (speaker) tries to project a desired image, an audience (listener) might attribute a resonant or discordant image. An example is provided by situations in which embarrassment occurs and threatens the image of a participant. Social psychology The social psychologist, Edward E. Jones, brought the study of impression management to the field of psychology during the 1960s and extended it to include people’s attempts to control others' impression of their personal characteristics. His work sparked an increased attention towards impression management as a fundamental interpersonal process. Self, social identity and social interaction The concept of self is important to the theory of impression management as the images people have of themselves shape and are shaped by social interactions (Schlenker 1980, pp. 47). Our self-concept develops from social experience early in life. Schlenker (1980) further suggests that children anticipate the effect of their behaviours will have on others and how others will evaluate them, they control the impressions they might form on others and in doing so they control the outcomes they obtain from social interactions. Social identity refers to how people are defined and regarded in social interactions (Schlenker 1980, pp. 69). Individuals use impression management strategies to influence the social identity they project to others. The identity that people establish influences their behaviour in front of others, others' treatment of them and the outcomes they receive. Therefore, in their attempts to influence the impressions others form of themselves, a person plays an important role in affecting his social outcomes. The media The medium of communication influences the actions taken in impression management. Self-efficacy can differ according to the fact whether the trial to convince somebody is made through face-to-faceinteraction or by means of an e-mail.[17] Communication via devices like telephone, e-mail or chat is governed by technical restrictions, so that the way people express personal features etc. can be changed. This often shows how far people will go. Significance in empirical research and economy Impression management can distort the results of empirical research that relies on interviews and surveys, a phenomenon commonly referred to as "social desirability bias". Impression management Theory nevertheless constitutes a field of research on its own.[22] When it comes to practical questions concerning public relations and the way organizations should handle their public image, the assumptions provided by impression management theory can also provide a framework.[23] An examination of different impression management strategies acted out by individuals who were facing criminal trials where the trial outcomes could range from a death sentence, life in prison or acquittal has been reported in the forensic literature. The Perri and Lichtenwald article examined female psychopathic killers, whom as a group were highly motivated to manage the impression that attorneys, judges, mental health professions and ultimately, a jury had of the murderers and the murder they committed. It provides legal case illustrations of the murderers combining and/or switching from one impression management strategy such as ingratiation or supplication to another as they worked towards their goal of diminishing or eliminating any accountability for the murders they committed.

205

Since the 1990s, researchers in the area of sport and exercise psychology have studied selfpresentation. Concern about how one is perceived has been found to be relevant to the study of athletic performance. For example, anxiety may be produced when an athlete is in the presence of spectators. Self-presentational concerns have also been found to be relevant to exercise. For example, the concerns may elicit motivation to exercise. More recent research investigating the effects of impression management on social behaviour showed that social behaviours (e.g. eating) can serve to convey a desired impression to others and enhance one’s self-image. Research on eating has shown that people tend to eat less when they believe that they are being observed by others.

Lying Up on the Job: Does Deceptive Impression Management Work? Source:

by John Carlson - The Organization | January / February 2012

While lying in the workplace is prevalent, it simply doesn’t work. In fact, the greatest risk is in turning a blind eye and making dishonesty acceptable. The potential damage unleashed by an ethically permissive workplace may far exceed the lost labor of an employee taking a short nap under his desk.

Discussing deception in the workplace is often uncomfortable. In an episode of “Seinfeld” (#152, “The Nap”), the character George Costanza uses his infamous hideaway-sleeping desk to nap unnoticed on the job. He is able to arrange simulated work items — hot coffee and such — on his desk to give the impression of having just stepped away, while he is actually hidden inside sound asleep. George is inevitably discovered “lying down on the job,” but the outcome in this case is likely to be more humorous than it would be for an employee who was caught trying to deceive his or her manager in a real company. While deception is common in everyday social interactions (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996), its prevalence in business communication is less widely discussed (Carlson & George, 2004). In fact, deception occurs in business meetings, phone conversations, electronic messages, office memoranda, and other everyday organizational media (Carlson & George, 2004). Moreover, while many of these lies may be casual “white lies,” some are used with clear intentionality, to further an employee’s goals within the organization. Nevertheless, there has been little consideration of whether or not such deception is effective.

206

This paper examines the utility of deception from the standpoint of a subordinate employing it in an attempt to influence their supervisor’s opinion of them. The following sections discuss a definition of deceptive impression management (“Deceptive IM”), a study examining the effectiveness of different forms of Deceptive IM, and finally, the implications for managers. Managing impressions Employees work actively to influence perceptions about themselves held by their supervisor(s) (Rosenfeld, Giacalone, & Riordan, 1995). Impression management (IM) is the process through which individuals manipulate information about themselves so that others view them in the way in which they would like to be viewed (Schlenker, 1980). Deception can be defined as the communication of information to a target with the intent of creating a false understanding on the part of the target (Buller & Burgoon, 1996). Lying, a form of deception, requires the expression of an actual statement known to be untrue. There are several different forms of IM and although the “information manipulation” described in the definition does not require deception — indeed such manipulation may be done with complete honesty — it does open the door widely for it. Such deception includes the active distortion, destruction, or omission of information that the supervisor has the right to truthfully receive from the subordinate. For example, a subordinate who has failed to complete an assigned task might work to manage the impressions of their supervisor by, (a) truthfully explaining the difficulties encountered and affirming their willingness to redouble their efforts to catch up (honesty), (b) not reporting their failure in a timely manner (deception), or (c) blaming the failure on a co-worker who was not at fault (lying). Three types of Deceptive IM Deceptive IM can be defined as the use of deception in the conduct of impression management (Carlson, Kacmar, & Carlson, 2005). We believe that deceptive IM differs from other deceptions in that it generally occurs within an established workplace relationship, and may consist of multiple deceptive acts that must be managed and reinforced over a significant period of time. The subordinate has both a pre-existing relationship with their supervisor as well as an expected future relationship that must be taken into consideration. As well, the planning of any deceptive act must take into account the ability of the subordinate’s peers to provide countervailing evidence, intentionally or not, to the supervisor. Finally, we specifically do not define deceptive IM as a new or separate IM tactic; rather, we believe that deception may be employed in the enactment of any existing form of IM. We suggest that there are three common types of deceptive IM agents in today’s organizations: 1. The sycophant is insincere and does not provide genuine opinions or honest feedback to their superior, for example, enthusiastically endorsing your supervisor’s idea even when you don’t like it. 2. The cover-up artist makes up excuses to whitewash a poor performance or explain failed projects, for example, making up an excuse when the supervisor points out shoddy work. 3. The all-purpose liar will directly provide false information about specific facts if it is to their advantage, for example, exaggerating the amount he or she contributed to a team project. Use of Deceptive IM Importantly, we don’t know is how these different types of deceptive IM might be used, and even more importantly, how effective they might be in influencing important organizational outcomes. An employee might consider using deceptive IM in a variety of difficult circumstances. Perhaps he or she is struggling in a hostile work environment or has been assigned to an abusive supervisor; perhaps he or she wants to cover gaps in knowledge, training, or experience; perhaps he or she is facing family or health problems that are negatively affecting his or her productivity; or perhaps he or she is simply trying to jump-start a stagnant career. Moreover, we believe that the use of deception in IM may be particularly easy for the subordinate to rationalize, since the goal of the deceit isn’t generally to cause direct harm and the subject of the lie is often the subordinate him or herself.

207

Even though lying to others about yourself may be almost as easy as lying to yourself, it is still expected that subordinates will have a difficult time pulling off deceptive IM. The rationale for the expectation is straightforward: Separately, both lying and IM are difficult to carry out successfully. Combining the two and requiring that they be conducted successfully over a significant period of time and under real-world conditions in which actual performance and contributions can be measured is, we believe, a challenging task (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998). Current study The purpose of this study was to gauge the effects of these three different types of deceptive IM conduct on the relationship with a supervisor, and the supervisor’s evaluation of the subordinate’s behavior. More specifically, two key outcomes were measured: (1) leader-member exchange or “LMX” (Graen & Scandura, 1987), which is the quality of the relationship between the supervisor and the subordinate, and (2) the job performance of the subordinate as evaluated by the supervisor. To study these deceptive IM practices in existing workplace relationships, supervisors in a division of a southern-state tax-collection agency were surveyed. Although all 65 supervisors agreed to participate and submitted surveys, only 59 could be matched to completed subordinate surveys. A total of 183 subordinates returned completed surveys usable for this study (for a response rate of 53%). How common is it? The first consideration was to examine the frequency of the 3 behaviours referred to above. The most highly used form of deceptive IM was sycophancy, in that 86 percent of the respondents engaged in this behavior. Sixty-nine percent of the respondents engaged in the practice of cover-up and 56 percent in the practice of lying. Thus, while the respondents engaged in these behaviors at a relatively high frequency, they were more likely to engage in sycophancy than lying. Deceptive IM and outcomes So, is it effective? The answer is “No.” We found that for the outcome of LMX, the relationship between supervisor and subordinate, that lying was the only type of deceptive IM that played a significant role. It had a negative impact, specifically leading to the deterioration of the supervisorsubordinate relationship (-.22, p