04.10.2013 Views

Social and Psychological Manipulation - Dean Amory

Unlike people who are trying to influence, persuade or convince others, manipulators work with unfair means to get what they want. They do not respect the personal rights of their victims. They violate the victim's integrity, work with hidden agendas and deliberately use dishonest tricks like faulty reasoning, coercion, blackmail and lying in an attempt to control the victim's actions. Manipulation is about suiting the manipulator's advantage or purpose only, often at the expense of the victim. Yet, it is often difficult to know when you are being manipulated: manipulators do all they can to convince you that you are the one who is to benefit most from their actions and that they are acting in good faith. If we were aware that we are being manipulated, would we allow ourselves to fall victim to it - and how would we defend ourselves against it? That is where this book comes in handy: it explains the tricks manipulators use and teaches you how to best defend and

Unlike people who are trying to influence, persuade or convince others, manipulators work with unfair means to get what they want. They do not respect the personal rights of their victims. They violate the victim's integrity, work with hidden agendas and deliberately use dishonest tricks like faulty reasoning, coercion, blackmail and lying in an attempt to control the victim's actions. Manipulation is about suiting the manipulator's advantage or purpose only, often at the expense of the victim.

Yet, it is often difficult to know when you are being manipulated: manipulators do all they can to convince you that you are the one who is to benefit most from their actions and that they are acting in good faith.

If we were aware that we are being manipulated, would we allow ourselves to fall victim to it - and how would we defend ourselves against it?

That is where this book comes in handy: it explains the tricks manipulators use and teaches you how to best defend and

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

MANIPULATION<br />

H<strong>and</strong>book of <strong>Social</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Psychological</strong> <strong>Manipulation</strong><br />

<strong>Dean</strong> <strong>Amory</strong>


Title: <strong>Manipulation</strong> (H<strong>and</strong>book of <strong>Social</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Psychological</strong> <strong>Manipulation</strong>)<br />

Compiled by: <strong>Dean</strong> <strong>Amory</strong><br />

<strong>Dean</strong>_<strong>Amory</strong>@hotmail.com<br />

Publisher: Edgard Adriaens, Belgium<br />

eddyadriaens@yahoo.com<br />

ISBN:<br />

© Copyright 2013, Edgard Adriaens, Belgium, - All Rights Reserved.<br />

This book has been compiled based on the contents of trainings, information found in other books <strong>and</strong><br />

using the internet. It contains a number of articles <strong>and</strong> coaching models indicated by TM or © or<br />

containing a reference to the original author. Whenever you cite such an article or use a coaching<br />

model in a commercial situation, please credit the source or check with the IP -owner. If you are<br />

aware of a copyright ownership that I have not identified or credited, please contact me at:<br />

eddyadriaens@yahoo.com<br />

3


4<br />

MANIPULATION<br />

H<strong>and</strong>book of <strong>Social</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Psychological</strong> <strong>Manipulation</strong><br />

<strong>Dean</strong> <strong>Amory</strong>


Index<br />

Index ............................................................................................................................................6<br />

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................14<br />

2. Information From Wikipedia.................................................................................................18<br />

2.1 What exactly is <strong>Psychological</strong> <strong>Manipulation</strong>?.....................................................................18<br />

2.2 What is required for successful manipulation?....................................................................18<br />

2.3 What do manipulators want? ...............................................................................................18<br />

2.4 What kind of person is a manipulator? ................................................................................19<br />

Machiavellian personality:.........................................................................................................19<br />

Narcissistic personality disorder:...............................................................................................19<br />

Paranoid personality disorder: ...................................................................................................20<br />

Borderline personality disorder: ................................................................................................20<br />

Dependent personality disorder .................................................................................................20<br />

Histrionic personality disorder...................................................................................................22<br />

Passive-aggressive behavior ......................................................................................................22<br />

Antisocial personality disorder ..................................................................................................22<br />

Behavioral addiction:.................................................................................................................23<br />

10 Types of Emotional Manipulators ........................................................................................24<br />

2.5 Which vulnerabilities are exploited by manipulators? ........................................................25<br />

According to Beth E Peterson....................................................................................................25<br />

According to Braiker, ................................................................................................................26<br />

According to Simon...................................................................................................................26<br />

According to Kantor: .................................................................................................................27<br />

2.6 How a manipulator works....................................................................................................28<br />

2.6.1 What is the basic manipulative strategy of a psychopath? ...............................................28<br />

According to Robert D. Hare <strong>and</strong> Paul Babiak,.........................................................................28<br />

According to Beth E Peterson....................................................................................................29<br />

2.6.2 Basic manipulative skills ..................................................................................................30<br />

Forced choice suggestive questions...........................................................................................32<br />

Presumptuous suggestive questions...........................................................................................32<br />

Confirmatory suggestive questions............................................................................................32<br />

5


2.7. How to recognize manipulation for the purpose of domination or control .......................40<br />

3. How to Pick Up on Manipulative Behavior...........................................................................43<br />

3.1 <strong>Manipulation</strong> operates in sneaky ways ................................................................................43<br />

3.2 <strong>Manipulation</strong> is about control..............................................................................................43<br />

3.3 Underst<strong>and</strong> the manipulative personality. ...........................................................................43<br />

3.4 Note the possible types of ways in which people try to manipulate one another. ...............44<br />

3.5 How to deal with a manipulative personality ......................................................................45<br />

4. Common <strong>Manipulation</strong> Tricks...............................................................................................46<br />

4.1. Reinforcement.....................................................................................................................47<br />

1. Forms of operant conditioning:..............................................................................................47<br />

2. Positive reinforcement:..........................................................................................................48<br />

3. Negative reinforcement: ........................................................................................................49<br />

4. Primary <strong>and</strong> Secondary reinforcers........................................................................................50<br />

5. Intermittent or partial reinforcement: ....................................................................................50<br />

4.2. Using fallacies to mislead people .......................................................................................51<br />

4.3. Punishment .........................................................................................................................68<br />

1. Nagging <strong>and</strong> Yelling..............................................................................................................68<br />

2. The silent treatment ...............................................................................................................71<br />

3. Intimidation, bullying, swearing <strong>and</strong> threats .........................................................................74<br />

Fear ............................................................................................................................................76<br />

Love ...........................................................................................................................................76<br />

Emotional...................................................................................................................................76<br />

Change .......................................................................................................................................76<br />

Abuser........................................................................................................................................76<br />

Children .....................................................................................................................................76<br />

Support.......................................................................................................................................76<br />

Needs .........................................................................................................................................76<br />

More...........................................................................................................................................76<br />

4. Emotional blackmail..............................................................................................................79<br />

5. The guilt trip ..........................................................................................................................82<br />

6. Whining, Sulking <strong>and</strong> Crying ................................................................................................84<br />

7. Self-pity - Playing the victim.................................................................................................88<br />

4.4. Other Manipulative Tricks..................................................................................................89<br />

1. The "No Way Out" question..................................................................................................89<br />

6


2. Making false promises...........................................................................................................90<br />

3. Disguising questions as statements.......................................................................................93<br />

4. Foot in the Door Technique: Start off small <strong>and</strong> up-sell. ......................................................94<br />

5. The confrontational statement ...............................................................................................95<br />

6. Spreading false rumors. .........................................................................................................97<br />

7. Traumatic one-trial learning: .................................................................................................98<br />

8. Lying:.....................................................................................................................................99<br />

9. Lying by omission, through the use of vagueness or by distortion of crucial details..........101<br />

10. Denial:................................................................................................................................103<br />

11. Rationalization:..................................................................................................................105<br />

12. Minimization or trivializing behaviour:.............................................................................107<br />

13. Selective inattention or selective attention: .......................................................................108<br />

14. Diversion <strong>and</strong> Evasion:......................................................................................................109<br />

15. Using weasel words. ..........................................................................................................111<br />

16. Mind Reading - The assumption statement .......................................................................113<br />

17. Exploiting position of authority.........................................................................................114<br />

18. Third party authority..........................................................................................................115<br />

19. Shaming: using people’s conscience against themselves ..................................................116<br />

20. Vilifying the victim: ..........................................................................................................118<br />

21. Playing the servant role: ....................................................................................................119<br />

22. Seduction: ..........................................................................................................................121<br />

23. Shifting the blame to others <strong>and</strong> detract in subtle, hard-to-detect ways............................123<br />

24. Projecting the blame (blaming others):..............................................................................127<br />

25. Feigning innocence, feigning confusion or “playing dumb”:...........................................128<br />

26. Gaslighting:........................................................................................................................129<br />

27. Causing confusion .............................................................................................................131<br />

28. Feigning illness..................................................................................................................133<br />

29. Br<strong>and</strong>ishing anger:.............................................................................................................134<br />

30. Sugarcoating reality. ..........................................................................................................136<br />

31. Comparing Apples to Oranges...........................................................................................138<br />

32. Cherry Picking ...................................................................................................................140<br />

33. Drawing loosely-related conclusions.................................................................................141<br />

35. Targeting lack of time <strong>and</strong> attention.................................................................................142<br />

36. Non-denial denial:..............................................................................................................142<br />

7


38. Mistakes were made: .........................................................................................................144<br />

39. The "if apology"................................................................................................................144<br />

40. Phrasing in a way that assumes unproven truths, or avoiding the question.......................144<br />

41. "Burying bad news":..........................................................................................................144<br />

42. Using Euphemisms <strong>and</strong> Dysphemisms to disguise or promote one's agenda ...................145<br />

43 The “Door-in-the-face” technique ......................................................................................148<br />

44. Bait-<strong>and</strong>-Switch .................................................................................................................149<br />

45. Highball .............................................................................................................................150<br />

46. Low-ball.............................................................................................................................151<br />

47. That's not all.......................................................................................................................151<br />

48. Disrupt, then reframe .........................................................................................................153<br />

49. Fear, then relief - Scaring The Hell Out of You ................................................................155<br />

50. Selling The Top Of The Line (TOTL)...............................................................................157<br />

51. Dump <strong>and</strong> Chase (DAC)....................................................................................................158<br />

52. Persuasion Techniques.......................................................................................................159<br />

53. But You Are Free...............................................................................................................163<br />

54. Confusion, Humor <strong>and</strong> Request (ChaR)............................................................................164<br />

55. Hook <strong>and</strong> Sinker ................................................................................................................165<br />

56. The Jack Hammer, The Hammer <strong>and</strong> The Dripping Tap ..................................................166<br />

57. AAB Pattern.......................................................................................................................168<br />

58. Commitment Devices ........................................................................................................169<br />

59. Creating Curiosity..............................................................................................................170<br />

60. Double Bind.......................................................................................................................172<br />

61. Final Request .....................................................................................................................173<br />

62. Incremental Persuasion......................................................................................................174<br />

63. Ingratiation.........................................................................................................................175<br />

64. Luncheon Technique..........................................................................................................177<br />

65. Persuade by Pride, Not Shame...........................................................................................178<br />

66. Pique Technique ................................................................................................................179<br />

67. Pre-thanking.......................................................................................................................180<br />

68. Reframing ..........................................................................................................................181<br />

69. Reverse Psychology...........................................................................................................183<br />

70. <strong>Social</strong> Engineering.............................................................................................................184<br />

71. Truth by Association..........................................................................................................187<br />

8


72. Using evidence...................................................................................................................188<br />

73. Using Images to Persuade..................................................................................................189<br />

74. Using Policy to Persuade ...................................................................................................192<br />

75. Information <strong>Manipulation</strong>..................................................................................................193<br />

76. Leveling as a <strong>Manipulation</strong> Tactic: ...................................................................................194<br />

77. Appeal to Authority ...........................................................................................................195<br />

78. Use Double Talk ................................................................................................................200<br />

79. Impression Management...................................................................................................203<br />

80. Giving Assent: Appearing to Cave In while Digging in Your Heels ................................211<br />

5. Magical <strong>Manipulation</strong> .......................................................................................................212<br />

5.1. Misdirection <strong>and</strong> deflection as used by manipulators:......................................................212<br />

There are four common forms of misdirection used by manipulators.....................................212<br />

5.2. Misdirection <strong>and</strong> Deflection as used by magicians ..........................................................213<br />

5.2.1 The four degrees of misdirection....................................................................................213<br />

5.2.2. The Misdirection Paradigms..........................................................................................214<br />

Inattentional blindness .............................................................................................................214<br />

Change blindness .....................................................................................................................214<br />

Illusion .....................................................................................................................................215<br />

Uniqueness of method .............................................................................................................216<br />

<strong>Social</strong> cues ...............................................................................................................................216<br />

Humour ....................................................................................................................................216<br />

Forcing.....................................................................................................................................216<br />

6. Hypnotic manipulation......................................................................................................217<br />

6.1. Target somebody <strong>and</strong> get to know their inner world........................................................218<br />

6.2. In a next step, combine Discovering Values with Visualization. .....................................219<br />

6.3. Meanwhile, Create Rapport. .............................................................................................219<br />

6.4. Practice mind reading <strong>and</strong> prediction of the future...........................................................220<br />

6.5. Use Powerful Links .........................................................................................................220<br />

6.6. Use Suggestive Predicates. ...............................................................................................221<br />

6.7. Tell Stories with embedded comm<strong>and</strong>s............................................................................221<br />

9


6.8. Stimulate Visualization.....................................................................................................222<br />

6.9. Practice Anchoring. ..........................................................................................................222<br />

6.10. Use presuppositions. .......................................................................................................223<br />

6.11. Use The Magical Conversational Hypnosis Questions...................................................223<br />

6.12. Use Subliminal Valorisation...........................................................................................224<br />

7. Manipulative Relationships ..............................................................................................225<br />

7.1 How to Recognize a Manipulative Relationship ..............................................................225<br />

7.2 Are you the manipulative kind yourself?...........................................................................234<br />

7.3 … We all manipulate!........................................................................................................236<br />

7.4. How to Deal With a Manipulator .....................................................................................238<br />

8. Biographical References....................................................................................................241<br />

8.1. Robert Cialdini - Biography from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...............................241<br />

8.2. George K. Simon – Biography from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...........................243<br />

8.3. Milton H. Erickson – Biography from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia........................245<br />

9. Economic <strong>Manipulation</strong> ....................................................................................................258<br />

9.1. The <strong>Manipulation</strong> Matrix.................................................................................................258<br />

9.2. Administrative <strong>Manipulation</strong>............................................................................................262<br />

1. Psychology...........................................................................................................................262<br />

2. Delay Tactics: don't know when, probably in a very very long time, if ever......................262<br />

3. Fronts: what's the real reason...............................................................................................262<br />

4. Fronts <strong>and</strong> Possibilities: to deceive (linked to "fronts" <strong>and</strong> brainwashing).........................262<br />

5. Divide <strong>and</strong> Conquer: division <strong>and</strong> conflict..........................................................................262<br />

6. Divide <strong>and</strong> Dismiss: to weaken complaints.........................................................................262<br />

7. Creating Chaos <strong>and</strong> Justification: for action <strong>and</strong> control.....................................................262<br />

8. Security <strong>and</strong> Authority: attacks to increase power ..............................................................262<br />

9. Administrative Maze <strong>and</strong> Complexity.................................................................................263<br />

10. Ambiguities: no answer at all ............................................................................................263<br />

11. The Pretence of Incompetence: to escape repercussions ...................................................263<br />

10


12. The Administrative Frustrate <strong>and</strong> Discourage Game ........................................................263<br />

13. Fear: to manipulate <strong>and</strong> control .........................................................................................264<br />

14. <strong>Psychological</strong> Harassment or Workplace <strong>Psychological</strong> Harassment...............................264<br />

15. Invisible Weapons: <strong>Psychological</strong> the Mind Physical the Body ................................264<br />

9.3. <strong>Manipulation</strong> in Advertising <strong>and</strong> Selling..........................................................................265<br />

Personal Persuasion .................................................................................................................265<br />

Foot in the door........................................................................................................................265<br />

Flattery <strong>and</strong> other likability tricks............................................................................................266<br />

Returning the favor ..................................................................................................................266<br />

The free bonus .........................................................................................................................267<br />

Comparing to make it look cheaper.........................................................................................267<br />

Negotiating starting with a very high request..........................................................................268<br />

The last item in stock...............................................................................................................268<br />

The sales person has them too .................................................................................................268<br />

Persistence ...............................................................................................................................268<br />

Hurrying...................................................................................................................................269<br />

You "should" buy from this person .........................................................................................269<br />

Hiding the manipulation ..........................................................................................................269<br />

Not complying can't be justified ..............................................................................................270<br />

Reward <strong>and</strong> punishment...........................................................................................................270<br />

Taking the lead.........................................................................................................................270<br />

You're phoned by someone you suspect wants to sell you something. ...................................270<br />

Taking away your objections...................................................................................................270<br />

Manipulative Questions. ..........................................................................................................271<br />

Aggressive sales at your door ..................................................................................................273<br />

A free gift.................................................................................................................................273<br />

Telemarketing ..........................................................................................................................275<br />

The positive, not the negative..................................................................................................276<br />

Presenting it as better than it actually is ..................................................................................277<br />

The attractive person................................................................................................................277<br />

The famous person...................................................................................................................277<br />

Gifts with a logo ......................................................................................................................277<br />

Identification............................................................................................................................278<br />

Appealing to your insecurities .................................................................................................278<br />

11


Win! .........................................................................................................................................278<br />

Bait <strong>and</strong> Switch........................................................................................................................278<br />

Hiding important information..................................................................................................278<br />

10. <strong>Manipulation</strong> Quotes .......................................................................................................278<br />

12


1. Introduction<br />

<strong>Manipulation</strong> is not the same as influence.<br />

We all use influence other people to advance our goals, to motivate others <strong>and</strong> to help them realize<br />

their own goals. Influencing happens all the time <strong>and</strong> in many different ways. As long as we inspire,<br />

motivate, convince, persuade, seduce or use assertiveness most people will agree that we are acting<br />

within the frame of healthy social life.<br />

Every now <strong>and</strong> then, however, we will use a different tactic: we will manipulate people to get what we<br />

want.<br />

There are a lot of negative connotations connected to manipulating. The reason is that, contrary to the<br />

first series of tactics, manipulation works with unfair means <strong>and</strong> does not respect the personal rights of<br />

the second party (now called "the victim"): it violates his integrity, works with hidden agendas <strong>and</strong><br />

deliberately uses dishonest tricks like faulty reasoning, coercion, blackmail <strong>and</strong> lying in an attempt to<br />

control the victim's actions.<br />

<strong>Manipulation</strong> also is unbalanced: it is about suiting the manipulator's advantage or purpose only, often<br />

even at the expense of the victim.<br />

So, in theory, the difference is clear enough: influencing is positive, manipulating is negative.<br />

Influencing is ethical, manipulating is not.<br />

In practice, it is often more difficult to know when you are being manipulated <strong>and</strong> how to best defend<br />

yourself against it:<br />

<strong>Manipulation</strong> is unbalanced, the manipulator is trying to benefit at your expense. Yet one of the<br />

tricks he will use to reach his goal, is to convince you that you are the one who is to benefit most.<br />

How can you know whether a person is hiding information from you in an attempt to mislead you?<br />

How can you be certain about the final intentions of another person?<br />

It's often really difficult to recognize manipulation when it happens. After all, if we are aware that it is<br />

happening ... would we allow ourselves to be manipulated?<br />

One of the reasons that we ignore to recognize manipulation is that it goes against the very basics of<br />

honest behaviour: We want to be respected, appreciated <strong>and</strong> loved for whom we are. This implies that<br />

we avoid hurting others, avoid lying, feel we deserve the benefit of the doubt <strong>and</strong> therefore treat others<br />

as innocent until proven guilty.<br />

Because we act like this, we assume others do too. Every now <strong>and</strong> then however, we will meet with<br />

people that have a different approach to life.<br />

As a rule, it is safe to say that when things look like bullshit <strong>and</strong> smell like it, they usually are bullshit.<br />

When you feel uneasy about a relationship; when you have to give in too much; when you feel like<br />

having to walk on egg shells; when you feel guilty, humiliated or imperfect after yet another difficult<br />

conversation; when choices become power-games; when affection turns green with jealousy or<br />

becomes overwhelming, exclusive <strong>and</strong> possessive; when there are half-truths, lies, denials surfacing;<br />

when everything that goes wrong somehow is your fault; when you feel you are pressured to take<br />

decisions you do not agree with ... chances that you are being manipulated are very real.<br />

If you already know this, than you also know a manipulator rarely comes unprepared. Feeling that you<br />

are being manipulated is one thing. Putting the finger on the right spot is much more difficult.<br />

13


Because, of course, the manipulator will claim that he acted in good faith; that "again", he is being<br />

misunderstood, ...<br />

That is where this book comes in h<strong>and</strong>y: it lists <strong>and</strong> explains the tricks manipulators use <strong>and</strong> teaches<br />

you how to recognize them <strong>and</strong> how to best defend <strong>and</strong> protect yourself.<br />

14


1. <strong>Manipulation</strong>: What, Why, Who, How?<br />

Personal Growth - The <strong>Manipulation</strong> Trap: Are you a victim? - by Anita An<strong>and</strong><br />

http://www.lifepositive.com/Mind/Personal_Growth/The_<strong>Manipulation</strong>_Trap92010.asp<br />

Do you find yourself doing things that you do not really want to? When someone close to you or in a<br />

situation of power suggests that you do something against your will, how do you feel? Probably not<br />

good. How often do you experience or hear of people who seem to have been blackmailed into<br />

accepting life-changing decisions (such as choice of education, career, <strong>and</strong> marriage partner), because<br />

their parents, partners, bosses, best friends, or children thought it was best for them.<br />

Everybody who wants something from somebody else is a potential manipulator. Especially when the<br />

feeling is that they can get what they want more easily in a covert way than in open <strong>and</strong> rational ways.<br />

<strong>Manipulation</strong> often is about power. Manipulators want the power to dominate you, to force you to give<br />

them whatever it is they are after to feel important, safe, comfortable, valued, loved, …: obedience,<br />

loyalty, cooperation, support, vote, silence, energy, time, work, money, attention, companionship,<br />

friendship, love, sex, … your Chinese Vases … really anything.<br />

No wonder that manipulators come in all kinds, as we will see in the next chapters. All salesmen are<br />

trained in “sales techniques”, many of which are in fact “manipulation techniques”. Important<br />

however is to realize that everybody will try to manipulate others every now <strong>and</strong> then. Though<br />

ethically never a good solution, in the real world we will all sometimes use manipulation to win time,<br />

because the favour required is not important, to prevent a mayor bad, to avoid arguments <strong>and</strong> frictions,<br />

“because this is for a real noble cause”, etc…<br />

<strong>Manipulation</strong> becomes a problem only when the manipulator advances his own interests at the expense<br />

of this victim’s <strong>and</strong> causes mental, physical, financial or other harm.<br />

According to clinical psychologist Dr George Simon, often, manipulators in many ways are<br />

dysfunctional people who conceal aggressive intentions <strong>and</strong> behaviours; know the psychological<br />

vulnerabilities of the victim to determine what tactics are likely to be the most effective, <strong>and</strong> have a<br />

sufficient level of ruthlessness to have no qualms about causing harm to the victim if necessary.<br />

Manipulators also need to advance their own purposes <strong>and</strong> their own gain, even at virtually any cost to<br />

others. They need to attain feelings of power, <strong>and</strong> superiority in relationships with others <strong>and</strong> need to<br />

feel in control.<br />

Dr Richard Paul <strong>and</strong> Dr Linda Elker write: “The human mind has no natural guide to the truth, nor<br />

does it naturally love the truth. What the human mind loves, is itself: what serves it, what flatters it,<br />

what gives it what it wants, <strong>and</strong> what strikes down <strong>and</strong> destroys whatever threatens it”.<br />

Manipulators know this very well. They shrewdly focus on pursuing their own interest, without respect<br />

to how that pursuit affect others. They know how to use the established structure of power to advance<br />

their interests. They have a great comm<strong>and</strong> of the rhetoric of persuasion <strong>and</strong> are more sophisticated,<br />

more verbal <strong>and</strong> generally have more schooling, greater status <strong>and</strong> achieve more success than uncritical<br />

persons. They are accustomed to playing the dominant role in relationships.<br />

They cannot effectively manipulate others if they appear to them to be invalidating their beliefs. That<br />

is why they are rarely rebels or critics of society. In fact, since they are fundamentally concerned, not<br />

with advancing rational values, but with getting what they want, they are careful to present themselves<br />

as sharing the values of those they manipulate. For the same reason, they strive to appear before others<br />

in a way that associates themselves with power, authority <strong>and</strong> conventional morality. Their goal is<br />

15


always to control what others think <strong>and</strong> they do so by controlling the way information is presented to<br />

them.<br />

In order to control <strong>and</strong> change your mind, however, they first have to read it. Manipulators will observe<br />

you, collect information through how you answer their questions <strong>and</strong> what your friends or colleagues<br />

tell about you, but also through finding out more about you: who you associate with, where you live,<br />

what your life is like, how you feel, what you read, which music you listen to, what you do …<br />

Nowadays this kind of personal information is always more found through electronic traces that you<br />

leave on the internet: social network profiles, comments, things you published, …<br />

Manipulators continually collect, consolidate, then sift all of this information in order to find thought<br />

patterns that can be interpreted as your personal disposition, i.e., to better underst<strong>and</strong> your personality,<br />

character matrix <strong>and</strong> hence find your weak spots.<br />

Here is a warning for in case you would consider starting to take advantage of some people yourself: If<br />

you treat some people unselfishly, you will basically treat everybody you deal with unselfishly. But if<br />

you take advantage today of some people, you will end up taking advantage of anyone.<br />

“Show me a man who mistreats his enemies, <strong>and</strong> I’ll show you a man who stabs his friends in the back<br />

too.” (R.B. Sparkman – The art of manipulation)<br />

16


2. Information From Wikipedia<br />

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<strong>Psychological</strong>_manipulation<br />

2.1 What exactly is <strong>Psychological</strong> <strong>Manipulation</strong>?<br />

<strong>Psychological</strong> manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the perception or<br />

behavior of others through underh<strong>and</strong>ed, deceptive, or even abusive tactics. By advancing the interests<br />

of the manipulator, often at the other's expense, such methods could be considered exploitative,<br />

abusive, devious, <strong>and</strong> deceptive. It depends on the context <strong>and</strong> motivations, whether social influence<br />

constitutes underh<strong>and</strong>ed manipulation.<br />

2.2 What is required for successful manipulation?<br />

According to George K. Simon, successful psychological manipulation primarily involves the<br />

manipulator:<br />

1. concealing aggressive intentions <strong>and</strong> behaviors.<br />

2. knowing the psychological vulnerabilities of the victim to determine what tactics are likely to<br />

be the most effective.<br />

3. having a sufficient level of ruthlessness to have no qualms about causing harm to the victim if<br />

necessary.<br />

Consequently the manipulation is likely to be accomplished through covert aggressive (relational<br />

aggressive or passive aggressive) means.<br />

2.3 What do manipulators want?<br />

Manipulators can have various possible motivations, including:<br />

the need to advance their own purposes <strong>and</strong> personal gain at virtually any cost to others<br />

a strong need to attain feelings of power <strong>and</strong> superiority in relationships with others<br />

a want <strong>and</strong> need to feel in control (aka. control freak)<br />

a desire to gain a feeling of power over others in order to raise their perception of self-esteem<br />

17


2.4 What kind of person is a manipulator?<br />

Manipulators may have any of the following psychological conditions:<br />

Machiavellian personality:<br />

A person's tendency to be emotionally cool <strong>and</strong> detached, <strong>and</strong> thus more able to detach from<br />

conventional morality <strong>and</strong> to deceive <strong>and</strong> manipulate others. In the 1960s, Richard Christie <strong>and</strong><br />

Florence L. Geis developed a test for measuring a person's level of Machiavellianism. People scoring<br />

high on the scale (high Machs) tend to endorse statements such as, "Never tell anyone the real reason<br />

you did something unless it is useful to do so," (No. 1) but not ones like, "Most people are basically<br />

good <strong>and</strong> kind" (No. 4), "There is no excuse for lying to someone else," (No. 7) or "Most people who<br />

get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives" (No. 11).<br />

Narcissistic personality disorder:<br />

(NPD) is a personality disorder in which the individual is described as being excessively preoccupied<br />

with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige <strong>and</strong> vanity. This condition affects one percent of the<br />

population<br />

Symptoms of this disorder, as defined by the DSM-IV-TR include:<br />

Reacting to criticism with anger, shame, or humiliation<br />

Taking advantage of others to reach own goals<br />

Exaggerating own importance, achievements, <strong>and</strong> talents<br />

Imagining unrealistic fantasies of success, beauty, power, intelligence, or romance<br />

Requiring constant attention <strong>and</strong> positive reinforcement from others<br />

Becoming jealous easily<br />

Lacking empathy <strong>and</strong> disregarding the feelings of others<br />

Being obsessed with self<br />

Pursuing mainly selfish goals<br />

Trouble keeping healthy relationships<br />

Becoming easily hurt <strong>and</strong> rejected<br />

Setting goals that are unrealistic<br />

Wanting "the best" of everything<br />

Appearing unemotional<br />

In addition to these symptoms, the person may also display dominance, arrogance, show superiority,<br />

<strong>and</strong> seek power. The symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder can be similar to the traits of<br />

individuals with strong self-esteem <strong>and</strong> confidence; differentiation occurs when the underlying<br />

psychological structures of these traits are considered pathological. Narcissists have such an elevated<br />

sense of self-worth that they value themselves as inherently better than others. Yet, they have a fragile<br />

self-esteem <strong>and</strong> cannot h<strong>and</strong>le criticism, <strong>and</strong> will often try to compensate for this inner fragility by<br />

belittling or disparaging others in an attempt to validate their own self-worth. It is this sadistic tendency<br />

that is characteristic of narcissism as opposed to other psychological conditions affecting level of selfworth.<br />

18


Paranoid personality disorder:<br />

A mental disorder characterized by paranoia <strong>and</strong> a pervasive, long-st<strong>and</strong>ing suspiciousness <strong>and</strong><br />

generalized mistrust of others. Individuals with this personality disorder may be hypersensitive, easily<br />

feel slighted, <strong>and</strong> habitually relate to the world by vigilant scanning of the environment for clues or<br />

suggestions that may validate their fears or biases. Paranoid individuals are eager observers. They think<br />

they are in danger <strong>and</strong> look for signs <strong>and</strong> threats of that danger, potentially not appreciating other<br />

evidence.<br />

They tend to be guarded <strong>and</strong> suspicious <strong>and</strong> have quite constricted emotional lives. Their reduced<br />

capacity for meaningful emotional involvement <strong>and</strong> the general pattern of isolated withdrawal often<br />

lend a quality of schizoid isolation to their life experience. People with this particular disorder may or<br />

may not have a tendency to bear grudges, suspiciousness, tendency to interpret others' actions as<br />

hostile, persistent tendency to self-reference, or a tenacious sense of personal right<br />

Borderline personality disorder:<br />

(BPD) (called emotionally unstable personality disorder, borderline type in the ICD-10) is a personality<br />

disorder characterized by unusual variability <strong>and</strong> depth of moods. These moods may secondarily affect<br />

cognition <strong>and</strong> interpersonal relationships.<br />

Other symptoms of BPD include impulsive behavior, intense <strong>and</strong> unstable interpersonal relationships,<br />

unstable self-image, feelings of ab<strong>and</strong>onment <strong>and</strong> an unstable sense of self. An unstable sense of self<br />

can lead to periods of dissociation. People with BPD often engage in idealization <strong>and</strong> devaluation of<br />

others, alternating between high positive regard <strong>and</strong> heavy disappointment or dislike. Such behavior<br />

can reflect a black-<strong>and</strong>-white thinking style, as well as the intensity with which people with BPD feel<br />

emotions. Self-harm <strong>and</strong> suicidal behavior are common <strong>and</strong> may require inpatient psychiatric care.<br />

Dependent personality disorder<br />

(DPD), formerly known as asthenic personality disorder, is a personality disorder that is characterized<br />

by a pervasive psychological dependence on other people. This personality disorder is a long-term<br />

(chronic) condition in which people depend on others to meet their emotional <strong>and</strong> physical needs, with<br />

only a minority achieving normal levels of independence.<br />

View of others:<br />

Individuals with DPD see other people as much more capable to shoulder life's responsibilities, to<br />

navigate a complex world, <strong>and</strong> to deal with the competitions of life. Other people appear powerful,<br />

competent, <strong>and</strong> capable of providing a sense of security <strong>and</strong> support to individuals with DPD.<br />

Dependent individuals avoid situations that require them to accept responsibility for themselves; they<br />

look to others to take the lead <strong>and</strong> provide continuous support.<br />

DPD judgment of others is distorted by their inclination to see others as they wish they were, rather<br />

than as they are. These individuals are fixated in the past. They maintain youthful impressions; they<br />

retain unsophisticated ideas <strong>and</strong> childlike views of the people toward whom they remain totally<br />

submissive. Individuals with DPD view strong caretakers, in particular, in an idealized manner; they<br />

believe they will be all right as long as the strong figure upon whom they depend is accessible.<br />

19


Self-image:<br />

Individuals with DPD see themselves as inadequate <strong>and</strong>/or helpless; they believe they are in a cold <strong>and</strong><br />

dangerous world <strong>and</strong> are unable to cope on their own. They define themselves as inept <strong>and</strong> abdicate<br />

self-responsibility; they turn their fate over to others. These individuals will decline to be ambitious<br />

<strong>and</strong> believe that they lack abilities, virtues <strong>and</strong> attractiveness.<br />

The solution to being helpless in a frightening world is to find capable people who will be nurturing<br />

<strong>and</strong> supportive toward those with DPD. Within protective relationships, individuals with DPD will be<br />

self-effacing, obsequious, agreeable, docile, <strong>and</strong> ingratiating. They will deny their individuality <strong>and</strong><br />

subordinate their desires to significant others. They internalize the beliefs <strong>and</strong> values of significant<br />

others. They imagine themselves to be one with or a part of something more powerful <strong>and</strong> they<br />

imagine themselves to be supporting others. By seeing themselves as protected by the power of others,<br />

they do not have to feel the anxiety attached to their own helplessness <strong>and</strong> impotence.<br />

However, to be comfortable with themselves <strong>and</strong> their inordinate helplessness, individuals with DPD<br />

must deny the feelings they experience <strong>and</strong> the deceptive strategies they employ. They limit their<br />

awareness of both themselves <strong>and</strong> others. Their limited perceptiveness allows them to be naive <strong>and</strong><br />

uncritical Their limited tolerance for negative feelings, perceptions, or interaction results in the<br />

interpersonal <strong>and</strong> logistical ineptness that they already believe to be true about themselves. Their<br />

defensive structure reinforces <strong>and</strong> actually results in verification of the self-image they already hold.<br />

Relationships:<br />

Individuals with DPD see relationships with significant others as necessary for survival. They do not<br />

define themselves as able to function independently; they have to be in supportive relationships to be<br />

able to manage their lives. In order to establish <strong>and</strong> maintain these life-sustaining relationships, people<br />

with DPD will avoid even covert expressions of anger. They will be more than meek <strong>and</strong> docile; they<br />

will be admiring, loving, <strong>and</strong> willing to give their all. They will be loyal, unquestioning, <strong>and</strong><br />

affectionate. They will be tender <strong>and</strong> considerate toward those upon whom they depend.<br />

Dependent individuals play the inferior role to the superior other very well; they communicate to the<br />

dominant people in their lives that they are useful, sympathetic, strong, <strong>and</strong> competent. With these<br />

methods, individuals with DPD are often able to get along with unpredictable or isolated people. To<br />

further make this possible, individuals with DPD will approach both their own <strong>and</strong> others' failures <strong>and</strong><br />

shortcomings with a saccharine attitude <strong>and</strong> indulgent tolerance. They will engage in a mawkish<br />

minimization, denial, or distortion of both their own <strong>and</strong> others' negative, self-defeating, or destructive<br />

behaviors to sustain an idealized, <strong>and</strong> sometimes fictional, story of the relationships upon which they<br />

depend. They will deny their individuality, their differences, <strong>and</strong> ask for little other than acceptance<br />

<strong>and</strong> support.<br />

Not only will individuals with DPD subordinate their needs to those of others, they will meet<br />

unreasonable dem<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> submit to abuse <strong>and</strong> intimidation to avoid isolation <strong>and</strong> ab<strong>and</strong>onment.<br />

Dependent individuals so fear being unable to function alone that they will agree with things they<br />

believe are wrong rather than risk losing the help of people upon whom they depend. They will<br />

volunteer for unpleasant tasks if that will bring them the care <strong>and</strong> support they need. They will make<br />

extraordinary self-sacrifices to maintain important bonds.<br />

It is important to note that individuals with DPD, in spite of the intensity of their need for others, do<br />

not necessarily attach strongly to specific individuals, i.e., they will become quickly <strong>and</strong><br />

indiscriminately attached to others when they have lost a significant relationship. It is the strength of<br />

the dependency needs that is being addressed; attachment figures are basically interchangeable.<br />

Attachment to others is a self-referenced <strong>and</strong>, at times, haphazard process of securing the protection of<br />

the most readily available powerful other willing to provide nurturance <strong>and</strong> care.<br />

20


Both DPD <strong>and</strong> HPD are distinguished from other personality disorders by their need for social<br />

approval <strong>and</strong> affection <strong>and</strong> by their willingness to live in accord with the desires of others. They both<br />

feel paralyzed when they are alone <strong>and</strong> need constant assurance that they will not be ab<strong>and</strong>oned.<br />

Individuals with DPD are passive individuals who lean on others to guide their lives. People with HPD<br />

are active individuals who take the initiative to arrange <strong>and</strong> modify the circumstances of their lives.<br />

They have the will <strong>and</strong> ability to take charge of their lives <strong>and</strong> to make active dem<strong>and</strong>s on others.<br />

Histrionic personality disorder<br />

(HPD) is a personality disorder characterized by a pattern of excessive emotionality <strong>and</strong> attentionseeking,<br />

including an excessive need for approval <strong>and</strong> inappropriately seductive behavior, usually<br />

beginning in early adulthood. These individuals are lively, dramatic, vivacious, enthusiastic, <strong>and</strong><br />

flirtatious. HPD affects four times as many women as men. It has a prevalence of 2–3% in the general<br />

population, <strong>and</strong> 10–15% in inpatient <strong>and</strong> outpatient mental health institutions.<br />

HPD lies in the dramatic cluster of personality disorders. People with HPD have a high need for<br />

attention, make loud <strong>and</strong> inappropriate appearances, exaggerate their behaviors <strong>and</strong> emotions, <strong>and</strong><br />

crave stimulation They may exhibit sexually provocative behavior, express strong emotions with an<br />

impressionistic style, <strong>and</strong> can be easily influenced by others. Associated features include egocentrism,<br />

self-indulgence, continuous longing for appreciation, <strong>and</strong> persistent manipulative behavior to achieve<br />

their own needs.<br />

Passive-aggressive behavior<br />

Is a category of interpersonal interactions characterized by an obstructionist or hostile manner that<br />

indicates aggression, or, in more general terms, expressing aggression in non-assertive, subtle (that is,<br />

passive or indirect) ways. It can be seen in some cases as a personality trait or disorder marked by a<br />

pervasive pattern of negative attitudes <strong>and</strong> passive, usually disavowed, resistance in interpersonal or<br />

occupational situations.<br />

Passive-aggressive behavior should not be confused with covert aggression (a behavior better<br />

described as catty), which consists of deliberate, active, but carefully veiled hostile acts <strong>and</strong> is<br />

distinctively different in character from the non-assertive style of passive aggression.<br />

Passive-aggressive behavior can manifest itself as learned helplessness, procrastination, hostility<br />

masquerading as jokes, stubbornness, resentment, sullenness, or deliberate/repeated failure to<br />

accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible.<br />

Antisocial personality disorder<br />

(ASPD) is described (DSM-IV-TR), as an Axis II personality disorder characterized by "...a pervasive<br />

pattern of disregard for, <strong>and</strong> violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early<br />

adolescence <strong>and</strong> continues into adulthood.<br />

It is characterized by at least 3 of the following:<br />

1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others;<br />

2. Gross <strong>and</strong> persistent attitude of irresponsibility <strong>and</strong> disregard for social norms, rules, <strong>and</strong><br />

obligations;<br />

3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them;<br />

4. Very low tolerance to frustration <strong>and</strong> a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including<br />

violence;<br />

5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment;<br />

6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has<br />

brought the person into conflict with society.<br />

21


There may be persistent irritability as an associated feature.<br />

The diagnosis includes what may be referred to as amoral, antisocial, psychopathic, or sociopathic<br />

personality (disorder.) The criteria specifically rule out conduct disorders. Dissocial personality<br />

disorder criteria differ from those for antisocial <strong>and</strong> sociopathic personality disorders.<br />

The Diagnostic <strong>and</strong> Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth ion (DSM IV-TR), defines<br />

antisocial personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B) as:<br />

A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for <strong>and</strong> violation of the rights of others occurring since age<br />

15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following:<br />

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly<br />

performing acts that are grounds for arrest;<br />

2. deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or<br />

pleasure;<br />

3. impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead;<br />

4. irritability <strong>and</strong> aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;<br />

5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others;<br />

6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or<br />

honor financial obligations;<br />

7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or<br />

stolen from another;<br />

B) The individual is at least age 18 years.<br />

C) There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years.<br />

D) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a<br />

manic episode.<br />

Behavioral addiction:<br />

Increasingly referred to as process addiction or non-substance-related addiction behavioral addiction<br />

includes a compulsion to repeatedly engage in an action until said action causes serious negative<br />

consequences to the person's physical, mental, social, <strong>and</strong>/or financial well-being. One sign that a<br />

behavior has become addictive is if it persists despite these consequences.<br />

The type of behaviors which some people have identified as being addictive include gambling, food,<br />

sex, viewing of pornography, use of computers, playing video games, use of the internet, work,<br />

exercise, spiritual obsession (as opposed to religious devotion), cutting, <strong>and</strong> shopping.<br />

22


10 Types of Emotional Manipulators<br />

Source:<br />

http://onlinecounsellingcollege.tumblr.com/post/22987740636/10-types-of-emotional-manipulators<br />

The Online Counselling College identifies ten types of emotional manipulators:<br />

1. The Constant Victim - This kind of individual will always finds a way to end up as a victim in<br />

their relationships.<br />

2. The One-Upmanship Expert – This person uses put downs, snide remarks <strong>and</strong> criticisms, to show<br />

that they’re superior, <strong>and</strong> know much more than you.<br />

3. The Powerful Dependent – They hide behind the mask of being weak <strong>and</strong> powerless – then use<br />

their helplessness to dominate relationships. That is, they send the subtle message “you must not let me<br />

down.”<br />

4. The Triangulator – This person tries to get other people on their side. They’re quick to put you<br />

down, <strong>and</strong> to say some nasty things. They separate good friends or drive a wedge in families.<br />

5. The Blasters – They blast you with their anger or they blow up suddenly. That stops you asking<br />

questions - in case there’s a showdown.<br />

6. The Projector – This person thinks they’re perfect <strong>and</strong> others have the flaws. They take no<br />

ownership – because they’re never, ever wrong.<br />

7. The Deliberate Mis-Interpreter – They seem like a nice person – but they twist <strong>and</strong> use your words.<br />

They spread misinformation <strong>and</strong> misinterpret you. Thus, they deliberately present you in a false,<br />

negative way.<br />

8. The Flirt – This person uses flirting to get their way in life. They want to be admired <strong>and</strong> to have<br />

an audience. However, your feelings <strong>and</strong> your needs are of no concern to them.<br />

9. The Iron Fist – They use intimidation <strong>and</strong> throw their weight around, to use you for their ends, <strong>and</strong><br />

to get their way in life.<br />

10. The Multiple Offender – This person uses several of the techniques we’ve described – <strong>and</strong> they’ll<br />

often switch between them if it suits their purposes.<br />

23


2.5 Which vulnerabilities are exploited by manipulators?<br />

“When you get enough inner peace <strong>and</strong> feel really positive about yourself, it is almost impossible for<br />

you to be controlled or manipulated by anyone else.”<br />

Wayne Dwyer<br />

According to Beth E Peterson<br />

Source: http://www.wingedblue.com/manip2.html<br />

Characteristics within ourselves which make us vulnerable to manipulation fall within six main areas:<br />

Our Physical Being<br />

Will <strong>and</strong> Expressions<br />

Imagination<br />

Memory<br />

Thought<br />

Emotion<br />

Have you ever been tired enough that when the kids hound you for pizza, you give in? That is an<br />

example of the traits of your physical body being used by others to manipulate you....<br />

Have you ever known how another person was feeling simply through their body language or tone of<br />

voice? This is something we all do as a matter of course; we recognize (even if only on a subconscious<br />

level) that people communicate in a huge number of ways. These expressions of self are signals we are<br />

constantly sending out can be used by a manipulator....<br />

Have you ever found yourself believing another person, just because what they told you was something<br />

you were really hoping for? And oh-oh! How many times do we make excuses? Loads! But sometimes<br />

when we excuse something or rationalize something, whether about ourselves or another person, we<br />

are not noticing <strong>and</strong> stopping a manipulative ploy or attack. These are examples of imagination as an<br />

opening for manipulation....<br />

Have you ever walked into a situation where you felt like a little kid again...<strong>and</strong> not in a good way? If<br />

this has happened to you...<strong>and</strong> it does happen to almost all of us...then someone has accessed your<br />

template of child-status. Or in other words, you were just dropped into those same feelings <strong>and</strong> even<br />

attitudes that you had as a child. Believe it or not, this is a weapon a lot of manipulators aim for. And<br />

here's a biggie! Our ability to learn is one of the easiest toeholds to access. Our memories are also<br />

vulnerable because they are fluid; they change over time as our own perceptions <strong>and</strong> interpretations<br />

change....<br />

How many times have you been influenced by another person's thoughts? The number will be too<br />

many to count. From thoughts about the way the country is run to which is the best way to fry an egg,<br />

we listen to <strong>and</strong> are influenced by other people's thoughts <strong>and</strong> concepts. This is generally a good thing,<br />

but when we aren't careful, a manipulator will use this everyday process to steer you wherever they<br />

want you. Remember ever having been pressured by your peer group into doing something you weren't<br />

sure about? That is an example of the idea that contact equals influence. A manipulator uses it even<br />

more subtly....<br />

Have you ever noticed that our emotional state seems tied to everything else? For example, when<br />

you're fatigued for a long time, it can be easy to slip into sadness. Or have you ever listened to music<br />

that just got you bouncing? Or a speaker that really roused you? These are forms of emotional<br />

ecstacies. They <strong>and</strong> the positive emotions can also be used to lead you down the garden path<br />

24


Manipulators exploit the following vulnerabilities (buttons) that may exist in victims:<br />

According to Braiker,<br />

the "disease to please"<br />

addiction to earning the approval <strong>and</strong> acceptance of others<br />

Emotophobia (fear of negative emotion; i.e. a fear of expressing anger, frustration or<br />

disapproval)<br />

lack of assertiveness <strong>and</strong> ability to say no<br />

blurry sense of identity (with soft personal boundaries)<br />

low self-reliance<br />

external locus of control: According to Julian B. Rotter, a person's "locus" (Latin for "place" or<br />

"location") is conceptualized as either internal (the person believes they can control their life)<br />

or external (meaning they believe that their decisions <strong>and</strong> life are controlled by environmental<br />

factors which they cannot influence).<br />

Individuals with a high internal locus of control believe that events in their life derive primarily<br />

from their own actions; for example, if a person with an internal locus of control does not<br />

perform as well as they wanted to on a test, they would blame it on lack of preparedness on<br />

their part. If they performed well on a test, they would attribute this to ability, effort <strong>and</strong> study.<br />

If a person with a high external locus of control does poorly on a test, they might attribute this<br />

to the difficulty of the test questions. If they performed well on a test, they might think the<br />

teacher was lenient or that they were lucky.<br />

According to Simon<br />

naïveté: victim finds it too hard to accept the idea that some people are cunning, devious <strong>and</strong><br />

ruthless or is “in denial” if he or she is being victimized.<br />

over-conscientiousness: victim is too willing to give manipulator the benefit of the doubt <strong>and</strong><br />

see their side of things in which they blame the victim.<br />

low self-confidence: victim is self-doubting, lacking in confidence <strong>and</strong> assertiveness, likely to<br />

go on the defensive too easily.<br />

over-intellectualization: victim tries too hard to underst<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> believes the manipulator has<br />

some underst<strong>and</strong>able reason to be hurtful.<br />

Emotional dependency: victim has a submissive or dependent personality. The more<br />

emotionally dependent the victim is, the more vulnerable he or she is to being exploited <strong>and</strong><br />

manipulated.<br />

25


Manipulators generally take the time to scope out the characteristics <strong>and</strong> vulnerabilities of their<br />

victim.<br />

According to Kantor:<br />

26<br />

too dependent: dependent people need to be loved <strong>and</strong> are therefore gullible <strong>and</strong> liable to say<br />

yes to something to which they should say no.<br />

too immature: has impaired judgment <strong>and</strong> believes the exaggerated advertising claims.<br />

Too naïve: cannot believe there are dishonest people in the world, taking for granted that if<br />

there were they would not be allowed to operate.<br />

too impressionable: overly seduced by charmers. For example, they might vote for the<br />

seemingly charming politician who kisses babies.<br />

Too trusting: people who are honest often assume that everyone else is honest. They are more<br />

likely to commit themselves to people they hardly know without checking credentials, etc., <strong>and</strong><br />

less likely to question so-called experts.<br />

too lonely: lonely people may accept any offer of human contact. A psychopathic stranger may<br />

offer human companionship for a price.<br />

too narcissistic: narcissists are prone to falling for unmerited flattery.<br />

too impulsive: make snap decisions about, for example, what to buy or whom to marry without<br />

consulting others.<br />

too altruistic: the opposite of psychopathic: too honest, too fair, too empathetic.<br />

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

Too materialistic: easy prey for loan sharks or get-rich-quick schemes.<br />

too greedy: the greedy <strong>and</strong> dishonest may fall prey to a psychopath who can easily entice them<br />

to act in an immoral way.<br />

Too masochistic: lack self-respect <strong>and</strong> so unconsciously let psychopaths take advantage of<br />

them. They think they deserve it out of a sense of guilt.<br />

The elderly: the elderly can become fatigued <strong>and</strong> less capable of multi-tasking. When hearing a<br />

sales pitch they are less likely to consider that it could be a con. They are prone to giving<br />

money to someone with a hard-luck story.


2.6 How a manipulator works<br />

2.6.1 What is the basic manipulative strategy of a psychopath?<br />

According to Robert D. Hare <strong>and</strong> Paul Babiak,<br />

psychopaths are always on the lookout for individuals to scam or swindle. The psychopathic approach<br />

includes three phases:<br />

1. Assessment phase<br />

Some psychopaths are opportunistic, aggressive predators who will take advantage of almost anyone<br />

they meet, while others are more patient, waiting for the perfect, innocent victim to cross their path. In<br />

each case, the psychopath is constantly sizing up the potential usefulness of an individual as a source of<br />

money, power, sex, or influence. Some psychopaths enjoy a challenge while others prey on people who<br />

are vulnerable. During the assessment phase, the psychopath is able to determine a potential victim’s<br />

weak points <strong>and</strong> will use those weak points to seduce.<br />

2. <strong>Manipulation</strong> phase<br />

Once the psychopath has identified a victim, the manipulation phase begins. During the manipulation<br />

phase, a psychopath may create a persona or mask, specifically designed to ‘work’ for his or her target.<br />

A psychopath will lie to gain the trust of their victim. Psychopaths' lack of empathy <strong>and</strong> guilt allows<br />

them to lie with impunity; they do not see the value of telling the truth unless it will help get them what<br />

they want.<br />

As interaction with the victim proceeds, the psychopath carefully assesses the victim's persona. The<br />

victim's persona gives the psychopath a picture of the traits <strong>and</strong> characteristics valued in the victim.<br />

The victim's persona may also reveal, to an astute observer, insecurities or weaknesses the victim<br />

wishes to minimize or hide from view. As an ardent student of human behavior, the psychopath will<br />

then gently test the inner strengths <strong>and</strong> needs that are part of the victim's private self <strong>and</strong> eventually<br />

build a personal relationship with the victim.<br />

The persona of the psychopath - the “personality” the victim is bonding with - does not really exist. It<br />

is built on lies, carefully woven together to entrap the victim. It is a mask, one of many, custom-made<br />

by the psychopath to fit the victim's particular psychological needs <strong>and</strong> expectations. The victimization<br />

is predatory in nature; it often leads to severe financial, physical or emotional harm for the individual.<br />

Healthy, real relationships are built on mutual respect <strong>and</strong> trust; they are based on sharing honest<br />

thoughts <strong>and</strong> feelings. The victim's mistaken belief that the psychopathic bond has any of these<br />

characteristics is the reason it is so successful.<br />

3. Ab<strong>and</strong>onment phase<br />

The ab<strong>and</strong>onment phase begins when the psychopath decides that his or her victim is no longer useful.<br />

The psychopath ab<strong>and</strong>ons his or her victim <strong>and</strong> moves on to someone else. In the case of romantic<br />

relationships, a psychopath will usually seal a relationship with their next target before ab<strong>and</strong>oning his<br />

or her current victim.<br />

Sometimes, the psychopath has three individuals on whom he or she is running game: the one who has<br />

been recently ab<strong>and</strong>oned, who is being toyed with <strong>and</strong> kept in the picture in case the other two do not<br />

work out; the one who is currently being played <strong>and</strong> is about to be ab<strong>and</strong>oned; <strong>and</strong> the third, who is<br />

being groomed by the psychopath, in anticipation of ab<strong>and</strong>oning the current "mark".<br />

27


According to Beth E Peterson<br />

Source: http://www.wingedblue.com/manip2.html<br />

Techniques are the manipulative tools used by a manipulator to take control over their targeted victims.<br />

They fall within three main areas:<br />

Environment<br />

Information<br />

Ideology<br />

Have you ever found yourself feeling pressured to do something because everyone around is doing it?<br />

That is an example of how your environment can influence you. Are you aware of how many different<br />

environments you move through in a single day? More than you may realize. Each of those<br />

environments is a potential place of manipulative attack....<br />

Have you ever heard the saying, "Information Is Power"? It is more true than many of us know. Have<br />

you ever been misinformed about a relationship, <strong>and</strong> chosen a direction you might not have gone<br />

otherwise? This happens often enough in regular circumstances; in the h<strong>and</strong>s of a manipulator, it<br />

becomes a powerful weapon. In your profession or hobbies, do you use jargon? Words that mean<br />

something different than in usual conversation? (If I told you I was firing in a reducing atmosphere,<br />

would you have a clue what I was talking about? Probably only if you are a potter. *wink*) Jargon is<br />

normal; we accept it without much thought. Manipulators, however, use jargon to influence <strong>and</strong> drive<br />

their victims. Each of the above is a possible avenue for manipulation through information....<br />

Do you think world peace is a good idea? The majority of us will probably say a resounding 'yes!'...but<br />

in the h<strong>and</strong>s of a manipulator, such worthy ideas <strong>and</strong> goals are nothing more than tools. Do you like the<br />

feeling that you are special? That you are part of something wonderful? Such ideas are part of the<br />

drawing in process <strong>and</strong> the manipulative tool of Us vs Them. What happens when your boss says, 'do it<br />

my way or else'? You will definitely feel a pressure to conform to their requirements. Such pressure<br />

can be applied in many ways... When you have gotten to a certain point in a manipulative relationship,<br />

the manipulator will use the tool of ideology to break your internal strength down even further by<br />

'showing' you that you are 'wrong' or 'mistaken'. Have you ever felt that you haven't measure up? That<br />

you just weren't good enough at something? Such feelings <strong>and</strong> experiences also become weapons in the<br />

h<strong>and</strong>s of a manipulator.<br />

Time refers to how our Toeholds <strong>and</strong> the manipulator's Techniques act together through Time to draw<br />

in the manipulator's victim.<br />

There are six stages in this process of Time:<br />

Softening Up<br />

Compliance<br />

Identification<br />

Consolidation<br />

Disaffiliation<br />

Recovery<br />

Have you ever seen an ad? Read a book? Talked to a stranger while waiting for an airplane? Gone on a<br />

date? Then you may have already entered the softening up phase with a manipulator....<br />

28


Do you ever do something you wouldn't do otherwise, because someone asked you to? Many of us<br />

will. A manipulator knows this <strong>and</strong> works on their targeted victim's politeness <strong>and</strong> willingness in order<br />

to draw them deeper into the relationship....<br />

Do you sometimes identify yourself through another person or through a group? For example, 'Hi, I'm<br />

Joe, Mary's husb<strong>and</strong>' or 'I'm part of the XYZ organization'? In a manipulative relationship, this is part<br />

of the manipulator's plan....<br />

People can be manipulated to the point of identifying themself primarily or solely through their<br />

relationship with the ultra-authority. Their own sense of identity as an individual has been destroyed....<br />

Nothing of the old you remains; you are now about what the manipulator wants. This is the stage of the<br />

relationship that most extreme manipulators are aiming for: complete control over their targeted<br />

victim....<br />

Have you ever 'dumped' somebody? It is much harder to leave a relationship you've been manipulated<br />

into, but it can be done....<br />

For someone who has disaffiliated from a manipulator, there are often some very serious concerns<br />

which must be met right away. Personal safety, food, clothing, shelter <strong>and</strong> financial assets have often<br />

been stripped out of the control of the individual. There are also long-term effects: recovering from<br />

such levels of manipulation takes time, a great deal of effort, <strong>and</strong> underst<strong>and</strong>ing of what happened to<br />

you.<br />

2.6.2 Basic manipulative skills<br />

“There is only one way to get anybody to do anything, <strong>and</strong> that is by making the other person want to<br />

do it” (Dale Carnegie)<br />

How manipulators unveil hidden reasons <strong>and</strong> feelings:<br />

If you ask a person the reason for his behaviour, chances are he will come up with an excuse.<br />

Manipulators know this <strong>and</strong> will formulate their question differently. They might ask “why won’t you<br />

do things my way?” <strong>and</strong> next, ask: “is their any reason in addition to that?” <strong>and</strong> then keep silent <strong>and</strong><br />

observe their victim’s reaction.<br />

In the same way, in order to find out how somebody really feels about something, they may surprise<br />

him with a direct question <strong>and</strong> then observe his reaction.<br />

Avoidance of conflict <strong>and</strong> Persistence: the hidden weapons of manipulation<br />

You may think there is nothing you want from your friends or colleagues, a manipulator is always<br />

aware that one day you may be in a position to contribute in one way or another in the pursuit of his<br />

interests.<br />

That is why he will choose his disagreements <strong>and</strong> pick his battles very carefully. After all, arguments<br />

yield bitter fruits, so what’s the use of disagreeing or arguing on subjects that don’t directly affect their<br />

interests or of arguing with people they have no personal connection with?<br />

Instead, manipulators “speak the we-language” <strong>and</strong> will often stress how alike they feel to their<br />

victims: “I don’t blame you for that, I’ve been there myself – I know how you feel”<br />

29


They are very good at pointing out areas of agreement <strong>and</strong> at appealing to common values : “We both<br />

want you to have what you want <strong>and</strong> deserve.”, “I don’t want to cause you trouble any more than you<br />

do yourself.”<br />

They overcome objections by providing good reasons why it is in the victim’s best interest to do what<br />

they propose.<br />

An often used scheme is:<br />

Example:<br />

a. Agree with the feelings of the victim<br />

b. Stress areas of agreement<br />

c. Overcome objections by giving good reasons<br />

d. Adding an “It’s for your best interest only / I don’t need you”-disclaimer<br />

“Yes, I know what you mean <strong>and</strong> I am sure that nine out of ten times, that would be the right thing to<br />

do. However, this case has some very unusual circumstances that make it a little different.<br />

Just like you, I wish things were easier, better, cheaper, not so risky, … But I know that you want to<br />

get the best deal <strong>and</strong> I want you to get the best price, to be completely satisfied, You’ve looked around<br />

yourself <strong>and</strong> you already know that the best things in life dem<strong>and</strong> some risk. Taking a little chance is<br />

always something you have to live with. You can’t buy one like this for any less anywhere anyway.<br />

… It’s up to you to decide of course. After all, my only desire is to help you succeed in any way that I<br />

can. After all, I don’t want to see you run into trouble with your wife. …”<br />

Manipulators generate doubt<br />

Manipulators rarely argue directly against an idea or proposal, they will rather first praise their victim<br />

for his ideas, but then create confusion or doubt: “That's an excellent idea, but if we look more deeply<br />

....." or "I agree with what you say but have you considered ....".<br />

Manipulators reduce Resistance with suggestive questions<br />

“Surely, everybody will agree that …” This simple line that we read <strong>and</strong> hear regularly, is the st<strong>and</strong>ard<br />

example of a suggestive question.<br />

Wikipedia, the free Encyclopaedia, describes a suggestive question as a question that implies that a<br />

certain answer should be given in response, or falsely presents a presupposition in the question as<br />

accepted fact. Such a question distorts the memory thereby tricking the person into answering in a<br />

specific way that might or might not be true or consistent with their actual feelings, <strong>and</strong> can be<br />

deliberate or unintentional. For example, the phrasing "Don't you think this was wrong?" is more<br />

suggestive than "Do you think this was wrong?" despite the difference of only one word. The former<br />

may subtly pressure the respondent into responding "yes," whereas the latter is far more direct.<br />

Repeated questions can make people think their first answer is wrong <strong>and</strong> lead them to change their<br />

answer, or it can cause people to continuously answer until the interrogator gets the exact response that<br />

they desire. The diction used by the interviewer can also be an influencing factor to the response given<br />

by the interrogated individual.<br />

30


Wikipedia recognizes the following types of suggestive questions:<br />

Direct suggestive questions<br />

Direct questions lead to one word answers when explanations are sometimes needed. This could<br />

include questions like “Do you get it?” <strong>and</strong> “Where did it happen?” According to Dr. Kathy<br />

Kellermann, an expert in persuasion <strong>and</strong> communication, direct questions force exact responses<br />

through carefully worded questions.<br />

Repeated suggestive questions<br />

Repeated questions elicit certain types of answers. Repeated questions make people think their first<br />

answer was wrong, lead them to change their answer, or cause people to keep answering until the<br />

interrogator gets the exact response that they desire. Elizabeth Loftus states that errors in answers are<br />

dramatically reduced if a question is only asked once<br />

Forced choice suggestive questions<br />

Yes/no or forced choice questions like “is this yellow or green?” force people to choose between two<br />

choices when the answer could be neither of the choices or needs more explanation. This generates<br />

more “interviewer-talks” moments, where the interviewer is talking <strong>and</strong> controlling most of the<br />

interview. This type of question is also known as a false dilemma.<br />

Forced choice is often used in sales relations:<br />

“should I call you Monday or Wednesday (assumes that you want to talk again)<br />

“the first meeting will be next Tuesday” (assumes you will participate)<br />

“do you prefer the blue one or the red one?” (assumes you want the article)<br />

Presumptuous suggestive questions<br />

Presumptuous questions can either be balanced or unbalanced. Unbalanced questions ask questions<br />

only from the point of view of one side of an argument. For example, an interrogator might ask “’Do<br />

you favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder?”’ This question assumes that the person’s<br />

only point of view in the situation is that a person who is convicted must either get the death penalty or<br />

not. The second type of presumptuous question is balanced question. This is when the interrogator uses<br />

opposite questions to make the witness believe that the question is balanced when the reality is that it is<br />

not. For example, the interrogator would ask, “’Do you favor life in prison, without the possibility of<br />

parole?”’ This type of question may seem balanced when in reality it is still influencing the person to<br />

discuss life in prison <strong>and</strong> no other choice.<br />

Confirmatory suggestive questions<br />

Confirmatory questioning leads to answers that can only support a certain point. Here, the interviewer<br />

forces the person to make sure his or her answers make them out to be extroverted or introverted. If<br />

they want them to look extroverted they would ask questions like “How do you make a party more<br />

fun?” <strong>and</strong> “When are you talkative?” If they want the person to look introverted they ask questions like<br />

“Have you ever been left out of a group?” or “Can you be more hyper sometimes?”.<br />

31


Manipulators can be very persistent.<br />

They<br />

a. Decide what they want <strong>and</strong> resolve not to quit until they get it.<br />

b. Mentally accept the consequences of failure, but do everything in their power to avoid failure.<br />

c. Vow to learn something from every experience through self-examination.<br />

They will not hesitate to compromise on some detail in order to start a pattern of concessions <strong>and</strong> know<br />

the importance of getting a “yes” on a small concession <strong>and</strong> work their way up from their, by always<br />

adding to the concession<br />

They are careful to avoid painful moments of decision. In case of doubt, they will readily assume their<br />

victim agreed <strong>and</strong> take appropriate action: “I’ll call him now <strong>and</strong> make the necessary reservations …”<br />

They know that nobody likes to feel he owes a debt to somebody else <strong>and</strong> thus - In order to prevent<br />

them from feeling ungrateful - often, succeed in making their victims “pay in advance” for the favours<br />

they are going to do them: “I will help you out if you first help me with this little problem that I’m<br />

having”<br />

Manipulators master the Laws of Influence<br />

Manipulators instinctively use Cialdini’s laws of influence.<br />

Robert B. Cialdini is Regents’ Professor Emeritus of Psychology <strong>and</strong> Marketing at Arizona State<br />

University.<br />

He is best known for his book on persuasion <strong>and</strong> marketing, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.<br />

Influence has sold over 2 million copies <strong>and</strong> has been translated into twenty-six languages. It has been<br />

listed on the New York Times Business Best Seller List. Fortune Magazine lists Influence in their "75<br />

Smartest Business Books."<br />

Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (ISBN 0-688-12816-5) has also been published as a textbook<br />

under the title Influence: Science <strong>and</strong> Practice (ISBN 0-321-01147-3).<br />

32


In writing the book, he spent three years going "undercover" applying for jobs <strong>and</strong> training at used car<br />

dealerships, fund-raising organizations, <strong>and</strong> telemarketing firms to observe real-life situations of<br />

persuasion. The book also reviews many of the most important theories <strong>and</strong> experiments in social<br />

psychology.<br />

Harvard Business Review lists Dr. Cialdini's research in "Breakthrough Ideas for Today's Business<br />

Agenda".<br />

1. The law of reciprocity or law of obligation<br />

People feel obliged to return a favour hen somebody does something for them first. By granting<br />

favours, manipulators create a situation in which the victim feels he owes them something in return or,<br />

in a negotiation, they will make small concessions to stimulate a return-concession. Another way in<br />

which this technique is used is when somebody first makes a large request <strong>and</strong>, when this request has<br />

been rejected, immediately follows it with a much smaller request.<br />

The law of reciprocity is extremely powerful, often overwhelming the influence of other factors that<br />

normally determine compliance with a request. It applies even to uninvited first favours, which reduce<br />

our ability to decide whom we wish to owe <strong>and</strong> putting the choice in the h<strong>and</strong>s of others <strong>and</strong> can spur<br />

unequal exchanges. That is: to be rid of the uncomfortable feeling of indebtedness, an individual will<br />

often agree to a request for a substantially larger favours, than the one he or she first received.<br />

“Favours” can be almost anything that is of value to the victim: sharing a secret, paying attention,<br />

taking out to dine, taking to a concert, support in an argument with a third person, a small token of<br />

friendship, a compliment, a smile, an invitation, …<br />

Manipulators must be careful though that their victims don’t see their actions as a form of bribery, <strong>and</strong><br />

thus pressure to comply. Favours <strong>and</strong> gifts should be given before something is asked “in return”,<br />

because if the victim feels tricked, their compliance will decrease. The obligation created must be<br />

perceived as a sincere <strong>and</strong> unselfish act of friendship.<br />

Studies revealed that when somebody persuaded you to change your mind, they will be inclined to do<br />

the same if approached by you. This is the strength of observations like: “you know, I have been<br />

thinking about what you said, <strong>and</strong> you are really right …”<br />

2. The law of scarcity<br />

Oftentimes scarcity is an illusion engineered by the product maker. Because products (<strong>and</strong><br />

opportunities) seem a lot more appealing when there is limited availability.<br />

The manipulator knows that, if he lets his victim escape now, chances are he will never return <strong>and</strong> say:<br />

“okay, I decided. Let’s do it now!”. By creating scarcity, he will therefore put pressure on his victim<br />

to make his decision.<br />

One of the ways in which this law is used, is to make the victim aware of the fact that they have other<br />

people waiting in line to take his place in order to convince him of the value of his “preferential<br />

relationship” with the manipulator.<br />

A few other ways of using this law are :<br />

• the “exclusive”, “limited” or “once in a lifetime” offer<br />

• posing deadlines: tomorrow the offer is not valid anymore<br />

• invitation required, vips only …<br />

33


• potential loss: if you don't take advantage of my offer, you will remain restricted in your<br />

actions <strong>and</strong> possibilities in one way or another. People will always overvalue the thing a<br />

manipulator is restricting. That is why manipulators often resort to creating a state of emotion<br />

in which the victim fears the loss. This is an overwhelming feeling they won't be able to<br />

ignore. Motivated by restriction, the victim will want what you deny him. They will do<br />

anything to get it <strong>and</strong> the more you deny them, the more energy you give to your cause.<br />

• limited offer: Mr X is also interested, but had to consult his wife first. If she decides to take<br />

the offer, it’ll be too late for you.<br />

3. The law of authority<br />

Manipulators come well prepared <strong>and</strong> found their arguments with support from experts in the field or<br />

celebrities. This is why so much publicity is presented by celebrities or actors acting like a scientist or<br />

professional: “90% of dentist recommend …”<br />

Or the manipulator poses as an authority or expert himself. When reacting to authority in an automatic<br />

fashion there is a tendency to often do so in response to the mere symbols of authority rather than to its<br />

substance., instead of being critical <strong>and</strong> asking ourselves what makes this person truly an expert <strong>and</strong><br />

how truthful we can expect him to be.<br />

Three types of symbols have been demonstrated through research as effective in this regard:<br />

• Titles<br />

• Clothing<br />

• Automobiles.<br />

4. The law of liking or law of connectivity<br />

Manipulators know the importance of using people’s names, of smiling, confirming <strong>and</strong> praising<br />

others, touching them carefully, mirror <strong>and</strong> match their mood, verbal style, body language, breathing<br />

… in order to create rapport. As a rule, people believe much easier what is being said by those who<br />

are similar to them <strong>and</strong> whom they like.<br />

Effective manipulators underst<strong>and</strong> that the more recognition, praise, acceptance <strong>and</strong> genuine<br />

compliments they pay their victim, the more likely they are to persuade them to their ideas <strong>and</strong> ways of<br />

thinking.<br />

The main factors in connectivity are: attraction, similarity, sincerity, people skills (feeling the other is<br />

interested in you <strong>and</strong> respects you for who you are) <strong>and</strong> rapport.<br />

The ability to work well with people tops the list for common skills <strong>and</strong> habits of highly successful<br />

people. Studies show that as much as 85 percent of your success in life depends on your people skills<br />

<strong>and</strong> the ability to get others to like you<br />

As for attraction: attraction may start with good looks <strong>and</strong> speaking <strong>and</strong> dressing well, but it goes<br />

beyond that: it encompasses having the ability to attract <strong>and</strong> draw people to you. People most easily<br />

like people that are similar to them.<br />

Researchers McCroskey, Richmond, <strong>and</strong> Daly say there are four critical steps to similarity: attitude,<br />

morality, background, <strong>and</strong> appearance. When receiving a persuasive message, we ask the following<br />

questions subconsciously:<br />

1) Does the speaker think like me?<br />

34


2) Does the speaker share my morals?<br />

3) Does the speaker share my background?<br />

4) Does the speaker look like me?<br />

Of the four similarity factors, attitudes <strong>and</strong> morals are the most important.<br />

Manipulators often instinctively know what Carnegie teaches: by becoming interested in other people,<br />

they get them to like them faster than by spending all day trying to get them interested in them. Having<br />

goodwill entails appearing friendly or concerned with the other person's best interest. Aristotle said,<br />

"We consider as friends those who wish good things for us <strong>and</strong> who are pained when bad things<br />

happen to us."<br />

This caring <strong>and</strong> kindness means being sensitive <strong>and</strong> thoughtful. It means acting with consideration,<br />

politeness, civility, <strong>and</strong> genuine concern for those around us. It is the foundation for all interactions <strong>and</strong><br />

creates a mood of reciprocity. Manipulators often win hearts <strong>and</strong> loyalty through genuine or feigned<br />

compassion.<br />

They invoke goodwill by focusing on positives <strong>and</strong> avoid appearing harsh or forceful when dealing in<br />

areas where the other person is sensitive or vulnerable. Additionally, they make positive statements <strong>and</strong><br />

perform actions that show their victims that they have their best interest in mind.<br />

One way of creating rapport is by utilizing methods of association to trigger <strong>and</strong> stimulate deep<br />

reservoirs of emotion within their Victim’s minds. These triggers can include pleasant music, colors,<br />

symbols, sounds, celebrities, etc. The Victim naturally associates each trigger to a specific feeling or<br />

emotion based on past experience. Therefore, when these triggers are associated <strong>and</strong> coupled together<br />

with a specific product, idea or service, than the Victim begins to associate these same feelings <strong>and</strong><br />

emotions to these stimuli as well, <strong>and</strong> the persuasive process runs it’s full course.<br />

5. The law of social proof<br />

We will do what the crowd does. We might not like to admit that, but it is true. Only 5 to 10 percent of<br />

the population engages in behaviour contrary to the social norm.<br />

We see this law operating in groups, in organizations, in meetings, <strong>and</strong> in day-to-day public life. In all<br />

of these circumstances, there is a certain st<strong>and</strong>ard or norm. In churches, the moral code determines the<br />

st<strong>and</strong>ard behaviour acceptable for the group. In organizations, the bylaws <strong>and</strong> years of tradition<br />

establish a st<strong>and</strong>ard operating procedure. Because we want to fit into these groups <strong>and</strong> maintain our<br />

membership with them, we conform our actions to the norm.<br />

When we find ourselves in a foreign situation where we feel awkward or unsure of how to act, we look<br />

for those social cues that will dictate our behaviour.<br />

Manipulators will convince their victims that their views are supported by others, that “everybody<br />

knows” or “nowadays, almost all the really important people that I know agree …” Because people<br />

tend to think that “what’s right for others, cannot be bad for me”, manipulators will often refer to other<br />

people who gained by taking the action they are asking their victim to make.<br />

Also when it comes to making friends, the law of social proof comes in very h<strong>and</strong>y: when somebody<br />

tells you “others” have informed him how good you are, or that he accidently overhear d a<br />

conversation in which two colleagues praised your qualities or were named as a specialist in some<br />

field, than you will not only feel flattered, but you will also want to proof these “others” right <strong>and</strong> are<br />

much more likely to give him what he wants from you.<br />

35


Anytime we find ourselves part of a group, we feel some susceptibility to peer pressure <strong>and</strong>/or the<br />

opinions of others in the group. The more respect we feel for the group, the more their opinions matter<br />

to us, <strong>and</strong> therefore the more we feel pressured to align our own opinions with those of the group. Even<br />

when we don't really agree with the group, we will often go along with the group in order to be<br />

rewarded instead of punished, or liked instead of scorned.<br />

Consider also the following other examples:<br />

People conform because they believe everyone else is correct<br />

People conform because they fear the social rejection of not going along<br />

People conform simply because it's the norm<br />

People conform because of cultural influences<br />

People conform because somebody of authority says something is correct<br />

People conform because somebody they love believes in something<br />

6. The law of commitment <strong>and</strong> consistency<br />

Effective manipulators realize that by involving their Victim’s in specific activities related to their idea,<br />

product or service will effectively open them up to the forces of persuasion. The greater the emotional<br />

involvement the Victim experiences, the more susceptible they will become to the persuasive process.<br />

Once a manipulator succeeds in making somebody commit to a general idea or goal, he knows it will<br />

then be easier to ask for subsequent action. Also, people will easier repeat what they’ve already done<br />

before.<br />

The well known foot-in-the-door technique is based on this law: If you can get someone to do you a<br />

small favour, they are more likely to grant you a larger favour later on. Initial favours are granted more<br />

easily when the manipulator can convince his victim that he is not acting in his own self interest, but in<br />

the victim’s or society’s.<br />

Another technique based on the law of commitment <strong>and</strong> consistency is the “yes-train”: by getting a<br />

person to say “yes” to a number of questions, they are much more likely to also say “yes” to the<br />

question you really want to ask them.<br />

Wow, the weather is great today, isn’t it? - Yes<br />

Doesn’t it really feel good to be outside now? - Yes<br />

Do you want to join me for a drink on one of these terraces after work? - Yes<br />

The same technique can be used in a slightly different way: Manipulators know that, if their victim<br />

accept the first part of a statement they are making, they will often also accept the second part.<br />

Example: “As a woman, as a colleague, as a man with principles … you can easily underst<strong>and</strong> …”<br />

Still another technique based on this law is the “because” technique: people like to have a reason for<br />

the things they do. Manipulators will offer them the reason. Research indicates that adding “because”,<br />

followed by an arbitrary <strong>and</strong> even meaningless reason to a request, leads to significantly higher<br />

positive response. “Excuse me, can I use the copier first because I need to make some copies” sounds<br />

daft, but yields a much better result than the same question without the added reason.<br />

Manipulators will also try to get their victims to commit to a decision or product, or to make some kind<br />

of promise. Next, the manipulators will change the rules of the game or the terms <strong>and</strong> conditions<br />

agreed. They know that, once somebody mentally committed to something, they are likely to stick to<br />

their decision even if what they want will now cost them more or be somehow different from the initial<br />

offer.<br />

36


Before changing the deal, they get their victims to confirm their commitment. Each confirmation<br />

increases the commitment on the part of the victim:, more so when the confirmation is made publically:<br />

talking about the agreement, discussing aspects, telling his friends, confirming a date, … Each of these<br />

steps result in a greater level of commitment <strong>and</strong> make it more difficult for the victim to pull back from<br />

the deal.<br />

Manipulators also know the importance of confirming to their victims that they made the right decision<br />

<strong>and</strong>, if someone did them a favour, they will let them know afterwards what happened, hoping that in<br />

this way their victims will appreciate the feedback <strong>and</strong> may be able to help them further in future.<br />

The law of commitment <strong>and</strong> consistence also works in a much different way: People want to be<br />

consistent, so when they are aware of dissonance in their lives, when attitudes conflict with actions of<br />

beliefs, they feel uncomfortable <strong>and</strong> will try to restore the harmony in their lives.<br />

To shut out dissonance, they may<br />

Deny there is a conflict by ignoring the conflictive information or deliberately<br />

misperceiving it.<br />

Change existing cognitions (admit they were wrong) <strong>and</strong> adapt to the new situation<br />

Reframe their underst<strong>and</strong>ing or interpretation of the meaning (consider the matter of<br />

no importance)<br />

Discredit the source of the conflictive information <strong>and</strong> search support for their own<br />

viewpoint.<br />

Separate the conflictive attitudes: “what happens in one area of my life has nothing tot<br />

do with other areas.”<br />

Rationalize: find excuses for why the inconstancy is acceptable<br />

Because dissonance is causing them to feel uncomfortable, it is a powerful tool to motivate people to<br />

make <strong>and</strong> keep commitments.<br />

Manipulators will sell you a dream, then make you pay for it:<br />

7. The law of contrast<br />

a. Step one: They will create rapport, discover what you are dreaming of <strong>and</strong> join you in<br />

your dream: “imagine you went to sleep yesterday <strong>and</strong> woke up this morning in an<br />

ideal world, how would you know? – what would it look like?”<br />

b. Step two: They will create dissonance by remembering you that your dream has not<br />

been realized yet in your life: “too bad that …”, “yes, but see what you’ve got now …”<br />

c. Step three: They will offer you a solution, that is: show you how you can become<br />

happy again: (This is where they present the bill for becoming happy!)<br />

“what if I could prove you …”,<br />

“if you do what I ask, then I can assure you …”,<br />

“If I could …; would this allow you to ….”<br />

Effective manipulators present their Victim with a contrast of choices. Their goal is to convince their<br />

Victim to purchase Product “E”. This is a higher ticket item that may be slightly outside their Victim’s<br />

price range. However, instead of showing them Product E to begin with, they instead show them<br />

Products A through D. They inform their Victim that Product A, B, C <strong>and</strong> D have several undesirable<br />

options that don’t quite match their Victim’s needs. They eventually work their way up to Product E<br />

that meets their Victim’s Needs perfectly.<br />

37


8. The law of expectation<br />

If I accept you as you are, I will make you worse; however if I treat you as though you are what you<br />

are capable of becoming, I help you become that.<br />

—JOHANN WOLFGANG VON GOETHE<br />

Effective manipulators underst<strong>and</strong> that people normally behave according to the expectations set by<br />

others. They will use this to their advantage by unconsciously sending persuasive signals of<br />

expectation towards their Victim which are based on their psychological desires <strong>and</strong> wants. Moreover,<br />

they utilize the expectations <strong>and</strong> opinions of others (people with psychological influence over their<br />

Victim’s lives) to maneuver their Victim into a decisive frame of mind.<br />

38


2.7. How to recognize manipulation for the purpose of<br />

domination or control<br />

Manipulators attempt to project an attractive <strong>and</strong> irrexistible image of superior natural <strong>and</strong>/or<br />

supernatural skills, abilities <strong>and</strong> accomplishments.<br />

Some of the used techniques are easily recognized <strong>and</strong> will be described more in detail further in this<br />

book:<br />

(1) Projection of guilt upon others by:<br />

(a) Correction<br />

(b) Criticism<br />

(c) Fault finding<br />

(d) Disapproval<br />

(e) Condemnation<br />

(f) Confrontation<br />

(g) Ignoring an individuals existence<br />

(h) Circulating malicious opinions<br />

(i) Non-acceptance into their clique<br />

(j) Blame<br />

(2) Statements in the form of questions or analogies designed to put others on the defensive.<br />

(3) Not initiating closure<br />

When problems surface in a personal relationship, regardless of who is responsible for the problem,<br />

they will not attempt to solve the problem, but depend on the unresolved tension to cause the other<br />

party to contact them first to resolve the issue.<br />

(4) Establishing uncertainty of the past, present or future to build insecurity in a person <strong>and</strong> dependence<br />

upon the practitioner’s abilities <strong>and</strong> information by:<br />

(a) Altering true information<br />

(b) Withholding true information<br />

(c) Issuing false information<br />

(d) Using big names as information sources<br />

(5) Illegally assuming authority without responsibility, by:<br />

(a) Outright claims that they have the official sanction of those in charge<br />

(b) Implied claims they have the official sanction of those in charge<br />

(c) Manipulating, maneuvering <strong>and</strong> motivating others to think, feel <strong>and</strong> choose the way the<br />

practitioner wants them to<br />

(d) “Spiritual” revelations<br />

(e) Physical authority—violence, temper tantrums, force, sex, drugs, etc.<br />

(f) Rebelling against established authority<br />

(6) Illegally attempting to assume responsibility without authority.<br />

39


(7) Declarations of dependency:<br />

“You don’t underst<strong>and</strong> how much I need you (depend, trust, etc).” This may be followed by “<strong>and</strong> how<br />

little you care what happens to me.”<br />

(8) Declarations of reverse dependency:<br />

“You don’t underst<strong>and</strong> how much you need me (depend, trust, etc).” This may be followed by “<strong>and</strong><br />

how much I care what happens to you.”<br />

(9) The “Let me show you how to do it” ploy.<br />

This makes others realize they do not have the time, talent or temperament to accomplish something,<br />

thereby shaming them into letting the practitioner volunteer to do the job.<br />

(10) The “Show me how to do it” ploy.<br />

This makes others realize the practitioner does not have the time, talent or temperament to accomplish<br />

something, thereby shaming them into volunteering to do the job.<br />

(11) The “I tried to cover for your mistake” routine, “<strong>and</strong> it:”<br />

(a) Worked, so you’ve got to repay the favor by doing something for me.<br />

(b) Didn’t work, so you’ve got to do something to fix the problem.<br />

(12) The “I tried to teach you, but you won’t listen to me, so don’t ask me any more questions” ploy.<br />

This ploy is to punish others by instilling a deep sense of loss created by withdrawal of the<br />

practitioners (opinionated) “wise counsel.”<br />

(13) Insults directed at others to further distance the practitioner, who by now knows they have failed<br />

in their efforts to dominate.<br />

(14) Polarizing groups of people into adverse parties.<br />

This is further punishment for failure to recognize the superiority of the practitioner <strong>and</strong> an attempt to<br />

establish control by comparing persons to create competition.<br />

(15) Withdrawal, when suggestions, comments or questions come up about their pronouncements, with<br />

simulated:<br />

(a) Hurt<br />

(b) Rejection<br />

(c) Depression<br />

(d) Physical sickness<br />

(e) Protests of innocence<br />

(f) Accusations of others<br />

(16) False remorse<br />

With hypocritical statements of now perceiving how their past activities have hurt others <strong>and</strong> a seeking<br />

of forgiveness for past behavior.<br />

40


(17) Self-proclaimed martyrdom<br />

Usually follows withdrawal or false remorse when the practitioner realizes others are not fooled by<br />

their insincerity. Withdrawal or self-proclaimed martyrdom is tacit admission of failure to successfully<br />

dominate others.<br />

(18) Instigation of difficult, uncomfortable or costly activities for others, which may or may not benefit<br />

the practitioner.<br />

This is their last desperate effort to control others after having been exposed as two-faced hypocrites,<br />

gossips <strong>and</strong> liars. They will eventually resort to their old, more satisfying, tactics in an attempt to force<br />

others to depend upon them. This dominating technique, however, may be used at any time by them to<br />

control situations, circumstances <strong>and</strong> social environments.<br />

(19) You may also notice one or more of the following communication techniques.<br />

(1) State the obvious<br />

(2) Make a mountain out of a molehill<br />

(3) Play “can you top this”<br />

(4) Promise beyond their delivery capability<br />

(5) Stampede into action before all the facts are in<br />

(6) Edit the facts to dramatize their point<br />

(7) Keep in constant motion, unconcerned about direction<br />

(8) State the opposite of the facts, because all else failed.<br />

Under no circumstances respond directly to their overtures. Do not address the issues they raise. You<br />

must respond by stating that they have no responsibility or authority to make such a statement to you,<br />

<strong>and</strong> that they are out of order.<br />

If your relationship with them has not been that close in the past, you may add that because of their<br />

present improper social behavior <strong>and</strong> breach of etiquette, your mutual relationship certainly won’t be<br />

close in the future.<br />

Source: Steve Morris - http://www.angelfire.com/in/HisName/page5.html<br />

41


3. How to Pick Up on Manipulative Behavior<br />

Sources:<br />

http://www.wikihow.com/Pick-Up-on-Manipulative-Behavior<br />

edited by Iqbal Osman, Teresa, Tipsy, Flickety <strong>and</strong> 19 others<br />

http://aloftyexistence.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/manipulative-personality/<br />

http://www.way-of-the-mind.com/manipulative-people.html<br />

3.1 <strong>Manipulation</strong> operates in sneaky ways<br />

Manipulative people are not obvious because they act in a sneaky way. When someone is openly<br />

aggressive, at least we know what is happening <strong>and</strong> can react accordingly.<br />

But with manipulation, it’s different: we know something is wrong but we can't pinpoint what it is. We<br />

find ourselves on the defensive <strong>and</strong> we tend to hate ourselves for it because we think we are making up<br />

things. However, usually our feelings are right: we are being manipulated.<br />

3.2 <strong>Manipulation</strong> is about control<br />

Manipulators attempt to indirectly control or influence the actions <strong>and</strong> behavior of others. Instead of<br />

being direct with their methods, the manipulator uses underh<strong>and</strong>ed tactics to force their will. Because<br />

they are subtle, the manipulative personality easily goes undetected <strong>and</strong> overlooked, <strong>and</strong> the person or<br />

people being manipulated don’t realize what’s going on until it’s too late. Or not at all. They may<br />

believe that they are obligated to do what the manipulator wishes, <strong>and</strong> feel guilty if they don’t. The<br />

manipulative personality may be a family member, friend, or colleague.<br />

<strong>Manipulation</strong> refers to making attempts at indirectly influencing someone else's behavior or actions. As<br />

human beings, our emotions often cloud our judgments making it difficult to see the reality behind<br />

hidden agendas or motives in different forms of behavior. The controlling aspects or shrewdness linked<br />

to manipulation are sometimes very subtle <strong>and</strong> may be easily overlooked, buried under feelings of<br />

obligation, love, or habit. In this article you'll learn some ways to pick up on manipulative behavior<br />

occurring around you, so that you can sort it rather than jump to it.<br />

3.3 Underst<strong>and</strong> the manipulative personality.<br />

They're not always obvious because they play a silent game of building up obligations toward them,<br />

that end up with you feeling guilty, pressured, <strong>and</strong> obliged to carry out things for their sake even<br />

though you're still wondering how things got to this point. Some of the characteristics of a<br />

manipulative personality include:<br />

A martyr style personality.<br />

This personality type behaves as if he or she is being considerate toward others but is actually messing<br />

up considerateness with a need to be significant to you.<br />

By "martyring" themselves, they are doing things nobody has asked of them or wants them to do but in<br />

the process creates a bind when they do them.<br />

42


In "doing you a favor", their expectation increases that you have to return the favor. They may also<br />

complain constantly about all the things they do for you <strong>and</strong> wonder rhetorically when you're going to<br />

return this favor...<br />

This type of personality will give you everything — but at a price. They will do you favors, give you<br />

special attention, <strong>and</strong> be overly considerate, but they expect much in return. Their giving is tied to their<br />

desire to be considered a “good person” or be considered important to another person. They “cash in”<br />

on the favors they’ve done for you to get you to comply with their wishes. Common phrases heard<br />

from the Martyr include, “After all I’ve done for you” <strong>and</strong> “I would do it for you.”<br />

Excessively needy <strong>and</strong> dependent personalities.<br />

The Needy person is the most difficult type of manipulator to let go of. They are experts at making you<br />

feel sorry for them, <strong>and</strong> making you feel like you are the only person that can help them. Some Needy<br />

personalities don’t realize that they are manipulative. They have learned to depend on others for their<br />

needs, <strong>and</strong> simply don’t know how to get along without help. They may cry or become offended when<br />

accused of manipulation. Those that realize they are manipulative may become passive-aggressive in<br />

their attempts to regain control.<br />

People who feel uncomfortable in their own skin, putting forth their own opinions <strong>and</strong> ideas can often<br />

hide behind manipulative behavior so that it seems as if you are responding on your own accord even<br />

though they've set up everything to have you respond directly to their neediness.<br />

Narcissists.<br />

This is the archetypal manipulative personality <strong>and</strong> it's very hard to deal with this master manipulator.<br />

e Narcissist is the ultimate manipulator. They are egotistic, self-absorbed <strong>and</strong> feel entitled to nearly<br />

everything they desire. They lack empathy <strong>and</strong> consideration for others, so they will easily manipulate<br />

to their own gain. They think it is their right to have others do what they say.<br />

You.<br />

Seriously, at one time or other, every single one of us practices manipulative behaviors in one form or<br />

other. It is just that for most people, manipulative actions tend to be one-off or only occasional<br />

instances rather than a purposeful map for daily living <strong>and</strong> interaction with others.<br />

3.4 Note the possible types of ways in which people try to<br />

manipulate one another.<br />

There are some key behaviors that can end up in manipulation, <strong>and</strong> it's helpful to know how to spot<br />

them before walking right into them. The most common methods of manipulation are flattery, guilttripping,<br />

repetition, assumption, confrontation, <strong>and</strong> gaslighting: a way of twisting information in such a<br />

way that the person being manipulated begins to doubt their own perceptions <strong>and</strong> memory.<br />

The most common manipulation tricks are explained in detail in chapter 4.<br />

43


3.5 How to deal with a manipulative personality<br />

Acknowledge the manipulative attempt <strong>and</strong> respond calmly<br />

The best way to deal with a manipulative personality is to acknowledge their ways outright <strong>and</strong><br />

respond calmly, <strong>and</strong> even turn their own tactics against them. The manipulator is counting on you to be<br />

surprised, confused, <strong>and</strong> overreact to them, so don’t be. If they say “After all that I’ve done for you!”<br />

reply “I’m very grateful for all that you’ve done. Why do you think I’m not? That’s not very nice of<br />

you.”<br />

Once the manipulator realizes that they can’t affect you in the way that they want, <strong>and</strong> can’t influence<br />

your thoughts or actions, they will move on. And even if they don’t — you’re safe. <strong>Manipulation</strong> is<br />

all about control, <strong>and</strong> once you figure out the manipulative personality, they are no longer in control.<br />

Listen to yourself.<br />

In all of the possible manipulative situations, whether or not the signs are easy for you to spot, it is very<br />

important to listen to yourself <strong>and</strong> how you feel about the situation. Do you feel oppressed, pressured,<br />

obliged to do things for this person that you'd rather not do? Does their behavior seem to impact you<br />

endlessly, so that after one form of assistance, you are expected to grant yet more help <strong>and</strong> support?<br />

Your answers should serve as a true guide to where your relationship with this person is headed next.<br />

44


4. Common <strong>Manipulation</strong> Tricks<br />

Sources:<br />

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br />

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<strong>Psychological</strong>_manipulation<br />

WikiHow, the wiki based collaboration to build the world's largest, highest quality how to manual.<br />

http://www.wikihow.com/Pick-Up-on-Manipulative-Behavior<br />

ed by Iqbal Osman, Teresa, Tipsy, Flickety <strong>and</strong> 19 others<br />

http://aloftyexistence.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/manipulative-personality/<br />

http://www.marc<strong>and</strong>angel.com/2011/06/12/12-devious-tricks-people-use-to-manipulate-you/<br />

(Michael Lee): http://voices.yahoo.com/psychological-manipulation-techniques-protect-8268077.html<br />

http://www.way-of-the-mind.com/manipulative-people.html<br />

(Dr Richard Paul <strong>and</strong> Dr Linda Elder): www.criticalthinking.org<br />

The Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery <strong>and</strong> <strong>Manipulation</strong><br />

Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement<br />

U.S. national library of medicine - National Institution of Health:<br />

Misdirection – Past, Present, <strong>and</strong> the Future by Gustav Kuhn1, <strong>and</strong> Luis M. Martinez<br />

Cristal Parks: http://drowninginabsurdity.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/the-winners-write-realitysanctioned-reality-manipulation-patterns/<br />

Devin Powerll: How magicians control your mind (New Scientist)<br />

http://www.mindpowernews.com/Magicology.htm<br />

http://changingminds.org/techniques/general/general.htm<br />

Jeremy Nicholson, M.S.W., Ph.D.: how to defend against manipulative games<br />

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201106/how-defend-againstmanipulative-dating-games-part-one<br />

Dr George Simon: Dealing with Manipulative People:<br />

http://www.manipulative-people.com/<br />

Dr. George Simon is the leading expert on manipulators <strong>and</strong> other disturbed characters.<br />

George K. Simon (born February 1, 1948) is a bestselling author <strong>and</strong> frequent weblog contributor. His<br />

wife, Dr. Sherry Simon, is also a professional, living <strong>and</strong> working in Little Rock.<br />

Dr. George K. Simon, Jr., Ph.D. earned his degree in clinical psychology from Texas Tech University.<br />

He has studied <strong>and</strong> worked with manipulators <strong>and</strong> other disturbed characters <strong>and</strong> their victims for over<br />

thirty years.<br />

Dr. Simon is not only an author, but a public speaker, consultant, professional trainer <strong>and</strong> composer<br />

who has appeared on numerous national, regional <strong>and</strong> local television <strong>and</strong> radio programs. He has<br />

given over 250 workshops <strong>and</strong> on the subject of dealing with manipulative people <strong>and</strong> other difficult<br />

personalities. Dr. Simon has written numerous articles on character impairment for several popular<br />

weblogs, <strong>and</strong> is the principal composer of the patriotic anthem known as America, My Home.<br />

45


His bestselling book In Sheep's Clothing: Underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>and</strong> Dealing<br />

with Manipulative People© is nearing 20 years in print <strong>and</strong> has sold<br />

over 250,000 copies.<br />

“In Sheep's Clothing” deals with psychological manipulation. Dr.<br />

Simon discusses the tactics manipulators use to deceive <strong>and</strong> get the<br />

better of others. The book explains the tactics manipulators use to<br />

deceive <strong>and</strong> get the better of others <strong>and</strong> offers tips on how to avoid<br />

being victimized <strong>and</strong> how to be more empowered in any relationship.<br />

His second book, "Character Disturbance: the Phenomenon of Our<br />

Age," focuses on how current culture allows disturbed people to<br />

reach adulthood without proper socialization. This book was<br />

published in August of 2010 <strong>and</strong> attempts to provide an in-depth but<br />

readily underst<strong>and</strong>able explanation of the most difficult <strong>and</strong><br />

problematic personalities a person is likely to encounter as well as<br />

practical ways to keep from being victimized by them. This book also advances the perspective that the<br />

phenomenon of "neurosis" about which most traditional psychological frameworks are concerned <strong>and</strong><br />

which was largely an outgrowth of the highly repressive Victorian culture, has faded in both<br />

prevalence <strong>and</strong> intensity in modern times, <strong>and</strong> that the issue of greater social concern in an era of<br />

permissiveness <strong>and</strong> entitlement is necessarily character dysfunction, which manifests itself not so much<br />

in bizarre psychosomatic symptoms but rather in distorted thinking patterns, problematic attitudes, <strong>and</strong><br />

irresponsible behaviors, <strong>and</strong> which can neither be adequately understood nor effectively dealt with via<br />

traditional approaches.<br />

With his latest book, The Judas Syndrome: Why Good People Do Awful Things, George Simon tries to<br />

explain why people do bad things, <strong>and</strong> how to deal with the fallout of hurtful human action.<br />

Dr George Simon identifies four general types of people who might do bad things. The first category<br />

he calls simply “bad people,” although he admits the difficulty of using that term. These are people<br />

with significant character failings whose actions cause unapologetic harm to those around them. If they<br />

are broken down to the point of admitting their failures <strong>and</strong> developing faith in Christ, Simon believes,<br />

bad people may reform into a better character.<br />

People without serious character deficiencies are not immune from doing bad things, of course.<br />

Basically good people have good intentions that cause them to do harm (a second set), as is clear in the<br />

cases of over-parenting that the author cites. On the other h<strong>and</strong>, such people may also not do enough to<br />

prevent bad things (a third set), whether through neglect, fear, or indifference. A fourth set are<br />

basically good people who fail in the face of serious temptations.<br />

4.1. Reinforcement<br />

1. Forms of operant conditioning:<br />

• Positive reinforcement: the adding of an appetitive stimulus to increase a certain behavior or<br />

response.<br />

Example: Father gives c<strong>and</strong>y to his daughter when she picks up her toys. If the frequency of<br />

picking up the toys increases or stays the same, the c<strong>and</strong>y is a positive reinforcer.<br />

• Positive punishment: the adding of an aversive stimulus to decrease a certain behavior or<br />

response.<br />

46


Example: Mother yells at a child when running into the street. If the child stops running into the<br />

street the yelling is positive punishment.<br />

• Negative reinforcement: the taking away of an aversive stimulus to increase certain behavior or<br />

response.<br />

Example: Putting ointment on a bug bite to soothe an itch. If using ointment on bug bites<br />

increases, the removal of an itch is a negative reinforcer.<br />

• Negative punishment (omission training): the taking away of an appetitive stimulus to decrease<br />

a certain behavior.<br />

Example: A teenager comes home an hour after curfew <strong>and</strong> the parents take away the teen's cell<br />

phone for two days. If the frequency of coming home after curfew decreases, the removal of the<br />

phone is negative punishment.<br />

The following table illustrates that punishment <strong>and</strong> reinforcement are a function of the presentation or<br />

removal of a stimulus <strong>and</strong> the valence of the stimulus.<br />

Appetitive (pleasant) stimulus Aversive (unpleasant) stimulus<br />

Presented positive reinforcement positive punishment<br />

Taken away negative punishment negative reinforcement<br />

Distinguishing "positive" from "negative" can be difficult, especially when there are lots of<br />

consequences <strong>and</strong> the necessity of the distinction is often debated. For example, in a very warm room,<br />

a current of external air serves as positive reinforcement because it is pleasantly cool or negative<br />

reinforcement because it removes uncomfortably hot air. Some reinforcement can be simultaneously<br />

positive <strong>and</strong> negative, such as a drug addict taking drugs for the added euphoria <strong>and</strong> eliminating<br />

withdrawal symptoms. Many behavioral psychologists simply refer to reinforcement or<br />

punishment—without polarity—to cover all consequent environmental changes. Others would disagree<br />

with the above examples because there is no behavior that is increasing or decreasing in frequency.<br />

2. Positive reinforcement:<br />

Includes praise, superficial charm, superficial sympathy (crocodile tears), excessive apologizing,<br />

(false) promises, money, approval, gifts, attention, facial expressions such as a forced laugh or smile,<br />

<strong>and</strong> public recognition.<br />

Manipulators know very well that “A man convinced against his will, remains of the same opinion<br />

still”: If somebody really likes you, almost anything you say will work. If not, nothing will.<br />

Manipulators often are friendly people, who are good at networking <strong>and</strong> socializing. They sell<br />

themselves first, before they sell anything else.<br />

Therefore they will<br />

d. Become friends with the person they want to manipulate.<br />

e. At first, only talk about subjects both parties agree on <strong>and</strong> confirm they agree with the<br />

feelings of the other <strong>and</strong> think like them. Even if they do not agree, they will probably<br />

say “you’re probably right” or, “that sounds like an interesting point of view”.<br />

f. Listen well: Make the others talk about themselves <strong>and</strong> pay attention to what they are<br />

saying<br />

47


g. Show their interest to find out as much as possible about the other person. For<br />

example by asking: “is there anything else in addition to that?”<br />

When somebody repeatedly tells you how great you are, how smart <strong>and</strong> beautiful, how much you st<strong>and</strong><br />

to gain from a deal he is proposing, what extra-ordinary benefits you are about to reap, … then you<br />

better ask yourself what he wants from you, or what he will gain from the deal he is offering you.<br />

Beware of people with double st<strong>and</strong>ards: For example somebody who “never lies to his friends” …<br />

admits that he does lie to his enemies. In fact this kind of people in reality will also lie to his friends if<br />

this seems convenient to him.<br />

People with double st<strong>and</strong>ards cannot be trusted. Often, they can be recognized by the stories they are<br />

telling, because they will change their stories in order to fit the purposes at h<strong>and</strong>.<br />

3. Negative reinforcement:<br />

involves removing one from a negative situation as a reward, e.g. "You won't have to do your<br />

homework if you allow me to do this to you."<br />

Reinforcement is superior to punishment in altering behavior. Reinforcement results in lasting<br />

behavioral modification, whereas punishment changes behavior only temporarily <strong>and</strong> presents many<br />

detrimental side effects.<br />

Positive reinforcers<br />

A positive reinforcer is a consequence that increases the frequency of a behavior or maintains the<br />

frequency. What is reinforcing is defined by what happens to the frequency of the behavior. It has<br />

nothing to do with whether the organism finds the reinforcer "pleasant" or not. For example, if a child<br />

gets slapped for saying a "naughty" word but the frequency of naughty words increases, the slap is a<br />

positive reinforcer.<br />

A "pleasant" consequence is not necessarily a positive reinforcer. Getting a birthday gift is not a<br />

positive reinforcer. There is no behavior that will increase (or be maintained) in frequency. When<br />

48


deciding whether or not something is a reinforcer, the basic criteria is the frequency of occurrence of a<br />

behavior.<br />

Consequences are not universally reinforcing. For example, happy face stickers may be effective<br />

reinforcers for some children. Other children may find them silly.]<br />

Negative reinforcers<br />

A negative reinforcer is not punishment. These terms are often confused. A negative reinforcer<br />

increases or maintains the frequency of the behavior that terminates the negative reinforcer. In this case<br />

the negative reinforcer is present before the behavior. The organism performs a behavior that<br />

terminates the negative reinforcer. The behavior that terminates the negative reinforcer is likely to<br />

increase or be maintained in frequency. Suppose someone has a headache (negative reinforcer). The<br />

person takes two aspirin but nothing happens. Then the person takes two Tylenol tablets <strong>and</strong> the<br />

headache goes away. The next time the person has a headache it is likely the person will take Tylenol.<br />

That is the behavior that has been reinforced.<br />

4. Primary <strong>and</strong> Secondary reinforcers<br />

Primary reinforcers<br />

A primary reinforcer, sometimes called an unconditioned reinforcer, is a stimulus that does not require<br />

pairing to function as a reinforcer <strong>and</strong> most likely has obtained this function through the evolution <strong>and</strong><br />

its role in species' survival. Examples of primary reinforcers include sleep, food, air, water, <strong>and</strong> sex.<br />

Some primary reinforcers, such as certain drugs, may mimic the effects of other primary reinforcers.<br />

While these primary reinforcers are fairly stable through life <strong>and</strong> across individuals, the reinforcing<br />

value of different primary reinforcers varies due to multiple factors (e.g., genetics, experience). Thus,<br />

one person may prefer one type of food while another abhors it. Or one person may eat lots of food<br />

while another eats very little. So even though food is a primary reinforcer for both individuals, the<br />

value of food as a reinforcer differs between them.<br />

Secondary reinforcers<br />

A secondary reinforcer, sometimes called a conditioned reinforcer, is a stimulus or situation that has<br />

acquired its function as a reinforcer after pairing with a stimulus that functions as a reinforcer. This<br />

stimulus may be a primary reinforcer or another conditioned reinforcer (such as money). An example<br />

of a secondary reinforcer would be the sound from a clicker, as used in clicker training. The sound of<br />

the clicker has been associated with praise or treats, <strong>and</strong> subsequently, the sound of the clicker may<br />

function as a reinforcer. As with primary reinforcers, an organism can experience satiation <strong>and</strong><br />

deprivation with secondary reinforcers.<br />

5. Intermittent or partial reinforcement:<br />

Partial or intermittent negative reinforcement can create an effective climate of fear <strong>and</strong> doubt.<br />

Partial or intermittent positive reinforcement can encourage the victim to persist - for example in most<br />

forms of gambling, the gambler is likely to win now <strong>and</strong> again but still loses money overall. The<br />

knowledge that one can have what he wants, only not all the time, is one of the strongest <strong>and</strong> most<br />

effective motivators in nature!<br />

In very much the same way, manipulators will charm their victim into walking on clouds at some<br />

times, but then suddenly ignore them or treat them distantly at other times.<br />

49


The basic tact is to first provide a person with something he really wants (money, attention, support,<br />

…) <strong>and</strong> then withdraw it in an attempt to convince the victim that he needs them more then they need<br />

him.<br />

Next, the manipulator waits for the victim to make a move.<br />

Since people want what they cannot have, if the person does not contact the manipulator after he<br />

withdrew whatever he has been providing his victim with, then what he was giving apparently was not<br />

appealing enough to make them want it enough.<br />

The person with the upper h<strong>and</strong> in any situation <strong>and</strong> any given time, is the one who can (make the other<br />

think he can) walk away if the situation is not to his liking.<br />

Good manipulators radiate confidence <strong>and</strong> independence <strong>and</strong> convince their victims that they need<br />

what the manipulator has to offer, whereas it seems to make little difference to the manipulator what<br />

his victim decides.<br />

4.2. Using fallacies to mislead people<br />

Sources:<br />

http://www.thefreedictionary.com – Collins English Dictironary - Thesaurus<br />

www.wikipedia.org – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br />

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm - Master List of Logical Fallacies<br />

Definition:<br />

fal·la·cy (f l -s ) - n. pl. fal·la·cies<br />

from Latin fallācia, from fallax deceitful, from fallere to deceive<br />

1. A false notion, a false belief, a misconception, an incorrect conception<br />

2. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.<br />

3. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.<br />

4. The quality of being deceptive.<br />

5. an incorrect or misleading notion or opinion based on inaccurate facts or invalid reasoning<br />

6. unsound or invalid reasoning<br />

7. the tendency to mislead<br />

8. (Philosophy / Logic) Logic an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid<br />

9. pseudoscience- an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions<br />

10. logical fallacy - a fallacy in logical argumentation<br />

11. pathetic fallacy - the fallacy of attributing human feelings to inanimate objects; `the friendly sun' is<br />

an example of the pathetic fallacy<br />

12. sophism, sophistry, sophistication - a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in<br />

reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone<br />

13. paralogism - an unintentionally invalid argument<br />

50


Fallacies include:<br />

Formal fallacies<br />

Formal fallacy<br />

An error in logic that can be seen in the argument's form. All formal fallacies are specific types of non<br />

sequiturs.<br />

Appeal to probability<br />

Takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).<br />

Argument from fallacy<br />

Assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion itself is false.<br />

Base rate fallacy<br />

Making a probability judgement based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the<br />

effect of prior probabilities.<br />

Conjunction fallacy<br />

Assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an<br />

outcome satisfying a single one of them.<br />

Masked man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals)<br />

The substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.<br />

Propositional fallacies<br />

Propositional fallacy<br />

An error in logic that concerns compound propositions. For a compound proposition to be true, the<br />

truth values of its constituent parts must satisfy the relevant logical connectives which occur in it (most<br />

commonly: , , , , ). The following fallacies involve<br />

inferences whose correctness is not guaranteed by the behavior of those logical connectives, <strong>and</strong> hence,<br />

which are not logically guaranteed to yield true conclusions.<br />

Affirming a disjunct<br />

Concluded that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A<br />

or B; A; therefore not B.<br />

Affirming the consequent<br />

The antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A,<br />

then B; B, therefore A.<br />

Denying the antecedent<br />

The consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A,<br />

then B; not A, therefore not B.<br />

Quantification fallacies<br />

Quantification fallacy<br />

An error in logic where the quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the quantifier of the<br />

conclusion.<br />

Existential fallacy<br />

An argument has a universal premise <strong>and</strong> a particular conclusion.<br />

51


Formal syllogistic fallacies<br />

Syllogistic fallacies<br />

Logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.<br />

Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative)<br />

When a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise.<br />

Fallacy of exclusive premises<br />

A categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.<br />

Fallacy of four terms (quaternio terminorum)<br />

A categorical syllogism that has four terms.<br />

Illicit major<br />

A categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is not distributed in the major premise but<br />

distributed in the conclusion.<br />

Illicit minor<br />

A categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is not distributed in the minor premise<br />

but distributed in the conclusion.<br />

Negative conclusion from affirmative premises (illicit affirmative)<br />

When a categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion but affirmative premises.<br />

Fallacy of the undistributed middle<br />

The middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed.<br />

Informal fallacies<br />

Informal fallacies<br />

Arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws <strong>and</strong> which usually require<br />

examination of the argument's content.<br />

Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam)<br />

Assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven<br />

false (true). The fallacy that since we don’t know (or can never know, or cannot prove) whether a<br />

claim is true or false, it must be false (or that it must be true). E.g., “Scientists are never going to be<br />

able to positively prove their theory that humans evolved from other creatures because we weren't there<br />

to see it! So, that proves the Genesis six-day creation account is literally true!” Sometimes this also<br />

includes “Either-Or Reasoning:” E.g., “The vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog<br />

died. See! See! That proves that my neighbor poisoned him! There’s no other logical explanation!” A<br />

corrupted argument from logos. A fallacy commonly found in American judicial <strong>and</strong> forensic<br />

reasoning. See also "Argumentum ex Silentio."<br />

Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam)<br />

Signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.<br />

Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio)<br />

Where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence. (see<br />

also, Argument from Ignorance). The fallacy that if sources remain silent or say nothing about a given<br />

subject or question this in itself proves something about the truth of the matter. E.g., "Science can tell<br />

us nothing about God, which proves God doesn't exist." Or "Science can tell us nothing about God, so<br />

you have no basis for denying that God exists!" Often misused in the American justice system, where<br />

remaining silent or "taking the Fifth" is often falsely portrayed as proof of guilt. E.g., "Mr. Hixel has no<br />

52


alibi for the evening of January 15th. This proves that he was in fact in room 331 at the Smuggler's<br />

Pass Inn, murdering his ex-wife!"<br />

Argumentum verbosium<br />

See Proof by verbosity, below.<br />

Begging the question (petitio principii)<br />

The failure to provide what is essentially the conclusion of an argument as a premise, if so required.<br />

(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus prob<strong>and</strong>i, see also “argument from ignorance). A fallacy that<br />

challenges opponents to disprove a claim, rather than asking the person making the claim to defend<br />

his/her own argument. “I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.” E.g., "Space-aliens are<br />

everywhere among us, even here on campus, masquerading as true humans! I dare you prove it isn't so!<br />

See? You can't! That means you have to accept that what I say is true."<br />

Circular reasoning (also “begging the question” )<br />

When the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with. - Falsely arguing that<br />

something is true by repeating the same statement in different words. E.g., “The witchcraft problem is<br />

the most urgent challenge in the world today. Why? Because witches threaten our very souls.” A<br />

corrupt argument from logos.<br />

Big Lie Technique (also "Staying on Message"):<br />

The contemporary fallacy of repeating a lie, slogan or deceptive half-truth over <strong>and</strong> over (particularly<br />

in the media) until people believe it without further proof or evidence.. E.g., "What about the Jewish<br />

Question?" Note that when this particular phony debate was going on there was no "Jewish Question,"<br />

only a "Nazi Question," but hardly anybody in power recognized or wanted to talk about that.<br />

Circular cause <strong>and</strong> consequence<br />

Where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.<br />

Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald<br />

man fallacy)<br />

Improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.<br />

Correlation proves causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc)<br />

A faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.<br />

Correlative-based fallacies<br />

Suppressed correlative<br />

Where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.<br />

Equivocation<br />

The misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is<br />

intended at a particular time).<br />

Ambiguous middle term<br />

A common ambiguity in syllogisms in which the middle term is equivocated.<br />

Ecological fallacy<br />

Inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected<br />

for the group to which those individuals belong.<br />

Etymological fallacy<br />

Which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its<br />

actual present-day meaning.<br />

53


Fallacy of composition<br />

Assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.<br />

Fallacy of division<br />

Assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.<br />

False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy)<br />

Two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.<br />

If-by-whiskey<br />

An argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally<br />

sensitive.<br />

Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium<br />

interrogationum)<br />

Someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the<br />

people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those<br />

that serve the questioner's agenda.<br />

Ludic fallacy<br />

The belief that the outcomes of a non-regulated r<strong>and</strong>om occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic;<br />

a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of an event's taking<br />

place.<br />

Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification)<br />

It is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by<br />

a number of only jointly sufficient causes.<br />

False attribution<br />

An advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support<br />

of an argument.<br />

Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy)<br />

Refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's<br />

intended meaning.<br />

Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean)<br />

Assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct.<br />

Gambler's fallacy<br />

The incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another r<strong>and</strong>om<br />

event. If a coin flip l<strong>and</strong>s on heads 10 times in a row, the belief that it is "due to l<strong>and</strong> on tails" is<br />

incorrect.<br />

Historian's fallacy<br />

Occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective<br />

<strong>and</strong> having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision. (Not to be confused<br />

with presentism, which is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral<br />

st<strong>and</strong>ards, are projected into the past.)<br />

Homunculus fallacy<br />

Where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this sometimes leads to regressive middle-man.<br />

Explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains<br />

54


the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original<br />

concept.clarification needed<br />

Inflation Of Conflict<br />

The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, <strong>and</strong><br />

therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question.<br />

Incomplete comparison<br />

Where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison.<br />

Inconsistent comparison<br />

Where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole<br />

comparison.<br />

Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point)<br />

An argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.<br />

Kettle logic<br />

Using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.<br />

Mind projection fallacy<br />

When one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is.<br />

Moving the goalposts (raising the bar)<br />

Argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed <strong>and</strong> some other<br />

(often greater) evidence is dem<strong>and</strong>ed.<br />

Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy)<br />

When solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.<br />

Onus prob<strong>and</strong>i<br />

From Latin "onus prob<strong>and</strong>i incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person<br />

who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of<br />

the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against<br />

the assertion.<br />

Petitio principii<br />

See begging the question.<br />

Post hoc ergo propter hoc<br />

Latin for "after this, therefore because of this" (false cause, coincidental correlation, correlation without<br />

causation) – X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y.<br />

Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation)<br />

Submission of others to an argument too complex <strong>and</strong> verbose to reasonably deal with in all its<br />

intimate details. (See also Gish Gallop <strong>and</strong> argument from authority.)<br />

Prosecutor's fallacy<br />

A low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found.<br />

Psychologist's fallacy<br />

An observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event.<br />

Regression fallacy<br />

55


Ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently<br />

a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.<br />

Reification (hypostatization)<br />

A fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it<br />

were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing"<br />

something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.<br />

Retrospective determinism<br />

The argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable<br />

beforeh<strong>and</strong>.<br />

Shotgun argumentation<br />

The arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly<br />

respond to all of them. (See "Argument by verbosity" <strong>and</strong> "Gish Gallop", above.)<br />

Special pleading<br />

Where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted<br />

rule or principle without justifying the exemption.<br />

Wrong direction<br />

Cause <strong>and</strong> effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect <strong>and</strong> vice versa.<br />

Faulty generalizations<br />

Faulty generalizations<br />

Reach a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective<br />

induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty<br />

generalization is thus produced.<br />

Accident<br />

An exception to a generalization is ignored.<br />

No true Scotsman<br />

When a generalization is made true only when a counterexample is ruled out on shaky grounds.<br />

Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence)<br />

Act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a<br />

significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.<br />

False analogy<br />

An argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.<br />

Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the<br />

lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident)<br />

Basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.<br />

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire (also Hasty Conclusion, Jumping to a Conclusion).<br />

The dangerous fallacy of quickly drawing a conclusion <strong>and</strong>/or taking action without sufficient<br />

evidence. E.g., “My neighbor Jaminder Singh wears a long beard <strong>and</strong> a turban <strong>and</strong> speaks a funny<br />

language. Where there's smoke there's fire. This is war, our country is in danger, <strong>and</strong> that’s all the<br />

evidence we need to string him up!’” A variety of the “Just in Case” fallacy.<br />

Snow job<br />

56


The fallacy of “proving” a claim by overwhelming an audience with mountains of irrelevant facts,<br />

numbers, documents, graphs <strong>and</strong> statistics that they cannot be expected to underst<strong>and</strong>. This is a<br />

corrupted argument from logos. See also, "Lying with Statistics."<br />

Misleading vividness<br />

Involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince<br />

someone that it is a problem.<br />

Overwhelming exception<br />

An accurate generalization that comes with qualifications which eliminate so many cases that what<br />

remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.<br />

Other fallacies<br />

Pathetic fallacy<br />

When an inanimate object is declared to have characteristics of animate objects.<br />

Thought-terminating cliché<br />

A commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance,<br />

conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move onto other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with<br />

a cliché—not a point.<br />

Red herring fallacy<br />

A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in<br />

order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake<br />

arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the<br />

discussion. The argument given in response to another argument is irrelevant, but the speaker believes<br />

it will be easier to speak to <strong>and</strong> will draw the attention away from the subject of argument. Usually the<br />

false argument used will be an emotionally loaded issue. E.g., "In regard to my recent indictment for<br />

corruption, let’s talk about what’s really important instead: terrorists are out there, <strong>and</strong> if we don't stop<br />

them we're all gonna die!"<br />

Poisoning the well (also “personal attack” or “Ad hominem”: attacking the arguer instead of the<br />

argument.)<br />

The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or<br />

reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. A type of ad hominem argument, where<br />

adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the<br />

target person says. E.g., "He's so evil that you can't believe anything he says." See also Guilt by<br />

Association. Also applies to cases where potential opposing arguments are brushed aside without<br />

comment or consideration, as simply not worth arguing about.<br />

Abusive fallacy<br />

A subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into name-calling rather than arguing about the originally<br />

proposed argument.<br />

Argumentum ad baculam (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat, argument from the club)<br />

An argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position. The fallacy of "persuasion"<br />

by a, violence, or threats. E.g., "Gimme your money, or I'll knock your head off!" or "We have the<br />

perfect right to take your l<strong>and</strong>, since we have the guns <strong>and</strong> you don't." Also applies to indirect forms of<br />

threat. E.g., "Believe in our religion if you don't want to burn in hell forever <strong>and</strong> ever!"<br />

Argumentum ad populum (argument from common sense, appeal to widespread belief, b<strong>and</strong>wagon<br />

argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people)<br />

57


Where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so,<br />

arguing that because "everyone" supposedly thinks or does something, it must be right. E.g., "Everyone<br />

thinks undocumented aliens ought to be kicked out!" Sometimes also includes Lying with Statistics,<br />

e.g. “Surveys show that over 75% of Americans believe Senator Smith is not telling the truth. For<br />

anyone with half a brain, that conclusively proves he’s a dirty liar!”<br />

Appeal to action<br />

We Have to Do Something: The dangerous contemporary fallacy that in moments of crisis one must do<br />

something, anything, at once, even if it is an overreaction, is totally ineffective or makes the situation<br />

worse, rather than "just sitting there doing nothing." (E.g., "Banning air passengers from carrying nail<br />

clippers probably does nothing to deter potential hijackers, but we have to do something to respond to<br />

this crisis!") This is often a corrupted argument from pathos.<br />

Appeal to equality<br />

Where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed pretence of equality.<br />

Association fallacy (guilt by association)<br />

Arguing that because two things share a property they are the same<br />

Appeal to accomplishment<br />

Where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer.<br />

Appeal to Closure<br />

The contemporary fallacy that an argument, st<strong>and</strong>point, action or conclusion must be accepted, no<br />

matter how questionable, or else the point will remain unsettled <strong>and</strong> those affected will be denied<br />

"closure." This refuses to recognize the truth that some points will indeed remain unsettled, perhaps<br />

forever. (E.g., "Society would be protected, crime would be deterred <strong>and</strong> justice served if we sentence<br />

you to life without parole, but we need to execute you in order to provide some sense of closure.") (See<br />

also "Argument from Ignorance," "Argument from Consequences.")<br />

Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam)<br />

The conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some<br />

course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion. The major fallacy of arguing that<br />

something cannot be true because if it were the consequences would be unacceptable. (E.g., "Global<br />

climate change cannot be caused by human burning of fossil fuels, because if it were, switching to nonpolluting<br />

energy sources would bankrupt American industry.")<br />

Appeal to emotion<br />

Where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning<br />

Appeal to fear<br />

A specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear <strong>and</strong> prejudice<br />

towards the opposing side.<br />

Appeal to flattery<br />

A specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather<br />

support.<br />

Appeal to Heaven<br />

(also Deus Vult, Gott mit Uns, Manifest Destiny, the Special Covenant). An extremely dangerous<br />

fallacy (a deluded argument from ethos) of asserting that God (or a higher power) has ordered, supports<br />

or approves one's own st<strong>and</strong>point or actions, so no further justification is required <strong>and</strong> no serious<br />

challenge is possible. (E.g., "God ordered me to kill my children," or "We need to take away your l<strong>and</strong>,<br />

since God [or Destiny, or Fate, or Heaven] has given it to us.") A private individual who seriously<br />

58


asserts this fallacy risks ending up in a psychiatric ward, but groups or nations who do it are far too<br />

often taken seriously. This vicious fallacy has been the cause of endless bloodshed over history.<br />

Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam)<br />

An argument attempts to induce pity to sway opponents - The fallacy of urging an audience to “root for<br />

the underdog” regardless of the issues at h<strong>and</strong> (e.g., “Those poor, cute little squeaky mice are being<br />

gobbled up by mean, nasty cats that are ten times their size!”) A corrupt argument from pathos. See<br />

also Playing to Emotions.<br />

Appeal to ridicule<br />

An argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous<br />

Appeal to spite<br />

A specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness<br />

or spite towards an opposing party<br />

Wishful thinking<br />

A specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to<br />

imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.<br />

Appeal to motive, also Argument from Motives or “Questioning Motives”<br />

Where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer. The fallacy of<br />

declaring a st<strong>and</strong>point or argument invalid solely because of the evil, corrupt or questionable motives<br />

of the one making the claim. E.g., "Bin Laden wanted us out of Afghanistan, so we have to keep up the<br />

fight!" Even evil people with corrupt motives sometimes say the truth (<strong>and</strong> even those who have the<br />

highest motives are often wrong or mistaken). A variety of the Ad Hominem argument. The<br />

counterpart of this is the fallacy of falsely justifying or excusing evil or vicious actions because of the<br />

perpetrator's purity of motives or lack of malice. (E.g., "She's a good Christian woman; how could you<br />

accuse her of doing something like that?")<br />

Appeal to novelty (argumentum ad novitam)<br />

Where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.<br />

Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum)<br />

Supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy).<br />

(Opposite of appeal to wealth.)<br />

Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitam)<br />

A conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.<br />

Appeal to nature<br />

Wherein judgement is based solely on whether the subject of judgement is 'natural' or<br />

'unnatural'.citation needed For example (hypothetical): "Cannabis is healthy because it is natural"<br />

Appeal to Tradition<br />

(also "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"). The fallacy that a st<strong>and</strong>point, situation or action is right, proper <strong>and</strong><br />

correct simply because it has "always" been that way, because people have "always" thought that way,<br />

or because it continues to serve one particular group very well.. A corrupted argument from ethos (that<br />

of past generations). (E.g., "In America, women have always been paid less, so let's not mess with<br />

long-st<strong>and</strong>ing tradition."). The reverse of this is yet another fallacy, the "Appeal to Innovation," e.g.,<br />

"It's NEW, <strong>and</strong> [therefore it must be] improved!"<br />

Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam)<br />

59


Supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor).<br />

(Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial<br />

situation.)<br />

Argument from Inertia (also “Stay the Course”).<br />

The fallacy that it is necessary to continue on a mistaken course of action even after discovering it is<br />

mistaken, because changing course would mean admitting one's decision (or one's leader, or one's<br />

faith) was wrong, <strong>and</strong> all one's effort, expense <strong>and</strong> sacrifice was for nothing, <strong>and</strong> that is unthinkable. A<br />

variety of the Argument from Consequences.<br />

Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio)<br />

A conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence.<br />

Bulverism (Psychogenetic Fallacy)<br />

Inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it<br />

is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then<br />

the idea itself must also be a false.<br />

Chronological snobbery<br />

Where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false,<br />

was also commonly heldcitation needed<br />

Genetic fallacy<br />

Where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current<br />

meaning or context.<br />

Judgmental language<br />

Insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment<br />

Naturalistic fallacy (is–ought fallacy, naturalistic fallacy)<br />

Claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is.<br />

Reductio ad Hitlerum (playing the Nazi card)<br />

Comparing an opponent or their argument to Hitler or Nazism in an attempt to associate a position with<br />

one that is universally reviled (See also – Godwin's law)<br />

Straw man. (also "The Straw Person")<br />

An argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. The fallacy of setting up a phony<br />

version of an opponent's argument, <strong>and</strong> then proceeding to knock it down with a wave of the h<strong>and</strong>.<br />

E.g., "Vegetarians say animals have feelings like you <strong>and</strong> me. Ever seen a cow laugh at a Shakespeare<br />

comedy? Vegetarianism is nonsense!"<br />

Texas sharpshooter fallacy<br />

Improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data<br />

Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy)<br />

The argument states that a certain position is false or wrong <strong>and</strong>/or should be disregarded because its<br />

proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position<br />

Two wrongs make a right (also: “Tu Quoque “)<br />

Occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out. A shaky<br />

or false st<strong>and</strong>point is defended or one's own bad action is excused by pointing out that one's<br />

opponent's acts or personal character are also open to question, or even worse. E.g., "Sure, we may<br />

have tortured prisoners of war, but we didn't cut off heads off like they do!" A corrupt argument from<br />

ethos. Related to the Red Herring <strong>and</strong> to the Ad Hominem Argument.<br />

60


Conditional or questionable fallacies<br />

Broken window fallacy<br />

An argument which disregards lost opportunity costs (typically non-obvious, difficult to determine or<br />

otherwise hidden) associated with destroying property of others, or other ways of externalizing costs<br />

onto others. For example, an argument that states breaking a window generates income for a window<br />

fitter, but disregards the fact that the money spent on the new window cannot now be spent on new<br />

shoes.<br />

Definist fallacy<br />

Involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other.<br />

Naturalistic fallacy<br />

Attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of<br />

either one or more claims about natural properties (sometimes also taken to mean the appeal to<br />

nature)citation needed or God's will.<br />

Slippery slope (thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose, domino theory)<br />

The common fallacy that "one thing inevitably leads to another , asserting that a relatively small first<br />

step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact/event that<br />

should not happen, thus the first step should not happen. " E.g., "If you two go <strong>and</strong> drink coffee<br />

together, one thing will lead to another, <strong>and</strong> soon enough you'll be pregnant <strong>and</strong> end up spending your<br />

life on welfare living in the projects," or "If we cut <strong>and</strong> run in Iraq or Afghanistan, pretty soon all of<br />

southwest Asia will be run by Al-Qaeda." While this fallacy is a popular one, it is, in its essence, an<br />

appeal to probability fallacy. (e.g if person x does y then z would (probably) occur, leading to q,<br />

leading to w, leading to e.)<br />

The slippery slope is used when a person implies that if someone does one thing (A), it will inevitably<br />

lead to a domino effect of negative things that, in the end will result in something terrible. In other<br />

words, “A” is not so bad, but A leads to B <strong>and</strong> B leads to C <strong>and</strong> C is horrible! Imagine a mother<br />

lecturing her teenage daughter: “OK, maybe there is nothing wrong with a kiss, but remember where<br />

kissing leads <strong>and</strong> where that leads <strong>and</strong> that. Before you know it you’ll be the mother of an unwanted<br />

baby! Your young life will be ruined forever!”<br />

61


Manipulators who use this argument conveniently forget that many people walk carefully on slippery<br />

ground <strong>and</strong> don’t fall down.<br />

Source: Richard Paul <strong>and</strong> Linda Elder, “The thinker’s guide to fallacies”, “The art of mental trickery”<br />

Transfer:<br />

A corrupt argument from ethos, falsely associating a famous person or thing with an unrelated<br />

st<strong>and</strong>point (e.g. putting a picture of George Washington on an advertisement for mattresses or using<br />

Genghis Khan (a Mongol) as the name of a Chinese restaurant, or using the Texas flag to sell cars or<br />

pickups that were made in Detroit, Kansas City or Kyoto).<br />

Testimonial (also Questionable Authority, Faulty Use of Authority)<br />

A fallacy in which support for a st<strong>and</strong>point or product is provided by a well-known or respected figure<br />

(e.g. a star athlete or entertainer) who is not an expert <strong>and</strong> who was probably well paid for the<br />

endorsement (e.g., “Olympic gold-medal pole-vaulter Fulano de Tal uses Quick Flush Internetshouldn’t<br />

you?"). Also includes other false, meaningless or paid means of associating oneself or one’s<br />

product with the ethos of a famous person or event (e.g. “Try Salsa Cabria, the official taco sauce of<br />

the Vancouver Winter Olympics!”) This is a corrupted argument from ethos.<br />

They're Not Like Us<br />

A badly corrupted, bigoted argument from ethos where a fact, argument or objection is arbitrarily<br />

disregarded, ignored or put down without consideration because those involved "are not like us," or<br />

"don't think like us." E.g., "It's OK for Mexicans to earn half a buck an hour in the maquiladoras. If it<br />

were here, I'd call it exploitation <strong>and</strong> daylight robbery, but south of the border they're not the same as<br />

we are." Or, "Sure, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima killed hundreds of thous<strong>and</strong>s of innocent<br />

people, but over there they're not like us <strong>and</strong> don't think the same way we do about life <strong>and</strong> death." A<br />

variety of the Ad Hominem Argument, most often applied to non-White populations.<br />

TINA (There Is No Alternative. Also "Get Over It," the "fait accompli").<br />

A very common contemporary extension of the either/or fallacy, quashing critical thought by<br />

announcing that there is no realistic alternative to a given st<strong>and</strong>point, status or action, ruling any <strong>and</strong> all<br />

other options irrelevant, or announcing that a decision has been made <strong>and</strong> any further discussion is<br />

simply a waste of time (or even insubordination or disloyalty) when there is a job to be done. (See also,<br />

"Taboo.")<br />

Taboo<br />

The fallacy of unilaterally declaring certain arguments, st<strong>and</strong>points or actions to be "sacrosanct" or not<br />

open to discussion or arbitrarily taking some st<strong>and</strong>points or options "off the table" beforeh<strong>and</strong>. (E.g.,<br />

"Don't bring my drinking into this," or "Before we start, I won't allow you to put my arguments down<br />

by saying 'That's just what Hitler would say!'")<br />

Blind Loyalty (also Blind Obedience, the "Team Player" appeal, or the Nuremberg Defense).<br />

The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply <strong>and</strong> solely because a respected leader<br />

or source (an expert, parents, one's own "side," team or country, one’s boss or comm<strong>and</strong>ing officers)<br />

say it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty<br />

above truth or above one's own reason <strong>and</strong> conscience. In this case, a person attempts to justify<br />

incorrect, stupid or criminal behavior by whining "That's what I was told to do," or “I was just<br />

following orders."<br />

Blood is Thicker than Water (also Favoritism, Compadrismo, "For my friends, anything.").<br />

The reverse of the "Ad Hominem" fallacy, a corrupt argument from ethos where a statement, argument<br />

or action is automatically regarded as true, correct <strong>and</strong> above challenge because one is related to (or<br />

knows <strong>and</strong> likes, or is on the same team as) the individual involved. (E.g., "My brother-in-law says he<br />

saw you goofing off on the job. You're a hard worker, but who am I going to believe, you or him?<br />

You're fired!")<br />

62


Bribery (also Material Persuasion, Material Incentive, Financial Incentive).<br />

The fallacy of "persuasion" by bribery, gifts or favors, the reverse of the Argumentum ad Baculam. As<br />

is well known, someone who is persuaded by bribery rarely "stays persuaded" unless the bribes keep<br />

on coming in, <strong>and</strong> usually increasing with time.<br />

The Complex Question:<br />

The fallacy of dem<strong>and</strong>ing a direct answer to a question that cannot be answered without first analyzing<br />

or challenging the basis of the question itself. E.g., "Answer me yes or no! Did you think you could<br />

get away with plagiarism <strong>and</strong> not suffer the consequences?" Or, "Why did you rob that bank?" Also<br />

applies to situations where one is forced to either accept or reject complex st<strong>and</strong>points or propositions<br />

containing both acceptable <strong>and</strong> unacceptable parts. A corruption of the argument from logos.<br />

Diminished Responsibility<br />

The common contemporary fallacy of falsely applying a specialized American judicial concept (that<br />

criminal punishment should be less if one's judgment was impaired) to logic in general. E.g., "You<br />

can't count me absent on Monday--I was hung over <strong>and</strong> couldn't come to class--it's not my fault." Or,<br />

"Yeah, I was speeding on the freeway <strong>and</strong> killed a guy, but I was high <strong>and</strong> didn't know what I was<br />

doing, so it didn't matter that much." In reality the death does matter very much to the victim, to her<br />

family <strong>and</strong> friends <strong>and</strong> to society in general. Whether the perpetrator was high or not does not matter at<br />

all, since the material results are the same.<br />

Either-Or Reasoning<br />

(also False Dilemma, Black / White Fallacy). A fallacy that falsely offers only two possible alternatives<br />

even though a broad range of possible alternatives are really available. E.g., "Either you are 100%<br />

straight or you are queer--it's as simple as that, <strong>and</strong> there's no middle ground!" Or, “Either you’re with<br />

me all the way, or you’re my enemy <strong>and</strong> must be destroyed!<br />

”E" for Effort. (Also Noble Effort)<br />

The contemporary fallacy that something must be right, true, valuable, or worthy of credit simply<br />

because someone has put so much sincere good-faith effort or even sacrifice <strong>and</strong> bloodshed into it. (See<br />

also Appeal to Pity, Argument from Inertia, or Sob Story.).<br />

Equivocation<br />

The fallacy of deliberately failing to define one's terms, or deliberately using words in a different sense<br />

than the one the audience will underst<strong>and</strong>. (E.g., Bill Clinton stating that he did not have sex with "that<br />

woman," meaning no sexual penetration, knowing full well that the audience will underst<strong>and</strong> his<br />

statement as "I had no sexual contact of any sort with that woman.") This is a corruption of the<br />

argument from logos, <strong>and</strong> a tactic often used in American jurisprudence.<br />

Essentializing<br />

A fallacy that proposes a person or thing “is what it is <strong>and</strong> that’s all that it is,” <strong>and</strong> at its core will<br />

always be what it is right now (E.g., "All ex-cons are criminals, <strong>and</strong> will still be criminals even if they<br />

live to be 100."). Also refers to the fallacy of arguing that something is a certain way "by nature," an<br />

empty claim that no amount of proof can refute. (E.g., "Americans are cold <strong>and</strong> greedy by nature," or<br />

"Women are better cooks than men.")<br />

False Analogy<br />

The fallacy of incorrectly comparing one thing to another in order to draw a false conclusion. E.g.,<br />

"Just like an alley cat needs to prowl, a normal human being can’t be tied down to one single lover."<br />

Finish the Job<br />

The dangerous contemporary fallacy that an action or st<strong>and</strong>point (or the continuation of the action or<br />

st<strong>and</strong>point) may not be questioned or discussed because there is "a job to be done," falsely assuming all<br />

"jobs" are meaningless but never to be questioned. Sometimes those involved internalize ("buy into")<br />

the "job" <strong>and</strong> make the task a part of their own ethos. (E.g., "Ours is not to reason why / Ours is but to<br />

63


do or die.") Related to this is the "Just a Job" fallacy. (E.g., "How can torturers st<strong>and</strong> to look at<br />

themselves in the mirror? But, I guess it's OK because for them it's just a job like any other.") (See<br />

also "Blind Loyalty," "Argument from Inertia.")<br />

Guilt by Association<br />

The fallacy of trying to refute or condemn someone's st<strong>and</strong>point, arguments or actions by evoking the<br />

negative ethos of those with whom one associates or a collective to which he or she belongs. A form of<br />

Ad Hominem Argument. (E.g., "Don't listen to her. She's a Republican, so you can't trust anything she<br />

says.") See also "They're Not Like Us."<br />

The Half Truth (also Card Stacking, Incomplete Information)<br />

A corrupt argument from logos, the fallacy of telling the truth but deliberately omitting important key<br />

details in order to falsify the larger picture <strong>and</strong> support a false conclusion (e.g. “The truth is that<br />

Ciudad Juárez, Mexico is one of the world's fastest growing cities <strong>and</strong> can boast of a young, ambitious<br />

<strong>and</strong> hard-working population, mild winters, a dry <strong>and</strong> sunny climate, low cost medical <strong>and</strong> dental care,<br />

a multitude of churches <strong>and</strong> places of worship, delicious local cuisine <strong>and</strong> a swinging nightclub scene.<br />

Taken together, all these facts clearly prove that Juarez is one of the world’s most desirable places for<br />

young families to live, work <strong>and</strong> raise a family.”)<br />

I Wish I Had a Magic W<strong>and</strong><br />

The fallacy of regretfully (<strong>and</strong> falsely) proclaiming oneself powerless to change a bad or objectionable<br />

situation, because there is no alternative. E.g., "What can we do about high gas prices? As Secretary of<br />

Energy I wish I had a magic w<strong>and</strong>, but I don't." [shrug] Or, "No, you can't quit piano lessons. I wish I<br />

had a magic w<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> could teach you piano overnight, but I don't, so like it or not, you have to keep<br />

on practicing." The parent, of course, ignores the possibility that the child may not want or need to<br />

learn piano. See also, TINA.<br />

Just in Case<br />

A fallacy by which one’s argument is based on a far-fetched or imaginary worst-case scenario rather<br />

than on reality. Plays on pathos (fear) rather than reason. E.g., "What if armed terrorists were to attack<br />

your own neighborhood day-care center tomorrow morning? Are you ready to fight back? Better stock<br />

up on assault rifles!"<br />

Lying with Statistics<br />

Using true figures <strong>and</strong> numbers to “prove” unrelated claims. (e.g. "Gas prices have never been lower.<br />

When taken as a percentage of the national debt, filling up at your corner gas station is actually far<br />

cheaper today than it was in 1965!"). A corrupted argument from logos. (See also Half-truth, Non<br />

Sequitur, Red Herring.)<br />

MYOB (Mind Your Own Business; You're Not the Boss of Me)<br />

The contemporary fallacy of arbitrarily prohibiting any discussion of one's own st<strong>and</strong>points or<br />

behavior, no matter how absurd, dangerous, evil or offensive, by drawing a phony curtain of privacy<br />

around oneself <strong>and</strong> one's actions. A corrupted argument from ethos (your own). (E.g., "So I was doing<br />

eighty <strong>and</strong> weaving between lanes on Main Street--what's it to you? You're not a cop, so mind your<br />

own business!") (See also, "Taboo.") Rational discussion is cut off because "it is none of your<br />

business!" (See also, the "Appeal to Privacy.")<br />

Name-Calling: A variety of the "Ad Hominem" argument<br />

The dangerous fallacy that, simply because of who you are, any <strong>and</strong> all arguments, disagreements or<br />

objections against your st<strong>and</strong>point or actions are automatically racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, bigoted,<br />

discriminatory or hateful. E.g., "My st<strong>and</strong> on abortion is the only correct one. To disagree with me,<br />

argue with me or question my judgment in any way would only show what a pig you really are." Also<br />

applies to refuting an argument by simply calling it a fallacy or declaring it invalid, without proving<br />

why it is invalid. See also, "Reductionism."<br />

64


Non Sequitur<br />

The fallacy of offering reasons or conclusions that have no logical connection to the argument at h<strong>and</strong><br />

(e.g. “The reason I flunked your course is because the government is now putting out purple five-dollar<br />

bills!”). (See also Red Herring.) Occasionally involves the breathtaking arrogance of claiming to know<br />

why God is doing certain things. E.g., "Obviously, God sent the earthquake to punish those people for<br />

their great wickedness."<br />

Overgeneralization (also Hasty Generalization)<br />

The stupid but common fallacy of incorrectly applying one or two examples to all cases (e.g. “Some<br />

college student was tailgating me all the way up North Main Street last night. This proves that all<br />

college students are lousy drivers, <strong>and</strong> we should pull their driver’s licenses until they either grow up,<br />

learn to drive or graduate!”).<br />

The Paralysis of Analysis (also, Procrastination)<br />

A postmodern fallacy that, since all data is never in, no legitimate decision can ever be made <strong>and</strong> any<br />

action should always be delayed until forced by circumstances. A corruption of the argument from<br />

logos.<br />

Playing on Emotions (also, the Sob Story)<br />

The classic fallacy of pure argument from pathos, ignoring facts <strong>and</strong> calling on emotion alone. E.g., “If<br />

you don’t agree witchcraft is a major problem, just stop for a moment <strong>and</strong> think of all those poor moms<br />

crying bitter tears for their innocent tiny little children whose little beds <strong>and</strong> tricycles lie cold <strong>and</strong><br />

ab<strong>and</strong>oned, all because of those wicked old witches! Let’s string’em all up!”<br />

Political Correctness ("PC")<br />

A contemporary fallacy that the nature of a thing or situation can be changed simply by changing its<br />

name. E.g., "We can strike a blow against cruelty to animals by changing the name of ‘pets’ to ‘animal<br />

companions.’" or "What's going on in Juárez is not a 'war,' it is a fight between drug cartels. That<br />

means it's not that bad."<br />

Post Hoc Argument<br />

(also, "post hoc propter hoc" argument, or the "too much of a coincidence" argument): The classic<br />

fallacy that because something comes at the same time or just after something else, the first thing is<br />

caused by the second. E.g., "AIDS first emerged as a problem during the exact same time that Disco<br />

music was becoming popular--that's too much of a coincidence: It proves that Disco causes AIDS!"<br />

Reductionism<br />

(also, Oversimplifying, Sloganeering): The fallacy of deceiving an audience by giving simple answers<br />

or slogans in response to complex questions, especially when appealing to less educated or<br />

unsophisticated audiences. E.g., "If the glove doesn’t fit, you must vote to acquit." Often involves<br />

appeals to emotion (pathos). E.g., “Moms! If you want to protect your little kids from armed terrorists,<br />

vote for Smith!”<br />

Reifying<br />

The fallacy of treating imaginary categories as actual, material "things." (E.g., "The biggest struggle in<br />

youth culture today is between Goths <strong>and</strong> Emos.") Sometimes also referred to as "Essentializing" or<br />

“Hypostatization.”<br />

Sending the Wrong Message<br />

A dangerous fallacy that attacks a given statement or action, no matter how true, correct or necessary,<br />

because it will "send the wrong message." In effect, those who uses this fallacy are publicly confessing<br />

to fraud <strong>and</strong> admitting that the truth will destroy the fragile web of illusion that has been created by<br />

their lies. E.g., "Actually, we're losing the war, but if we admit it we'll be sending the wrong message<br />

to our enemies."<br />

65


Some fallacies that are often deliberately used to misguide <strong>and</strong> manipulate others will be described<br />

more in detail in the list of common manipulation tricks.<br />

66


4.3. Punishment<br />

Manipulators often punish their victims when they don’t get what they want or in an effort to still get<br />

what they want when other forms of manipulation have failed.<br />

Punishment: includes nagging, yelling, the silent treatment, intimidation, threats, swearing, emotional<br />

blackmail, the guilt trip, sulking, crying, <strong>and</strong> playing the victim.<br />

1. Nagging <strong>and</strong> Yelling<br />

When he wants something from you, but you decline his initial request, the manipulator may keep on<br />

asking until you finally get bored <strong>and</strong> give him what he wants.<br />

In the process, they may plead <strong>and</strong> whine at some times, taking a child position; then again they will<br />

dem<strong>and</strong> the thing they want, being angry <strong>and</strong> stamping their feet or argue rationally why you must give<br />

them what they want. They may make you promises, even agree to do anything (in reason!) that you<br />

want in order to show how important it is to them. They may nag at one time (such as when a child is<br />

in a shop <strong>and</strong> wants something bought for them) or they can wear you over a period of days (or<br />

months, if necessary).<br />

Example<br />

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<br />

it.<br />

(over time): We need a new carpet...This carpet is dreadful...I really don't like this carpet...There's a<br />

sale on at the carpet warehouse...Jan got a great new carpet last month...<br />

Why it works<br />

Nagging is a very well known method by many children, who know that although they do not have the<br />

control of their parents, that persistence will, in the end, pay. The child's method often gets repeated in<br />

domestic partnerships, where, although you might get your way, a habit of using this unsubtle method<br />

can lead to the relationship ultimately breaking up.<br />

67


How to Effectively Nag Your Partner<br />

Source: Dr Marianne Br<strong>and</strong>on / Genconnect<br />

http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/love-sex/effectively-nag-partner-211000666.html<br />

Ladies, we’ve all been there. If you’ve<br />

asked him once, you’ve asked 50 times. At<br />

some point you stopped asking nicely <strong>and</strong><br />

your tone officially turned to nagging.<br />

Now, somehow, it’s hard to stop. The nag<br />

feels strangely natural rolling off your<br />

tongue. And you feel oh so justified in<br />

doing it. After all, who could blame you?<br />

Your request is more than appropriate, <strong>and</strong><br />

your partner is more than capable of<br />

following through. Anyway, what choice<br />

do you have? You know of no other way to<br />

h<strong>and</strong>le this situation.<br />

Well you’ve come to the right place,<br />

because there is actually a more effective solution out there. And you need it. If you keep nagging, it’s<br />

unlikely that he is going to suddenly respond the way you want him to.<br />

You both have become embattled in one of those obnoxious power struggles that long-term committed<br />

partners do so very well. When couples get entrenched in this type of communication dance, everyone<br />

suffers. The TV becomes more <strong>and</strong> more appealing. She feels irritable around him. He shuts down<br />

around her. Sometimes she ups the ante by getting more dramatic in her efforts to get his attention. He<br />

closes down even more as a result. Making love becomes a rare event. In fact, you are lucky if you are<br />

still having sex. After all, who wants to make love to a man who is so tuned out from reality? And<br />

vice-versa, who wants to make love to a woman who won’t stop nagging you?<br />

You with me so far? Yes, I thought so. I’ve been doing couples therapy for a while now, I know this<br />

game. So allow me to offer you a very powerful <strong>and</strong> effective alternative to the nag. You know I’m<br />

very influenced by evolutionary theory, so we are going to use your man’s evolutionary programming<br />

to your advantage. But it’s going to require self-control, exposure <strong>and</strong> sincerity on your part. I hope<br />

you are up for it.<br />

Here’s the deal – we nag when we are irritated. Irritation is a form of anger. Anger is almost always an<br />

emotion that is fueled by something else – a deeper, more vulnerable feeling. When you look “under”<br />

your anger, chances are you’ll find some combination of sadness, rejection, <strong>and</strong>/or fear. (Fear is almost<br />

always at the core of everything dark, but if you get to sadness or rejection, that’s good enough). So<br />

ladies, find your sadness or your rejection, <strong>and</strong> let yourself really feel it. Drop down into it, so you feel<br />

it in your entire body. These emotions make us feel defenseless, helpless, hopeless, <strong>and</strong> obviously very<br />

uncomfortable. Anger, in contrast, energizes us, <strong>and</strong> makes us feel stronger <strong>and</strong> superior. Anger is a<br />

natural emotion <strong>and</strong> when expressed in a healthy way, it can be a very productive one, too.<br />

I am in no way against anger. Personally, I’m a big fan. BUT it’s when anger gets expressed in<br />

unproductive ways that things go very wrong. And nagging is one of those unproductive expressions of<br />

anger that we want to avoid if possible. I’ve yet to hear a woman tell me that her nagging is effective in<br />

getting what she needs. In fact, here’s a word of warning. If you were to succeed in getting what you<br />

want via nagging, then you will have a new problem on your h<strong>and</strong>s. You will lose respect for a man<br />

who requires nagging to get something done. But that’s a topic for another article.<br />

68


OK, so let’s review. We know expressions of anger can be healthy, but nagging is not one of those<br />

expressions. We know that there are more vulnerable emotions under your anger. So here’s the deal –<br />

you have to genuinely find those deeper emotions, <strong>and</strong> then share them.<br />

Note that I have italicized the word genuinely – cause if you aren’t being genuine in your feeling, this<br />

will become manipulation <strong>and</strong> that’s even worse than nagging cause at least nagging is more direct. So<br />

don’t mess up this advice by messing with his mind <strong>and</strong> manipulating. What you need to do is find that<br />

genuine feeling of rejection or hurt or whatever, embody it (meaning feel it in your entire body), look<br />

him in the eyes, <strong>and</strong> let him see it. And then, without attacking or belittling him, tell him about it. Keep<br />

your tone soft so you don’t sound like a mother guilting her son.<br />

So, for example, “When I have to remind<br />

you that it’s trash day every week, I feel so<br />

alone here. I feel so unsupported – like you<br />

don’t love me, <strong>and</strong> like you don’t really care<br />

what my days are like or how hard I’m<br />

trying. I so want our marriage to feel good to<br />

both of us. It’s the most important thing in<br />

the world to me. This hurts so much, David.”<br />

Here’s why this will work –men are<br />

intuitively oriented to protect women. It’s<br />

just what they are instinctively programmed<br />

to do. Dr. Roy Baumeister explored this<br />

concept in his book, Is There Anything<br />

Good About Men?. For example, men want<br />

to hold doors open for women, <strong>and</strong> they<br />

want to solve women’s problems (even if all a woman wants is for him to listen). This aspect of men’s<br />

psyche is likely to be evolutionary supported because if a man takes care of <strong>and</strong> protects his woman,<br />

his offspring are more likely to survive <strong>and</strong> thus his DNA marches on.<br />

So this is good news for you. Because if you approach him from a soft, honest, feminine sensitivity, it<br />

should tap the efficient, get-things-done masculine aspect of his personality. (In contrast, nagging is not<br />

a vulnerable, soft, open communication. So all nagging does is kick in his defensiveness).<br />

I’ve seen this work time <strong>and</strong> time again. But it’s got to be sincere on your part. AND I’d also suggest<br />

you pick your battles. We ladies can be a bit too picky, <strong>and</strong> it’s good to have reasonable expectations of<br />

our partner so he has room to breathe. If you have molded your partner into perfection, you’ll lose<br />

respect for him – a topic for another post.<br />

OK, so let’s review:<br />

1.Pick your battles. Don’t try to make your partner perfect.<br />

2.Go underneath your anger to the more vulnerable feelings hiding out there.<br />

3.Sincerely show your man these feelings with your eyes, the tone of your voice, <strong>and</strong> your words.<br />

4.Mother Nature should take care of the rest.<br />

If it sounds simple, it’s not. Anger is easy. Deeper, vulnerable-feeling emotions are much harder to<br />

express. But healthy relationships require these sorts of efforts to keep them out of dysfunction. So this<br />

is an example of the “relationships take work” mantra we all love to say, but then don’t actually follow<br />

through with.<br />

Of course, nothing is fool proof, so it is possible that your man is so turned off that even showing him<br />

how he impacts you will have little effect. In this case, you may want to consider a couples therapist.<br />

69


2. The silent treatment<br />

Manipulative people may “punish you” by stopping to talk to you altogether <strong>and</strong> try to find out how<br />

long it will take before you crack. This is how they get control.<br />

70<br />

How to deal with it:<br />

Simply say "Let me know when you feel like talking" <strong>and</strong><br />

nothing else.<br />

Act like it is no big deal. Get busy with something else <strong>and</strong> put a<br />

smile on your face. If you "crack" now, manipulative people will<br />

use this tactic again <strong>and</strong> again.<br />

Be aware that sometimes people need time to think things out,<br />

especially when they are angry.<br />

Taking some time out may not be a manipulative technique, just<br />

a way to deal with a problem. However, if the silence lasts<br />

longer than the time needed to reflect, it may be a manipulation<br />

tactic.


How to deal with the Silent Treatment when used as a form of Emotional Abuse<br />

Some victims have noted their abuser becomes notably happier the more worn down <strong>and</strong> miserable<br />

they become. In order to cope, the victim must appreciate that a silent treatment abuser thrives on<br />

observing the negative effect they have on their target. Therefore it is necessary to stop “feeding” their<br />

desire for control <strong>and</strong> power.<br />

This means NOT giving them the satisfaction of seeing the negative emotional affects of their<br />

immature behaviour. They can derive a great sense of self importance <strong>and</strong> triumph if you get irate,<br />

annoyed, upset, capitulate/apologise, weep or plead with them to talk to you. Starve them of these<br />

rewards for their unjust behaviour <strong>and</strong> they will likely eventually tire of engaging in the silent<br />

treatment <strong>and</strong> revert more quickly than usual to their normal demeanour.<br />

Here are some strategies to help with “starving” them out <strong>and</strong> breaking silent treatment.<br />

· Don’t appear upset -<br />

The best way to do this is not to actually allow the abuser’s actions to get you upset in the first place.<br />

Stop yourself getting stressed by having to h<strong>and</strong> a previously prepared positive list of things you will<br />

do to distract yourself from feeling overwhelmed by the silent treatment. Your list could include<br />

listening to uplifting music, exercising, watching your favourite comedy shows, engaging in hobbies<br />

such as painting, reading or the like.<br />

· Be seen to be upbeat -<br />

Essentially go about your normal day to day activities <strong>and</strong> be seen to be positively <strong>and</strong> contentedly<br />

getting on with your life in spite of their efforts to unsettle you.<br />

· Refrain from engaging in tit-for-tat not speaking -<br />

This is easier said than done but it pays to make a superhuman effort to speak to the other person as<br />

<strong>and</strong> when the need arises about everyday matters. When you talk to them be sure to use your normal<br />

delivery <strong>and</strong> tone of voice. Do not be tempted into trying to play them at their own game, for they are<br />

experts at it <strong>and</strong> it will ultimately get you no-where as regards eradicating such behaviour. Do not<br />

allow them to drag you down to their level of immaturity in dealing with the inevitable ups <strong>and</strong> down<br />

of a relationship. Two wrongs don’t make a right!<br />

· Do not try to coax your partner into conversing with you -<br />

Just be secure in the knowledge that if they don’t answer you, you will survive. You’ve survived in the<br />

past <strong>and</strong> you will survive now, only this time you will be surviving much more contentedly than in the<br />

past. When they don’t respond to you, or don’t respond well, simply move on with your day <strong>and</strong> refuse<br />

to dwell on their rudeness.<br />

· Do not rise to the bait -<br />

When they use sarcasm or will only speak to you in a patronizing manner, instead of getting upset or<br />

responding in kind, simply get on with enjoying something on your previously prepared silent<br />

treatment “Survival” list of things to do! Let them see that their attempt at trying to rile you is a waste<br />

of their time <strong>and</strong> yours! Remember - do not “feed” their habit.<br />

Acting on the above guidance is not easy <strong>and</strong> you may falter at times. When this happens do just<br />

forgive yourself <strong>and</strong> then be sure to press on with the suggestions, for you know you deserve better<br />

treatment from your significant other. Make it a conscious choice to be responsible for your own<br />

happiness <strong>and</strong> soar above the Silent Treatment.<br />

Please be aware that if you tell your partner your plans to put the above strategies into action <strong>and</strong> then,<br />

for some reason, you do not follow through, it will likely lead to your partner feeling triumphant <strong>and</strong><br />

encourage them to engage in silent treatment emotional abuse even more! Therefore it is not<br />

71


ecommended, at any stage, that you tell your partner about these strategies. Just do what you need to<br />

do without explanation or prior warning.<br />

Important – If the silent treatment is from a partner who is verbally abusive or physically abusive,<br />

rather than acting on the suggestions given here, get help from a professional experienced in such<br />

matters. Also get professional advice before acting on these strategies if you believe your partner may<br />

gravitate from silence abuse to physical or verbal abuse, even if they have not done this in the past.<br />

Not Speaking on Special Days<br />

It's sad <strong>and</strong> awkward when there is a special occasions (e.g. Christmas or Weddings) but you <strong>and</strong> your<br />

partner are not speaking. My advice is to continue with the above strategies <strong>and</strong> to re-double your<br />

efforts at being positive. Do not allow yourself to wallow in feeling sorry for yourself or get indignant<br />

at the insanity of it all (especially when it's over a petty matter).<br />

Past experience may have taught you that things are not going to magically be right just because it is a<br />

special day. Therefore, instead of merely dreading the special day, do plan ahead of time how you will<br />

keep yourself busy <strong>and</strong> buoyant. Rise above it all so that the day will not be a total washout.<br />

You CANNOT Force your Partner to Stop the Silent Treatment!<br />

Most people find that no amount of pleading or apologizing will make their partner stop this behaviour.<br />

Bear in mind that the ONLY person you can change is yourself so the way forward is to change the<br />

way you yourself respond when he/she gives you the silent treatment.<br />

72<br />

How to Plan <strong>and</strong> Organize<br />

Fund Raising <strong>and</strong> Charity Benefit Events<br />

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


3. Intimidation, bullying, swearing <strong>and</strong> threats<br />

Manipulators sometimes like to openly threaten or brow-beat someone else into giving-up or giving-in<br />

to their dem<strong>and</strong>s. They like to terrorize others into submission. They use fear as a weapon, whether<br />

it’s fear of the known or unknown. People in relationships with manipulators are generally familiar<br />

with their track record of behavior, thus they know what the manipulator is not only capable of but also<br />

what they have been willing to do to get their way in the past.<br />

Manipulators who bully manipulate others by keeping them on the defensive <strong>and</strong> making them so<br />

afraid of possible negative repercussions that they don’t dare go against their wishes. Sometimes,<br />

manipulators will br<strong>and</strong>ish intense anger <strong>and</strong> rage, not so much because they’re really that angry, but<br />

because they want their victims to be so terrorized that they dare not do anything but cave in to their<br />

dem<strong>and</strong>s. That doesn’t mean that victims should take the rageful behavior of their tormentors lightly,<br />

it simply means that they have to recognize that they are probably in a relationship with a person who<br />

will stop at nothing to get his or her way.<br />

Individuals who frequently use bullying as a manipulation tactic are among the least likely to change<br />

their modus oper<strong>and</strong>i. That’s because in addition to being an effective tactic of manipulation, such<br />

hard-headed combativeness is also a primary way the manipulator avoids any kind of submission to a<br />

higher authority or st<strong>and</strong>ard of conduct. Those who refuse to subjugate themselves to anything wage a<br />

constant war against the internalization of st<strong>and</strong>ards <strong>and</strong> controls that make most of us civilized.<br />

Suffice it to say that the best idea is to not remain in any kind of relationship with a person willing to<br />

engage in such behavior.<br />

Covert intimidation:<br />

Manipulator may also try to throw their victim onto the defensive by using veiled (subtle, indirect or<br />

implied) threats. Often, the manipulator will first invoke fear in the victim, <strong>and</strong> then provide a solution<br />

for the threatening situation, which, of course, will solely or mainly advance their own purposes.<br />

For example: “Your performance has been lacking around here recently <strong>and</strong> the CEO suggested that I<br />

put employees who are struggling on probation. Don’t worry, I won’t do this now. But I do want you<br />

to show me what you’re capable of. Do you mind working this Saturday to help build-up your<br />

numbers?”<br />

73


Power <strong>and</strong> Control Wheel<br />

Why do Women Stay in Abusive Relationships?<br />

The abuser exerts Power <strong>and</strong> Control over the victim combined with the Cycle of Violence to<br />

keep women in abusive relationships.<br />

74


Barriers that Prevent Women from Leaving<br />

The victim of domestic violence also faces many of the following barriers that prevent her from<br />

leaving her abuser.<br />

Fear<br />

Fear of physical harm<br />

Fear of threats<br />

Fear of harassment<br />

Fear of making abuser angrier<br />

Fear of living alone or being alone<br />

Fear of losing children<br />

Fear of losing house, car<br />

Fear others will blame you<br />

Fear of the unknown<br />

Fear of financial problems without him<br />

Fear a change in st<strong>and</strong>ard of living<br />

Fear of deportation<br />

Fear no one believes you<br />

Fear of the court system<br />

Love<br />

Still loves the abuser<br />

Commitment to the relationship<br />

Sex, affection, <strong>and</strong> kindness during non<br />

violence times<br />

Companionship<br />

History together<br />

Hope it's going to improve<br />

Hope he'll change<br />

Emotional<br />

Low self-esteem<br />

Being emotionally exhausted<br />

Loneliness<br />

Guilt<br />

Self-blame for the abuse<br />

Feeling like a failure<br />

Feeling defective<br />

Feeling unwanted by others<br />

Change<br />

Not wanting a divorce<br />

Not wanting to be a single parent<br />

Not wanting to look for someone else<br />

Not wanting to leave pets<br />

Not wanting to grieve<br />

Not wanting to start over<br />

Not wanting to change life style<br />

Not wanting to lose his family<br />

Not wanting to be excluded from social<br />

functions<br />

Abuser<br />

Uses mind games<br />

Uses crying<br />

Uses threats of suicide<br />

Uses his power <strong>and</strong> his family's power<br />

Uses his Mr. Nice Guy image<br />

Uses promises<br />

Uses apologies<br />

Children<br />

Pressure from children who want their dad<br />

Believes it is best for children<br />

Custody issues<br />

Need childcare<br />

Support<br />

Nowhere to go<br />

Unaware help is available<br />

No support system<br />

Isolated from support<br />

Needs<br />

Need insurance<br />

Need financial support<br />

Have health/disability issues<br />

More<br />

Not identifying abuse<br />

Normalize abusive behaviors<br />

Abusive cycle is familiar<br />

Others accept violence as okay<br />

Pressure from others<br />

Preserve abusers reputation<br />

Religious beliefs<br />

<strong>Social</strong> status<br />

Security<br />

Having hopes <strong>and</strong> dreams<br />

Same sex partners<br />

Knowing its okay to leave<br />

http://www.mchenrycountyturningpoint.org/power<strong>and</strong>control.html<br />

75


Managing The Effects of Emotional Abuse<br />

Emotional abuse is something that goes undetected much of the time. However, The effects of<br />

emotional abuse run deep <strong>and</strong> a lot of the time, the victims of abuse choose to keep quiet because they<br />

feel ashamed or as though it’s ‘not that bad’.<br />

They may even say things such as ‘at least s/he doesn’t hit me’. Long-term exposure to emotional<br />

abuse causes the victim to feel helpless <strong>and</strong> completely out of control with their lives.<br />

This post attempts to list a few ways of managing the effects of emotional abuse <strong>and</strong> in no particular<br />

order, they are as follows:<br />

•Never minimize the problem; abuse is abuse, <strong>and</strong> if you are unhappy in a relationship, there is usually<br />

good reason.<br />

•While it’s not easy, you must tell yourself it is not your fault; no matter how ‘mean’, ‘stubborn’ or<br />

‘rebellious’ you may have been.<br />

•Telling those you trust the most is a great place to start.<br />

•When you feel ready, it is time to take action; either you must leave the situation or seek help for you<br />

<strong>and</strong>/or the abuser.<br />

•Change is hard but if you want the abuse to stop, there need to be proper boundaries put in place; this<br />

may mean temporarily moving out while the abuser works on their anger.<br />

•It can be confusing to be hurt by the ones we love <strong>and</strong> remember, but one’s personal safety, welfare<br />

<strong>and</strong> well being is paramount.<br />

•Emotional abuse is not as easy to detect as physical abuse, so especially if children are involved; it’s<br />

important to get out of the situation before more damage is caused.<br />

•The abuser needs to recognize there are consequences for their actions. They can no longer be in your<br />

life because it’s just going to keep being a series of hurt, pain <strong>and</strong> trauma.<br />

•Emotional abusers will say things like ‘who else could put up with you?’ as a way to keep you afraid<br />

<strong>and</strong> feeling as though you have no choice but to stay. There’s a need to develop some form of courage<br />

to rise up to this challenge because there are friends, families, organizations out there to support you.<br />

76


•Setting guidelines for what you need in a relationship is not the same as threatening someone so never<br />

feel as though you are acting like the abuser; you are trying to<br />

make a positive change.<br />

•Give yourself time before you get into situations that may<br />

remind you of that abusive relationship or even trying to get into<br />

another relationship.<br />

• Remember that there is always a support group, a friend or a<br />

family member that appreciates you.<br />

•Seek professional help.<br />

•As much as possible try <strong>and</strong> ensure the process never repeats<br />

itself.<br />

Please Note:<br />

Emotional abuse is not acceptable <strong>and</strong> should not be tolerated<br />

whether the victim is male or female. Every person has the right<br />

to live a life free from abuse..<br />

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

77


4. Emotional blackmail<br />

Mental or Emotional Blackmail: Don't fall victim to those who use love as a bargaining tool.<br />

Such a manipulator will commonly use phrases like, "I know you love me, so...", "Because I love you,<br />

do X, Y, Z for me...", in order to trick you into accepting what they desire. This often occurs in married<br />

relationships <strong>and</strong> also between friends.<br />

People who display this type of attitude will<br />

often make you feel indebted or that you owe<br />

them something. Instead of letting them<br />

manipulate your love for them, try to point out<br />

how what you're doing is proof of your love for<br />

them, <strong>and</strong> bonus points if you can be<br />

compassionate enough to weave in recognition<br />

of their love for you too:<br />

A: "If you loved me, you'd take me on<br />

that business trip. I don't care about your<br />

boss' miserliness, that's your problem,<br />

not mine."<br />

You: "I do love you <strong>and</strong> that is the very<br />

reason I don't want to inflict my boss on<br />

you. You'd have a horrible time having<br />

to be super polite around him <strong>and</strong> he<br />

would resent having you there <strong>and</strong><br />

would possibly even try to demote me<br />

for not taking the business trip seriously<br />

enough."<br />

A: "You think that this garden is more<br />

important than me."<br />

You: "Actually my dear, I tend the<br />

garden with care to ensure that you have<br />

somewhere fun <strong>and</strong> safe to play war games with your mates. I want it to be perfect for you, just<br />

as you try to paint the house in colors that you know I like."<br />

Mental or Emotional Blackmail is very common. According to psychotherapist Susan Forward,<br />

emotional blackmail is a powerful form of manipulation in which blackmailers who are close to the<br />

victims threaten, either directly or indirectly, to punish them to get what they want. They may know the<br />

victim’s vulnerabilities <strong>and</strong> their deepest secrets. They could be their parents, partners, bosses or<br />

coworkers, friends or lovers. No matter how much the blackmailer cares about the victim, they use this<br />

intimate knowledge to win their compliance.<br />

Knowing that the victim wants love or approval, blackmailers threaten to withhold it or take it away<br />

altogether, or make the victim feel they must earn it. If the victim believes the blackmailer, he/she<br />

could fall into a pattern of letting the blackmailer control his/her decisions <strong>and</strong> behaviour. Emotional<br />

blackmailers use fear, obligation, <strong>and</strong> guilt in their relationships, ensuring that the victim feels afraid to<br />

cross them, obligated to give them their way <strong>and</strong> feeling guilty if they don’t.<br />

Are you a victim of emotional blackmail?<br />

Recognize the first sign – how do you feel when the person is around you? Do you often feel guilty or<br />

humiliated in their company? Do they make you feel this way when you are with a group of people?<br />

Many of these people are not confident enough for emotional manipulation when in public or in<br />

company, <strong>and</strong> that is why it is so common in marriages <strong>and</strong> relationships. When you are alone with<br />

78


your partner, do you argue over who said what <strong>and</strong> what they meant? Emotional manipulation often<br />

involves denial that something was said or done, so that you feel guilty for either doing something<br />

wrong, or not doing enough. Additionally, if you are experiencing emotional manipulation, then you<br />

might notice a difference in how you feel within yourself. For example, are you relieved when<br />

someone else comes to stay, because it means you do not have to deal with your manipulator by<br />

yourself?<br />

Below are some of the sneaky Emotional Blackmail Tactics <strong>and</strong> dirty tricks you have to be careful<br />

with.<br />

Emotional <strong>Manipulation</strong> Technique # 1: It’s Either Me or Him/Her<br />

Some people like to make their friends choose between them <strong>and</strong> another person. Now you are more<br />

pressured to choose the manipulator, for fear of losing their friendship.<br />

But a true friend would never do such a thing. This is an emotional manipulation technique that even<br />

little kids use in the playground. To avoid making a decision (<strong>and</strong> one you would probably regret either<br />

way), walk away. Let that person know that you’re not going to take sides.<br />

If they throw a huff, that is no longer your problem. What matters is that you stayed neutral. Frankly,<br />

you’ll be a lot safer that way anyway.<br />

Emotional <strong>Manipulation</strong> Technique # 2: I’ll Do You This Favor, But Don’t Forget You Owe Me.<br />

It’s really difficult to ask someone for a favor, especially when you know they’re going to exploit you<br />

right back for it. It’s normal to ask a favor from a friend. But there are people who will do you one<br />

favor, <strong>and</strong> then will milk you for every little thing afterwards.<br />

When you put your foot down, they will go on a tirade about how you have no sense of gratitude <strong>and</strong><br />

whatnot. To avoid this kind of manipulation, be careful with who you ask favors from. Remember that<br />

there is a price for everything.<br />

Emotional <strong>Manipulation</strong> Technique # 3: If You’re Sick, I’m Dying.<br />

We all know how this goes. Emotional manipulators will always make themselves look more of a<br />

victim than you are.<br />

They crave for attention, which is why they’re not always happy when you get the limelight, even if<br />

it’s just for a headache. There’s really no getting around to a person like this.<br />

Perhaps with the right timing, a huge <strong>and</strong> frank outburst might get through to their head. However, it’s<br />

easier to just let that person be <strong>and</strong> avoid commenting anymore.<br />

The truth is, emotional manipulation techniques are often used by cowards. They can’t do direct<br />

combat; so they will usually resort to sneaky ways to get you to do what they want. Now that you know<br />

what some of these dirty tricks are, hopefully, you’ll be able to avoid getting sucked into them.<br />

Dealing with emotional blackmail<br />

Conflict, the first sign: Relationships with manipulators are generally conflict-ridden. It is sometimes<br />

difficult to know that you are being manipulated. However, with time, your frustration with this person<br />

grows <strong>and</strong> you know that something must be wrong with the relationship. You may feel drawn <strong>and</strong><br />

repulsed by the manipulator at the same time.<br />

Awareness of your own emotions within the relationship: Your emotions are your best tool for sensing<br />

that there is a problem between you <strong>and</strong> the other person. Examine whether you feel defensive, guilty,<br />

angry, or sympathy towards the other person.<br />

Define the emotion <strong>and</strong> underst<strong>and</strong> the pattern: When you think about what happens between you <strong>and</strong><br />

the manipulator, describe the emotions that you feel. Put your feelings into words. What specifically<br />

79


was said that led you to a certain feeling? How did you respond at the time? What was the effect of<br />

your response? You may want to write these down in a journal.<br />

Ask yourself whether you want to continue with the relationship or not. It might be in your best interest<br />

to terminate it, or else place specific boundaries around it (like<br />

limiting our time with the other person). Some relationships cannot,<br />

or should not, be terminated unless there is a pattern of abuse. This<br />

is especially true of relationships with parents, siblings <strong>and</strong><br />

children.<br />

Whenever a manipulation attempt occurs, point it out to the other<br />

person immediately. This is your way of taking control of the<br />

manipulation. There is no need to express anger when you give the<br />

manipulator this feedback. Be assertive <strong>and</strong> calm. Take a few deep<br />

breaths. The manipulator at this point might come back with a guilt<br />

trip or an angry response. You could say, “I don’t feel good about<br />

the way I am feeling. I would like a healthy interaction between us,<br />

so could you try to say what you need to say in a more positive <strong>and</strong><br />

direct way.”<br />

In some ways, the goal is to begin with strengthening yourself <strong>and</strong> taking charge of your life.<br />

Emotional manipulation techniques are often used by cowards. They cannot do direct combat; so they<br />

usually resort to sneaky ways to get you to do what they want. Empowering yourself with knowledge is<br />

a surefire way of preventing abuse.<br />

See more articles on Personal Growth at<br />

http://www.lifepositive.com/Articles/PersonalGrowth<br />

Anita An<strong>and</strong> can be reached at aa.comfirst@gmail.com<br />

http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/emotional_manipulation_techniques_dirty_tricks_people_use_to_<br />

manipulate_others.html<br />

Emotional <strong>Manipulation</strong> Techniques: Dirty Tricks People Use To Manipulate OthersBy Michael Lee<br />

http://www.20daypersuasion.com/secrets.htm<br />

80


5. The guilt trip<br />

You need to realize that we are imperfect beings, <strong>and</strong> no product <strong>and</strong> human-related actions can turn us<br />

into a perfect human. You should also know that there are certain types of manipulation that prey on<br />

those individuals that are quite unsure about their abilities, <strong>and</strong> even those who are suffering from their<br />

imperfection - or so they are lead to believe.<br />

Guilt tripping is a special kind of intimidation tactic. A manipulator seeks to make the conscientious<br />

victim feel guilty by suggesting that he or she does not care enough, is too selfish or has it easy. This<br />

behavior is aimed at making the victim feel that he is not doing all that he should do, or that he is not<br />

acting in a correct way. This usually results in the victim feeling bad, keeping them in a self-doubting,<br />

anxious <strong>and</strong> submissive position, rather than st<strong>and</strong>ing up four their own values.<br />

How to curtail the guilt trip.<br />

Guilt trips are really high on the list of manipulative tools. If you can get someone else to feel guilty,<br />

then you're home <strong>and</strong> hosed. However, people wear out after being made to suffer guilt too many times<br />

<strong>and</strong> the manipulator risks losing respect, friends, <strong>and</strong> being distanced by those who can't get away,<br />

such as family <strong>and</strong> co-workers. One of the key things to keep in mind when escaping the guilt trip bind<br />

is that the sooner you nip it in the bud, the better, <strong>and</strong> that it's their guilt trip, not yours.<br />

Recognize it.<br />

Guilt trips are usually prefaced with<br />

"If you really cared about me, you'd...",<br />

"If you were more responsible, you'd...",<br />

"If you were more underst<strong>and</strong>ing, you'd...".<br />

"Don't you care if...."<br />

"If you loved me..."<br />

"Everyone knows that..."<br />

"Every decent person would..."<br />

"I just knew you would say that!"<br />

"Can't you take a joke?"<br />

"You could never do..."<br />

"I thought that's what you wanted"<br />

In each case, you can substitute the words they add in after with "do as I want".<br />

Another way of inducing a guilt trip is to tell you what you wouldn't do, for example:<br />

"I knew I'd misheard it! After all, you'd never get engaged without telling me first." In that small<br />

phrase, you've just been told that the expectations are that you'll defer to this person before making any<br />

decisions.<br />

Manipulative people use statements to make you feel guilty about doing or not doing something. You<br />

don't expect it <strong>and</strong> it blinds your ordinarily good judgment.<br />

81


How to deal with it:<br />

1. Say “NO”<br />

Recognize the manipulative statement. If you can, minimize your exposure to the statement because it<br />

is like glue <strong>and</strong> it sticks to you. When you hear it, just say "No". Ignore manipulative people's words<br />

<strong>and</strong> be aware of the fact that you may want to reply to their question or statement. Don't do it, it is bait.<br />

2. Turn it back on the guilt giver.<br />

Take a return-to-sender approach with guilt trips <strong>and</strong> don't let their interpretation of your behavior<br />

determine the situation. In this case, you can give them a little of their own medicine so that they<br />

underst<strong>and</strong> how it feels to be made to feel guilty. This approach involves taking what the manipulator<br />

has said <strong>and</strong> tell them how they aren't respecting, appreciating, caring for, etc. your behavior toward<br />

them, <strong>and</strong> in the process, you dissolve the need to meet the obligation they're aiming to impose. For<br />

example:<br />

A: "You don't care about all the hard work I've done for you."<br />

You: "I sure do care about the hard work you've done for me. I've said as much many<br />

times. Now it seems to me that you don't appreciate how much I care."<br />

A: "That's not true! I appreciate it!"<br />

You: "Yes, just as I appreciate your hard work."<br />

Shorten their hold on you. When a manipulator tries to guilt-trip you by suggesting<br />

that they don't matter, don't buy into it. Instead, answer with a quick retort that breaks<br />

this hold instantly. For example:<br />

A: "Okay then, go on that camping trip with your friends while I do all the work<br />

looking after the dogs. Don't worry about me."<br />

You: "That's great! I'm glad you're happy to look after the dogs while I'm away.<br />

Thanks!"<br />

82


6. Whining, Sulking <strong>and</strong> Crying<br />

Source:<br />

James Lehman: http://www.minti.com/parenting-advice/10010/Moody-Kids-How-to-Respond-to-<br />

Pouting-Whining-<strong>and</strong>-Sulking/<br />

Some people will use crying, sorrow, screaming <strong>and</strong> other forms of emotions to further their own ends<br />

or to simply get what they want. This is common among children <strong>and</strong> teenagers who will "test the<br />

waters", to see how far they can go with this form of manipulation. The behavior is more about<br />

boundary testing <strong>and</strong> can be dealt with appropriately with<br />

good parenting skills.<br />

Pouting, sulking <strong>and</strong> whining are three of the most annoying<br />

ways that kids communicate their displeasure, anger or<br />

frustration with a situation. This behavior is not just limited<br />

to young children, either—teens do it because they haven’t<br />

always learned the skills to express their frustration in an<br />

appropriate way. Simply put: it works for them.<br />

When kids or even teens walk around the house in a huff in<br />

order to get their way, that means someone—probably one<br />

or both parents—is still reacting to it. But know this: if you<br />

start blaming, accusing or trying to reason with your child<br />

about this type of behavior, you’re just feeding the<br />

tiger—you're simply giving it more meat. The behavior will<br />

continue if you continue to get sucked in by it.<br />

As your child grows older, they’re supposed to learn ways to<br />

express their displeasure, frustration, anger or anxiety about<br />

a situation. Most kids are eventually able to do this most of<br />

the time, but some kids persist in sulking. It’s not unusual to see children continue this all the way up<br />

into grade school <strong>and</strong> beyond. Remember, the behaviors kids tend to continue are the behaviors that are<br />

meeting their needs. And until your child learns other, more effective ways of communicating, it will<br />

probably continue.<br />

Make Your Home a Safe Place to Express Different Views<br />

Your child’s freedom to speak his mind assumes one primary condition: that it’s safe to express<br />

himself in your house. Don’t forget, this behavior may be a replacement form of communication for<br />

kids who don’t feel safe saying what they really want to say. Instead, they use other, more passive<br />

methods to let people know they’re unhappy, without actually having to take responsibility for it.<br />

Help Your Child Find Other Ways to Express Herself<br />

Initially, you can sit down with your child <strong>and</strong> identify alternative ways for them to express themselves<br />

that don’t involve a dramatic display of their bad mood. So the message they want to get across might<br />

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<br />

movies?” Instead of pouting, as kids grow older, the expectation is that they should be able to express<br />

that verbally to you. So at first, bring it to their attention. Say, “I notice now that you’re sulking. If you<br />

want to say something to me, figure out a better way to say it.” In my opinion, the best thing to do is<br />

83


ignore it <strong>and</strong> say, “I’m not going respond when you act this way anymore. You’re going to have to<br />

communicate differently.”<br />

Don’t Give It Too Much Power<br />

I wouldn’t give pouting <strong>and</strong> sulking too much power by overreacting to it or punishing your child. I<br />

personally wouldn’t give consequences for it, either. After having the conversation with your child<br />

about other ways they can express themselves, I would ignore the behavior completely. But here’s the<br />

key: whether they’re sulking or not, your child still has to comply with your rules <strong>and</strong> do what you’ve<br />

asked of them. If they behave oppositionally or have defiant behaviour because of your requests, then<br />

deal with that behavior. Although it’s annoying, try to stop responding to the fact that your teen is<br />

walking around the house with a huffy attitude.<br />

Remember, deal with behaviors that are more easily observable <strong>and</strong> are more “acting-out” in nature.<br />

So, allowing your child to be in a sulky mood <strong>and</strong> not responding to it is the best way to get out of it.<br />

Let it die by neglect. In fact, like plants, a lot of these behaviors do die from neglect. If you leave them<br />

alone, they’ll die. If you water them <strong>and</strong> nourish them, they continue to grow. It’s as simple as that.<br />

How to Reduce that Whining in Your Ear<br />

Whining has also become much more prevalent in our<br />

society over the last decade. You see a lot of people<br />

complaining all the time about things they can’t change.<br />

People blame others for their emotional state regularly, on<br />

all ends of society. When people constantly complain about<br />

problems, emotions or situations, they're not willing to do<br />

anything positive about them.<br />

The emotional state that accompanies whining is usually that<br />

of feeling sorry for yourself. So maybe something’s not<br />

going your child’s way. They’re not getting something they<br />

want, or they’re afraid they’re going to lose something<br />

they’ve got. All of this contributes to the level <strong>and</strong> intensity<br />

of the whining.<br />

Establish a “Complaining Time”<br />

What I like to do is to give kids a journal in which they can<br />

write their complaints. They get to complain about<br />

something once, <strong>and</strong> afterwards they have to write about it in<br />

their journals. Set aside a certain time every day when your<br />

child gets ten minutes to complain, discuss what’s bothering<br />

them, <strong>and</strong> whine. At the end of the ten minutes, (<strong>and</strong> it’s got<br />

to end on time), everybody goes their way. Your child gets<br />

another chance tomorrow during "Complaint Time" or<br />

whatever you choose to call it. This will help extinguish the<br />

constant whining.<br />

By the way, when you establish a complaint time (or whining time), your child will have to work to<br />

find things to complain about. The whining stops because most kids don’t want to do any work - they<br />

just want to complain. Another benefit to you as a parent is that from now on, when your kids whine,<br />

you can tell them to write it in their journals or save it for the complaint time tomorrow.<br />

84


One Parent Gives in, the Other Doesn’t: What to Do?<br />

It’s not unusual to see kids who sulk <strong>and</strong> whine at home but don’t demonstrate that type of behavior at<br />

school. This is because they’ve learned it’s not going to work: their teachers don’t respond to them the<br />

same way their parents do.<br />

You’ll also see times where it works with one parent <strong>and</strong> not the other. Whenever any behavior is more<br />

pronounced with one parent, it means that the behavior is working better with that parent. Kids learn<br />

very early that their parents are two different people <strong>and</strong> that they can have two different strategies<br />

when dealing with them. If it’s an inappropriate behavior, I think it’s important for parents to<br />

remember not to use the cop out of, “Well, his mom lets him get away with it, what can I do?”<br />

Sound parenting requires that both parents communicate with each other separately from their children.<br />

If there’s no TV after seven o’clock at night, that’s a house rule. If one parent allows sulking to change<br />

that, then there’s something wrong with the couple’s communication. There’s nothing wrong with the<br />

kid - he’s just doing what works, after all. Here’s the bottom line: It’s up to both parents to create a<br />

culture of accountability between them <strong>and</strong> their children. And that culture of accountability says,<br />

“You’re accountable to me <strong>and</strong> I’m accountable to you. And no matter what else is going on with other<br />

people, you have to speak to me in a certain way <strong>and</strong> I’m going to speak to you in a certain way.” End<br />

of story.<br />

Develop a strategy on how you’ll deal with your child’s annoying behaviors, <strong>and</strong> you’ll soon see that<br />

behavior wither <strong>and</strong> die.<br />

If your child suffers from disruptive behavior disorders, seek help from a mental health therapist. Such<br />

disorders as oppositional defiance disorder, conduct disorder <strong>and</strong> separation disorder can have elements<br />

of manipulation in them but need special attention to overcome, using the help of specialists <strong>and</strong> your<br />

compassion.<br />

But also adults use whining, sulking <strong>and</strong> crying to get what they want. The problem with people who<br />

sulk is that it is a form of manipulation to get other people to conform to their wishes, they tend to be<br />

people who resolve conflict by avoiding it <strong>and</strong> hiding away somewhere or putting on a look.<br />

Sulking is oddly effective - whilst we all say that we 'just don't respond to it', so many people actually<br />

do - even unwittingly - just to keep the peace <strong>and</strong> get rid of a bad atmosphere. A sulk is more effective<br />

in a group setting that one on one. In the latter, the non sulker walks away if they don't want to deal<br />

with it. In a group, it is often clear to see that at least one member of the group will cave in to the<br />

sulker to 'save' the group's night being spoilt.<br />

Thus the sulker garners attention - which is what they are doing it for. There is even the 'any attention<br />

is some attention' aspect too - so even if the sulker is getting slated, they are getting noticed.<br />

How to defend against it:<br />

Don't take it to heart.<br />

Expect changes.<br />

if they don't change their ways in response to your behavior cues, move on. If you've tried ignoring<br />

the sulks <strong>and</strong> dem<strong>and</strong>ing respect but it's still happening, take a deep breath <strong>and</strong> really consider if<br />

it's worth living with this adult-child in your life.<br />

85


Good to know:<br />

A study investigated the type of compliance gaining strategies that battered women reported using in<br />

domestic conflicts <strong>and</strong> whether these strategies related to the battered women's verbal aggression <strong>and</strong><br />

argumentativeness.<br />

Participants in this study were 115 abused women who were seeking refuge from abusive spouses in<br />

temporary shelters for battered women. The results suggest that battered women most frequently<br />

reported using indirect strategies.<br />

Aversive Stimulation (i.e., pouting sulking, crying) <strong>and</strong> ingratiation (i.e., manipulation in the form of<br />

affection or favor doing) were the top two strategies reported.<br />

Furthermore, a canonical correlation analysis resulted in an overall significant relationship between<br />

compliance gaining strategies <strong>and</strong> argumentativeness <strong>and</strong> verbal aggressiveness.<br />

86


7. Self-pity - Playing the victim<br />

Playing the victim role ("poor me"): Manipulator portrays him- or herself as a victim of circumstance<br />

or of someone else's behavior in order to gain pity, sympathy or evoke compassion <strong>and</strong> thereby get<br />

something from another.<br />

At times each one of us has times when we're really in need of some tender self-care but long-term<br />

manipulators can make a habit of being the victim or the one needing special attention. Caring <strong>and</strong><br />

conscientious people cannot st<strong>and</strong> to see anyone suffering <strong>and</strong> the manipulator often finds it easy to<br />

play on sympathy to get cooperation.<br />

Sidestep self pity.<br />

The manipulator who finds everything unfair <strong>and</strong> falls to pieces, he or she is attempting to gain your<br />

sympathy in order to use it to further his or her own needs. In this case, the manipulator will rely on a<br />

sense of "helplessness" <strong>and</strong> will seek financial, emotional, or other forms of help from you.<br />

Look out for attitudes <strong>and</strong> comments like "I'm so unloved/sick/victimized, etc." , "You are the only one<br />

I have", <strong>and</strong> "I have no one else to talk to", etc. In dealing with a meltdown of self-pity, be<br />

compassionate but wary as you don't want to establish an obligation as a result. Some ways to respond<br />

to such a manipulator include:<br />

A: "You are the only one I have."<br />

You: "Oh you're flattering me again but you <strong>and</strong> I both know that's not true! You've got Betty<br />

on Sundays, Muriel on Thursdays, <strong>and</strong> the bowls club all day Saturday. Why, when I tried to<br />

call you last Wednesday night, you were out playing cards with your neighbors."<br />

A: "I have no one else to talk to."<br />

You: "Remember yesterday when Grace came over to talk to you all afternoon? And Sally's<br />

said she's more than happy to listen over the phone whenever you need a sounding board. I'm<br />

happy to talk to you for the next five minutes but after that, I have an appointment I cannot<br />

miss."<br />

87


4.4. Other Manipulative Tricks<br />

1. The "No Way Out" question<br />

You are being asked a question <strong>and</strong> you think you are given a choice, but the answer has already been<br />

decided by the manipulator. The question shouldn't be the time of the appointment, but whether you<br />

want an appointment at all. After such a question, there is a pregnant pause <strong>and</strong>, since you are<br />

programmed to respond to a conversational pause by offering to help, you jump in <strong>and</strong> do whatever the<br />

manipulator wants you to do.<br />

Examples:<br />

"Would you like an appointment at 6:15 or 6:30?"<br />

"Do you want the red one or the blue one?"<br />

"Don't you think that...?"<br />

"Aren't you happy that..."<br />

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"<br />

How to deal with it:<br />

Be prepared to use one of those replies:<br />

"I'll let you know"<br />

"I'll have to think about that"<br />

"No, I don't want to"<br />

"I disagree"<br />

"Sorry, I am not interested"<br />

88


2. Making false promises<br />

False promises: The manipulator can falsely promise their victim something, such as promising to<br />

leave after walking him/her to the doorstep<br />

Making false promises serves this manipulative<br />

purpose of taking without giving in return very<br />

well. In this game, the manipulator gets<br />

something in the immediate moment, by<br />

promising something at a later date. Of course,<br />

the promised favor never happens. The victim is<br />

then left feeling cheated <strong>and</strong> betrayed.<br />

There are many examples of "False Promises" in<br />

dating. Some are mild (e.g. if you go to the<br />

restaurant they want tonight, then they promise<br />

to go to the one you want next time - which<br />

never happens). Others are more severe (e.g. if<br />

you give your lover one more chance, he/she<br />

promises to stop drinking, cheating, etc.).<br />

Unfortunately, even sex <strong>and</strong> marriage commitments are sometimes given under the pretenses of false<br />

promises.<br />

In “Who's Pulling Your Strings? How to Break the Cycle of <strong>Manipulation</strong> <strong>and</strong> Regain Control of Your<br />

Life.” (McGraw Hill 2004, ISBN: 0-07-140278-0, $21.95.) Braiker, Harriet B. defines the making of<br />

false promises as the basic tactics that are used to exert control.<br />

There are two kinds of promises <strong>and</strong> manipulators usually use both:<br />

The first is a promise of gain. That is, the manipulator will promise to provide something if the victim<br />

goes along with what the manipulator wants. "I promise - no arguments for a week if you'll end your<br />

friendship with Pat."<br />

The other tactic is the promise of avoiding loss. In this case, the manipulator threatens the victim with<br />

the loss of something if they do not go along with the manipulator's desires. "I'm going to stay out with<br />

my friends late every night unless this house is cleaned spic <strong>and</strong> span by the time I get home." (Of<br />

course, these two examples are obvious manipulation attempts. Most manipulators use more subtle<br />

methods than we see in these examples.)<br />

Defense Against False Promises<br />

False promises are particularly tricky to defend against for two reasons. First, it is common to want to<br />

trust your partner. In most cases, that is not only acceptable, but healthy too. Second, it is hard to<br />

determine the difference between a "well intentioned promise" that falls through <strong>and</strong> a manipulation<br />

that your partner never intended to honor. However, there are some strategies to sort out the difference:<br />

1) Get Yours First - If the promise of an exchange really is sincere, then it doesn't matter who gets<br />

theirs first. So, you should be able to go to YOUR restaurant "this time", <strong>and</strong> they can take "next time".<br />

Similarly, they won't mind being forgiven AFTER they are sober or faithful for a defined period of<br />

time.<br />

Therefore, when a promise is requested, ask for what you are being "promised" upfront. If your<br />

partner's intentions are good, then he/she will be fine with giving you your part of the exchange<br />

initially. If your date gets mad or upset at that request, however, you are being manipulated.<br />

89


2) Define Consequences - There are some promise situations where you can't get what you're promised<br />

first (e.g. loaning money). In these instances though, you can set consequences. You can tell the other<br />

person 1) how the relationship is going to change until the promise is fulfilled, <strong>and</strong> 2) what will happen<br />

if it is not fulfilled.<br />

For example: You explain that you will loan them money, under the following conditions... You expect<br />

them to pay you back when they get paid. Until then, you are not paying for any dates. Also, if they<br />

don't pay you back when they get paid, then you're never loaning them money ever again.<br />

Here again, if the promise is sincere, your date will be fine with the "terms" you set. However, if he/she<br />

starts getting upset or defensive, then your partner has intentions to manipulate. So, state the<br />

consequences <strong>and</strong> see how they react.<br />

3) Appeal to Self-Image - When others don't care about you, they still care about themselves. Even<br />

liars like to think of themselves as good people. So, you can test their sincerity by reflecting back how<br />

a promise makes THEM look <strong>and</strong> feel.<br />

For example: You say something like, "I trust you because I know you're not the kind of person that<br />

wants to look like a liar or a failure. You will keep your word <strong>and</strong> do what you say. You're not like<br />

those losers who make promises with no intentions of keeping them".<br />

Such a statement will make a sincere partner feel very good about himself or herself. But, it will make<br />

an insincere partner feel very bad. So, if you say something like the above <strong>and</strong> your partner gets<br />

hostile, then beware. You're about to be manipulated.<br />

Ground Rules for Dealing with <strong>Manipulation</strong> set out by Harriet Braiker:<br />

Focus on changing yourself, not the manipulator. It is not helpful to try to out manipulate a skillful<br />

manipulator - you are simply making yourself vulnerable to further manipulation. You will not change<br />

a manipulator by focusing on his or her imperfections <strong>and</strong> trying to work toward their achieving<br />

insight. You may think that it would be helpful to share with the manipulator how you feel <strong>and</strong> how his<br />

or her behavior has an impact on you - but this is generally not helpful since most manipulators are not<br />

capable of empathy <strong>and</strong> may use this information against you in the future. The only effective method<br />

of changing manipulative behavior is to disable it by making a change within yourself, thereby<br />

changing the dynamics of the manipulative relationship. If you cease to cooperate with the<br />

manipulative tactics, you will alter the nature of the relationship. If manipulators have to work hard to<br />

maintain control in the relationship, they usually give up - often by leaving the relationship <strong>and</strong> finding<br />

someone else to control.<br />

Assess the worth of this relationship to you. Depending on the severity of the manipulation <strong>and</strong> the<br />

damage it has done to your sense of happiness <strong>and</strong> integrity, you may need to consider whether it is<br />

worth it to continue the relationship. Of course, there are many situations (parent/child, for example)<br />

when you must stay in the relationship, so it is helpful at least to achieve some clarity about what you<br />

want in your life <strong>and</strong> assess how the relationship has the potential to lead you toward your personal<br />

goals.<br />

Use assertiveness techniques to change the nature of the relationship. You might be so accustomed to<br />

complying with the manipulator's tactics that you automatically do his or her bidding without thinking<br />

about it. First, you need to stop your automatic compliance. You do this by buying time to think about<br />

each situation as it arises. "I'll get back to you on that when I have the time to think about it." At this<br />

point you are now in control of the situation. It is not helpful to let the manipulator ask you why you<br />

need time since this invites your loss of control. Simply repeat the same thing over <strong>and</strong> over again<br />

without explanation.<br />

90


"I need more time to think about it." Next, you need to confront the fear, anxiety or guilt that has<br />

driven you to comply in the past with the manipulator's dem<strong>and</strong>s. This requires a deep look within that<br />

may be achieved by working with a professional therapist. Exploring your own personal feelings, why<br />

you react as you do, <strong>and</strong> how to use alternate responses may be a challenge, but the benefits are farreaching<br />

- <strong>and</strong> they may save your relationship, or at least prepare you for healthier relationships in the<br />

future. Finally, you might label the manipulation for what it is. "When you threaten to leave me I feel<br />

afraid. If you would simply state your wishes <strong>and</strong> show me respect, I would be more able to listen to<br />

what you want." In a calm voice <strong>and</strong> with direct eye contact, it may be time to announce that the old<br />

manipulations have come to an end. "We both underst<strong>and</strong> that you have a pattern of playing on my<br />

fears, <strong>and</strong> now you know how I feel about that. Your way of threatening me is not going to work any<br />

longer." In making these types of assertive statements, you are defining your boundaries. There is no<br />

need to make threats. Simply state that you will not participate any longer in manipulations. Make it<br />

clear that by setting limits <strong>and</strong> enhancing your own personal integrity, you expect a better relationship<br />

in the future. Learning to assert yourself in the face of a manipulative individual who feels threatened<br />

when not in control is a challenge, <strong>and</strong> doing this with the help of a professional therapist is<br />

recommended.<br />

http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/Jaimelavie<br />

91


3. Disguising questions as statements<br />

Source: http://implicateevolution.com/2010/08/dealing-with-manipulative-people-part-1/<br />

Manipulative people hate asking questions because it means they may loose control. So they may use a<br />

disguised question. These are common ground for the manipulator. Instead of asking you about your<br />

behaviour, or asking something of you that they want, they pose it like a statement so that you don’t<br />

have the chance to reject them. This is also often used as a way of making what they know your<br />

answer will be seem ridiculous.<br />

Examples:<br />

"I am wondering why you...",<br />

"Perhaps you could...",<br />

"I wish you could...",<br />

"I suppose you are going to..."<br />

“So I suppose you’ll…”<br />

“I don’t know why you…”<br />

Consider this:<br />

“I don’t know why you have to speak to him that way.”<br />

Several things are implied here. The first is that you’re speaking to ‘him’ improperly. The second is<br />

that your behaviour is incomprehensible <strong>and</strong> thus ridiculous/outrageous <strong>and</strong> the third is that the speaker<br />

would like you to stop. The phrase above is used instead of the following:<br />

“Why do you speak to him that way? I don’t think you should be so rude.”<br />

This is essentially the same message, except that it’s straight forward. The person speaking is very<br />

clear that they think you’re being rude, instead of implying it <strong>and</strong> they ask you point blank why you’re<br />

behaving the way that you are. There is no hidden meaning.<br />

It’s a basic example, but if you experience it on a regular basis with someone, you’ll know what I’m<br />

talking about.<br />

The way to get around this is to respond only to actual questions. Statements like “I don’t know why<br />

you have to do such <strong>and</strong> such” beg to be responded to, which is why manipulative people use them.<br />

Train your ears to recognize the difference. You must learn to ask the Yes/No question, but not get<br />

tricked by a disguised question.<br />

Instead of addressing them, ignore them completely. Manipulators will often use such a statement in<br />

place of a question <strong>and</strong> then actually wait for you to respond. When you don’t, it throws them off. If<br />

they ask you if you have anything to say, simply reply ‘no.’<br />

Or tell them that they didn’t ask you anything. Most often the conversation will just continue as if<br />

nothing happened.<br />

Or repeat the last 3 or 4 words of the statement back to the manipulator, forcing him/her to admit it was<br />

a question.<br />

If they push the matter, point out that it was not a question, repeat what they said <strong>and</strong> then ask them if<br />

it was a question. This will ensure that you get them out in the open with their intentions <strong>and</strong> you can<br />

continue having your conversation with both sides being clearly defined. Manipulators love to tell<br />

others that they never asked about something, but that the information was offered. Most often what<br />

actually happened was that it was provoked. Forcing them to ask puts you on even footing.<br />

92


4. Foot in the Door Technique: Start off small <strong>and</strong> up-sell.<br />

Someone asks you for something small, <strong>and</strong> when you give it to them, they ask for something bigger.<br />

And then, maybe, something even bigger.<br />

Example:<br />

Son: “Mom, can I go out for an hour to see Anthony?”<br />

Mom: “Sure.”<br />

Son: “I just called Anthony <strong>and</strong> he’s going to the movies. Can I go with him?”<br />

Mom: “Sure.”<br />

Son: “I only have $5. Could you lend me a few bucks to get in?”<br />

Son: “…Could you give us a ride there?”<br />

Son: “…Could you pick us up afterwards?”<br />

Foot-in-the-door (FITD) technique is a<br />

compliance tactic that involves getting a<br />

person to agree to a large request by first<br />

setting them up by having that person<br />

agree to a modest request. The foot-in-thedoor<br />

technique succeeds owing to a basic<br />

human reality that social scientists call<br />

“successive approximations”.<br />

Essentially, the more a subject goes along<br />

with small requests or commitments, the<br />

more likely that subject is to continue in a<br />

desired direction of attitude or behavioral<br />

change <strong>and</strong> feel obligated to go along with<br />

larger requests. FITD works by first<br />

getting a small 'yes' <strong>and</strong> then getting an<br />

even bigger 'yes.'<br />

The principle involved is that a small<br />

agreement creates a bond between the<br />

requester <strong>and</strong> the requestee. Even though<br />

the requestee may only have agreed to a<br />

trivial request out of politeness, this forms<br />

a bond which - when the requestee<br />

attempts to justify the decision to<br />

themselves - may be mistaken for a<br />

genuine affinity with the requester, or an<br />

interest in the subject of the request. When<br />

a future request is made, the requestee will<br />

feel obliged to act consistently with the<br />

earlier one.<br />

The reversed approach - making a deliberately outl<strong>and</strong>ish opening dem<strong>and</strong> so that a subsequent, milder<br />

request will be accepted - is known as the door-in-the-face technique.<br />

93


5. The confrontational statement<br />

This manipulative approach is about causing an argument. That way, the provoker will end up making<br />

you feel terrible over something you didn't do or say, but for which you ought to feel guilty anyway<br />

<strong>and</strong> they'll get a huge chunk of sympathy with which to manipulate you all over again.<br />

Those statements are used to put you on the defensive. They can even be brought up jokingly but with<br />

the intent to mock or pour cold water on your hopes. If you play the manipulator's game, you will end<br />

up in a fight without knowing how it started.<br />

Examples:<br />

"How dare you leave me alone tonight!"<br />

"I thought we agreed that this would be the<br />

best solution. And now you're deliberately<br />

doing something entirely different."<br />

"Why do you always have to do everything<br />

your way? What about me?"<br />

"Why do you always..."<br />

"Do you expect me to..."<br />

"I can't believe you would..."<br />

"I thought we were going to..."<br />

"Why should I have to..."<br />

"I've been told that..."<br />

"How could you..."<br />

"Why don't you..."<br />

"Did you hear me?"<br />

"Well, does that mean that I have to..."<br />

"I thought you..."<br />

"Don't you think you (we) should..."<br />

"Are you telling me..."<br />

"I thought we agreed..."<br />

How to deal with it:<br />

Avoid the confrontation <strong>and</strong> dispute manipulation<br />

94<br />

Let things slide. Don't respond to bad behavior.<br />

Don't reply defensively <strong>and</strong> avoid saying "I'm<br />

sorry but..." You can choose not to fight by using<br />

one of the following replies:<br />

"That's my decision"<br />

"I know you're unhappy, but that's the way it is"<br />

"I'll have to think about that"<br />

"You seem upset"<br />

"We'll talk later when you aren't so upset."<br />

"We don't always have to agree."<br />

"I prefer it that way"<br />

"You're right" (<strong>and</strong> drop the subject)


Determine whether someone is deliberately using a ploy or "game" to bring about a dispute or conflict<br />

into the open. This frequently happens amongst friends or in relationships, when one member wishes to<br />

have influence or to attempt control over the other.<br />

Rather than engaging in an argument with this manipulator, learn to simply say "no" <strong>and</strong> by pointing<br />

out clear facts. For example:<br />

Be calm, rational, <strong>and</strong> pleasant when you say no. Don't try to up the ante by grimacing or snapping<br />

back. It's also important to keep your response simple <strong>and</strong> friendly.<br />

Use your body language to back up your meaning. Shake your head <strong>and</strong> give your "no" face.<br />

Be polite. When a manipulator asks you to do something, try "I'd love to but I'm too busy in the<br />

upcoming months. Sorry." or "Thanks for asking, but no."<br />

95


6. Spreading false rumors.<br />

Manipulators use this technique for a variety of reasons:<br />

1. They spread false rumors in the hope of forcing out the real story.<br />

Individuals in this category will tell you the opposite of what you wish to hear. They may do so hoping<br />

that you will correct them <strong>and</strong> as such force out the real story from you. Very private people often fall<br />

prey to this type of tactic because it's targeted at eliciting information from you directly when you've<br />

been reticent so far.<br />

2. They spread false rumors to discredit a person (or product, or company …).<br />

University of Sydney psychotherapist John Clarke has made a life-long study of psychopaths in the<br />

workforce <strong>and</strong> is the author of two books on the subject - Working with Monsters <strong>and</strong> The Pocket<br />

Psycho. He says workplace psychopaths commonly intimidate fellow workers, sometimes behave<br />

impulsively, always lack remorse <strong>and</strong> often are glib <strong>and</strong> superficially charming.<br />

"About half the people in any workplace won't be affected. If anything, they will think they are good<br />

guys because psychopaths go out of their way to cultivate people who they can use," Dr Clarke says.<br />

"It's from the other half of the workforce the psychopath selects victims to wage war on. The weapons<br />

of war include bullying, putting down, humiliating in front of others, stealing credit for work done by<br />

others <strong>and</strong> spreading false rumors about other people. "They will tear people apart to get where they<br />

want to be," he says. "These psychopaths ... have no compunction, no pity. They will level people to<br />

the ground without feeling. That is what they enjoy," he says.<br />

The technique is also used on a larger scale: President G.W. Busch, eager to invade Iraq but finding<br />

himself with insufficient political support for starting another offensive war, informed the whole world<br />

that he had positive proof that Iraq disposed of weapons of mass destruction <strong>and</strong> kept warning<br />

everybody about the danger of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein using these weapons. When Iraq was invaded<br />

however, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found.<br />

3. They spread false rumors to influence the price of a product or the market<br />

At the start of the 19 th century, it looked like nobody was able to stop Napoleon. When the allied<br />

forces of British <strong>and</strong> Germans confronted the French army at Waterloo, everybody realized that the<br />

outcome of the battle would be of the utmost importance for all of Europe. No wonder that stock<br />

markets were very nervous <strong>and</strong>, with little news available, prices had started to slide away.<br />

The Rothschild banking family was following the events from very close <strong>and</strong> was amongst the very<br />

first to underst<strong>and</strong> that Napoleon would be defeated. In stead of buying shares <strong>and</strong> spreading the good<br />

news, they kept the news to themselves for as long as possible <strong>and</strong> started selling shares, convincing<br />

everybody that things were looking really grim. Now, everybody started selling shares <strong>and</strong> share<br />

prices collapsed. At this moment, the Rothschilds suddenly changed their position <strong>and</strong> started buying<br />

back shares at bottom prices, making an immense fortune in a couple of hours time.<br />

Still today, the manipulation of interest rates, the prices of shares, raw materials, grain, gold, oil, …<br />

are a constant preoccupation of governments all over the world but also on a personal scale,<br />

manipulators are always manipulating the news <strong>and</strong> spreading false rumors in order to advance their<br />

personal interests.<br />

96


7. Traumatic one-trial learning:<br />

Traumatic one-trial learning: using verbal abuse, explosive anger, or other intimidating behavior to<br />

establish dominance or superiority; even one incident of such behavior can condition or train victims to<br />

avoid upsetting, confronting or contradicting the manipulator <strong>and</strong> create long-term fear <strong>and</strong> anxiety.<br />

In abusive relationships, fits of violent rage, sometimes including physical assault, can leave the victim<br />

too frightened <strong>and</strong> disorientated to leave the relationship or st<strong>and</strong> up for themselves.<br />

Common excuses invoked by abusers to rationalize their behavior<br />

Loss of control<br />

Abusers may blame the victim’s actions for causing them to lose control of their temper. It is often<br />

apparent however that they do not behave in that way with other people. When abusers smash up<br />

property in apparently r<strong>and</strong>om acts it often turns out that they avoid damaging their own belongings,<br />

<strong>and</strong> if law officers, called by alarmed neighbours, arrive the “uncontrollable rage” will be instantly<br />

switched off. At this point the abuser, who is calm, will often pass the blame to the victim, who is<br />

likely to be visibly disturbed.<br />

Too much anger causes abuse<br />

Abuse therapists find that anger is usually only one of many abusive tactics employed against a victim.<br />

Anger results from abusive attitudes <strong>and</strong> the abuser’s sense of entitlement rather than being a cause of<br />

these. Anger management courses are unlikely to stop abuse because they do not address the abuser’s<br />

attitudes.<br />

Mental illness<br />

Some abusers do have personality disorders such as Borderline Personality Disorder or psychopathy,<br />

but most abusers are mentally normal. It is their attitudes, absorbed from society or their family<br />

background, that make them abusively seek power over their partner or child.<br />

Low self-esteem<br />

Abusers are found in all walks of life <strong>and</strong> many of them are successful <strong>and</strong> confident. They include<br />

heads of corporations, high ranking police officers <strong>and</strong> judges. Boosting abusers’ egos may increase<br />

their sense of entitlement <strong>and</strong> lead to worse abuse.<br />

Alcohol or drug abuse cause abuse<br />

Many substance abusers do not abuse their partners. However, those who do usually continue or even<br />

intensify psychological abuse if they give up the substance abuse. Having used the substance abuse as<br />

an excuse for their behaviour before, they are likely to change to using the stress of staying away from<br />

the substance as the excuse.<br />

97


8. Lying:<br />

Here, we are not talking about little white lies once in a while, but about compulsive liars who lie to<br />

manipulate you.<br />

More often than not, it is hard to tell if<br />

somebody is lying at the time they do it,<br />

although often the truth may be apparent later,<br />

when it is too late. One way to minimize the<br />

chances of being lied to is to underst<strong>and</strong> that<br />

some personality types (particularly psychopats)<br />

are experts at the art of lying <strong>and</strong> cheating,<br />

doing it frequently, <strong>and</strong> often in subtle ways.<br />

Here are a few ways to see whether someone is<br />

lying to you:<br />

- The person is adding unnecessary details to an<br />

explanation.<br />

- When you ask for an explanation or a<br />

clarification, the person stops <strong>and</strong> thinks, even<br />

though he/she should know the answer right<br />

away.<br />

- The person pretends not to know something<br />

that he/she obviously knows.<br />

- The person may be laughing nervously.<br />

- The person is not looking at you while speaking, or is looking at you too insistently.<br />

- The person may change the topic of the conversation.<br />

- You feel something is wrong <strong>and</strong> your body is reacting. Maybe your eyes are squinting <strong>and</strong> your head<br />

is tilted.<br />

My great gr<strong>and</strong>mother had a really neat saying: is that a true lie, or a damn lie?<br />

True liars are well-meaning people who really believe what they are saying is true, even though it<br />

reinforces pre-selected <strong>and</strong> officially sanctioned views of reality. This isn’t meant to be offensive—this<br />

is something we have all unwittingly done before.<br />

Damn liars are generally self-serving <strong>and</strong> modern-day versions of snake oil salesmen that purposefully<br />

perpetuate <strong>and</strong> then exploit senseless <strong>and</strong> baseless fears for profit. That is actually the definition of<br />

monger - as in “fear monger”.<br />

Just like disempowering views of reality are constantly seeded into the collective <strong>and</strong> constitute a form<br />

of mass manipulation, the manipulator will create a stream of false information aimed at destabilizing<br />

his victims <strong>and</strong> making them dependant on him:<br />

1. Don’t use your free will to take meaningful actions that will allow you to express it <strong>and</strong> therefore<br />

create (self-determine) the kind of world you want—Jesus is going to come <strong>and</strong> fix it for you.<br />

(Religion discourages self-responsibility)<br />

2. Don’t use your free will to take meaningful actions that will allow you to express it <strong>and</strong> therefore<br />

create (self-determine) the kind of world you want, beyond good intentions, thinking happy thoughts,<br />

<strong>and</strong> sending love <strong>and</strong> light. (New Age; rebr<strong>and</strong>ed version of No.1)<br />

98


3. Don’t use your free will to take meaningful actions that will allow you to express it <strong>and</strong> therefore<br />

create (self-determine) the kind of world you want - The Aliens [insert Pleadian, Plejoran, ect here] are<br />

going to fix it for you. (New Age; rebr<strong>and</strong>ed version of No.1 &2)<br />

4. Excessive fear mongering of “doom from space” - Evil asteroids, Planet X, <strong>and</strong> massive CME’s <strong>and</strong><br />

associated earth changes are going to kill most of you no matter what you do, so again, please don’t<br />

actually take action to create the kind of world you would like because it’s ending anyway. (rebr<strong>and</strong>ing<br />

of non-action <strong>and</strong> self-responsibility)<br />

5. Love is all you need. (rebr<strong>and</strong>ing of non-action <strong>and</strong> self-responsibility)<br />

6. Overpopulation <strong>and</strong> selfish consumerism by the useless eaters / mindless sheeple is killing the<br />

planet—there isn’t enough food or resources for everyone.<br />

7. Global Warming (Climate Change) is the result of greenhouse gasses <strong>and</strong> too much carbon - the<br />

middle class is largely responsible for this - this is why they are being eliminated.<br />

How to deal with liars:<br />

There is no quick <strong>and</strong> easy way to deal with a compulsive liar.<br />

Asking a question to a liar is inviting more lies. Fearing loss of control, the liar reacts aggressively to<br />

avoid answering. He/she may start asking questions to put the focus on you, may start accusing you,<br />

may be evasive saying "Oh well that all depends..." "I'm not sure...", or may change the subject<br />

completely.<br />

With a compulsive liar, you have to document <strong>and</strong> confirm all responses. Avoid asking questions.<br />

Avoid any agreements, including legal ones. Don't ask a liar for anything <strong>and</strong> don't do anything for<br />

him/her either. Be self-reliant <strong>and</strong> financially <strong>and</strong> emotionally free. If your partner is a compulsive liar,<br />

you may need professional help to cope with him/her.<br />

99


9. Lying by omission, through the use of vagueness or by distortion of crucial details.<br />

This is a manipulative tool that can be used for wriggling out of obligations they don't want to meet,<br />

while still managing to remember obligations that they expect you to meet, or have met (in front of the<br />

boss) or to influence your decisions <strong>and</strong> behavior by withholding a significant part of the information<br />

required to make a correct decision. This technique is also used in propag<strong>and</strong>a.<br />

There are so many ways to lie that it’s almost impossible to list them all. But manipulators are very<br />

knowledgeable about even the most subtle <strong>and</strong> stealthy ways to lie <strong>and</strong> are artful in their use of the<br />

various forms of lying.<br />

One subtle approach to lying is lying by<br />

omission or through selective presentation of<br />

facts. When someone wants to pull the wool<br />

over your eyes, they don’t have to make an<br />

obviously absurd or bogus claim. Many times,<br />

all they have to do is make sure they don’t tell<br />

the whole truth about something. It’s as simple<br />

as leaving out a very important detail or<br />

something crucial to underst<strong>and</strong>ing the whole<br />

picture. In his first book, "In Sheep’s Clothing",<br />

Dr George Simon gives an example of an aging<br />

salesman concerned about his job security who<br />

asked his boss if there were any plans to lay him<br />

off or fire him. His boss told him there were no<br />

such plans. But he didn’t tell him that his sales<br />

accounts were about to be shared with a new,<br />

younger employee <strong>and</strong> that soon he’d be in a<br />

position in which he might prefer early<br />

retirement as opposed to dwindling<br />

commissions. Sometimes, what a person doesn’t say or do can be a much more effective manipulation<br />

tool.<br />

Another type of subtle lying is the use of vagueness. When you confront a manipulator about an issue,<br />

they may give you an answer, but they might also be so vague about the details that you end up<br />

remaining largely in the dark. Sometimes, the manipulator can manipulate you effectively by doing just<br />

the opposite — by using specificity in a response in such a way that it may provide a limited answer to<br />

the question you’ve asked, but without providing additional detail that would better address the intent<br />

of your question.<br />

Lying by distortion of crucial details provides one other way to obscure the bigger picture <strong>and</strong> mislead<br />

someone. In fact, when someone really wants to lie effectively, they’ll often recite a litany of true facts<br />

(all to give the impression that they’re on a truth-telling spree) while simultaneously leaving out a<br />

crucial detail or two or distorting the true nature of an important fact.<br />

Lying is such a habit for manipulators that sometimes they end up halfway believing their lies. That’s<br />

true not only for the lies they tell others, but also for the lies they tell themselves.<br />

By lying so often about the reality of situations, the manipulator obstructs <strong>and</strong> resists any chance that<br />

they will internalize the most essential principles of responsible conduct.<br />

100


101


10. Denial:<br />

When a manipulator refuses to admit that he or she has done something wrong, we talk about “denial”.<br />

“Denial” has traditionally been conceptualized as a psychological ego defense mechanism. In other<br />

words, it’s been presumed that when a person denies the reality of a situation, they do so unconsciously<br />

because the reality is simply too painful to bear.<br />

But when manipulators engage in denial, they’re generally not in a state of psychological unawareness<br />

prompted by a deep inner pain about who they are or what they have been doing. Rather, they more<br />

frequently use denial (i.e., an unwillingness to admit their wrongdoing) as a tactic to feign innocence,<br />

<strong>and</strong> to manage the impression of others who might otherwise have their number.<br />

If the denial is strong enough, a good neurotic might be successfully manipulated into second-guessing<br />

himself. Manipulators often won’t admit when they’ve done something wrong, <strong>and</strong> resist looking at<br />

any role their behavior patterns have played in creating problems in their lives. They lie to themselves<br />

<strong>and</strong> others about their malevolent acts <strong>and</strong> intentions as a tactic to get others off their back. If their<br />

denial is forceful <strong>and</strong> convincing enough, others will likely be successfully manipulated.<br />

To believe that a narcissist is using denial as a defense mechanism is to set yourself up to be<br />

manipulated <strong>and</strong> deceived. We need to examine the tactic of denial as something very different from<br />

the psychological defense of denial.<br />

Denial is not only an effective manipulation tactic, but it’s also a sure sign someone is not about to<br />

change his or her way of behaving. A person who won’t acknowledge their wrongs in the first place<br />

isn’t likely to feel any inclination to correct them. Habitual denial is the way many disordered<br />

characters resist internalizing the values <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ards of conduct that could make them more socially<br />

responsible.<br />

Denial as a defense mechanism is how the mind copes emotionally in the fall-out of a catastrophic<br />

event, major loss, or with anxiety. The woman who finds herself suddenly widowed may deny for<br />

awhile that her husb<strong>and</strong> is dead. Or she may simply feel numb <strong>and</strong> unable to cry for weeks or months.<br />

This is because she can't deal with all the emotions of loss <strong>and</strong> shock all at once. Denial as a defense is<br />

how our minds protect us from overwhelming situations that we aren't equipped at the time to deal with<br />

emotionally.<br />

This is something very different from denial as a tactic. George K. Simon, "In Sheep's Clothing",<br />

points out: "...this is when the aggressor refuses to admit that they've done something harmful or<br />

hurtful when they clearly have. It's a way they lie (to themselves as well as others) about their<br />

aggressive intentions. This 'Who...Me?' tactic invites the victim to feel unjustified in confronting the<br />

aggressor about the inappropriateness of a behavior. It's also the way the aggressor gives him/herself<br />

permission to keep right on doing what they want to do."<br />

Mr. Simon sums up: "In short, when Jeff [a juvenile caught in the act of bullying] is denying, he's not<br />

defending in any way, he's mainly fighting. He's not in a psychological state, he's employing a tactic,<br />

<strong>and</strong> he's very aware of what he's doing. The tactic he's using is often called denial, but it's really just<br />

another way of lying. And he's lying for the reasons people commonly lie -- to get out of trouble."<br />

I am sure you have many memories flooding into your mind right now of the times the narcissist has<br />

flatly denied their bad behavior, the effects of their bad behavior, <strong>and</strong> their bad intent behind the bad<br />

behavior. You are remembering how they managed to turn the whole situation around so that you were<br />

made to feel like you were the aggressor for not believing their denial...their lie. They put on their<br />

sweet angel face <strong>and</strong> deny, deny, deny until you lose the will to continue the fight. For that is what this<br />

102


creep is doing. Fighting. Fighting for his way. Fighting for his "right" to keep right on doing what he<br />

wants to do, all consequences to you be damned.<br />

By his insistent denials you have often been made to feel like the bad guy. For trying to get an<br />

accounting from him for his actions you have succumbed to the accusation that you're being<br />

judgmental, unfair, bullying. So you gave up. You bought the lie that you are the mean one <strong>and</strong> he is<br />

innocent. Who would insist so tenaciously on their innocence except the innocent? Or so you<br />

rationalize. You are unwilling to believe that he can look you in the eye <strong>and</strong> lie his ass off from here to<br />

eternity. You want to believe that something about him, <strong>and</strong> about this relationship, is real...so you<br />

succumb his denials.<br />

Or perhaps you allow yourself to know that<br />

his behavior was bad <strong>and</strong> destructive, but<br />

you tell yourself that deep down he's really<br />

hurting so he is "in denial" because he can't<br />

face his own pain. This is never the case<br />

with a manipulator.<br />

He is not "in pain". He has no anxiety<br />

about his bad behavior whatsoever. He is<br />

totally cool with how he is. The only thing<br />

he isn't cool with is that you're not<br />

accepting his behavior. He is trying to get a<br />

pass from you by this blatant denial of his<br />

actions. He has no intention of stopping what he is doing. He will buy himself another day by simply<br />

denying he did what he did.<br />

It is so childish that it is rather a wonderment that we fall for this as often as we do when this is done<br />

by an adult. We want to believe that the person in front of us is basically good. That they are basically<br />

honest. That they are not fighting with us in this moment.<br />

Teach yourself to recognize when someone is covertly<br />

fighting for their own way. Never fall for the belief that<br />

the narcissist is in some sort of psychic pain which<br />

prevents them from knowing how their behavior affects<br />

those around her. She has no problem, no conflict in her<br />

own mind with her behavior. She is justified fully in her<br />

mind for what she does no matter the destruction it<br />

brings down on herself <strong>and</strong> others. Her only problem is<br />

with your perceptions of her behavior. That is what she<br />

is trying to deal with as she employs her massive denial<br />

of her misdeeds. You are the problem...not her.<br />

She is not fighting to repress some deep psychological<br />

pain. She is fighting to force you to repress your own<br />

pain <strong>and</strong> your own perception so she can carry on unpunished while doing what ever the hell she wants<br />

to do.<br />

103


11. Rationalization:<br />

An excuse made by the manipulator for inappropriate behavior.<br />

Manipulators often try to “justify” their bad behavior.<br />

Traditional psychology trained us to see their “rationalizations” as unconscious defenses against<br />

feelings of guilt for their actions. But when manipulators make excuses, they’re really making a very<br />

conscious attempt to cast themselves in a more favorable light while manipulating others into seeing<br />

their point of view.<br />

It’s not a defense but a perfect example of covert aggression. And because it’s a very serious way in<br />

which they avoid responsibility <strong>and</strong> resist adopting the st<strong>and</strong>ards of conduct we want them to embrace,<br />

when a person makes excuses, it’s a sure bet they’ll engage in the bad behavior again.<br />

Effective manipulation tactics simultaneously put others on the defensive while also obscuring or<br />

denying the malevolent intent of the person using them. Such tactics are particularly effective on<br />

neurotic individuals — especially those who always want to think the best of people <strong>and</strong> who strive<br />

hard to underst<strong>and</strong> what would make a person behave in a problematic way.<br />

Manipulators tend to engage in certain automatic (i.e., habitual, but nonetheless conscious <strong>and</strong><br />

deliberate) behaviors that simultaneously serve the purposes of justifying antisocial behavior, resisting<br />

any subordination of their wills to a higher authority, manipulating <strong>and</strong> controlling others, <strong>and</strong><br />

managing the impressions others have of them <strong>and</strong> the nature of their character. In the end, by<br />

frequently engaging in these behaviors manipulators reinforce in their own minds the notion that their<br />

preferred way of doing things is okay <strong>and</strong> there is no need to change their ways of relating to others.<br />

Some of the “tactics” manipulators use to avoid responsibility <strong>and</strong> manipulate others have been<br />

traditionally viewed as ego defense mechanisms, arising out of the erroneous but still common notion<br />

that everyone feels badly to some degree when they want act on their primal urges <strong>and</strong> against the<br />

interest of the greater good. As a result, it was presumed that everyone exhibiting such behaviors was<br />

“defending” against feelings of shame <strong>and</strong> guilt. But, as Dr George Simon pointed out before, all<br />

metaphors can be stretched beyond their capacity to be useful, <strong>and</strong> traditional metaphors about why<br />

people do the things they do become greatly strained when trying to underst<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> deal with<br />

manipulators. (See “Shame, Guilt <strong>and</strong> Character Development”.)<br />

The concept of defense mechanisms becomes the most greatly tested when we’re trying to truly<br />

underst<strong>and</strong> the behavioral habits <strong>and</strong> tactics of the disordered character. When it comes to<br />

underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>and</strong> dealing with the manipulator, many of the behaviors we have traditionally thought<br />

of as defense mechanisms are better viewed as automatic (although conscious <strong>and</strong> deliberate) behaviors<br />

that simultaneously serve to justify or excuse antisocial behavior, obstruct the internalization of prosocial<br />

values (avoid responsibility), effectively manipulate <strong>and</strong> control others who don’t quite<br />

underst<strong>and</strong> the true intentions <strong>and</strong> motivations of the manipulator, <strong>and</strong> manage the impressions others<br />

have so as to keep any social pressure to change at bay.<br />

Almost any behavior can <strong>and</strong> has been used at one time or another by a manipulator as a means to<br />

avoid responsibility <strong>and</strong> manipulate others.<br />

The manipulation <strong>and</strong> responsibility avoidance tactics manipulators employ are too numerous to list. In<br />

fact, almost any behavior can <strong>and</strong> has been used at one time or another by a manipulator as a means to<br />

avoid responsibility <strong>and</strong> manipulate others.<br />

Sometimes the manipulator will go to great lengths to attempt to “justify” a behavior he knows is<br />

wrong or knows others regard as wrong. Manipulators are forever making excuses for their harmful or<br />

104


hurtful conduct. They have an answer for everything they’re challenged about. When others confront<br />

them, they come up with a litany of reasons why their behavior was justified <strong>and</strong> produce literally<br />

thous<strong>and</strong>s of excuses for irresponsible behavior.<br />

Now the traditional thinking on rationalization of course is that it is an unconscious defense<br />

mechanism. The theory behind this is that a person unknowingly tries to alleviate pangs of guilt by<br />

finding some way to grant legitimacy to their behavior. But if someone really is feeling pangs of guilt,<br />

the uneasiness they feel about their behavior is internal. So, when rationalization as a defense<br />

mechanism is truly employed, the exculpating dialogue that takes place is internal. When manipulators<br />

use the responsibility-avoidance tactic of rationalization (alternately: justification, or excuse-making)<br />

they’re not primarily trying to reconcile their conduct with their consciences, but rather trying to<br />

manipulate others into getting off their case by getting them to “buy into” the excuses they make. Their<br />

rationalizations are part of an external dialogue designed to cast the manipulator as not as bad a person<br />

as others might otherwise think he is. So, their excuses are also part of their impression management<br />

scheme. Habitually attempting to justify behaviors they know are regarded by most people as clearly<br />

wrong is also another way the manipulator resists internalizing appropriate st<strong>and</strong>ards of conduct <strong>and</strong><br />

controls <strong>and</strong> therefore makes it ever more likely he will engage in the wrongful behavior again.<br />

When used effectively by the manipulator, they simultaneously put others on the defensive while<br />

obscuring or denying the malevolent intent of the person using the tactic.<br />

Possibly the most important point Dr George Simon makes in his book, "In Sheep’s Clothing", in his<br />

other writings, <strong>and</strong> in all his workshops, is that it’s important to underst<strong>and</strong> the mode of behavior (i.e.,<br />

the mindset <strong>and</strong> emotional state) the manipulator is in when he is in the process of using the tactics. He<br />

is not in the defensive mode. It may appear so, especially to someone who has been indoctrinated with<br />

traditional notions about the motivations of behavior, <strong>and</strong> especially when some of the tactics can<br />

prompt a good neurotic who is confronting negative behavior to feel like an attacker. But at the very<br />

moment the manipulator is making excuses (rationalizing), blaming others (scapegoating), etc. he is<br />

primarily fighting.<br />

When you confront a manipulator about a harmful behavior, he is more than likely fully aware of the<br />

pro-social principle at stake. For example, when you point out that he was wrong to strike his wife, he<br />

underst<strong>and</strong>s very well that society frowns this kind of behavior. So, when he starts with the tactics —<br />

“She is always pushing my buttons” (blaming others); “I didn’t really hurt her” (minimizing); <strong>and</strong> “Am<br />

I supposed to always just take it?” (playing the victim) — he is well aware that society wants him to<br />

accept <strong>and</strong> submit to the principle that it’s not okay to strike your spouse. He’s also aware how<br />

civilized persons view the kind of people who, despite society’s rules, engage in such behavior. But<br />

he’s still actively resisting submission to this principle <strong>and</strong> fighting against internalizing the value. He<br />

also doesn’t want you on his case or to see him as the uncivilized sort that he is. He wants you to back<br />

off, accept his justifications, <strong>and</strong> keep the kind of image of him he wants you to have. So, whenever a<br />

manipulator uses these tactics, you know one thing for absolute certain: he will do it again. He’ll do it<br />

again because the use of the tactic testifies to the fact that he’s still at war with the principle. He’s<br />

fighting the very socialization process that could civilize him. You could say that he’s defending his<br />

ego, but that would be a relatively insignificant point <strong>and</strong> a distortion of the bigger picture.<br />

The main thing to remember is that when he engages in these behaviors, he is primarily fighting<br />

submission to the principles that serve the greater good <strong>and</strong> simultaneously trying to manipulate you<br />

into seeing things his way.<br />

105


12. Minimization or trivializing behaviour:<br />

This is a type of denial coupled with rationalization. The manipulator asserts that his behavior is not as<br />

bad, harmful or irresponsible as he knows it was or as someone else was suggesting, for example<br />

saying that a taunt or insult was only a joke or admitting only part of what he did was wrong, <strong>and</strong><br />

usually not the most serious part.<br />

When neurotics do something they think might negatively impact another, they tend to “catastrophize”<br />

the situation or become overly concerned with the damage they might have done. Conversely,<br />

manipulators are overly prone to minimizing the seriousness of their misconduct <strong>and</strong> trivializing the<br />

damage they cause in their relationships <strong>and</strong> to the general social order. By using the tactic, he tries to<br />

manipulate others into thinking he’s not such bad a person (impression management) <strong>and</strong> continues his<br />

active war against submission to a principle of social behavior.<br />

As is true when other tactics are used, when the manipulator minimizes the nature <strong>and</strong> seriousness of<br />

his conduct, you know for sure that he is likely to engage in the same or similar behaviors again. As<br />

long as he continues to minimize, he won’t take seriously the problems he needs to correct. It isn’t that<br />

he doesn’t recognize the seriousness of the issues. If he didn’t think others regarded the issue as<br />

serious, he wouldn’t feel the need to trivialize it. But refusing to accept the principle at h<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> to<br />

accept the need to change his stance indicate he’s sure to repeat his misconduct.<br />

Manipulators use this tactic for a lot of reasons, but the biggest reason of all is that it generally works!<br />

Dr Georg Simon continues: I remember one of the first times I witnessed the effectiveness of the<br />

minimization tactic. A couple had come to my office for counseling, <strong>and</strong> the woman’s main complaint<br />

was that she was becoming increasingly fearful of what appeared to be her husb<strong>and</strong>’s escalating level<br />

of aggressiveness. She complained that during an argument, he shoved her, <strong>and</strong> because he’d never<br />

done that before it concerned her. His comment: “Yeah, I might have touched her <strong>and</strong> pushed her a<br />

little bit, but you could hardly call it a ‘shove’ <strong>and</strong> there’s no way she can claim I hurt her or meant to<br />

hurt her. She’s making me out to be a monster, <strong>and</strong> I’m not. Besides, she pushed me to the brink!” This<br />

man’s statement combined several effective tactics from minimizing <strong>and</strong> trivializing the event<br />

(“touched her <strong>and</strong> pushed her a little bit”) to denial of malevolent intent (“no way she can claim I<br />

meant to hurt her”), vilifying the victim (“She’s making me out to be a monster”) <strong>and</strong> externalizing the<br />

blame (“She pushed me to the brink!”) among others.<br />

Before long, the woman was back-peddling <strong>and</strong> feeling bad for even bringing up the issue. It became<br />

all too clear that people use these tactics for a lot of reasons, but the biggest reason of all is that they<br />

generally work!<br />

Having been a veteran of traditional therapy, the woman in this case commented many times that she<br />

knew she was “making him [her husb<strong>and</strong>] defensive” <strong>and</strong> that she didn’t want to make him feel badly<br />

about himself but didn’t know how else to address the issue. Clearly, she perceived him to be in a<br />

“defensive” posture when he was in fact on the offensive. What was even more disconcerting was the<br />

look of resignation on her face as she herself assumed the submissive position after his barrage of<br />

tactics succeeded in their intent.<br />

It’s still amazing to me today how many folks (including therapists) can’t distinguish an offense from a<br />

defense. Traditional notions about human behavior — especially paradigms designed to underst<strong>and</strong><br />

neurosis — are inadequate <strong>and</strong> sometimes even destructive when it comes to underst<strong>and</strong>ing the modus<br />

oper<strong>and</strong>i of the manipulator.<br />

106


13. Selective inattention or selective attention:<br />

Selective Listening <strong>and</strong> Attention: Hearing What You Want to Hear as a <strong>Manipulation</strong> Tactic<br />

Another behavior that manipulators frequently display is “selective attention” or “selective listening.”<br />

They simply refuse to pay attention to anything that may distract from their agenda, saying things like<br />

"I don't want to hear it".<br />

Manipulators are good at seeing only what they<br />

want to see <strong>and</strong> hearing only what they want to<br />

hear. Stanton Samenow referred to their habit of<br />

paying highly selective attention as “mental<br />

filtering” or “paying attention only to what suits<br />

him.” “Tuning-out” someone who’s trying to<br />

make a point, teach a lesson, or call attention to<br />

a problem is a principal way that the disordered<br />

character resists internalizing the values,<br />

st<strong>and</strong>ards, <strong>and</strong> controls society wants him to<br />

adopt. One cannot be “open” to the idea of<br />

accepting a principle while simultaneously<br />

refusing to pay it any attention. One cannot<br />

empathize with another’s concerns <strong>and</strong> tune out<br />

the other person at the same time. In short, one cannot be in the receptive/submissive mode <strong>and</strong> the<br />

combative/closed mode at the same time.<br />

The tactic of selective attention goes h<strong>and</strong> in h<strong>and</strong> with the inattentional thinking patterns. When you<br />

start to confront a manipulator about a problem behavior, they almost always know what you’re about<br />

to say before you actually say it. And, they almost immediately start tuning you out. The reason they<br />

“don’t want to hear it” is that they are not prepared to submit themselves to the principle of conduct<br />

you <strong>and</strong> they both know underlies the confrontation you are about to make. So, when they start tuning<br />

you out, you have absolute assurance they have no intention of changing course.<br />

Many times, selective attention is mistaken for attentional deficiency, especially in children <strong>and</strong><br />

adolescents. Some young persons, through no fault of their own, have trouble sustaining focus <strong>and</strong><br />

attention. They might be able to do so when hyperstimulated, but otherwise have problems attending to<br />

a task. Selective attention is different, although it can accompany attentional deficiency. Many parents<br />

have intuitively known that their child’s hearing seems to improve instantly when they’re talking<br />

openly about something they know the child wants or likes.<br />

One of the key tools to empowerment is the tool of selective speaking. In my early work with<br />

manipulators, one of the ways I confirmed that they were indeed tuning me out deliberately <strong>and</strong> to test<br />

whether they were in the slightest ready to receive counsel was simply not to talk unless they at least<br />

appeared attentive <strong>and</strong> receptive. Over the years, this has turned out to be by far one of my most<br />

powerful therapeutic techniques <strong>and</strong> also one of the most empowering tools for persons in relationships<br />

with a manipulator.<br />

107


14. Diversion <strong>and</strong> Evasion:<br />

Diversion:<br />

Manipulator not giving a straight answer to a<br />

straight question <strong>and</strong> instead being diversionary,<br />

steering the conversation onto another topic.<br />

Evasion:<br />

Similar to diversion but giving irrelevant,<br />

rambling, vague responses<br />

Perhaps no behaviors are as frustrating to someone trying to elicit some degree of accountability from<br />

another as are the tactics of evasion <strong>and</strong> diversion.<br />

A moving target is hard to hit. If you try to confront an issue head on, a person who wants to<br />

manipulate you will do their best to side-step the issue. Evading a matter of central concern is a great<br />

way not only to dodge responsibility, but also to keep the light of illumination from shining on the<br />

behavior needing attention.<br />

They want to keep the spotlight off their problematic behaviors. They also don’t want their true<br />

character to be exposed or to be put on the spot (i.e. caught momentarily without a good offensive<br />

strategy for taking advantage of another). So, they are quick to dodge the important issues brought to<br />

their attention. When you ask them a direct question, they will not give a straight answer. Instead,<br />

they try to evade or sidestep the question <strong>and</strong> often also try to re-direct your focus (this is another tactic<br />

called diversion, which will be the subject of another post).<br />

Evasion is a one of the main tactics manipulators <strong>and</strong> other disordered characters use to maintain<br />

control in situations. A common misconception, based largely on outdated principles of classical<br />

psychology, is that they engage in such behaviors because they perceive themselves to be under attack<br />

<strong>and</strong> are trying to defend themselves <strong>and</strong> protect their egos. But the real reason they use such tactics is<br />

to keep others in the dark <strong>and</strong> in one-down positions. The disordered character never wants the playing<br />

field to be level. He or she always want to have the advantage over you. They also don’t want to play<br />

by the same rules by which we’d like them to play. So they use tactics like evasion to avoid<br />

responsibility as well as to manipulate <strong>and</strong> control others.<br />

Dr George Simon writes: I remember a conversation between a woman who tried to confront her<br />

husb<strong>and</strong> about the infidelity she suspected. When he responded that he certainly understood how she<br />

might be suspicious because he’d been working so hard lately, he effectively side-stepped the issue.<br />

This woman had the moxie to continue pressing the issue — but the more she tried to pin him down,<br />

the more evasive he became, combining his issue-dodging tactic with other tactics.<br />

The tactic of diversion often goes h<strong>and</strong>-in-h<strong>and</strong> with evasion. Sometimes, when you try to pin down<br />

someone intent on manipulating you, they’ll effectively change the subject, focusing attention on some<br />

other related or even tangential issue. This emotional sleight of h<strong>and</strong> is an effective way to keep<br />

attention focused on almost anything else but the matter which has been raised. Many times, attention<br />

is shifted toward the person trying to bring a problem behavior to light, thus effectively not only<br />

throwing that person on the defensive, but also prompting them to lose focus <strong>and</strong> become derailed in<br />

their pursuit of their own agenda.<br />

108


Diversion <strong>and</strong> evasion are two effective means of deflecting concern or confrontation about problem<br />

behaviors. It is axiomatic that the person using these tactics has no intention whatsoever of taking<br />

responsibility for a behavior or of considering changing it. Rather than be accountable <strong>and</strong> responsible,<br />

what the issue-dodger <strong>and</strong> subject-changer really wants to do is to advance their own agenda at the<br />

expense of yours while simultaneously managing your impression of them. Such tactics are employed<br />

very effectively by political talking heads when they are grilled by news commentators who have<br />

serious questions about the policies being endorsed: as a result, they stay on message, while looking<br />

good <strong>and</strong> remaining convincing, despite what they know are flaws in their positions.<br />

109


15. Using weasel words.<br />

A weasel word (also, anonymous authority) may be an informal term for equivocating words <strong>and</strong><br />

phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific <strong>and</strong> meaningful has been said, when in<br />

fact only a vague or ambiguous claim, or even a refutation has been communicated.<br />

In other cases, words with a particular subjective effect are chosen. For example, one person may speak<br />

of "resistance fighters" or "freedom fighters", while another may call the same subjects "terrorists".<br />

The underlying facts are the same, but a quite different impression is given.<br />

The use of weasel words to avoid making an outright assertion is a synonym to tergiversate. Weasel<br />

words can imply meaning far beyond the claim actually being made. Some weasel words may also<br />

have the effect of softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement<br />

through some form of understatement, for example using detensifiers such as "somewhat" or "in most<br />

respects".<br />

A study of Wikipedia found that most weasel words in it could be divided into three categories:<br />

1. Numerically vague expressions (e.g. "some people", "experts", "many")<br />

2. Use of the passive voice to avoid specifying an authority (e.g. "it is said")<br />

3. Adverbs that weaken (e.g. "often", "probably")<br />

Other forms of weasel words include:<br />

Use of euphemisms (e.g., replacing "firing staff" with "streamlining the workforce")<br />

Use of grammatical devices such as qualifiers <strong>and</strong> the subjunctive mood<br />

Generalizations: The vagueness of a statement may disguise the validity or the aim of that statement.<br />

Generalizing by means of quantifiers, such as many or better, <strong>and</strong> the passive voice ("it has been<br />

decided") conceals the full picture in that it avoids the necessity of providing attribution. (If one were<br />

to put "it has been decided" into active voice, one would need to supply an actor: "X has decided".)<br />

Non sequitur statements: Irrelevant statements are often used in advertising to make it appear that the<br />

statement is a beneficial feature of the product or service being advertised. Example: "The official coat<br />

hanger of a sports team". This statement announces a paid endorsement with the aim of suggesting that<br />

the quality of the coat hanger is superior to others. The statement does not, however, offer any<br />

evidence in support of its claim - there is not necessarily a link between the quality of a product <strong>and</strong> a<br />

paid endorsement.<br />

Examples from Wikipedia:<br />

"A growing body of evidence..."(Where is the raw data for your review?)<br />

"People say..." (Which people? How do they know?)<br />

"It has been claimed that..." (By whom, where, when?)<br />

"Critics claim..." (Which critics?)<br />

"Clearly..." (As if the premise is undeniably true)<br />

"It st<strong>and</strong>s to reason that..." (Again, as if the premise is undeniably true—see "Clearly" above)<br />

"Questions have been raised..." (Implies a fatal flaw has been discovered)<br />

"I heard that..." (Who told you? Is the source reliable?)<br />

"There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Is the source reliable?)<br />

110


"Experience shows that..." (Whose experience? What was the experience? How does it demonstrate<br />

this?)<br />

"It has been mentioned that..." (Who are these mentioners? Can they be trusted?)<br />

"Popular wisdom has it that..." (Is popular wisdom a test of truth?)<br />

"Commonsense has it/insists that..." (The common sense of whom? Who says so? See "Popular<br />

wisdom" above, <strong>and</strong> "It is known that" below)<br />

"It is known that..." (By whom <strong>and</strong> by what method is it known?)<br />

"Officially known as..." (By whom, where, when—who says so?)<br />

"It turns out that..." (How does it turn out?¹)<br />

"It was noted that..." (By whom, why, when?)<br />

"Nobody else's product is better than ours." (What is the evidence of this?)<br />

"Studies show..." (what studies?)<br />

"A recent study at a leading university..." (How recent is your study? At what university?)<br />

"(The phenomenon) came to be seen as..." (by whom?)<br />

"Some argue..." (who?)<br />

"Up to sixty percent..." (so, 59%? 50%? 10%?)<br />

"More than seventy percent..." (How many more? 70.01%? 80%? 90%?)<br />

"The vast majority..." (All, more than half—how many?)<br />

"Save up to $100 or more!" (What exactly is the significance of the $100? It is neither a minimum nor<br />

a maximum, it just sits arbitrarily somewhere in an undefined range.)<br />

"... is now 20% cheaper!" (Cheaper than what? The last model? Some arbitrarily inflated price?)<br />

"Four out of five people would agree..." (How many subjects were included in the study?)<br />

"... is among the (top, leading, best, few, worst, etc.)" (Top 100? Best in customer<br />

service/quality/management?)<br />

"... for a fraction of the original price!" (This wording suggests a much lower price even though the<br />

fraction could easily be 99/100 or 101/100)<br />

"More people are using..." (What does that mean in numbers?)<br />

"Nothing Is Stronger/Longer Lasting/Safer" (How many are equally as strong/long lasting/safe?)<br />

"Lose 20 pounds in 3 weeks" (20 pounds of what? Water, muscle, bone, money?)<br />

“Zokko toothpaste combats oral bacteria.” (combats, but does not necessarily win)<br />

“I could come with you.” (on the other h<strong>and</strong>, I might not)<br />

“Books from as little as...” (best case description)<br />

It is important that real examples do not in fact explain, at a later stage of the argument, what exactly is<br />

meant by "it turns out that"; the whole needs to be looked at before it can be decided that it is a weasel<br />

term.<br />

111


16. Mind Reading - The assumption statement<br />

This manipulative tactic seeks to turn your behavior into what the beholder perceives it as, whether or<br />

not their interpretation is accurate. Soon leads to a guilt trip because no matter what, your refutation is<br />

proof of the assumption.<br />

Shift the assumption statement away from you.<br />

One of the things that is so riling about having<br />

another person tell you what it is that you're<br />

thinking or doing is that they are not taking you<br />

seriously or treating you as a whole person.<br />

Instead, they are attempting to overlay how they'd<br />

like you to behave <strong>and</strong> this comes right back to<br />

how they'd like you behave so that it benefits<br />

them. Assumption statements can be harder to<br />

pick up on but it's essential that you do so in order<br />

to deflect them quickly <strong>and</strong> effectively. Some<br />

examples include statements using "suppose",<br />

"guess", "wish", etc: "I suppose you're going to<br />

leave me alone again." or "I wish you'd<br />

underst<strong>and</strong> how hard it is for me, after all I've<br />

done for you, to have you not want to stay longer<br />

with me each Christmas."<br />

The problem with the assumption statement is<br />

that there is no question; a manipulator doesn't<br />

like asking questions because it causes them to feel a loss of control. In a healthier relationship<br />

situation, questions would elicit what you're doing <strong>and</strong> a conversation could proceed from this<br />

underst<strong>and</strong>ing; a manipulator would prefer to make the assumption as to what you're doing because it<br />

then allows them to them to be in control of the you they've described rather than the you they need to<br />

listen to. Break the supposition away from your actions by ignoring the manipulative negative<br />

implication <strong>and</strong> return the manipulator to reality by clarifying your equally valid value attaching to<br />

what you're doing. For example:<br />

112<br />

A: "I wish you'd underst<strong>and</strong> how hard it is for me, after all I've done for you, to have you not<br />

want to stay longer with me each Christmas."<br />

You: "Actually, I spend as much time with you as I spend with Kate's parents <strong>and</strong> just as you<br />

<strong>and</strong> dad used to do when I was growing up, I'm happily dividing my time equally between both<br />

families."<br />

A: "I suppose you're going to leave me alone again."<br />

You: "I'm not leaving you alone. You've got your favorite movie on tonight, the dog's with you<br />

wanting attention, <strong>and</strong> I'll be back on Tuesday, as usual."<br />

A: "If you've got more important things to do, then it's best you don't waste time visiting me."<br />

You: "I'm glad you underst<strong>and</strong> how busy things are for me right now. It's an expensive time to<br />

fly <strong>and</strong> I'll be able to spend more time with you when I come next May."


17. Exploiting position of authority<br />

You are far more likely to be persuaded by someone you like or by someone who is in an authority<br />

position. For example: A police officer tells you, “It’s legal for me to search your apartment right<br />

now.” Since he’s a police officer, you may feel inclined to believe he must be telling the truth, even<br />

though he never showed you a search warrant.<br />

An other way to exploit authority are Testimonials (also Questionable Authority, Faulty Use of<br />

Authority): A fallacy in which support for a st<strong>and</strong>point or product is provided by a well-known or<br />

respected figure (e.g. a star athlete or entertainer) who is not an expert <strong>and</strong> who was probably well paid<br />

for the endorsement (e.g., “Olympic gold-medal pole-vaulter Fulano de Tal uses Quick Flush Internetshouldn’t<br />

you?"). Also includes other false, meaningless or paid means of associating oneself or one’s<br />

product with the ethos of a famous person or event (e.g. “Try Salsa Cabria, the official taco sauce of<br />

the Vancouver Winter Olympics!”) This is a corrupted argument from ethos.<br />

One of the most valuable lessons in human life, in my opinion, is learning to trust yourself <strong>and</strong> listen to<br />

your inner voice, rather than anybody else's. By uncritically accepting the beliefs <strong>and</strong> opinions of other<br />

people (we know how common it is for children to do this <strong>and</strong> how much of their true self they can<br />

lose), we renounce our own responsibility <strong>and</strong> power, to the extent that we cannot even call our<br />

successes our own.<br />

Many children learn not to trust themselves <strong>and</strong><br />

their own decisions, thus, as adults they continue<br />

to seek advice <strong>and</strong> direction from other people,<br />

rather than accepting the risk of making a<br />

mistake. This creates a more or less subtle<br />

dependency on external authority. For this to<br />

occur, another aspect of the problem must exist -<br />

that of the person who places himself in a<br />

position of authority in order to wield power<br />

over others.<br />

Most people tend to trust authority as most of us<br />

were taught to do <strong>and</strong>, in fact, we are often ready<br />

to trust a person who seems to be very certain of<br />

his opinions. If something is written in a book or<br />

a newspaper, many people will automatically<br />

accept it without question. While some people<br />

who have a great need for power try to present their ideas as an absolute truth, others, usually those<br />

whose feelings of insecurity are closer to the conscious side of their personality, can easily be swayed<br />

just by the other's self-confident approach.<br />

Source: Don't be Manipulated © Kosjenka Muk - http://www.soulwork.net/kosjenka/authority.htm<br />

113


18. Third party authority<br />

This manipulative ploy is pseudo-sociology in action. The manipulator takes it upon themselves to tell<br />

you what everybody, various friends, your father, … someone else said is the right thing to do. It's a<br />

h<strong>and</strong>y way of pushing aside the responsibility from themselves while loading it all onto you.<br />

Move away from the mind games of what the manipulator thinks other people say or do.<br />

The use of third party "authority" is thoughtlessly rampant in much of everyday life because we like to<br />

defer to these generalizations as a way of backing up our own vague <strong>and</strong> often unexplored preferences.<br />

While most of us know it's a bad habit, in the h<strong>and</strong>s of a manipulator, it becomes a weapon.<br />

Whenever a manipulator resorts to quoting what your Aunt May, cousin Josh or darling Katie down the<br />

street would do or are saying, see warning lights flashing. This tactic is used to try <strong>and</strong> compare the<br />

perceived lack in your responsiveness with the manner in which other people apparently would behave<br />

more appropriately than you (read: they'd do it for the manipulator whereas you're holding out).<br />

While some of this is to do with the manipulator fantasizing that the grass is greener in someone else's<br />

life, it's far more about being a tool that lets the manipulator put the blame on someone else, therefore<br />

not taking responsibility for his or her opinion.<br />

A:"Mary says it'd be better if you didn't leave me alone all the time. She says it's harmful for<br />

me."<br />

You:"I didn't realize Mary was a psychologist. I must speak to her about the possibility of her<br />

spending more time with you."<br />

A:"Everyone thinks you're not being kind to me when you refuse to buy me a second diamond<br />

ring."<br />

You:"Everyone? I must meet these people who are so flush! I'd love to buy you another ring<br />

but I'm glad you have a beautiful one to keep you occupied until our budget can withst<strong>and</strong> any<br />

more large purchases."<br />

More Examples:<br />

"We were wondering if you..."<br />

"They said you..."<br />

"She thought you..."<br />

"Everyone thinks you..."<br />

How to deal with it:<br />

Ask who is "we", "they", or "someone" <strong>and</strong> ask for the<br />

manipulator's own point of view.<br />

114


19. Shaming: using people’s conscience against themselves<br />

Manipulators use sarcasm <strong>and</strong> put-downs to increase fear <strong>and</strong> self-doubt in the victim. They use this<br />

tactic to make others feel unworthy <strong>and</strong> therefore defer to them. Shaming tactics can be very subtle<br />

such as a fierce look or glance, unpleasant tone of voice, rhetorical comments, subtle sarcasm.<br />

Manipulators can make one feel ashamed for even daring to challenge them. It is an effective way to<br />

foster a sense of inadequacy in the victim.<br />

The technique is very successful if used against neurotics. One of the main differences between<br />

“neurotic” individuals <strong>and</strong> manipulators is<br />

their level of conscience development —<br />

especially their capacities to experience<br />

shame <strong>and</strong> guilt. Neurotics try hard not only<br />

to project a positive image, but also to do the<br />

right thing. Manipulators know full well that<br />

those with well-developed consciences tend<br />

to feel guilty easily if they think they’ve<br />

done something wrong. Such individuals<br />

also have a big sense of shame when they<br />

think they’ve behaved in a manner that<br />

reflects negatively on their character. So,<br />

when they want to manipulate a good<br />

neurotic, all they have to do is somehow<br />

convince them that they’ve done wrong or behaved in a manner they should feel ashamed of.<br />

A most ironic fact is that almost no one is as expert on the topic of neurosis as is the manipulator.<br />

Shaming <strong>and</strong> guilt-tripping are without question the favorite tactics manipulators use to manipulate<br />

people with consciences that are more developed than theirs. In one case, a child whose bad behavior<br />

was appropriately pointed out by her mother complained, “You never have anything good to say about<br />

me,” thus inviting her mother to feel guilty for saying anything. In another case, a phil<strong>and</strong>ering<br />

husb<strong>and</strong> whose wife had had enough of his behavior pointedly tried to convince her that she had not<br />

been sufficiently attentive to him, inviting her to feel ashamed of her performance as a wife.<br />

A most important point to remember is that neither the tactic of<br />

guilt-tripping nor the tactic of shaming would have a prayer of being<br />

effective as a manipulation tool if it weren’t for the fact that neurotic<br />

individuals have such active consciences that prompt them to feel<br />

guilty or shameful when they think they’ve fallen short. Just try<br />

using the tactics of shaming or guilt-tripping a disordered character.<br />

Their undeveloped or sometimes even absent conscience makes it<br />

possible for them to hear your complaints without being even in the<br />

slightest bit affected. The fact that these tactics are effective<br />

manipulation tools for one group of characters <strong>and</strong> not for the other<br />

testifies to some of the core differences between neurotic individuals<br />

<strong>and</strong> manipulators.<br />

Another important thing to recognize is that because manipulators<br />

use these tactics <strong>and</strong> underst<strong>and</strong> why they work, they must<br />

necessarily underst<strong>and</strong> completely the kinds of behaviors others<br />

frequently take issue with <strong>and</strong> why they take issue with them. They<br />

are very aware of the kinds of things that most people regard as<br />

things to feel guilty or shameful about. The problem is that when they do such things, they feel neither<br />

shameful nor guilty. In fact, they persist in their behavior, actively resisting any submission to the<br />

st<strong>and</strong>ards with which they try to brow-beat others. Traditional perspectives have always tried to explain<br />

115


this by suggesting that the manipulators are blinded from insight into their hypocrisy by “denial” <strong>and</strong><br />

the tendency to “project” (both of which are purported to be unconscious defenses against emotional<br />

pain). The reality is that the manipulator is not blind at all, but rather very aware. He also knows full<br />

well what behaviors most people regard as wrong <strong>and</strong> shameful, <strong>and</strong> he wants others to tow the line.<br />

The reason he doesn’t play by the same rules is because if he is a narcissistic character, he feels entitled<br />

to do otherwise. And if he’s one of the aggressive characters, he simply fights to do as he pleases in<br />

defiance of the wishes of society.<br />

116<br />

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


20. Vilifying the victim:<br />

More than any other, this tactic is a powerful means of putting the victim on the defensive while<br />

simultaneously masking the aggressive intent of the manipulator.<br />

By “pointing to another wrong”, the manipulator turns the tables <strong>and</strong> accuses his victim of doing what<br />

he himself is being accused of, … or worse.<br />

“You say that I am lying. I don’t think so! I think you are not being honest yourself!”<br />

“How dare you accuse me of being messy? When was the last time you even took a shower?”<br />

Manipulators know this is a good way to put their victim on the defensive. Neurotics especially hate to<br />

think of themselves as the injuring party <strong>and</strong> would rather carry the burden of abuse than see<br />

themselves as an abuser. Manipulators know this well. So, when they want to take advantage, a good<br />

one-two punch is to play the victim <strong>and</strong> then vilify the real victim.<br />

role of confronter.<br />

Sometimes it takes a lot of nerve<br />

to confront a manipulator’s<br />

behavior.<br />

One reason it takes so much nerve<br />

is that usually the neurotic<br />

individual has an intuitive sense<br />

of the manipulator’s innate<br />

forcefulness, resolve, <strong>and</strong><br />

capacity to st<strong>and</strong> ground when<br />

challenged.<br />

Another reason is that neurotic<br />

individuals are among the most<br />

conscientious <strong>and</strong> the least<br />

aggressive of individuals, so they<br />

are naturally uncomfortable in the<br />

Neurotics, being who they are, are very vulnerable to the ploy of vilifying the victim. When a neurotic<br />

individual finally gets up enough nerve to confront a manipulator about their behavior, within minutes<br />

the manipulator is generally able to turn the tables <strong>and</strong> cast the victim of the hurtful behavior in a bad<br />

light.<br />

Dr George Simon, author of this article, gives an example of a mother who finally had to confront her<br />

aggressive child’s increasingly disruptive behavior. When she did, the child launched a verbal barrage<br />

that included: “You’re always saying bad things about me” <strong>and</strong> “You act like you hate me.” As<br />

conscientious as the mother was, she then began to wonder if she actually hadn’t become too critical<br />

lately <strong>and</strong> if indeed her behavior might truly look to her child like she hated the child.<br />

She never stopped to think that if the child actually believed that she never had a good thing to say <strong>and</strong><br />

that she actually hated her, then there would be absolutely no point in the child’s pointing out those<br />

things, because such words would have absolutely no impact on a woman with a heart of stone. It<br />

never occurred to her that the child must instinctively <strong>and</strong> deeply know that she actually cared quite a<br />

bit <strong>and</strong> that her conscientiousness was her biggest vulnerability. In other words, it never occurred to her<br />

that her child knew exactly what to say <strong>and</strong> do to manipulate her. It also didn’t occur to her that by<br />

allowing the child to continually use those tactics to manipulate her, she was helping to ensure that the<br />

child would continue resisting accepting the principles of responsible conduct she was trying to instill<br />

in her.<br />

117


21. Playing the servant role:<br />

Cloaking a self-serving agenda in guise<br />

of a service to a more noble cause, for<br />

example saying he is acting in a certain<br />

way for "obedience" <strong>and</strong> "service" to<br />

God or a similar authority figure or<br />

that he is working nobly on your behalf<br />

while concealing his own desire for<br />

power <strong>and</strong> dominance.<br />

One hallmark of a covert aggressive<br />

personality is he will loudly profess his<br />

subservience while fighting for<br />

dominance.<br />

This manipulation technique is not to<br />

be confused with the "Noble Cause<br />

Corruption", which occurs when a<br />

person tries to produce a just outcome<br />

through unjust methods.<br />

For example: police manipulating<br />

evidence to ensure a conviction of a<br />

known offender.<br />

Normal integrity regime initiatives are unlikely to halt noble cause corruption as its basis lies in an<br />

attempt to do good by compensating for the apparent flaws in an unjust system.<br />

The overall findings of an Australian study based on a concrete case, were that police officers were<br />

motivated to indulge in this type of corruption through a desire to produce convictions where they felt<br />

the system unfairly worked against their ability to do their job correctly. Also, the police officers<br />

involved were seeking job satisfaction through the ability to convict the guilty.<br />

Though the rewards of such corruption may be positive, it is clear that the tecnique may lead to more<br />

severe punishments than would have been possible trough legal means <strong>and</strong> even to conviction of<br />

innocent people.<br />

Playing the Servant Role: Manipulating by Casting the Will to Dominate as Duty or<br />

Subservience<br />

By Dr George Simon<br />

One of the more subtle ways that a person hell-bent upon power <strong>and</strong> control can veil their will to<br />

dominate is to cloak it under the cover of subservience to a higher cause or the purported desire to be<br />

of service. In my work over the years with disturbed characters <strong>and</strong> their victims, I’ve seen many<br />

examples of this tactic <strong>and</strong> I know well the damage it can inflict on a relationship.<br />

Early in my clinical training, I happened to observe a therapy session that involved a young girl <strong>and</strong> her<br />

parents. To put it mildly, the child appeared a nervous wreck. She was not only anxious much of the<br />

time, but also she had been having nightmares <strong>and</strong> was fairly depressed. Her mother confided to the<br />

118


therapist that she thought her father was pushing her too hard. Her father was a prominent <strong>and</strong><br />

successful businessman who had big plans for his daughter. But whenever the mother confronted the<br />

father about what she believed to be the relentless pressure he was placing on their child, he would<br />

retort that he was only trying to be a good father, to be sure that he afforded the child every<br />

opportunity, <strong>and</strong> to help her achieve her full potential. Toward that end, he had insisted she be placed<br />

in advanced programs, insisted on all-A report cards, <strong>and</strong> had frequent conferences with the teachers<br />

when he thought they weren’t doing enough to help. When the girl buckled under the pressure, he hired<br />

a tutor, boasting that he was the kind of parent who would do anything he could to help his daughter<br />

achieve her potential. (All this was for a child who the educational professionals had repeatedly<br />

indicated was of only average intellectual ability.)<br />

The father didn’t seem to care that the child was buckling under the pressure<br />

I was so struck by the “dynamics” in this family that I made a case study of it <strong>and</strong> eventually included a<br />

modified version of it in my book In Sheep’s Clothing. What struck me the most about this family was<br />

how determined the father was to have his way (the hallmark of an aggressive personality), how selfquestioning<br />

<strong>and</strong> guilty the mother felt whenever she questioned his motives, <strong>and</strong> how differently the<br />

child’s emotional suffering affected her parents. The child’s suffering was so obvious it would be hard<br />

to ignore. The mother didn’t ignore it but didn’t feel valid in her interpretations of events. The father<br />

didn’t seem to care that the child was buckling under the pressure; what was important to him was that<br />

she accomplish the plans he had long set for her. I then came to realize how effective playing the<br />

servant role could be as a manipulation tactic. It’s hard to see someone as a ruthless oppressor when<br />

they’re constantly laying claim to tireless efforts on another’s behalf. My gut was reacting instinctively<br />

to this man’s aggression (as was his wife’s), yet it was hard to point out clearly the nature of his acts<br />

(even the therapist assigned to this case aligned with the father’s position for awhile). So, I eventually<br />

came to underst<strong>and</strong> one of the main reasons people get manipulated, especially by aggressive<br />

personalities. They don’t trust their gut-level feelings <strong>and</strong> instincts. Instead of paying attention to their<br />

inner fear <strong>and</strong> angst, <strong>and</strong> instead of ascribing validity to their initial response, they “listen” to the<br />

rationalizations <strong>and</strong> buy into the message being implied (e.g., “I’m the servant here, not the oppressor,<br />

don’t you see?). They then part company with their intuition <strong>and</strong> succumb to the manipulation.<br />

One of the early pioneers of cognitive-behavioral therapy coined the term “dominance under the guise<br />

of service” to describe the tactic of playing the role of servant. It’s an effective tactic <strong>and</strong> one that’s<br />

hard to spot right away. But like the other tactics we’ve been discussing, it can inflict a fair amount of<br />

damage if not challenged.<br />

119


22. Seduction:<br />

Manipulator uses charm, praise, flattery or overtly supporting others in order to get them to lower their<br />

defenses <strong>and</strong> give their trust <strong>and</strong> loyalty to him or her.<br />

Common flattery tactics are:<br />

Tell a person how something they said has helped you<br />

Ask a person how they became successful …, how they<br />

achieved …, how they accomplished … - then sit back<br />

<strong>and</strong> listen<br />

Ask a person for advice<br />

Ask a person about his family, hobby, job, …<br />

Always smile at a person the moment you start saying<br />

something that calls for a smile, then look the person in<br />

the eyes <strong>and</strong> support the smile during <strong>and</strong> after you said<br />

it<br />

Show you know less than they do: People like to feel<br />

smart an d help a person who is new at something or<br />

knows less than they do.<br />

Dr George Simon writes:<br />

When a person praises you excessively, you better start asking<br />

yourself what he wants from you.<br />

When a person promises you an excellent deal or extra-ordinary<br />

benefits, you better start asking yourself what he has to gain from<br />

the deal he’s offering you.<br />

When a persons insists you can count on him <strong>and</strong> trust him <strong>and</strong><br />

repeats that he has never failed you, you better start asking<br />

yourself why it is so important that you should trust him: a person<br />

who is trustworthy has no need to remind you that you can trust<br />

him.<br />

Manipulators know that most people dislike obvious flattery. On<br />

the other h<strong>and</strong>, when flattery is executed with sufficient subtlety,<br />

most people never get enough of it.<br />

Perhaps one of the most insidious ways to favorably manage the impression of others while<br />

simultaneously trying to get something you want from them is seduction. Now, most of us are<br />

vulnerable to seduction techniques. That’s because most of us want to be liked <strong>and</strong> valued. So, when<br />

someone shows us attention or behaves toward us in a way that invites us to feel somewhat special, we<br />

almost never think that they’re doing so because there’s something they want. Rather, we’d like to<br />

think there’s something really remarkable about us that is motivating the person to behave that way.<br />

120


One of the most damaging legacies of traditional psychology is the over-weighting it gives to people’s<br />

insecurities <strong>and</strong> fears <strong>and</strong> the relatively complete inattention it gives to the myriad ways that they fight<br />

<strong>and</strong> maneuver for the things they want. Everyday life is approximately 95% fighting <strong>and</strong> 5% running.<br />

But traditional psychology is overly concerned about how <strong>and</strong> why we run, not how <strong>and</strong> why we fight.<br />

By “fight” I don’t mean physical violence. Rather, I mean the forceful goal-directed energy we all<br />

expend to get the things we want.<br />

Sometimes, seduction can be very deliberate, calculated, <strong>and</strong> carried out in such a manner that the other<br />

person is swept away.<br />

Responsible people assert themselves <strong>and</strong> fight for the things they want in direct, fair, restrained, <strong>and</strong><br />

non-destructive ways. Disordered characters lie, cheat, <strong>and</strong> sometimes “shmooze” to get what they<br />

want. They don’t like to be denied, so rather than approach things directly <strong>and</strong> run the risk of not<br />

winning, they’d prefer to approach things on the sly <strong>and</strong> catch the other unaware. Playing to the desire<br />

of another to be valued <strong>and</strong> liked can be a powerful manipulation tool. Most of the time, this is not<br />

done with malicious intent or with such intensity that it does any real damage. Also, most of the time,<br />

the person on the receiving end is aware enough to know that they’re being buttered-up <strong>and</strong> will enjoy<br />

the flattery while not taking it so seriously. But sometimes, seduction can be very deliberate,<br />

calculated, <strong>and</strong> carried out in such a manner that the other person is swept away. Then they can become<br />

quite blinded about the nature of the person doing the seducing. Only after the manipulator gets what<br />

he or she wants will their true character start to show. By then, it’s often too late.<br />

One of the most fundamental <strong>and</strong> life-empowering principles I introduced in my book In Sheep’s<br />

Clothing [Amazon-US | Amazon-UK] is that once people replace the destructive legacy of traditional<br />

psychology — i.e., that everyone is almost always struggling with fears or insecurities — with a<br />

mindset that life is far more about people maneuvering <strong>and</strong> angling for the things they want than it is<br />

about them “running,” <strong>and</strong> once they realize that there’s a class of individuals best characterized as<br />

unscrupulous <strong>and</strong> exploitive fighters who will advance their own agendas with almost complete<br />

disregard for the needs of others, they arrive at a position to avoid being taken advantage of in the<br />

future.<br />

121


23. Shifting the blame to others <strong>and</strong> detract in subtle, hard-to-detect ways<br />

Source: Ken Sanes - http://www.transparencynow.com/news/disguises.htm<br />

It is obvious that discrediting attacks, whatever their motive, generally take place under heavy disguise.<br />

First, the attacker must portray his attack as an attempt to support the order of values of society by<br />

exposing a violator who deserves to be exposed, in essence enhancing his own image as he assaults<br />

another's.<br />

If this were all there were to these disguises, we might have an easier time discerning the role of<br />

discredit, domination, assertiveness <strong>and</strong> sadism in public life. But the disguise of motives is often<br />

supplemented by a far more insidious deception, one that masks the fact that an attack is taking place at<br />

all or that the attacker is the one making the attack. Manipulators often portray themselves as merely<br />

asking questions, reporting what others say or describing events, when everyone knows a verbal<br />

mugging is actually taking place that may leave the designated victim stripped of the self-defense<br />

provided by an effective image.<br />

Fortunately, these disguises tend to be very transparent once one begins to identify the various games<br />

<strong>and</strong> strategies that are being used. Once that has been achieved, we can begin to expose these disguised<br />

attempts to expose others; we can discredit these disguised attempts to discredit; <strong>and</strong> hold these<br />

attempts to embarrass others up to embarrassing scrutiny. If all this sounds familiar, it is because what<br />

we will be doing is applying a more sophisticated version of the techniques used by manipulators,<br />

turning the tables on the great table-turners <strong>and</strong> holding them up to a kind of scrutiny that reveals the<br />

degree to which they are steeped in both dishonesty <strong>and</strong> cruelty.<br />

Our basic technique will be to contrast image, as it is presented, with an underlying reality or, at least,<br />

with what we claim is an underlying reality. We will look at what manipulators claim they are doing<br />

<strong>and</strong> what they are really doing, <strong>and</strong> see that the twain meet a lot less often than one might think. Given<br />

the complex motives all people have when they communicate, there is no doubt but that the disguises<br />

we will examine, here, are merely an example of the disguises that all of us use when we communicate.<br />

For all of us, there is a disparity between the actions we engage in <strong>and</strong> those we claim we are engaging<br />

in. That doesn’t let manipulators off the hook, but it does put what they do in a larger context.<br />

Here, than, is an incomplete compendium of some of the ways manipulators, <strong>and</strong> others, go about<br />

dominating <strong>and</strong> harming those they encounter, while they claim to be upholding the value order of<br />

society <strong>and</strong> just doing their jobs. Also included are some of the justifications that they tell themselves<br />

<strong>and</strong> have ready to offer others, to explain why what they are doing is right <strong>and</strong> proper. The techniques<br />

listed aren’t exhaustive or mutually exclusive <strong>and</strong> some can be considered variations on each other:<br />

DELIBERATELY JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS - ACCUSING THE VICTIM WITHOUT<br />

VALID PROOF<br />

Formulate questions or statements which automatically presume guilt on the part of the addressed<br />

person.<br />

Example: “I saw the bruises on your son’s back. So when did you decide that spanking your child with<br />

all your might is okay?”<br />

CONTRAST IMAGE AND REALITY.<br />

As alluded to earlier, this is a basic method for discrediting someone or something. In it, the<br />

manipulator shows the claims that are being made <strong>and</strong> contrasts them with other information, to show<br />

that those claims are false. The justification is often that he is just getting at the facts or just finding the<br />

truth, despite a manipulation intended to conceal the truth.<br />

122


PORTRAY WRONGDOING AND HIGHLIGHT EMBARRASSING MOMENTS AND FACTS.<br />

Simple, elegant, often unchallengeable. Manipulators simply show or describe their victims engaging<br />

in actions that are deemed by many to be wrong, <strong>and</strong> then they wait for their victims to be attacked by<br />

others, <strong>and</strong> to desperately try to explain themselves. They describe the offending remarks or dubious<br />

decision, <strong>and</strong> then sit back <strong>and</strong> enjoy the reaction. (<strong>and</strong> start thinking about a follow-up move).<br />

Justification: “everybody concerned has a right to know”. Or “a big error may have been committed.”<br />

REPEAT ATTACKS BY OTHERS AND INVITE ATTACKS.<br />

Manipulators are good in collecting garbage. They almost always have a pool of discrediting attacks<br />

by one party against another, available for their own personal purposes. Either the parties to some<br />

dispute are already savaging each other or they can quickly be inspired to do so with a few well-placed<br />

questions. As part of this system, there are growing pools of official <strong>and</strong> professional denouncers who<br />

can be called on for a quote.<br />

In fact in order to “prove their own neutral position” manipulators claim they are obliged to carry these<br />

attacks. To not repeat one side's attacks on the other is to fail to tell the truth. To not repeat the other<br />

side’s attacks is to fail to offer a balanced story in which each side has its say.<br />

The favorite game, which has helped bring all this about is the time honored game "Let’s you <strong>and</strong> him<br />

fight." "So what is your response to your opponents recent claims of questionable financial dealings?"<br />

the manipulator asks pseudo-innocently, <strong>and</strong> then lets the sparks fly where they will.<br />

Justification – just wanting to hear both sides’ story or to give each side its say.<br />

THE OUTRAGE STORY.<br />

A brilliant creation, one that uses the best devices of fiction <strong>and</strong> drama to arouse an audience to anger.<br />

Outrage stories are those in which a person or institution engages in an action which is so blatantly<br />

unfair or such a blatant violation of the moral order, that the story will inevitably arouse righteous<br />

indignation on the part of all who hear about it, causing them to identify with “the victim” <strong>and</strong> seek<br />

vengeance against “the perpetrators”.<br />

The best victims are those who are not only treated in a way that is blatantly unfair, but who are<br />

helpless or weak <strong>and</strong>/or innocent <strong>and</strong> ethical, the more so the better. These make the best outrage<br />

stories because that increases the pathos <strong>and</strong> also creates an ideal contrast, with sharply defined<br />

characters embodying good <strong>and</strong> evil. It also makes the audience more willing to identify with the<br />

victim. The more imperfect the victim, the more morally ambiguous the situation may become, <strong>and</strong> the<br />

less effective an outrage story is likely to be. After all, who wants to identify with damaged goods.<br />

Outrage stories are a variation on a basic justification for attacks, which is based on the idea that the<br />

recipient of the attack deserves it. Evil doers, persecutors, hypocrites, give us someone <strong>and</strong> something<br />

to hate. We need them so much that we constantly invent them in fiction, just so we can enjoy the<br />

pleasure of hating them <strong>and</strong> watching them get their just deserts.<br />

If we exp<strong>and</strong> our definition, we can see that, to some degree, all stories or attacks by journalists,<br />

politicians <strong>and</strong> others, which claim the attack is justified because the recipient deserves it, are outrage<br />

stories. Many of the falls from grace of public persons, for example, involve somewhat more<br />

complicated outrage stories – "famous role model guilty of assault", <strong>and</strong> so on. Here, the outrage is<br />

against not only the obvious victim, but also the millions of innocent fans who trusted the public figure<br />

<strong>and</strong> now feel betrayed.<br />

As in all of the kinds of stories described here, outrage stories are often about real outrages. There<br />

really are terrible <strong>and</strong> stupid things that are done every day <strong>and</strong> many perpetrators really do deserve to<br />

be discredited <strong>and</strong> exposed. But usually the misdeeds of the alleged perpetrator are used as an excuse<br />

123


to visit sadism <strong>and</strong> aggression on someone who has become an acceptable target. Manipulators<br />

instrumentally manipulate the anger of some in the audience to have a target they can hate; <strong>and</strong> to see<br />

someone brought down.<br />

Justification – all reasonable people would agree that what was done by the perpetrators was morally<br />

wrong. We are st<strong>and</strong>ing up for what is right in a way every right-thinking person would agree with.<br />

QUESTIONS:<br />

Many attacks are disguised as questions, which give various degrees of evidence of their real purpose.<br />

Questions may appear totally innocent, seeking only information or they can contain fairly obvious<br />

accusations/ innuendoes inside them. Asking about accusations <strong>and</strong> allegations is a favorite technique.<br />

The manipulator gets to repeat the allegation while denying he is making it or that he is repeating it for<br />

unsavory reasons.<br />

Of course, the question works best if it is asked in public. If it is asked in a one-on-one interview, then<br />

instead of using the question to discredit the subject, the manipulator will use the answer to do so. For<br />

example "John Doe said yesterday that allegations that he <strong>and</strong> his adulterous lover embezzled money<br />

from the charity fund are ‘totally ridiculous.’ But, according to a police report…"<br />

As noted earlier, questions may not only be disguised attacks. They may also be invitations for the<br />

interviewee to engage in a discrediting attack against someone else. That also makes them disguised<br />

attacks, but one step removed.<br />

Justification for discrediting questions: I am just asking questions. I am giving so <strong>and</strong> so an opportunity<br />

to tell his side <strong>and</strong> defend himself, which is only fair.<br />

PUTTING ON THE SPOT/ PUNCHING HOLES.<br />

The prime technique of discrediting while interviewing, is to put the victim on the spot. Here, the<br />

interviewer conducts an interrogation-like interview; he plays the role of the swordsman-reporter,<br />

lunging at the interviewee with pointed questions while the victim defends himself with a shield of<br />

denials <strong>and</strong> deflections.<br />

The basic approach is to assume that the victim is presenting a false image to cover-up an incriminating<br />

underlying reality, <strong>and</strong> then to try to pressure him into admitting this hidden truth. If he admits it, he is<br />

exposed. If he denies <strong>and</strong> portrays his actions in a different light then the way the interviewer does, he<br />

can now be subjected to another attack in which he is portrayed as a deceiver, manipulator <strong>and</strong> coverup<br />

artist himself.<br />

The manipulator- interviewer thus gets him on two counts simultaneously - for the misdeed <strong>and</strong> the<br />

Nixonian cover-up. To switch metaphors, the interviewer plays Perry Mason. The interviewee virtually<br />

never confesses on the st<strong>and</strong>, but still seems to be exposed to the world.<br />

In order for this to work, the interviewer typically tries to use the image versus reality ploy, by<br />

revealing contradictions in statements or showing the disparity between what the victim claims <strong>and</strong><br />

what else is known. As part of this routine, manipulators, singly <strong>and</strong> collectively, will often ask the<br />

same questions over <strong>and</strong> over, knowing that they won’t get answers. In public life, we can often<br />

witness how journalists ask their non-questions <strong>and</strong> politicians <strong>and</strong> other interviewees give their nonanswers,<br />

<strong>and</strong> everyone involved knows these exercises have nothing to do with trying to get<br />

information or even to get at truth. They are little morality plays designed to illustrate the evil <strong>and</strong><br />

hypocrisy of public life, while depicting journalists as crusading heroes for truth <strong>and</strong> right.<br />

Justification (Same as for contrasting image <strong>and</strong> reality) : “as concerned party, we have a right to<br />

know” – “If he acted against the law, then we must know”.<br />

124


JOB INTERVIEWER.<br />

Manipulators tend to focus on the private <strong>and</strong> business life of people.<br />

Justification: mistakes made in one's personal or business life highlight character <strong>and</strong> provide<br />

information on how this person will act in office.<br />

USE SARCASM, MOCKERY, CARICATURE, TREAT SOMEONE OR SOME ACTION AS A<br />

JOKE<br />

The question that has to be asked about much of this is the following: if manipulators have to wrap<br />

their attacks in disguises, does this mean the reasons they implicitly or explicitly give for what they are<br />

doing are all merely disguises? Can’t they genuinely be pursuing positive values in making an attack?<br />

The answer is yes, although, as noted elsewhere, ferreting out what is what, is a complicated issue,<br />

given the complex motives behind human communication.<br />

The real question is: how can we determine if efforts to discredit are sincere <strong>and</strong> legitimate, <strong>and</strong>,<br />

beyond that, is sincerity a justification? And if not, what criteria can we use to determine if discrediting<br />

attacks are legitimate. If there are two discrediting attacks <strong>and</strong> I consider one sincere but wrong <strong>and</strong> the<br />

other insincere but right, how do I make a moral judgment?<br />

WAYS OF ENHANCING OR DEFENDING IMAGE:<br />

Just as manipulators, journalists, <strong>and</strong> others, have a set of techniques, disguises <strong>and</strong> justifications, for<br />

discrediting image, so they have them for enhancing or defending someone’s image (<strong>and</strong> for other<br />

actions, we well). In fact, the reverse of all the techniques described above, to discredit, can be used.<br />

People can accept the good things people say <strong>and</strong> imply about themselves <strong>and</strong> others at face value,<br />

with probing behind the image. They can portray good works <strong>and</strong> highlight flattering moments. They<br />

can repeat compliments from others <strong>and</strong> invite compliments for their subjects. They can tell or write<br />

heartwarming stories about good deeds performed by saints <strong>and</strong> heroes, that are the opposite of outrage<br />

stories. They can flatter, themselves, idealize by presenting their subjects as all good, <strong>and</strong> very good,<br />

<strong>and</strong> treat their subjects with an aura of seriousness, respect or reverence.<br />

Just as discrediting attacks are typically acts of aggressive domination toward the objects of the attack,<br />

so crediting stories are often acts of subordination. Stories that flatter, that depict people from their<br />

own perspective, as they would like to be depicted, are legion. All of a sudden, the manipulator has<br />

only credit-enhancing things to say about the subject <strong>and</strong> is content to act as his or her spokesman.<br />

Potentially discrediting information isn't raised or is treated very gently. The question here is: what did<br />

he obtain in return?<br />

125


24. Projecting the blame (blaming others):<br />

Manipulator scapegoats in often subtle, hard-to-detect ways.<br />

By habitually blaming others for his own indiscretions, the manipulator resists modifying his<br />

problematic attitudes <strong>and</strong> behavior patterns.<br />

Perhaps no behavior which manipulators are prone to<br />

displaying is more common than their tendency to<br />

blame others when they do something wrong. Confront<br />

them on something they did that was insensitive,<br />

inappropriate, hurtful, or even harmful, <strong>and</strong> you’ll find<br />

them playing the blame game — pinning the fault on<br />

someone or something else. You’ll often hear them<br />

claim that some person or circumstance made them do<br />

what they did instead of acknowledging that they had a<br />

choice about how to respond to the situation <strong>and</strong> failed<br />

to choose wisely.<br />

The tactic of blaming has sometimes been called<br />

projecting the blame. The term projection stems from<br />

psychodynamic psychology <strong>and</strong> refers to one of the<br />

automatic mental behaviors conceptualized by<br />

traditional theorists as ego defense mechanisms. The<br />

rationale behind that notion is that sometimes<br />

individuals unconsciously “project” onto others<br />

motivations, intentions, or actions that they actually<br />

harbor themselves but which they would feel far too<br />

unnerved or guilty about to acknowledge as their own.<br />

Neurotic individuals do indeed unknowingly engage in<br />

projection defenses. But manipulators know what they<br />

are doing. They are fully conscious about what they know others would see as the wrongfulness of<br />

their behavior, despite the fact that they might be perfectly comfortable with their course of action<br />

themselves. They don’t have enough guilt or shame about what they’re doing to change course. Nor are<br />

they so consumed with emotional pain that they must ascribe to others the motivations they can’t<br />

tolerate in themselves. Rather, when they blame others for their wrongful acts, it’s simply an attempt to<br />

justify their stance by casting themselves as being in a position where they simply had no choice but to<br />

respond the way they did. In this way, they simultaneously evade responsibility as well as manipulate<br />

<strong>and</strong> manage the impressions of others. The tactic goes h<strong>and</strong> in h<strong>and</strong> with the tactic of portraying<br />

oneself as a victim. It’s typically an effective tactic that gets others to pay attention to everyone or<br />

everything else except the disordered character <strong>and</strong> his wrongful behavior as the source of a problem.<br />

Sometimes the tactic of blaming can be quite subtle. By calling attention to a wide variety of<br />

contributing circumstances, a manipulator can effectively obscure his or her role in the creation of a<br />

problem. This “it wasn’t me” tactic is hard to detect when your attention is drawn to other “culprits”<br />

through this diversionary sleight of h<strong>and</strong>.<br />

Holding manipulators accountable for their choices <strong>and</strong> actions is a must. A person who won’t<br />

acknowledge his or her bad choices <strong>and</strong> bad habits <strong>and</strong> repeatedly blames others for his shortcomings<br />

will never correct his erroneous thinking or behavior. Whenever he plays the blame game, you know<br />

the manipulator has no intentions of changing his ways. Habitually blaming others for his own<br />

indiscretions is a principal way the manipulator resists modifying his problematic attitudes <strong>and</strong><br />

behavior patterns.<br />

126


25. Feigning innocence, feigning confusion or “playing dumb”:<br />

Manipulators try to suggest that any harm done was unintentional or that they did not do something<br />

that they were accused of. Feigning ignorance is an effective tactic that manipulates the person<br />

confronting the behavior into having doubts about the legitimacy of the issue they’re trying to bring to<br />

the other person’s attention <strong>and</strong> questioning their own judgment (<strong>and</strong> possibly their own sanity)..<br />

Many times, when your gut is telling you that you’re being taken advantage of, played for a fool, or<br />

simply being mistreated, <strong>and</strong> you confront a disordered character about it, they’ll act like they have no<br />

idea what you’re talking about. They may put on a look of surprise or indignation <strong>and</strong> pretend to be<br />

totally unaware <strong>and</strong> in the dark. Sometimes, when you have received information from a reliable<br />

source about something you suspect they’ve been doing, they’ll pretend they have no earthly idea<br />

where anyone could have come up with such an idea about them. Feigning ignorance is an effective<br />

tactic that manipulates the person confronting the behavior into having doubts about the legitimacy of<br />

the issue they’re trying to bring to the other person’s attention. It invites them to see themselves as a<br />

false accuser <strong>and</strong> victimizer, instead of being the victim of the disordered character’s malicious<br />

behavior.<br />

The technique of feigning ignorance often goes h<strong>and</strong> in h<strong>and</strong> with the tactic of feigning innocence.<br />

When disordered characters use this technique they will either simply act like (or loudly protest) that<br />

they have done nothing wrong <strong>and</strong> have nothing to feel guilty about or ashamed of. If there’s no way<br />

they can deny doing something you can prove they did, then they might claim that they had no<br />

malicious intent <strong>and</strong> that any harm that came of what they did was unintended. This tactic serves the<br />

purpose of obscuring the true character of their actions.<br />

I advise people who want to empower themselves in their potential dealings with manipulators to<br />

“judge actions, not intentions.”<br />

Feigning ignorance <strong>and</strong> innocence are effective ways to deny malevolent intention. They’re effective<br />

tactics, especially when used on neurotic individuals, for several reasons.<br />

First, when the victimizer denies malevolent intention, <strong>and</strong> appears innocent, the person confronting<br />

the problem behavior begins to feel uncomfortable in the role of unfair accuser <strong>and</strong> begins to<br />

misperceive who occupies the victimizer <strong>and</strong> victim positions. If the manipulator can make you feel<br />

bad for indicting him, he’s half way home to successfully conning <strong>and</strong> manipulating you.<br />

Second, neurotics are prone to judging intentions as opposed to actions. They want to think of most<br />

people as good <strong>and</strong> kind <strong>and</strong> hate to think that people really harbor malevolent intentions. What’s<br />

more, they hate to think of themselves as ever acting unfairly or in a manner that brings harm to others.<br />

So, when the disordered character has them thinking that they’re the bad guy, they readily back down.<br />

Never accept “I don’t know” for an answer when confronting disordered characters. That’s because<br />

they’re not only keenly aware of the things they do that other people have a problem with, but they also<br />

know full well what their motivation was for doing those things. They also know that neurotics are<br />

very hesitant to believe this. That’s not only because neurotics find it uncomfortable to accept the<br />

notion that not everyone is of benign character but also because traditional psychological schools of<br />

thought have never adequately identified <strong>and</strong> correctly defined character disturbance <strong>and</strong> the kinds of<br />

behaviors typically associated with it. So I advise people who might be in relationships with<br />

manipulators to be aware of the tactics they frequently use to evade responsibility <strong>and</strong> manipulate<br />

others. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned well over the years, it’s that whenever you confront a<br />

manipulator on their inappropriate behavior, you need to stay focused on those problem behaviors no<br />

matter how clueless or innocent they might act.<br />

127


26. Gaslighting:<br />

Gaslighting is a sophisticated manipulation tactic which certain types of personalities use to create<br />

doubt in the minds of others. Here’s how it works <strong>and</strong> what to watch out for.<br />

In a stage play <strong>and</strong> suspense thriller from the 1930s entitled “Gas Light,” a conniving husb<strong>and</strong> tries to<br />

make the wife he wishes to get rid of think she is losing her mind by making subtle changes in her<br />

environment, including slowly <strong>and</strong> steadily dimming the flame on a gas lamp. In recent years, the term<br />

“gaslighting” has come to be applied to attempts by certain kinds of personalities, especially<br />

psychopaths — who are among the personalities most adept at sophisticated tactics of manipulation —<br />

to create so much doubt in the minds of their targets of exploitation that the victim no longer trusts<br />

their own judgment about things <strong>and</strong> buys into the assertions of the manipulator, thus coming under<br />

their power <strong>and</strong> control.<br />

Effective gaslighting can be accomplished in<br />

several different ways. Sometimes, a person<br />

can assert something with such an apparent<br />

intensity of conviction that the other person<br />

begins to doubt their own perspective. Other<br />

times, vigorous <strong>and</strong> unwavering denial<br />

coupled with a display of righteous<br />

indignation can accomplish the same task.<br />

Bringing up historical facts that seem largely<br />

accurate but contain minute, hard-to-prove<br />

distortions <strong>and</strong> using them to “prove” the<br />

correctness of one’s position is another<br />

method. Gaslighting is particularly effective<br />

when coupled with other tactics such as<br />

shaming <strong>and</strong> guilting. Anything that aids in<br />

getting another person to doubt their<br />

judgment <strong>and</strong> back down will work.<br />

Gaslighting has come to some prominence<br />

lately because several authors have<br />

highlighted it as one of the more crafty<br />

tactics psychopaths use to disadvantage their victims. But many character-disturbed individuals, most<br />

especially the aggressive personalities, are prone to using numerous tactics, including covert<br />

techniques, to get the better of their targets. Their goal is always to win or secure whatever it is they<br />

want. And they’ll do whatever they have to do to get it. Sometimes the most effective way to do that is<br />

to avoid red-flagging their intentions but rather get the other person to unwittingly but voluntarily<br />

surrender. Instill shame, instill guilt, instill fear, or instill great doubt, <strong>and</strong> the other person will likely<br />

back off the stance they really wanted to take.<br />

Gaslighting is just one of the many weapons in the arsenal of personalities hell-bent on having their<br />

way, even if it means doing so by subtle <strong>and</strong> covert means of conning others. One of the most<br />

important points Dr George Simon makes in all his articles, books, <strong>and</strong> other writings about the<br />

narcissistic <strong>and</strong> most especially, the aggressive personalities, is that they will do whatever it takes to<br />

secure <strong>and</strong> maintain a position of advantage over others. And some of the most effective means at their<br />

disposal are tactics that conceal their malevolent intent while simultaneously prompting their “target”<br />

to accede to their desires. Dr George Simon outlines the most common techniques covertly aggressive<br />

folks use to manipulate others in his book "In Sheep’s Clothing".<br />

128


Deception is often the key ingredient in manipulation. Deception can be accomplished by outright<br />

denial, distortion of key aspects of events, <strong>and</strong> a variety of other methods, especially the more<br />

sophisticated lying techniques. A really accomplished liar can deceive another person by merely<br />

reciting a litany of absolutely true things — while deliberately <strong>and</strong> cleverly leaving out one or two<br />

crucial elements that would change the entire character of what they’re trying to make you believe. But<br />

a common element among all the tactics manipulators use is that they cause the person being targeted<br />

to doubt their gut instincts about what’s going on. Their gut tells them they’re under attack or that<br />

someone is trying to get the better of them, <strong>and</strong> they intuitively go on the defensive. But because they<br />

often can’t find any clear, direct, objective evidence that the other person is merely trying to<br />

disadvantage them, they start doubting <strong>and</strong> questioning themselves. This is the real secret of effective<br />

manipulation. If the “target” were solidly convinced they were in the process of being done in, they’d<br />

more likely put up more resistance instead of capitulating. Manipulators know this. They win by<br />

getting the other person to back down or give in.<br />

129


27. Causing confusion<br />

<strong>Manipulation</strong> through confusion doesn't mean you utter gibberish <strong>and</strong> leave the other person<br />

bewildered. It's the art of confusing by choice. You can use a series of techniques here.<br />

Using Jargon<br />

For example by using complex words to explain something simple or<br />

using jargon to add weight to your conversation Especially in the<br />

medical <strong>and</strong> high-tech business world, complex jargon <strong>and</strong> obfuscation<br />

are tactics often used to intimidate you into agreeing with something<br />

you don’t fully underst<strong>and</strong>.<br />

Example: “Our dynamic flow capacity matrix uses an unparalleled<br />

downtime resistance protocol.”<br />

Referring to previous events that may or may not have existed<br />

You can also refer to previous conversations or incidents that may or may not have existed.<br />

Example:<br />

Claire: I suppose this is just one more time you forgot. I am so fed<br />

up of this.<br />

You: And what about the time when I was going all out to finish<br />

those pending tasks <strong>and</strong> you completely blew it for me by bringing<br />

your own problems to me? Leave it Claire, we all have our bad hair<br />

days. I suppose today you're having yours!<br />

(What you've said here really makes no sense at all but it may still<br />

help you manipulate the situation)<br />

source: http://princesswithapen.hubpages.com/hub/How-to-haveyour-way-with-people-by-<br />

manipulating-conversations<br />

Evasion <strong>and</strong> Gaslighting<br />

Evasion - Providing vague, rambling, incoherent responses to<br />

the victim <strong>and</strong> Gaslighting - psychological abuse involving the<br />

manipultion of situations, events <strong>and</strong> data often lead to confusion.<br />

Psycholoception<br />

Using many alternative intervals of mind manipulation at the same<br />

time, causing the victim to be left confused while their mind slowly<br />

erupts. "The Mind Nuke"<br />

A simplified example:<br />

You're reading the word <strong>and</strong> your mind is seperating the individual words while you later read all the<br />

capitalized letters. You see Fear my psycholoception <strong>and</strong> RUN. Little do you know there is no U in<br />

Psycholoception. Also psycholoception is an action, not a tool so fearing it would be usless. Plus the<br />

130


more you think about it the more the psycholoception is working but, if you stop thinking on it a ninja<br />

could sneak up on you <strong>and</strong> assissinate you. But how would that work if you're being psycholocepted?<br />

But didnt you just stop thinking about it so you wouldn't be? Boom. There goes your mind.<br />

Mind Fucking<br />

When someone messes with your mind ... usually when someone of the opposite sex plays games with<br />

your head, but can be used when anyone tries to manipulate you through mind tactics<br />

Example: “This guy I was dating was mind fucking me to no end...he would give me special gifts <strong>and</strong><br />

be sweet then turn around <strong>and</strong> be a total ass. Why do people play mind fucking games? It sucks nuts!”<br />

(Source: http://www.urb<strong>and</strong>ictionary.com/define.php?term=mind%20manipulation)<br />

131


28. Feigning illness.<br />

Unfortunately, some people use illness as a way of manipulating others. There are people who feign<br />

small illnesses <strong>and</strong> symptoms on a small scale, <strong>and</strong> then there are people who suffer from Factitious<br />

Disorder (DSM-IV), previously known as Munchausen's<br />

Syndrome. Faking illnesses is the intentional production of false<br />

<strong>and</strong> exaggerated physical symptoms designed to achieve an<br />

ulterior motive. People who do this may be trying to avoid<br />

responsibilities, have more leisure time, obtain medical benefits,<br />

or are lazy enough to want someone else to do everything for<br />

them.<br />

If the person is persistently using this method, it is possible that<br />

he or she needs medical help from a psychiatrist or psychologist<br />

for Factitious Disorder. The difficulty for you lies in the fact that<br />

a person suffering from this might actually have some illness but<br />

can function fine most or all of the time despite the illness but<br />

chooses to exaggerate its effects (also known as malingering).<br />

If the disorder is causing them to behave this way, try not to be<br />

judgmental. It is often developed as a way of reacting to stress<br />

<strong>and</strong> has habituated into a pattern. The best thing if you suspect<br />

this condition is to suggest that he or she sees a mental health<br />

professional to deal with their worry <strong>and</strong> anxiety; don't be combative about their "faking illness".<br />

132


29. Br<strong>and</strong>ishing anger:<br />

Manipulator uses anger to br<strong>and</strong>ish sufficient emotional<br />

intensity <strong>and</strong> rage to shock the victim into submission.<br />

The manipulator is not actually angry, he or she just puts<br />

on an act. He just wants what he wants <strong>and</strong> gets "angry"<br />

when denied.<br />

Source: Feigning Negative Emotions: Anger - By Demian<br />

E Yumei, - http://covertabuse.com/2012/06/21/feigningnegative-emotions-anger/<br />

Righteous coming from anger a place <strong>and</strong> of<br />

indignation can be feigned. Instead of<br />

weakness, like is the case with feigned fear,<br />

feigned indignation <strong>and</strong> righteous anger appear to come from<br />

strength. But in truth all manipulation comes from weakness.<br />

Feigned indignation <strong>and</strong> righteous anger is a multipurpose weapon<br />

used for distraction, control <strong>and</strong> punishment.<br />

Abusers will often act indignant or shocked at being held accountable. They act as if they are wounded<br />

by any assertion or question of wrongdoing. They claim to have no idea what you’re talking about or<br />

they’re indignant that you perceived it wrongly. Even if they are as guilty as can be, their indignant<br />

response leads others to believe they are innocent or causes them to back down. But this anger is not<br />

real. It’s a sham.<br />

They may be angry, but it’s not for what they claim.<br />

They may be angry because you just got too damn close to the truth. They may be angry because you<br />

have the nerve to challenge their entitlement to do whatever they want. They may be angry because<br />

they feel guilty, <strong>and</strong> they are angry at you for making them feel that way, not for doing anything for<br />

which they should feel guilty.<br />

But they won’t admit to that anger. They feign anger on the false reason that you insulted them in some<br />

way. So while they may actually be angry, their professed anger is not real. It is a manipulation to<br />

throw you off track.<br />

This feigned anger, however, may be so convincing <strong>and</strong> so intimidating, that you may actually think<br />

you really did insult or hurt them. They may succeed in redirecting your attention from your original<br />

concern to attempting to deal with this smokescreen.<br />

Are you calling me a liar? spoken in rage by someone who has something to hide is very effective in<br />

putting you back in your place <strong>and</strong> shutting you up. You may backtrack <strong>and</strong> apologize for suggesting<br />

they’d do anything unethical or feel guilty or bad for making them feel bad. (Warning: this backing off<br />

by you will be used against you as some kind of collusion on your part if they are ever outed <strong>and</strong> their<br />

deception is revealed.)<br />

It’s a dance. Their feigned anger sucks up your time <strong>and</strong> your concern for a non-issue that can’t be<br />

resolved, because it’s main purpose is to keep you away from the real issue.<br />

Righteous anger can be used as justification for intentionally hurting someone. It becomes the excuse<br />

to actually continue to assault the target under the pretence of being the initial victim <strong>and</strong> now finally<br />

retaliating – “no longer being able to take it”.<br />

133


She hurt me first.<br />

Who can blame the covert abuser in victim’s<br />

clothing? After all, they are only protecting<br />

themselves. When in fact, the abuser has merely<br />

found a way to continue their offense under the<br />

masquerade of defense.<br />

Or righteous anger can be the justification for<br />

unintentionally hurting you. They didn’t mean<br />

to…BUT they were angry. And , of course, you<br />

made them angry, therefore they are justified in<br />

whatever manner they hurt you.<br />

They are justified for lashing out on you, for<br />

tearing you to shreds, for screaming at you, for<br />

every word of cruelty spoken, for chewing you up<br />

<strong>and</strong> spitting you out.<br />

They were angry. That says it all. They were<br />

entitled.<br />

The presumption is that there was good cause, <strong>and</strong><br />

even if there wasn’t, their being angry, in <strong>and</strong> of itself, is justification for any bad behavior. Again,<br />

you’re supposed to underst<strong>and</strong> this.<br />

One of my ex’s used “I was angry” as end of discussion. I was just supposed to accept that with an<br />

“Oh, okay then.” Pick up the pieces of the parts of me that were just blasted all over the place, satisfied<br />

as if that just explained <strong>and</strong> justified everything. There was to be no further talk about how his actions<br />

may have impacted me. No talk at all about my feelings.<br />

I suppose “I was angry” sounds better than “I was vindictive or punishing or vengeful or feeling<br />

particularly sadistic in the moment <strong>and</strong> enjoyed seeing you traumatized.”<br />

But anger is not a free to do anything you want card. The only thing anger “entitles” you to do is to<br />

express it in healthy ways for the resolution of whatever authentically pains you. And to do it in such a<br />

way that honors both you <strong>and</strong> the person with whom you are angry.<br />

Feigned anger is self serving. It hides its true motives for control. Real anger is merely genuine. It<br />

seeks to reveal itself for resolution.<br />

134


30. Sugarcoating reality.<br />

People sugarcoat all the time, to:<br />

When someone gets you to agree to something that’s not ideal by<br />

telling you it’s slightly better than it is.<br />

Example:<br />

“The table will be ready in five minutes.” Because it sounds a lot<br />

better than fifteen minutes.<br />

Sugarcoating can be a devious tactic.<br />

Not to make something appear to be sweet — but to prevent you from<br />

tasting anything bitter.<br />

People often use sugarcoating to distract you from your true feelings<br />

— meaning those unpleasant ones.<br />

Keep the peace<br />

Save face<br />

Control a situation<br />

Guide your thought processes by encouraging “positivity” <strong>and</strong> discouraging “negativity”<br />

Moderate your emotional response to their liking<br />

When sugarcoating is used as a tactic (even subconsciously), it’s usually to prevent you from<br />

experiencing, acknowledging, or expressing negative emotions. People use this tactic for all sorts of<br />

fear-based reasons that center around their struggle to own their negative emotions.<br />

People use sugarcoating to manipulate you by highlighting the “positive” so that there’s no place for<br />

the “negative.”<br />

Pay close attention to your conversations. Spot out the times when the someone else says something<br />

positive about something that’s actually negative (or that normally would be). Learn to discern<br />

whether that’s genuine positivity or if they’re sugarcoating to somehow control the situation or steer<br />

your thoughts <strong>and</strong> emotions. In such a case, you may feel the pressure to be positive as well, even if<br />

you aren’t feeling it. You may additionally feel:<br />

Guilty for having any negative thoughts <strong>and</strong> feelings related to the issue<br />

Out of place for having negative thoughts <strong>and</strong> feelings<br />

Insensitive for not sharing the other person’s sugary sentiment<br />

Impolite for not being more friendly <strong>and</strong> positive<br />

Wrong, out of line, or even downright crass<br />

Keep in mind that even if you feel all of the above — it’s not because there is something wrong with<br />

you.<br />

It’s because the other person has indirectly indicated that they don’t really want to hear what you have<br />

to say if it’s not sweet. In other words, it’s their problem.<br />

Your negative emotions aren’t a problem as long as you work with them constructively.<br />

135


Respond with mindfulness<br />

It’s not your job to always say what’s sweet enough for someone else’s ears, but it isn’t always<br />

necessary to confront people with the negative aspects they are covering up. Communication is an<br />

exchange between people, nor necessarily an echo room, neither a fighting ring.<br />

So when sugarcoating happens to you, evaluate the situation:<br />

Do you really want to tell that person how you really feel?<br />

Do you need to?<br />

Do you even want to open yourself up to them like that?<br />

Do they even deserve to know your honest opinion?<br />

How far do you want to take the communication?<br />

Do you want to end it politely <strong>and</strong> as soon as possible?<br />

Do you want to maintain a relationship with this person? (How close <strong>and</strong> for how long?)<br />

Do you need to maintain a relationship with this person (e.g. for work) even though you don’t<br />

feel they want to hear what you really think <strong>and</strong> feel?<br />

Do you want to find a way to communicate how you really feel without making them<br />

uncomfortable? How can you establish a way to discuss difficult (or unpleasant to them) issues<br />

in a safe <strong>and</strong> healthy way?<br />

So be mindful of the situation. Observe an instance of sugarcoating as best you can. And then<br />

determine how best to keep communicating with the other person, or if to do so at all.<br />

If you bring up the negative, you’re the one acting against the current. You’re the downer, ruining what<br />

could have been a perfect conversation. So you might as well keep your mouth shut.<br />

Sugar coating really says: “I don’t want to acknowledge how painful something is for me. “<br />

You may want to find a healthier way to relate to those who use sugarcoating to manipulate you. Or<br />

you may want to avoid those relationships altogether. Or you may want to confront that issue in hopes<br />

that you two can emerge with a better foundation for being emotionally honest with one another.<br />

Whatever you choose to do, remember to stay true to your feelings. Bitter or sweet, they’re yours. Life<br />

gets much easier when you accept that. Stay true to your feelings<br />

Source: http://mindfulconstruct.com/2010/09/24/avoid-the-trap-of-sugarcoating/<br />

136


31. Comparing Apples to Oranges<br />

When someone diverts attention away from the topic of discussion to a totally new (but vaguely<br />

related) topic in an effort to persuade you.<br />

Example:<br />

“So you don’t think green energy is a top priority right now with the current state of the economy.<br />

Well, we all saw what happened with the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster in 2010. Is that what you want?<br />

You want to see innocent sea creatures covered with oil? Then go ahead then, vote against the green<br />

energy bill this year.”<br />

Yet, comparing apples to oranges is not always used for manipulation, as we can learn from Mike<br />

Brown’s article below:<br />

Source: Creative Thinking Skills – Mike Brown: http://brainzooming.com/creative-thinking-skillscomparing-apples-<strong>and</strong>-oranges-7-ways/15057/<br />

At a recent Brainzooming client creative thinking session, the company’s Chief Operating Officer told<br />

a story about seeing a car with both an anti-corporation bumper sticker <strong>and</strong> an Apple logo on it. His<br />

point was how interesting it is that Apple had transcended being a huge, very profitable corporation by<br />

the car owner.<br />

His story made me blurt out, “Did you hear about the Harvard Business Review journalist who wrote a<br />

very thorough comparison between the innovation styles of Steve Jobs <strong>and</strong> the management team at<br />

Sunkist? He was widely criticized for comparing Apple <strong>and</strong> oranges!”<br />

Feel free to insert your guffaws here! When we get brains zooming (even our own), who knows what<br />

types of connections will be made?<br />

Comparing Apples <strong>and</strong> Oranges<br />

“Comparing apples <strong>and</strong> oranges” ranks with “think outside the box” as one of my least favorite<br />

business jargon phrases. “Comparing apples <strong>and</strong> oranges” is typically used by a strategic dolt to shut<br />

down creative thinking <strong>and</strong> obscure connections that may very naturally exist between two or more<br />

things.<br />

Apples <strong>and</strong> oranges actually have MANY things in common. Even though they aren’t identical on the<br />

surface, there are multiple strategic <strong>and</strong> creative comparisons to be made about their similarities <strong>and</strong><br />

differences.<br />

In fact, considering ways of comparing apples <strong>and</strong> oranges can help your creative thinking skills. Next<br />

time a strategic dolt tries to get in the way of your creative thinking by saying you’re comparing apples<br />

<strong>and</strong> oranges, remember these ways the two fruits (or anything you’re examining that may seem<br />

unrelated) can be compared:<br />

1. Apples <strong>and</strong> oranges move through comparable PROCESSES<br />

The supply chain bringing apples <strong>and</strong> oranges together at a grocery store or fruit st<strong>and</strong> for sale is<br />

obviously a point of comparison. When you’re comparing potentially disparate things, look for<br />

comparable processes they each experience.<br />

2. Apples <strong>and</strong> oranges are SUBSTITUTES for one another<br />

Since both apples <strong>and</strong> oranges satisfy the need for food, in general, <strong>and</strong> fruit, specifically, they serve as<br />

potential SUBSTITUTES for one another. As you look at potentially dissimilar items, consider how<br />

they might meet the same or related needs.<br />

137


3. Apples <strong>and</strong> oranges can be made MORE SIMILAR<br />

You can manipulate apples <strong>and</strong> oranges for greater similarity (i.e., by cutting them into similarly-sized<br />

pieces, or putting them into recipes as ingredients). When making a comparison others think is a<br />

stretch, transform the two things to accentuate their similarities strategically, numerically,<br />

chronologically, or in other ways.<br />

4. Compare the REASONS FOR DIFFERENCES between apples <strong>and</strong> oranges<br />

You can explore the reasons apples <strong>and</strong> oranges are or are not appropriate for comparison <strong>and</strong> make<br />

comparisons about that! Similarly, when comparing two things others think don’t match up, dive into<br />

why they appear to be different, whether because of strategic direction, motivation, nature/nurture, etc.<br />

5. Acknowledge the differences <strong>and</strong> COMPARE THEM ANYWAY<br />

Maybe apples <strong>and</strong> oranges are all you have to analyze. In that case, to better underst<strong>and</strong> them,<br />

comparing <strong>and</strong> contrasting the differences is your only option. Being able to compare things to provide<br />

context <strong>and</strong> contrast is vital to analysis. When others lack the creative thinking skills to see the<br />

similarities in two things you’re analyzing, turn it around <strong>and</strong> simply compare differences.<br />

6. Make a FANCIFUL COMPARISON between apples <strong>and</strong> oranges<br />

Many strategic business conversations have an air of seriousness <strong>and</strong> a resistance to anything not<br />

grounded in reality. Don’t let that stop you. If people shut down more realistic comparisons as<br />

inappropriate, get crazy on them with a really outl<strong>and</strong>ish comparison. The conversation you’ll<br />

stimulate will likely yield the greatest creative value.<br />

7. Even if apples <strong>and</strong> orange were completely unrelated, RANDOM ITEMS trigger creative ideas<br />

Pick any two things that really ARE completely unrelated. Looking for the comparisons <strong>and</strong> contrasts<br />

between them will get peoples’ minds working on new paths, sparking creative ideas. What will those<br />

creative ideas be? It’s tough (maybe impossible) to imagine in advance what a particular group will<br />

come up with creatively when considering r<strong>and</strong>om inputs, but be prepared for dramatically new<br />

thinking<br />

Seven Apples <strong>and</strong> Oranges Comparisons for Creative Thinking<br />

There you have it. Seven ways to consider comparing apples <strong>and</strong> oranges (or other things perceived to<br />

be dissimilar) to counter a strategic dolt trying to squash creative thinking. Simply remember you can<br />

push a strategic comparison based on:<br />

■Process similarities<br />

■A potential substitute realtionship<br />

■Changes to accentuate similarities<br />

■The reasons for underlying differences<br />

■Comparing elements that shouldn’t be compared<br />

■Fanciful similarities<br />

■Completely r<strong>and</strong>om connections<br />

So when was the last time YOU were accused of comparing apples <strong>and</strong> oranges? I’ll bet now you can’t<br />

wait for the next time it happens!<br />

138


32. Cherry Picking<br />

Distorting facts or Selectively presenting facts <strong>and</strong> quotes that support one's position<br />

Generally these people will lie to the ends of the earth in order to get what they want. This often<br />

happens in the work environment, simply to get others on their side or gain favor with management<br />

<strong>and</strong> higher authorities.<br />

this as the new starting point, not their distorted one.<br />

For example:<br />

When responding to a fact distortion, seek<br />

clarification.<br />

Explain that this is not how you remembered the<br />

facts <strong>and</strong> that you're curious to get a better<br />

underst<strong>and</strong>ing of their view of them.<br />

Remain polite <strong>and</strong> feel entitled to say that it's to<br />

clarify your confusion.<br />

Ask them simple questions about when you both<br />

agreed to an issue, how they believed the<br />

approach was formed, etc.<br />

When you meet on common ground again, take<br />

John (manipulator): "I asked Cassie to have all these finished by today. She's never on time<br />

with these reports."<br />

Boss: "Is this true Cassie?"<br />

Cassie: "It isn't my underst<strong>and</strong>ing boss. John, when did you suggest that this is my task alone?<br />

My last underst<strong>and</strong>ing was that this was to be a joint effort, with you signing off on my work<br />

before we presented it to the board. When you didn't arrive yesterday <strong>and</strong> I couldn't reach you,<br />

I felt that I had little choice but to continue <strong>and</strong> finish what I could but it was clear I didn't have<br />

a h<strong>and</strong>le over the X, Y, Z issues that you're best at defining. And I've h<strong>and</strong>ed in my last six<br />

reports all two days before the due date; I take timeliness very seriously."<br />

Another example: A: "You never back me up in those meetings, you're only in it for your own<br />

gains <strong>and</strong> you're always leaving me to the sharks."<br />

You: "That's not true. I believed that you were ready to talk to the investors about your own<br />

ideas. If I had thought you were erring, I'd have stepped in but I thought you did a brilliant job<br />

by yourself."<br />

139


33. Drawing loosely-related conclusions.<br />

When someone tries to convince you of something by drawing a conclusion that is loosely related to<br />

the information they gave you.<br />

Example:<br />

“This baby food is fortified with the vitamins <strong>and</strong> minerals. It’s extremely healthy. If you’re still<br />

buying other kinds of baby food, you’re neglecting your baby’s health.”<br />

34. Causing doubts by twisting facts<br />

Imagine you want to start a business on your own <strong>and</strong> are convinced it has sufficient potential <strong>and</strong> is of<br />

your caliber <strong>and</strong> choice. When you talk about it with your friends, one of them says “Good that you<br />

are starting anew, but based on the available data, with the kind of business you have in mind, it may<br />

be hard to survive. In this branch, most new businesses end up with losses.”<br />

This is unconscious manipulation of your thought process, because does the person who told you all of<br />

this know the statistics? Or is he scared <strong>and</strong> hesitating <strong>and</strong> hoping that you will be hesitant too?<br />

Most of the manipulators use data that other people do not have any relevance to. And usually the<br />

quoted data seems discouraging, realistic <strong>and</strong> indicates pessimistic results.<br />

The changes that you are planning are positive, but when people start running you down with unwanted<br />

effects. It can pull you down or make you rethink your options.<br />

Another example would be:<br />

“It takes a lot to be in business, so do you really want to do that? Otherwise you are just 5 years from a<br />

comfortable retirement <strong>and</strong> you know….”<br />

Does that inculcate a feeling of insecurity about your decision? Will you think twice about doing the<br />

new business?<br />

If any of these is a yes, then you know that you have been manipulated psychologically. Though there<br />

are no direct talks about the negativity, the doubts that are planted in your mind are an indication that<br />

you have been manipulated <strong>and</strong> the seed has been planted.<br />

140


35. Targeting lack of time <strong>and</strong> attention.<br />

Someone purposely convinces you to commit to something at just the right time, when you would have<br />

otherwise said “no.” This commonly occurs when you’re in a hurry or mentally fatigued.<br />

Example:<br />

At 5PM on a Friday, as you’re walking out of the office, your co-worker asks you if you mind h<strong>and</strong>ling<br />

X, Y <strong>and</strong> Z for him next week while he’s on vacation. “Sure,” you say quickly. “Shoot me an email<br />

with the details.”<br />

On Monday morning you learn that X, Y <strong>and</strong> Z are fairly substantial tasks that you wish you hadn’t<br />

committed to.<br />

36. Non-denial denial:<br />

A statement that seems direct, clear-cut <strong>and</strong> unambiguous at first hearing, but when carefully parsed is<br />

revealed not to be a denial at all, <strong>and</strong> is thus not untruthful. It is a case in which words that are literally<br />

true are used to convey a false impression; analysis of whether or when such behavior constitutes lying<br />

is a long-st<strong>and</strong>ing issue in ethics. London's newspaper The Sunday Times has defined it as "an on-therecord<br />

statement, usually made by a politician, repudiating a journalist's story, but in such a way as to<br />

leave open the possibility that it is actually true."<br />

37. Non-apology apology:<br />

A statement that has the form of an apology but does not express the expected contrition. It is common<br />

in both politics <strong>and</strong> public relations. It most commonly entails the speaker saying that he or she is sorry<br />

not for a behavior, statement or misdeed, but rather is sorry only because a person who has been<br />

aggrieved is requesting the apology, expressing a grievance, or is threatening some form of retribution<br />

or retaliation.<br />

Example:<br />

An example of a non-apology apology would be saying "I'm sorry that you feel that way" to someone<br />

who has been offended by a statement. This apology does not admit that there was anything wrong<br />

with the remarks made, <strong>and</strong> additionally, it may be taken as insinuating that the person taking offense<br />

was excessively thin-skinned or irrational in taking offense at the remarks in the first place.<br />

Statements that use the word "sorry" but do not express responsibility for wrong-doing may be<br />

meaningful expressions of regret, but such statements can also be used to elicit forgiveness without<br />

acknowledging fault.<br />

141


The five languages of apology<br />

Source: http://conscious-manager.com/five-languages-of-apology.html<br />

What most people want to know when you apologize is “are you sincere?” However, they judge your<br />

sincerity by whether or not you are speaking your apology in their primary apology language. When<br />

you do then they sense your real sincerity. When couples/friends/ etc learn to apologize in a way that is<br />

meaningful to each other, they make forgiveness much easier.<br />

1. Expressing regret:<br />

Tthis apology language is an emotional language – it seeks to express to the other person that you feel<br />

pain that with your words or behavior you hurt them deeply. If the person you are apologizing to has<br />

this language what they want to know is: “Do you underst<strong>and</strong> how deeply your behavior has hurt me?”<br />

Anything less will seem empty to them. You need to say you are sorry <strong>and</strong> what specifically you are<br />

sorry for.<br />

2. Accepting responsibility:<br />

This apology begins with the words “I was wrong” <strong>and</strong> goes on to explain what was wrong with your<br />

behavior. If the person you apologize to has this apology language they are waiting to hear you admit<br />

that your behavior was wrong. For them saying “I’m sorry” will never sound like an apology. They<br />

want you to accept responsibility for what you did or said <strong>and</strong> acknowledge that it was wrong.<br />

3. Making restitution:<br />

This apology language seeks to “make it right.” If this is the persons primary apology language what<br />

they really want to know is “do you still love me?” Your behavior seemed so unloving to them that<br />

they wonder how you could love them <strong>and</strong> do what you did. What they request of you to make up for<br />

your mistake etc., will likely be in tune with their primary love language e.g. if their primary love<br />

language is physical touch they may simply ask for a hug.<br />

4. Genuinely expressing the desire to change your behavior:<br />

This apology seeks to come up with a plan to keep the bad behavior from reoccurring. When this is the<br />

persons primary apology language, if your apology does not include a desire to change your behavior,<br />

you have not truly apologized. Whatever else you say, they do not see it as being sincere. In their<br />

minds if you are really apologizing, you will seek to change your behavior.<br />

5. Requesting forgiveness:<br />

The words “will you please forgive me?” are music to the ears of the person whose primary apology<br />

language is this one. In their mind if you are sincere, you will ask them to forgive you. You have hurt<br />

them deeply <strong>and</strong> they want to know, “do you want to be forgiven?” “Do you want to remove the barrier<br />

that your behavior has caused?” Requesting forgiveness is the way to touch their heart <strong>and</strong> is the way<br />

that feels sincere to them.<br />

142


38. Mistakes were made:<br />

The expression "mistakes were made" is<br />

commonly used as a rhetorical device,<br />

whereby a speaker acknowledges that a<br />

situation was h<strong>and</strong>led poorly or<br />

inappropriately but seeks to evade any<br />

direct admission or accusation of<br />

responsibility by using the passive voice.<br />

The acknowledgement of "mistakes" is<br />

framed in an abstract sense with no direct<br />

reference to who made the mistakes. An<br />

active voice construction would be along<br />

the lines of "I made mistakes" or "John Doe<br />

made mistakes." The speaker neither<br />

accepts personal responsibility nor accuses<br />

anyone else. The word "mistakes" also does not imply intent.<br />

39. The "if apology"<br />

This is a favorite of politicians, with lines such as "I apologize if I offended anyone". This kind of<br />

apology shifts the blame onto the offended party, <strong>and</strong> denies personal acceptance of wrongdoing, as in<br />

"I'm sorry if you were offended by what I said".<br />

The "if" implies that the apologizer either doesn't even know they did wrong (<strong>and</strong> did not bother to find<br />

out) or else does not acknowledge that they did wrong <strong>and</strong> so are pretending to apologize because they<br />

feel obligated to rather than because they are actually sorry. There is no confirmation that the<br />

apologizer actually regrets anything or has learnt anything from what they did that was wrong.<br />

40. Phrasing in a way that assumes unproven truths, or avoiding the question<br />

Not all truths are completely true. Often, manipulators misrepresent facts or claim is a proven fact<br />

simply because it’s a popular belief.<br />

“Don’t just take it from me, 9 out of 10 doctors agree that Diet Pill XYZ is safe.”<br />

41. "Burying bad news":<br />

Announcing one unpopular thing at the same time as several popular things, or delaying the release of<br />

bad news so it can be hidden in the "shadow" of more important or favorable news or events.<br />

143


42. Using Euphemisms <strong>and</strong> Dysphemisms to disguise or promote one's agenda<br />

Definitions (Wikipedia):<br />

A euphemism is a generally innocuous word or expression used in place of one that may be found<br />

offensive or suggest something unpleasant. Some euphemisms are intended to amuse, while others use<br />

bl<strong>and</strong>, inoffensive, <strong>and</strong> often misleading terms for things the user wishes to dissimulate or downplay.<br />

Euphemisms are used for dissimulation, to refer to taboo topics (such as disability, sex, excretion, <strong>and</strong><br />

death) in a polite way, <strong>and</strong> to mask profanity.<br />

The opposite of euphemism roughly equates to dysphemism.<br />

Source:<br />

Reasoning Skills Success in 20 Minutes a Day. Copyright © 2010 by LearningExpress, LLC.<br />

http://www.education.com/study-help/article/word2/<br />

Introduction<br />

The words people use can have a powerful effect on their listeners. By choosing certain words instead<br />

of others or by phrasing questions in a way that is meant to elicit a specific response, people may try to<br />

influence your thoughts or actions. This lesson will show you how to recognize this kind of subtle<br />

persuasion.<br />

Your cousin likes to sky dive, mountain climb, <strong>and</strong> race cars. How would you describe him?<br />

•Reckless<br />

•Adventurous<br />

•Free-spirited<br />

As different as these words are, each one can be used to describe someone who engages in the above<br />

activities. The word you choose, however, depends upon your opinion of these activities. Clearly, freespirited<br />

is the word with the most positive slant; adventurous is more or less neutral; <strong>and</strong> reckless is<br />

negative. Your word choice will convey a particular image of your cousin—whether you intend it to or<br />

not.<br />

Words are powerful, <strong>and</strong> they can influence us without us even realizing it. That's because they carry at<br />

least two layers of meaning: denotation <strong>and</strong> connotation. Denotation is a word's exact or dictionary<br />

meaning. Connotation is the implied or suggested meaning, the emotional impact that the word carries.<br />

For example, thin, slender, <strong>and</strong> lean all mean essentially the same thing—their denotation is the<br />

same—but they have different connotations. Slender suggests a gracefulness that thin <strong>and</strong> lean do not.<br />

Lean, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, suggests a hardness or scarcity that thin <strong>and</strong> slender do not.<br />

Denotation: the dictionary meaning of a word<br />

Connotation: the emotional impact or implied meaning of a word<br />

Because words carry so much weight, advertisers, politicians, <strong>and</strong> anyone else who wants to convince<br />

you to believe one thing or another choose their words carefully. By using subtle persuasion<br />

techniques, they can often manipulate feelings <strong>and</strong> influence reactions so that viewers <strong>and</strong> listeners<br />

don't realize they're being swayed. The best way to prevent this kind of influence is to be aware of<br />

these techniques. If you can recognize them, they lose their power. It's like watching a magician on<br />

stage once you already know the secret behind his tricks. You appreciate his art, but you're no longer<br />

under his spell.<br />

144


There are three different subtle persuasion techniques we'll discuss in this lesson: euphemisms,<br />

dysphemisms, <strong>and</strong> biased questions.<br />

Euphemisms <strong>and</strong> Dysphemisms<br />

Euphemisms are the most common of the subtle persuasion techniques. You've probably used them<br />

yourself many times without even realizing it. A euphemism is when a phrase—usually one that's<br />

harsh, negative, or offensive—is replaced with a milder or more positive expression.<br />

For example, there are many ways to say that someone has died. Die itself is a neutral word—it<br />

expresses the fact of death straightforwardly without any real mood attached to it. However, this word<br />

is often softened by replacing it with a euphemism, such as one of the following:<br />

•Passed away<br />

•Passed on<br />

•Is no longer with us<br />

•Expired<br />

•Departed<br />

•Deceased<br />

Just as we can say died in a softer or more positive way—a way that suggests movement to a better<br />

place, for example—we can also say it in a cruder or more negative way, like one of the following:<br />

•Croaked<br />

•Kicked the bucket<br />

•Bit the dust<br />

When we replace a positive or neutral expression with one that is negative or unpleasant, we're using a<br />

dysphemism.<br />

One way to remember the difference between these two terms is to imagine them mathematically:<br />

- Euphemism: a milder or more positive expression used to replace a negative or unpleasant one<br />

- Dysphemism: replacing a neutral or positive expression with a negative or unpleasant one<br />

- Euphemism: Positive replaces negative<br />

- Dysphemism: Negative replaces positive<br />

Euphemisms <strong>and</strong> dysphemisms are used more than ever these days, especially in advertising, the<br />

media, <strong>and</strong> by politicians to influence our thoughts <strong>and</strong> feelings. Take, for example, the phrase used<br />

cars. Used car dealers used to sell used cars—now they sell previously owned vehicles. See the<br />

euphemism? The more pleasant phrase previously owned doesn't carry the suggestion of someone else<br />

using—just owning.<br />

Euphemisms are used a great deal in political <strong>and</strong> social issues. If you oppose abortion, for example,<br />

then you are pro-life. If you support the right to abort, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, you're pro-choice. See how<br />

important these euphemisms are? How could someone be against life? Against choice?<br />

Euphemisms <strong>and</strong> dysphemisms are used more than ever these days, especially in advertising, the<br />

media, <strong>and</strong> by politicians to influence our thoughts <strong>and</strong> feelings. Take, for example, the phrase used<br />

cars. Used car dealers used to sell used cars—now they sell previously owned vehicles. See the<br />

euphemism? The more pleasant phrase previously owned doesn't carry the suggestion of someone else<br />

using—just owning.<br />

Euphemisms are used a great deal in political <strong>and</strong> social issues. If you oppose abortion, for example,<br />

then you are pro-life. If you support the right to abort, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, you're pro-choice. See how<br />

important these euphemisms are? How could someone be against life? Against choice?<br />

145


Biased Questions<br />

Imagine someone stops you on the street <strong>and</strong> asks you to participate in a survey about tax cuts. You<br />

agree, <strong>and</strong> she asks you the following questions:<br />

•Do you support tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy <strong>and</strong> neglect the needs of those with low<br />

incomes?<br />

•Do you think the government should be allowed to make tax cuts that exclude the poor <strong>and</strong><br />

uneducated?<br />

No matter how you feel about tax cuts, chances are you can't answer anything but no to these<br />

questions. Why? Because if you say yes, it sounds like you are not empathetic to the needs of those<br />

who are helpless. These questions are phrased unfairly, making it difficult for you to give a fair answer.<br />

In other words, inherent in the questions is a certain attitude toward tax cuts—in this case, a negative<br />

one—that prejudices the questions. In short, the questions aren't fair—they're biased.<br />

Notice how these particular questions use dysphemisms to bias the questions <strong>and</strong> pressure you to<br />

answer them a certain way. In this example, tax cuts become equivalent to negative terms such as<br />

neglect <strong>and</strong> exclude.<br />

Here is how euphemisms might be used to bias the questions toward the opposing point of view:<br />

•Do you support tax cuts that will benefit all socioeconomic levels of society <strong>and</strong> help improve the<br />

economy?<br />

•Do you think the government should be allowed to make tax cuts that give people's hard-earned<br />

money back to them?<br />

This time, notice how saying yes is much easier than saying no. If you say no to the first question, it<br />

sounds like you are indifferent to what happens to you <strong>and</strong> your society. If you say no to the second<br />

question, it sounds like you are without compassion <strong>and</strong> don't believe that people deserve to keep what<br />

they earn.<br />

Here are the questions revised once again so that you can answer yes or no fairly:<br />

•Do you support tax cuts?<br />

•Do you think the government should be allowed to decide when to make tax cuts?<br />

Professional surveys will be careful to ask fair questions, but when political organizations, advertisers,<br />

<strong>and</strong> other groups or individuals have an agenda, they may use biased questions to elicit specific results.<br />

Similarly, anyone who wants to influence you may use biased questions to get you to respond in a<br />

certain way. That's why it's important for you to recognize when a question is fair <strong>and</strong> when it's biased.<br />

146


43 The “Door-in-the-face” technique<br />

Here, the manipulator will first make a request of the other person that is excessive <strong>and</strong> to which they<br />

will most naturally refuse.<br />

He will then look very disappointed, but next make a request that is more reasonable <strong>and</strong> which the<br />

victim will then be more likely to accept.<br />

Example<br />

Will you donate $100 to our cause? [response is no].<br />

Oh. Well could you donate $10?<br />

Can you help me do all this work?<br />

Well can you help me with this bit?<br />

Can I stay out until 4am?<br />

OK. How about midnight?<br />

Why it works<br />

When the victim refuses the first request, he may feel guilty about having refused another person <strong>and</strong><br />

fear rejection as a result. The second request gives them the opportunity to assuage that guilt <strong>and</strong><br />

mitigate any threat of social rejection. In effect, the person making the request is making an exchange<br />

of concession for belonging.<br />

The lower request uses the contrast principle, making it seem very small in comparison with the larger<br />

initial request <strong>and</strong> hence relatively trivial <strong>and</strong> easy to agree with.<br />

This method works best when the requests being made have a socially valid element, for example<br />

where you are seeking to learn something, teach people or help others. This is so that the other person<br />

does not reject the whole request out of h<strong>and</strong> (it is just that the initial request is 'too much').<br />

The second request should be made soon after the first request, before the effects of guilt <strong>and</strong> other<br />

motivators wears off.<br />

The Door-in-the-face technique is a 'sequential request' <strong>and</strong> is also known as 'rejection-then-retreat'.<br />

147


44. Bait-<strong>and</strong>-Switch<br />

The manipulator offers something that appears to be very good value <strong>and</strong> which looks like a real<br />

bargain, an offer the victim can't possibly refuse, even if they were not thinking about it.<br />

Later he replaces the initial item with something of less value to the victim (but more profit to the<br />

manipulator).<br />

Example<br />

A car sales showroom puts a basic car outside with a very low price-tag. Once the customer is<br />

interested, the sales person trades them up to a more expensive model.<br />

Would you like to go out to this really expensive restaurant? ... Oh dear, it's booked up. Never mind,<br />

we can go to the usual place.<br />

Why the trick works<br />

148<br />

When the person sees the initial item of high value they<br />

cognitively close on the idea of acquiring it <strong>and</strong> hence The<br />

early bait thus moves them from a negative position to one of<br />

commitment.<br />

When the high value item is removed, then they enter a state of<br />

anxiety in which they seek to re-enter the comfortable closed<br />

state. They thus seek to satisfice, accepting almost any solution<br />

that will get them back to that comfortable state.<br />

There may also be an element of commitment to the person<br />

making the offer. If I offer something to you, you feel some<br />

obligation to me. If I then switch the offer, especially if the<br />

switching seems reasonable, then you are likely to accept the<br />

second offer out of a sense of obligation to me. To do otherwise<br />

would expose myself as inconsistent <strong>and</strong> break bonding<br />

between us.<br />

The bait <strong>and</strong> switch technique is a 'sequential request'.


45. Highball<br />

Whether he is asking for something from you, or trying to sell something to you, the manipulator’s<br />

first offer is likely to be as high as possible without completely putting you off.<br />

Most likely, the manipulator has don his research about what constitutes a reasonable dem<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />

about what you are able to give or pay beforeh<strong>and</strong> in order to find your zone of acceptability <strong>and</strong> had<br />

then started at at, or even above, the top of your range.<br />

If you seem particularly keen to settle, he may even have asked you what you are willing to give or<br />

offer. Most likely however, he will not since your first bid anchors the discussion, quite possibly on<br />

the low side of what he wants to get out of the deal.<br />

Examples<br />

A child who wants a parent to fund a night out starts by asking for about three times as much as they<br />

really want.<br />

When selling goods, a market trader starts with a high price. He then reduces the price without being<br />

bargained with, using excuses about being kind, needing to sell everything today <strong>and</strong> so on.<br />

An estate agent takes buyers to houses that they cannot afford. This, however, raises their desires <strong>and</strong><br />

the house they eventually buy is more expensive than they had anticipated.<br />

Why it works<br />

Where you start sets expectations for the other person. When you start high, you can always go down.<br />

When you start low, you can never go up.<br />

Starting high creates an anchor for the other person, whereby they may well assume that this is in a<br />

reasonable range. If their counter-bid is also high, then you will end up with a high price. Even if they<br />

are above what you expected, do not settle immediately -- at best split the difference <strong>and</strong> you may be<br />

able to nudge them even higher.<br />

A high start may well take longer to reach resolution, giving you more opportunity to find out more<br />

about the other person <strong>and</strong> to build effective tension.<br />

If the other person starts low, then it may be socially difficult for you to counter with a high bid,<br />

although this can actually be a good move. Responding to a low bid with a high bid indicates that you<br />

know they are low <strong>and</strong> may be seeking<br />

If the other person counters with a low bid (or starts to walk away), this may be a signal that they know<br />

what you are doing. Hold your nerve! If you collapse your position, they may well take advantage <strong>and</strong><br />

seek to pull you even further down.<br />

Be careful about starting too high, as this may cause a betrayal response whereby they leave without<br />

further ado, ignoring anything you may say. Extreme positions outside of a range that may be<br />

considered fair can also be damaging to relationships (which may be important).<br />

The difference between your start position <strong>and</strong> your end position is a signal to the other person about<br />

how much you have conceded to them. A significant difference will make them believe they have got a<br />

bargain (a view you can encourage with sighs <strong>and</strong> supporting words).<br />

149


46. Low-ball<br />

The manipulator first makes his victim agree to what he wants by making it quick, cheap, easy, etc.<br />

Next he maximizes their buy-in, in particular by getting both verbal <strong>and</strong> public commitment to this.<br />

It’s important that the victim is agreeing t of his own free will.<br />

Now the manipulator changes the agreement to what he really want.<br />

The other person may complain, but, if the low-ball is done correctly they should agree to the change.<br />

The trick of a successful low-ball is in the balance of making the initial request attractive enough to<br />

gain agreement, whilst not making the second request so outrageous that the other person refuses. It<br />

nevertheless is surprising how great a difference there can be between these two requests.<br />

Example<br />

A person agrees to buy a car at a low price. The sales person then apologizes that the wrong price was<br />

on the car. The person still agrees to buy it at the higher price.<br />

A family books a package holiday. They find that there are surcharges. They pay these without<br />

question.<br />

Why it works<br />

The Low-ball works by first gaining closure <strong>and</strong> commitment to the idea or item which you want the<br />

other person to accept, then using the fact that people will behave consistently with their beliefs to<br />

sustain the commitment when you change the agreement.<br />

There is also an illusion of irrevocability whereby a person believes that a decision made cannot be<br />

reversed, for example when a person agrees to buy a car <strong>and</strong> considers the h<strong>and</strong>shake as the final<br />

transaction (as opposed to h<strong>and</strong>ing over the money).<br />

Agreeing to a low price creates excitement <strong>and</strong> not buying after this state is induced may lead to an<br />

equally deep depression, which the person may avoid by continuing with the more expensive purchase.<br />

When the final price is not that much higher than elsewhere, the person weighs up the inconvenience of<br />

going elsewhere with the short-term benefit of holding their purchase very soon.<br />

Cialdini, Cacioppo, Bassett, <strong>and</strong> Miller (1978) asked students to participate in an experiment. The<br />

control group was told during the request that it would be at 7am. The low-ball group was only told<br />

this later. 24% of the control group agreed to this, whilst 56% of the low-ball group agreed (<strong>and</strong> 95%<br />

of these actually turned up).<br />

Guéguen <strong>and</strong> Pascual (2000) found it to be important that the person believes that they have made a<br />

free <strong>and</strong> non-coerced agreement to the first request. In particular adding 'but you are free to accept or to<br />

refuse' to the first request increased compliance.<br />

Burger <strong>and</strong> Petty (1981) showed that the same person must make both requests.<br />

The Low-ball technique is a 'sequential request'.<br />

47. That's not all<br />

150


When offering or conceding something to somebody, rather than give it to them as a final item, give it<br />

in incremental pieces. Do not allow them to respond to each piece you give them - keep on offering<br />

more.<br />

Thus, for example, you can:<br />

•Offer a discount in several stages.<br />

•Add extra 'gifts' to a product offering.<br />

•Start with a high price <strong>and</strong> reduce it.<br />

•Tell them all the things you are going to do, one at a<br />

time.<br />

The increments can be in different amounts, but each<br />

should surprise <strong>and</strong> delight the person. It can also help if<br />

the final increment is particularly desirable.<br />

Example<br />

Ladies <strong>and</strong> gentlemen, I'm not only going to reduce this by 10%, not even by 20% … <strong>and</strong> not even by<br />

40. Today, ladies <strong>and</strong> gentlemen, the price is reduced for you by a whopping 50%!<br />

I'm not going to give you this cookie cutter. No. That's not all I'm going to give you. For the same<br />

price, I'm going to throw in a fine steel spatula. A bargain I hear you say? But I'm going to make it<br />

even better, with this splendid temperature probe, absolutely free. Now, who wants this wonderful<br />

offer now?<br />

Mr Jones, you've been treated badly <strong>and</strong> I'm going to make sure you're ok today. First, I'm going to call<br />

the service team. Then I'm going to talk to the manager <strong>and</strong> then I'll get him to call you today. Is this ok<br />

for you?<br />

Why it works<br />

This technique is reminiscent of the highball tactic in that it starts with high <strong>and</strong> comes down. The only<br />

difference is that the 'that's not all' method does not do this in negotiated concessions.<br />

It can, however, seem like a negotiation. Burger (1986) found that this technique works partly because<br />

a customer sees the salesperson as entering into a type of negotiation by offering an additional product.<br />

With each increment, the customer feels an increasing obligation to purchase the product in return for<br />

the salesperson's 'concessions'.<br />

In Burger's experiment, he sold a cupcake with two cookies together for 75 cents (this was the control)<br />

or stated the price of cupcake was 75 cents <strong>and</strong> then added two cookies 'for free' (TNA). Successful<br />

sales in the control were 40%, whilst in the TNA case they were 73%.<br />

In a second experiment, Burger showed it going the other way, either selling the cupcakes straight for<br />

75 cents (the control) or starting at one dollar <strong>and</strong> then immediately discounting to 75 cents (the TNA<br />

case). Successful sales in the control were 44% whilst in the TNA case were again 73%.<br />

The method depends largely on an automatic social response <strong>and</strong> hence works better when the<br />

customer does not have time to think hard about what is going on.<br />

151


48. Disrupt, then reframe<br />

Make a statement that goes off the normal track of how the other person thinks. Then make a rationalsounding<br />

statement that makes apparent sense <strong>and</strong> leads the other person to agree to your request.<br />

This is typically done in a single speech, effectively disrupting <strong>and</strong> reframing your own statements.<br />

The principle can also be used in disrupting the other person, breaking into their speech <strong>and</strong> reinterpret<br />

what they are saying to indicate something else. This is best done when they are in the middle of<br />

talking <strong>and</strong> are in a state of 'flow', effectively trotting out a familiar script on the subject.<br />

The disruption can even be something nonsensical -- the key is that it breaks a pattern <strong>and</strong> readies them<br />

for something else.<br />

Example<br />

Davis <strong>and</strong> Knowles told customers that a package of eight cards sold for $3.00, <strong>and</strong> subsequently made<br />

sales to approximately 40% of customers. When they told customers that "the price of eight cards is<br />

300 pennies, which is a bargain", then sales doubled to 80% of customers.<br />

Them: You know I hate it when you...<br />

You: Marakanas!...I hate it when we don't get on. So let's try again?<br />

152


Why it works<br />

Davis <strong>and</strong> Knowles based this approach on a study of hypnotist Milton Erikson's methods whereby he<br />

would deliberately disrupt thinking <strong>and</strong> behaving <strong>and</strong> hence destabilize his patients' habitual patterns<br />

<strong>and</strong> then change that thinking whilst the patient was still unsure what to think next.<br />

This method uses the principle of confusion to unfreeze<br />

the person <strong>and</strong> then uses reframing in a hurt <strong>and</strong> rescue<br />

route to closure.<br />

In their 'pennies' example, the use of '300 pennies' is a<br />

disruption of the normal '3 dollars'. Whilst the person is<br />

trying to figure out what this means, the reframe 'which is<br />

a bargain' is slipped in as an explanation, which many<br />

people accept <strong>and</strong> hence conclude that it is worth<br />

purchasing before they decide that 300 pennies is really<br />

$3, which is not worth paying.<br />

Rather than use st<strong>and</strong>ard persuasive pressure, as in<br />

traditional one-off selling, it acts more subtly to create<br />

alternative forms of tension that are literally doubly (as in<br />

Davis <strong>and</strong> Knowles' experiment) as effective. The aim is<br />

thus to reduce avoidance rather than focus first on<br />

increasing attractiveness.<br />

The persuader thus becomes a trusted supporter rather<br />

than an oppositional enforcer, which supports future<br />

persuasion as in relationship selling or collaborative<br />

negotiation.<br />

Fennis, Das <strong>and</strong> Pruyn extended this principle to show that this disruption <strong>and</strong> reframing approach was<br />

applicable across a wider range of settings. Specifically, the Disrupt-Then-Reframe technique reduced<br />

the extent of objections <strong>and</strong> counter-argument to a sales script <strong>and</strong> boosted the impact of questioning<br />

<strong>and</strong> alignment methods.<br />

The technique is often abbreviated simply to DTR, <strong>and</strong> can be used to describe a range of techniques<br />

that use the same basic disrupt-reframe principle.<br />

153


49. Fear, then relief - Scaring The Hell Out of You<br />

One of the easiest <strong>and</strong> arguably the most evil manipulative technique to get someone to say "yes"is<br />

what psychologists call the "fear-then-relief technique." The technique preys on a person's emotions.<br />

Here, the manipulator causes someone a great deal of stress or anxiety <strong>and</strong> then abruptly relieves that<br />

stress. After this sudden mood swing, the person is disarmed, less likely to make mindful or rational<br />

aggressive.<br />

decisions, <strong>and</strong> more likely to respond<br />

positively to various requests.<br />

Technique: Invoke fear in the other person.<br />

Then, when they seek a solution, provide<br />

one that leads them in the direction you<br />

choose. Fear is invoked by threatening<br />

needs. Relief may be gained by doing what<br />

you request. Relief may also given 'freely' to<br />

create trust <strong>and</strong> invoke the rules of social<br />

exchange.<br />

Be careful not to be seen as an aggressor, for<br />

example by using external sources to invoke<br />

the fear. Also be careful not to invoke so<br />

much fear that they flee from you or become<br />

Examples: The book The Science of <strong>Social</strong> Influence details a few experiments that showed this in<br />

action. In one, shoppers in a mall were scared by a stranger touching their shoulder from behind. When<br />

they turned around, the shoppers found that their assailant was a (supposed) blind man who just wanted<br />

to ask the time. After that deflection <strong>and</strong> relief, someone else—the fake blind man's<br />

confederate—asked the targets if they would buy <strong>and</strong> sign postcards for a political charitable cause.<br />

Those who had met the blind man <strong>and</strong> experienced the fear-then-relief rollercoaster were more likely to<br />

do so than the control group which wasn't manipulated.<br />

This fear-then-relief manipulation technique is most popularly portrayed in the classic bad cop/good<br />

cop routine: one person scares the hell out of you, another saves you, <strong>and</strong> then you're more willing to<br />

talk. You see this in everyday life, too—from the fear tactics of insurance agents to bad managers who<br />

suggest your job is on the line, backtrack, <strong>and</strong> then ask you to work overtime.<br />

Example<br />

Your performance has been below st<strong>and</strong>ard recently <strong>and</strong> you may be placed on the 'at risk' register. I<br />

won't do this now but I do want you to show me what you are capable of.<br />

The boss came around when you were out <strong>and</strong> asked where you were. Don't worry, I gave a good<br />

excuse. Could you cover for me? I want to go home early.<br />

Why it works<br />

This is a direct application of the hurt <strong>and</strong> rescue principle, creating discomfort <strong>and</strong> then providing the<br />

means of reducing that discomfort. Whilst a relatively crude method, it is still quite common <strong>and</strong> often<br />

effective when done well.<br />

154


This works as the pleasant relief is linked with the second request, which receives the pleasant emotion<br />

by association. In the state of blessed relief the person may also be temporarily unthinking as the strong<br />

emotion overwhelms any rational consideration.<br />

Repeated fear-relief cycles can be emotionally very exhausting <strong>and</strong> is used in such as interrogation <strong>and</strong><br />

conversion to break a person down. When a person thinks they are rescued from a fearful situation,<br />

they relax <strong>and</strong> drop their guard, making the next wave even more terrifying as they are less <strong>and</strong> less<br />

able to emotional defend against it.<br />

Invoking fear can be hazardous as it may well trigger the Fight-or-Flight reaction. Particularly when<br />

the persuader is seen as the primary cause of the discomfort, they may become the target of aggression<br />

<strong>and</strong> compliance will become very unlikely. One way this can be h<strong>and</strong>led is that the persuader pleads<br />

innocence or unintentional action, which leader the aggressor into apology <strong>and</strong> compliance as a way of<br />

restoring social harmony.<br />

155


50. Selling The Top Of The Line (TOTL)<br />

First promote an expensive product. Then show them a cheaper product.<br />

This can be done without really trying to sell the expensive product. Do it as if you are just a kind of<br />

product geek who is proud of what can be done <strong>and</strong> want to show off great products. Then become the<br />

friend who sells them a product that suits them best.<br />

You can also try to sell the expensive product if they seem to be interested. Expensive products are<br />

sought by the affluent <strong>and</strong> those who value the social kudos the product gives. If they seem like the<br />

latter, add 'what people will say' into your patter.<br />

If they reject the expensive product, then it is a simple step to move down to the cheaper product.<br />

Example<br />

Just look at this wonderful washing machine, it has many different cycles <strong>and</strong> controls...It is a bit<br />

expensive - but this other machine does almost as much <strong>and</strong> is 30% less.<br />

I really want to go to the Seychelles for a fortnight. But I guess that's a bit expensive...Maybe a week in<br />

Cannes would be better.<br />

Why it works<br />

Selling the top of the line' is a common approach that is a variant of the Door In The Face (DITF)<br />

method.<br />

favor by buying the product.<br />

Acting as a 'product geek' in showing off the more<br />

expensive item establishes the sales person as an<br />

expert <strong>and</strong> can help to build trust. Note that serious<br />

attempts to sell the expensive product may negate<br />

or even invert these effects.<br />

The more expensive product creates desire, but<br />

cannot be afforded. The second product hooks into<br />

the created desire with something that is closer to<br />

the buyers budget. The method uses the contrast<br />

principle to make the second product appear<br />

relatively inexpensive.<br />

The exchange principle also applies as the sales<br />

person is giving up a higher sale in apparent<br />

concern for the customer, who reciprocates the<br />

Donoho (2003) showed 290 business majors different videos designed to sell CD players. Some were<br />

shown a 'top of the line' video, showing first an expensive product followed by a less expensive<br />

product. Others were shown products in different orders. The 'top of the line' video resulted in<br />

'purchases' of average 10% greater value.<br />

156


51. Dump <strong>and</strong> Chase (DAC)<br />

Ask for something. When they flatly refuse, ask why (or why not, depending on how the situation is<br />

phrased). Then turn the discussion into a negotiation whereby you remove the reasons for them not<br />

agreeing with you or otherwise complying with your request.<br />

Example<br />

When a customer says they do not want buy a product, the sales person asks what is stopping them<br />

from buying today. He may first single out the reason by asking “<strong>and</strong> this is the only reason why you<br />

did not buy the product?” After that he proceeds to address their issues.<br />

A boy wants to go out with his friends. His mother says 'no'. He asks why not <strong>and</strong> then gives reasons<br />

<strong>and</strong> evidence that outweigh the mother's reasons. In the end, she gives in.<br />

Why it works<br />

There are two forms of refusal: a flat refusal where no explanation is given <strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> 'obstacle' where<br />

reasons are given for refusing. People often present obstacles as this is a more polite form <strong>and</strong> less<br />

likely to result in reactive argument. However, this form also gives space for the persuader to continue<br />

persuading.<br />

Persistence by the persuader allows them to wear down the other person, who also may become<br />

convinced that this is an urgent <strong>and</strong> important matter for the persuader. The person may feel guilty in<br />

holding out when conceding is not that important for them, or become sympathetic to their need.<br />

This method pulls on the needs to explain, effectively forcing the other person to give reason, which<br />

also enables the persuader to continue.<br />

'Dump <strong>and</strong> chase' is also a strategy in ice hockey whereby a team hits the puck into the attacking zone,<br />

then aggressively tries to retrieve it (which is similar to 'kick <strong>and</strong> rush' in rugby union). This term was<br />

used.<br />

157


52. Persuasion Techniques<br />

52.1 Heart, Head, H<strong>and</strong>s<br />

First make an emotionally-based statement with which the other person will instinctively agree. A good<br />

way of getting emotional agreement is to appeal to the person's values, talking about good or bad, right<br />

or wrong.<br />

We are going to protest next week. Can you help?<br />

Then add supportive arguments that seem<br />

logical <strong>and</strong> rational. In this, be selective<br />

about what you say, using things that<br />

support your initial statement. Indicate<br />

evidence. Talk about cause <strong>and</strong> effect.<br />

Ignore any opposing rationale.<br />

Finally issue the call to action, asking<br />

them to do something.<br />

Example<br />

Would you believe it! They are going to<br />

close the library! Isn't that terrible?<br />

How will our children learn? What about<br />

the old people?<br />

Isn't that great sounding music?<br />

It's created through the unique linear acceleration circuitry. Nobody else has it <strong>and</strong> it makes sense as<br />

the best buy.<br />

Now are you ready to buy it today?<br />

You did what? That's shameful!<br />

I know you didn't really mean it <strong>and</strong> that you were in a hurry. You can recover the situation, but you do<br />

need to go <strong>and</strong> apologize today.<br />

Why it works<br />

A common way we make decisions is to start with a gut-based, instinctive decision, <strong>and</strong> then we seek<br />

confirmation in evidence <strong>and</strong> rationale. This method plays directly to this sequence of thinking.<br />

This is a affective-cognitive-behavioral approach, starting with emotions to get the person aroused,<br />

then providing rational support so the person agrees at both levels before you ask them do something<br />

for you. Other sequences may be used, but this is a good way of getting immediate compliance.<br />

The final action requested need not be a direct response or even that obvious, although of course<br />

linking action to the issue increases the chance of compliance. If the person is sufficiently aroused,<br />

then they will easily accept a fallacious argument <strong>and</strong> so be ready to follow your clear lead, even if the<br />

action is not that logical or appropriate.<br />

158


In this speech, you want to persuade people to support a new campus-wide policy calling for zerotolerance<br />

of hate speech. Once you have shown the problem, you then explain to your audience that the<br />

cause of the unnecessary confrontations <strong>and</strong> violence is prior incidents of hate speech. Lastly, you<br />

argue that a campus-wide zero-tolerance policy could help prevent future unnecessary confrontations<br />

<strong>and</strong> violence. Again, this method of organizing a speech is as simple as its name: problem-causesolution.<br />

52.5 Comparative Advantages<br />

Main Points:<br />

The final method for organizing a persuasive speech is<br />

called the comparative advantages speech format. The<br />

goal of this speech is to compare items side-by-side<br />

<strong>and</strong> show why one of them is more advantageous than<br />

the other. For example, let’s say that you’re giving a<br />

speech on which e-book reader is better:<br />

Amazon.com’s Kindle or Barnes <strong>and</strong> Nobles’ Nook.<br />

Here’s how you could organize this speech:<br />

Specific Purpose: To persuade my audience that the<br />

Nook is more advantageous than the Kindle.<br />

1.The Nook allows owners to trade <strong>and</strong> loan books to other owners or people who have downloaded<br />

the Nook software, while the Kindle does not.<br />

2.The Nook has a color-touch screen, while the Kindle’s screen is black <strong>and</strong> grey <strong>and</strong> noninteractive.<br />

3.The Nook’s memory can be exp<strong>and</strong>ed through microSD, while the Kindle’s memory cannot be<br />

upgraded.<br />

As you can see from this speech’s organization, the simple goal of this speech is to show why one<br />

thing has more positives than something else. Obviously, when you are demonstrating comparative<br />

advantages, the items you are comparing need to be functional equivalents—or, as the saying goes, you<br />

cannot compare apples to oranges.<br />

161


53. But You Are Free<br />

Make the basic request to the target person. Then tell<br />

them they are free to accept or reject the request. This<br />

leads to increased acceptance <strong>and</strong> compliance with the<br />

request.<br />

Let them know they have a free choice, even though it<br />

may be obvious that they can choose as they wish.<br />

Other variants of language you can use include "it is up<br />

to you to see," "up to you to choose," <strong>and</strong> "but you are<br />

free of."<br />

Example<br />

An activist seeking petition signatures gets more on<br />

their list by saying people are free to add their names<br />

or not.<br />

A sales person sells more by saying that customers are free to come back later if they are not ready to<br />

buy now.<br />

Why it works<br />

In the original study, Guéguen <strong>and</strong> Pascual (2000) found that when subjects were asked in a street to<br />

give money to a cause, only 10.0% complied. However, when the phrase "...but you are free to accept<br />

or to refuse" was added, 47.5% now complied.<br />

Pascual <strong>and</strong> Gueguen (2002) found this wording led to more money being donated to a social cause.<br />

Gueguen et al (2002) noted the importance of the semantic evocation of freedom. It is not enough to<br />

ask, you have to specifically tell people they are free to accept or refuse.<br />

Guéguen <strong>and</strong> Pascual (2005) asked people to complete a survey. 75.6% of those asked to complete the<br />

survey, but not told they were free to accept or refuse, complied. Yet 90.1% complied when they were<br />

told they were free to accept or refuse.<br />

We have a fundamental need for a sense of control. When we are asked to do something it may well<br />

feel that the requesting person is taking control. As a reaction, we are then more likely to refuse,<br />

asserting our ability to sustain control.<br />

When the person is told they are free to accept or refuse, then they are formally given control <strong>and</strong> so do<br />

not have to wrest it back.<br />

This wording also sets up an exchange dynamic whereby they feel obliged to repay the kindness in<br />

giving a free option to disadvantage the requesting person by not refusing the request.<br />

The word 'free' is a common power word <strong>and</strong> may have an additional effect as it causes particular<br />

attention <strong>and</strong> excitement. 'Free' appeals not only to the need for control but also to greed. While this<br />

does not directly affect things, the unconscious triggering of desire may help to tip the balance further<br />

towards compliance.<br />

162


54. Confusion, Humor <strong>and</strong> Request (ChaR)<br />

Confusion :<br />

Say something that confuses the other person. To work well, it should make sense on one level, but<br />

when thought about more carefully is unexpected, ambiguous or uncertain in some way.<br />

For example, you could open a phone call by saying 'I think bears should be pink' or 'Do you know<br />

what color socks I am wearing?'<br />

Confusion creates tension as the person feels they should underst<strong>and</strong> what is said <strong>and</strong> yet they are<br />

unable to do this.<br />

Humor<br />

Now say something that is funny, making a joke out of the confusing comment.<br />

For example you could say 'If bears were pink then at least you could see them coming', or 'One sock is<br />

blue <strong>and</strong> the other is green - I seem to have put on odd socks today.'<br />

Humor is a release. It provides a matching closure to the previously-created, tense confusion. Be<br />

careful with this not to make fun of other people, although of course you can poke fun at yourself.<br />

Request<br />

Now make a request. You are more likely to be successful if this is fairly easy for the person to<br />

comply.<br />

In selling, typical requests are for information, a referral or for a meeting. It is surprising how often you<br />

will gain compliance, as compared with if you had just started with the request.<br />

In the confusion <strong>and</strong> humor stages you wound up the other person <strong>and</strong> then released their tension. They<br />

are now in a relaxed state where they are open to suggestion. They should also like you more <strong>and</strong> be<br />

grateful to you for giving them a bit of fun <strong>and</strong> for letting them off the hook of trying to make sense of<br />

what you said.<br />

In sales, this works well when people are expecting you to go in with a hard-sell approach as the<br />

anticipation of conflict is replaced by entertainment <strong>and</strong> fun.<br />

163


55. Hook <strong>and</strong> Sinker<br />

Start with a statement that is easy to accept <strong>and</strong>/or difficult to<br />

reject.<br />

Then add a second, related statement that contains the key<br />

message.<br />

Example<br />

Littering is disgusting. So are those who do it.<br />

Do you like good food? Stop here for great food.<br />

Why it works<br />

The first statement is the 'hook', which can be a simple<br />

assertion or a question.<br />

Like the worm on the angler's line, its sole purpose is to get<br />

the other person interested, agreeing <strong>and</strong> making an initial<br />

closure.<br />

The second statement is the 'sinker', which drops the other<br />

person into the mire of having to agree. If they disagree, then<br />

they will have acted inconsistently, which leads to cognitive dissonance <strong>and</strong> a fear of social rejection.<br />

164


56. The Jack Hammer, The Hammer <strong>and</strong> The Dripping Tap<br />

Three techniques based on repetition:<br />

1. In “The Jack Hammer”<br />

either a single word or a short phrase is repeated quickly, one after another<br />

You can increase power of the Jackhammer by steadily increasing the volume <strong>and</strong> other forms<br />

of emphasis.<br />

Example<br />

no! No! NO! Do not do that! NO! NO!! NO!!!<br />

Go, go, go! That's right! Keep going! Keep going!<br />

I won't, I won't I won't, I won't I won't!<br />

Why it works<br />

The Jackhammer emphasizes importance <strong>and</strong> leaves little room for<br />

misunderst<strong>and</strong>ing, particularly when there is little time for argument. This rapid repetition acts like a<br />

hammer, whacking home the message. It is not a subtle method, but can be used in an emergency or<br />

when you want to express significant emotion. Rapid repetition also occupies time <strong>and</strong> prevents the<br />

other person from responding. Hence this may be used to block out the other person from making any<br />

opposing point.<br />

The triple, three repetitions in a row, is a shorter form of the Jackhammer.<br />

2. In “The Hammer” a single word is repeated across a number of phrases <strong>and</strong> sentences.<br />

The word should encompass a key theme to be emphasized -- typically this is an action that is to be<br />

done. The word itself may be emphasized each time to hammer home the point.<br />

Example<br />

We must survive. I know that you have been thinking about how we must survive,<br />

<strong>and</strong> I also have been thinking about this. Because through our actions today we will<br />

survive or not, into the future. Whatever happens today or tomorrow, remember<br />

this: We must survive.<br />

However, I think we're going to do it, <strong>and</strong> I think that we must pay what needs to<br />

be paid. I don't think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the<br />

job. And this will be done in the decade of the Sixties. It may be done while some<br />

of you are still here at school at this college <strong>and</strong> university. It will be done during<br />

the terms of office of some of the people who sit here on this platform. But it will<br />

be done. And it will be done before the end of this decade. (J.F.Kennedy -- man on<br />

the moon speech - 'do/done' repeated)<br />

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas <strong>and</strong> oceans, we shall fight<br />

with growing confidence <strong>and</strong> growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Isl<strong>and</strong>, whatever the cost<br />

may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the l<strong>and</strong>ing grounds, we shall fight in the fields<br />

<strong>and</strong> in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. (Winston Churchill - 'fight'<br />

repeated)<br />

165


The hammer is a slower form of the jackhammer but not as slow as the dripping tap<br />

As the word is the same <strong>and</strong> the words are used all around the same time, the idea that is being mooted<br />

will steadily get through.<br />

3. In The Dripping Tap technique, key words <strong>and</strong> phrases are repeated over time.<br />

Example<br />

Why it works<br />

Keep the words carefully separated <strong>and</strong> control the predictability<br />

when they arrive. Initially, the words will be unexpected. You<br />

can then build up both expected <strong>and</strong> unexpected occurrence of<br />

words.<br />

You can use the same words or different words - the key is that<br />

the meaning is the same <strong>and</strong> that it gradually moves the subject<br />

in the right direction.<br />

You can also use different styles, including straight facts or<br />

emotional appeals.<br />

This report on climate change looks worrying...What is our<br />

environmental policy?...Do we comply with environmental<br />

regulations?...Look at this article -- a company down the road has<br />

got into real trouble...I spoke with Jan <strong>and</strong> our emissions are not<br />

great...The shareholder meeting is next week, what if they ask about<br />

environmental issues?...<br />

We need to have an internet presence, you know...Our competitors<br />

all have an internet presence...I spoke to a customers recently who<br />

was surprised to find that we do not have an internet presence...<br />

Dripping water will erode an entire mountain, possibly without the mountain noticing. Likewise, a<br />

repeated word or phrase, cunningly hidden, may not be consciously noticed, but may be get through to<br />

the subconscious.<br />

The dripping tap is slower than the hammer, <strong>and</strong> may be around the same speed as nagging, or maybe<br />

even slower. The purpose with the dripping tap is to get through to a person via relentless, but careful,<br />

repetition. It is thus more subtle than nagging. With varying words, the tap may not be consciously<br />

noticed.<br />

166


57. AAB Pattern<br />

Do or say something. Then repeat it. Then a third time do or say something different. In persuasion,<br />

use the surprise of the third element to help change minds.<br />

Example<br />

I like the idea. I like the though. But I won't buy it at that price.<br />

The managers like it; the employees like it. But the shareholders are against it.<br />

So let's figure out together what we can do.<br />

Why it works<br />

The basic principle of the AAB pattern is that by repeating two items (the two As), the very human<br />

pattern-detection system is stimulated. This leads to prediction of a continuation of the pattern with a<br />

third A. When the B appears (ie. not A), this causes surprise, which makes the person more open to<br />

persuasion. In this way AAB uses the repetition principle to set up the AA pattern <strong>and</strong> then creates<br />

confusion with the unexpected B.<br />

You can also use pattern-change variants such as AAAB, AAAAB, etc. AAB is simply the most<br />

economic version of this pattern. Adding more As strengthens the pattern <strong>and</strong> so also increases<br />

expectation <strong>and</strong> hence the B creates even greater surprise <strong>and</strong> confusion.<br />

Spotting patterns is essential to basic survival as it enables us to predict the future, as, by definition,<br />

patterns generally consist of items that repeat themselves more than once.<br />

This patterning is deliberately used in music where a sequence is repeated <strong>and</strong> then changed to create a<br />

stimulating <strong>and</strong> pleasurable feeling. It also appears in humor, where the unexpected appearance of the<br />

B is found to be funny.<br />

Both music <strong>and</strong> humor are difficult to explain in terms of evolutionary benefit.<br />

This view of pattern interruption helps link it as an adaptation to situations other than threat<br />

assessment.<br />

167


58. Commitment Devices<br />

Commitment devices are tricks played on oneself or other people in order to increase commitment to<br />

some action, belief, etc. This can be as creative <strong>and</strong> extreme as needed -- the only measure is whether<br />

the method is successful.<br />

A classic technique is to make commitment or not visible in some way, for example putting a graph of<br />

you weight or the number of bottles of wine consumed on the wall.<br />

Another method is to make your commitment public, so you will be embarrassed if you break the<br />

commitment. Asking others to check up on you is a similar principle.<br />

Example<br />

Leavitt <strong>and</strong> Dubner (2007) give the rather gross example of a Los Angeles slimmer who bought lifelike<br />

plastic models of human body fat from a medical-supply company <strong>and</strong> put them on display in her<br />

kitchen.<br />

'Mutually Assured Destruction' (MAD) is a commitment device that has prevented nuclear war, as any<br />

nuclear power knows that to attack another is to also suffer devastating attack. The principle also<br />

applies in less significant settings.<br />

Why it works<br />

There are many times we want to do something but we fail to do so, from losing weight to completing<br />

college assignments on time. We easily forget, procrastinate or otherwise find excuses not to stick to<br />

commitments.<br />

Commitment devices are methods to help us stick to the commitments we have made, even if they are<br />

just to ourselves.<br />

The basic principle of a commitment device is to make failure to stick to the commitment more painful<br />

than remaining committed. This can use aspects of both punishment <strong>and</strong> reward, although the former is<br />

more common.<br />

Another principle that may be used is of consistency, where a person will change beliefs in order to<br />

sustain consistency with actions. If you can get them to do something, they then change beliefs to 'It is<br />

normal <strong>and</strong> right for me to do this thing' <strong>and</strong> so create self-sustaining behavior.<br />

Commitment devices can be used when getting others to stick to a promise of some kind. Formally, we<br />

can use contracts that may or may not be legally binding (but which in any case increase the<br />

commitment felt).<br />

Criminals build commitment in those they coerce with devices that include severe punishment, from<br />

kneecapping to assaults on the victims’ family.<br />

Commitment devices do not always work -- the many slimming aids on the market coupled with the<br />

many overweight people indicate this. Similarly, there are many who have used various devices to<br />

unsuccessfully try to stop smoking.<br />

168


59. Creating Curiosity<br />

If you can create curiosity you can draw people towards you, making them want to know more. Two<br />

principles to use are stimulation <strong>and</strong> partiality.<br />

Stimulation<br />

Curiosity is a state of arousal, so you need to provoke them <strong>and</strong> spark their interest. Stimulation is like<br />

lighting a fire. Once you have got it going, it keeps going <strong>and</strong> becomes all-consuming.<br />

Novelty<br />

Stimulation can come from the interest created when we encounter something new. Novelty makes us<br />

want to explore further to identify opportunities <strong>and</strong> threats. We also get the buzz of learning from<br />

playing with new things ('Oh, that's what it's for!').<br />

So talk about new things. Scan the news (a word that itself promises novelty). Look for gadgets to<br />

discuss. Ask what new things they have found. Be interested, amazed <strong>and</strong> surprised.<br />

Losing out<br />

When others have something that we do not, we become curious, wanting to find out what it is. The<br />

same effect happens with knowledge <strong>and</strong> is the driving force behind gossip <strong>and</strong> social chatter. When<br />

we go away <strong>and</strong> return, an early question we have is 'What's been going on?'<br />

So talk about other people, what they have <strong>and</strong> what they may be getting. Talk about what others have<br />

done <strong>and</strong> what their plans are. Play up (as appropriate) scurrilous chatter <strong>and</strong> impressed amazement.<br />

Puzzles<br />

Problems, puzzles <strong>and</strong> mysteries provide interesting stimulation where we enjoy exploring <strong>and</strong> trying<br />

out things to see what works. The phrase 'I wonder if...' is a classic example of puzzle curiosity in<br />

action.<br />

So present them with puzzles <strong>and</strong> other unsolved problems. Ask their advice. Ask for their opinion on<br />

why things have happened. Get them involved in brainstorming solutions <strong>and</strong> trying things out.<br />

Words<br />

Use words that stimulate <strong>and</strong> create a desire to know more. These should evoke emotion either by<br />

showing your emotion <strong>and</strong> thereby triggering empathetic emotion, or by rational appeal to needs <strong>and</strong><br />

objectives.<br />

Stimulating words to provoke curiosity include:<br />

•Unexpectedness: surprising, amazing<br />

•Novelty: new, different, changed<br />

•Different: odd, unusual, weird, strange<br />

•Scarcity: special, secret<br />

•Benefit: exciting, interesting, thrilling, helpful, useful<br />

Partiality<br />

Curiosity comes from partial knowledge which promises benefit. Telling them everything satisfies<br />

curiosity. To get them going, give them a taste, not the whole meal.<br />

169


Hinting<br />

When something is mentioned in which we already have an interest, or which sparks a new interest<br />

(typically by nudging needs), we want to find out more. Hints give just enough information to<br />

stimulate interest <strong>and</strong> curiosity.<br />

So rather than tell people outright about things, drop hints <strong>and</strong> watch the alacrity with which they pick<br />

up on them. Then, a bit later, drop another hint. This is like laying a trail of breadcrumbs right to your<br />

door.<br />

Promising benefit<br />

Benefits are positive outcomes that result from actions. When someone talks about the good things I<br />

could have, I want to know more, in particular what I have to do to get them. Sales people use this<br />

approach when they put benefits before features.<br />

So suggest they could get specific benefits, without saying how. Get them to think the benefits are<br />

within easy reach before they realize the real cost. Ask questions like 'Would you like to..?' or 'Imagine<br />

that...'.<br />

Partial images<br />

When you show people a part of something, they want to see the rest of it to find out what it is. Even if<br />

they know or believe they know what is there (a wonderful skill most people have), they seek<br />

confirmation. Photographers use this when they crop images to show half an arch or a part of a person.<br />

Gardeners do it too when they give glimpses of country views.<br />

So conceal parts of what they see. Show enough that they can guess but not so much they know or are<br />

pretty certain.<br />

Slow reveal<br />

When something is being uncovered, so we gradually discover more, we become anxious as we predict<br />

what it might be <strong>and</strong> wait to see if we are right. We have to keep paying attention as each moment of<br />

the reveal gives us more information which we can use to confirm or revise our prediction.<br />

This can be visual or simply words. There is a TV game where the camera starts very close <strong>and</strong> zooms<br />

slowly out while contestants have to name the object. Sales people use this as the give demonstrations<br />

<strong>and</strong> reveal benefits one at a time.<br />

Verbal reveals happen all the time, as while we are speaking, listeners are always predicting ahead.<br />

Careful use of words can make use of this dynamic process, structuring words <strong>and</strong> sentences to reveal<br />

in an ordered way, always leading the listener <strong>and</strong> making full use of curiosity.<br />

So show them things slowly. Pause to let them appreciate each good thing.<br />

Layer hints to increase excitement. Start with objects turned away or in a box. Use words like '...not<br />

only...' to let them know more is coming. Lead them on a journey of discovery.<br />

After you successfully invoked curiosity in a person, you can lead the curious person to where you<br />

want to take them.<br />

170


60. Double Bind<br />

A double bind is a situation where a person has<br />

a choice (typically between two options), but<br />

whichever way they choose, they lose out, often<br />

with the same result.<br />

Usually in the double bind there is no<br />

alternative, as the person is forced to choose <strong>and</strong><br />

does not have the luxury of not choosing (this<br />

would be a third choice that could well be<br />

preferable).<br />

This situation may occur by chance, but in<br />

persuasion it is often carefully engineered by the<br />

persuader. Any alternative choices are either<br />

removed or hidden so only the double bind<br />

options appear valid.<br />

Example<br />

An impoverished unemployed person on state<br />

benefits is offered a job that pays the same<br />

amount as the benefit. In either case, they<br />

remain poor.<br />

A person whose car is broken down is offered the choice between towing it away or fixing it -- either<br />

option costs about the same.<br />

Why it works<br />

The principle of the double bind is to offer a person a choice or put them in a position where they are<br />

forced to choose, but where the outcomes of the choice either lead to the same result or else have<br />

results that are equally desirable to the person who is managing the situation.<br />

The double bind situation is often disadvantageous to the person affected. They may or may not be<br />

aware of this, which means they may or may not be happy with the choice.<br />

'Hobson's choice' is a principle of 'no options' that is related to the double bind.<br />

The difference is that in Hobson's choice there is only one visible option, whilst the fact of a single<br />

option is disguised in the double bind by the appearance of more. By way of history, Thomas Hobson<br />

was a 16th century stable owner who offered his Cambridge customers the horse nearer the door or<br />

none at all.<br />

171


61. Final Request<br />

After you have completed your main conversation with the other person, make one more final request.<br />

The request may be for information or it may be for agreement to act in some way.<br />

Request language may be something like:<br />

•By the way, ...<br />

•Oh, just ...<br />

•One more thing, ...<br />

•I just thought of something else, ...<br />

•Could I quickly ...<br />

•Can I ask you something, ...<br />

The main conversation may be significant or it may be inconsequential. Importantly, it should set up<br />

the situation to support the final request, where significant benefit is gained.<br />

The request may well be made as you are actually walking away or even half-way out of the door. As<br />

you pause, it helps if the other person has to take a few steps towards you.<br />

Example<br />

A sales person knocks on a person's door to let them know that they have left their car lights on. They<br />

are thanked <strong>and</strong> are just leaving, when they turn around <strong>and</strong> say 'Oh one more thing. I'm doing a survey<br />

of needs in the area. Could I pop back tomorrow to discuss?'<br />

A person is going to work after a breakfast conversation. As they go out of the door, they call 'I may be<br />

late -- could you pick up the kids?'<br />

A detective has been questioning a suspect. She closes the interview <strong>and</strong> are walking away when she<br />

turns <strong>and</strong> says 'Michael was there, wasn't he?'<br />

Why it works<br />

After the main conversation, the other person will relax as they reach closure about this interaction. As<br />

such, they may well be open <strong>and</strong> unprepared for the final request, <strong>and</strong> so agree to it without much<br />

thought.<br />

If the main conversation was one in which the person became tense, for example where you were<br />

questioning them closely, they will be particularly relaxed, especially if they think they have got away<br />

with something. This makes them particularly vulnerable to the casual question of a final request.<br />

The main conversation may be mostly helpful for them, in which case the final request acts as an<br />

exchange, whereby the person discharges their obligation to you for the recent kindness.<br />

Getting the other person to walk towards you as you leave causes them to make an effort, albeit small.<br />

They have to explain this to themselves <strong>and</strong> typically do so by believing they want to help you.<br />

Consequently, they are more likely to give you what you seek.<br />

Another effect of the final request is that, as you are on your way out, there is little space for objection<br />

or re-opening of discussions. This hurries the other person into a response.<br />

172


62. Incremental Persuasion<br />

When persuading, do so one small step at a time. Get them to agree to a small point. Then get<br />

agreement on a further smaller point. Then another <strong>and</strong> another until you have got them to your final<br />

destination.<br />

Make each small point very easy to accept <strong>and</strong> as logical as possible so they cannot really object to it.<br />

Why it works<br />

Example<br />

Could you hold this?<br />

How does it feel? Comfortable?<br />

Can you imagine using it at home? Would it feel good?<br />

Would it feel better than what you have already?<br />

Would you like to replace your old one with this?<br />

How would it feel taking this home <strong>and</strong> knowing you could use it<br />

every day? ...<br />

Do you like having fun? Would you like to have fun today? Have<br />

you ever had fun when you did something new? There's a new<br />

playfield in town. I've seen others there having fun. Would you<br />

like to have a go some time? How about this afternoon?<br />

Incremental persuasion works because perception is based on contrast, which in this method is between<br />

small increments. We largely judge the impact of something on us in this relative way rather than<br />

against an absolute st<strong>and</strong>ard, making incremental approaches less easy to notice.<br />

There is a classic story of boiling a frog in a saucepan. As the water warms up, the frog does not notice<br />

the incremental change in temperature <strong>and</strong> does not jump out, <strong>and</strong> so quietly boils. The same is true of<br />

many changes in life, where we accept many small differences, not taking action until it is too late.<br />

Incrementalism works in many different places. For example if you're seeking information, ask for a<br />

little at a time. It can be effective if you ask different people, as this allows you to gather a lot of<br />

knowledge without appearing to be particularly acquisitive. You can also get a lot done by asking for<br />

small favors.<br />

Paradoxically, this can lead people to feel they should do more for you..<br />

173


63. Ingratiation<br />

Ingratiation is a simple method of influence that seeks to get others to like you <strong>and</strong> hence comply with<br />

your requests.<br />

Jones (1964) defined three methods of ingratiation: other-enhancement (flattery), opinion-conformity<br />

(agreement) <strong>and</strong> self-presentation.<br />

Flattery<br />

Agreement<br />

Tell the other person how wonderful they are. Express<br />

admiration of their achievements <strong>and</strong> for the person.<br />

Exaggerate their positive attributes <strong>and</strong> excuse, downplay<br />

or ignore their negatives. Show that you like them, respect<br />

them <strong>and</strong> trust them.<br />

If they have written or done things of which they are proud,<br />

indicate how you have taken time to read their works or<br />

study their actions as these are so excellent as to be worthy<br />

of anyone's time <strong>and</strong> attention. Tell them that others<br />

appreciate them also, particularly those they respect.<br />

When they express an opinion, agree with them, wholeheartedly. Show you have similar beliefs <strong>and</strong><br />

values. Be impressed with their arguments <strong>and</strong> do not challenge their assertions. Smile <strong>and</strong> nod when<br />

they are talking (except when they are talking negatively, when it is better to show concern).<br />

Show your agreement subtly by re-using their words, matching their body language <strong>and</strong> otherwise<br />

indicate that you are in rapport with them. Lean towards them. When they frown, you frown. When<br />

they are animated, show visible enthusiasm.<br />

You need not agree with everything, but it can be a good idea to be relatively gentle in your opposition<br />

an allow yourself to be persuaded on points that are important to them <strong>and</strong> disagree on things that not<br />

so important to them.<br />

Self-presentation<br />

Present yourself in a way that the other person will like. If they<br />

like smartly-dressed people, dress up. If they prefer jeans <strong>and</strong> Tshirt,<br />

dress down. Speak well. Be knowledgeable but not arrogant.<br />

Speak clearly <strong>and</strong> concisely rather than rambling on at length <strong>and</strong><br />

hogging the talk time. Be interesting <strong>and</strong> interested. Listen well<br />

<strong>and</strong> show you underst<strong>and</strong>.<br />

Help<br />

You can also ingratiate yourself with others by actively helping them, looking after their interests <strong>and</strong><br />

generally providing support. Look both at their current goals <strong>and</strong> as well as their wider motivation. Do<br />

things that will likely get their thanks.<br />

174


Why it works<br />

Although ingratiation is often expressly viewed with distaste, in practice it is very common. The key to<br />

successful ingratiation is that the person does not realize that you are doing this. This usually means<br />

being subtle rather than exaggerated.<br />

Flattery <strong>and</strong> agreement when people have a high opinion of themselves as it is in alignment with their<br />

own views. When they have less self-esteem, flattery acts as a boost <strong>and</strong>, even if the person does not<br />

agree with the comments, they will likely appreciate the kindness.<br />

Flattery <strong>and</strong> agreement work because to reject the flatterer is to reject the positive comments about<br />

oneself. Importantly for persuasion, there is also an exchange dynamic created whereby they feel<br />

obliged to repay the kindness.<br />

A way to make the ingratiation more effective <strong>and</strong> credible is to start with a criticism <strong>and</strong> end with<br />

flattery. If the criticism is of an already known <strong>and</strong> accepted failure or weakness then this will not be<br />

taken badly. The contrast then between the criticism <strong>and</strong> flattery makes it all the more powerful. It also<br />

means you do not need to exaggerate the flattery as much to still have a strong effect.<br />

Rather than stroking the other person, self-presentation works simply on ensuring you look good <strong>and</strong><br />

are likeable. If they like you, then they are more likely to do as you ask.<br />

Appelbaum <strong>and</strong> Hughes (1998) note how ingratiation is used in organizations for internal political<br />

ends, including 'strategic ingratiation' that leads to promotion or pay rise. This includes:<br />

•Befriending <strong>and</strong> helping important people.<br />

•Managing the impression others gain of you.<br />

•Managing the sharing of information for best effect.<br />

•Getting others promoted so you can fill their shoes.<br />

•Doing favors <strong>and</strong> then requesting significant returns.<br />

Organizational politics tend to increase when managers are more powerful <strong>and</strong> autocratic, when<br />

favoritism is common <strong>and</strong> when individuals are forced to compete with one another for management<br />

approval. Ambiguity <strong>and</strong> uncertainty increases this also as individuals hedge against unexpected<br />

criticism.<br />

Ingratiation is not always appreciated <strong>and</strong> may be seen as a low-status, low-self-esteem activity. A way<br />

to make ingratiation fail is to over-do it or use it in cultures where any form of ingratiation is viewed<br />

with distaste or where authenticity is highly valued.<br />

Helping too much is a typical issue, where the ingratiating person upsets the balance of social capital<br />

<strong>and</strong> the target person becomes annoyed by the implied obligation that is put on them. This may explain<br />

why trying to help someone only results in anger <strong>and</strong> unkindness in return.<br />

In some situations where one person assumes a subservience, such as waiting table, ingratiation may be<br />

the norm <strong>and</strong> is expected. Waiters who ingratiate are often likely to receive a higher tip.<br />

175


64. Luncheon Technique<br />

Persuade people over a meal. When they are eating (not before or after), present your ideas <strong>and</strong> make<br />

your persuasive statements.<br />

Make sure the place where you are eating is pleasant <strong>and</strong> comfortable, <strong>and</strong> that the food is of good<br />

quality. It is key that the other person is comfortable <strong>and</strong> feeling satisfied.<br />

Example<br />

A sales person takes a customer to a nice<br />

restaurant. During the meal, they ask more<br />

probing questions about needs <strong>and</strong> then sows<br />

some seeds about future problems. At a later<br />

meal, the sales person finds the person more<br />

open <strong>and</strong> starts to talk about a possible solution.<br />

Why it works<br />

Gregory Razran described this principle in<br />

1938, when he presented political statements to<br />

subjects, first in a normal setting <strong>and</strong> then in other contexts. Statements rated during eating a meal<br />

increase significantly in approval. One reason this may work is by an extended effect of the urge<br />

system, where<br />

hunger creates an urge to eat, <strong>and</strong> whilst we are eating we may more easily take in ideas as well as<br />

food.<br />

If there is alcohol at the meal then this may also impair normal judgement, though this is not a<br />

necessary addition -- the major reason the Luncheon Technique works is food <strong>and</strong> eating, not<br />

drunkenness.<br />

Having lunch with a person takes a certain amount of time, typically around an hour, which is often<br />

more than you might get in a sales meeting. You also have a captive audience who is not distracted by<br />

other intrusions.<br />

There may also be some bonding effect here, where they like you, <strong>and</strong> consequent exchange effect,<br />

where they feel obliged to listen more openly to your persuasive arguments.<br />

176


65. Persuade by Pride, Not Shame<br />

When you want to persuade someone to do<br />

something (or resist doing something), then it is<br />

better focus on the pride they will feel when they<br />

comply with your request rather than the shame<br />

they may feel if they do not comply.<br />

Talk up how good they will feel. Show them that<br />

they can be rightfully proud of doing the best<br />

thing. Let them know that others will agree <strong>and</strong><br />

that this is also something to be proud of.<br />

Example<br />

A mother encourages her son to do his<br />

homework by saying how proud he will be to<br />

have done it early.<br />

In an experiment by Dan Ariely, subjects who<br />

anticipated pride in resisting cake ate far less than those who thought about the shame of succumbing.<br />

The pride group also ate less than the control group who received no admonitions.<br />

Why it works<br />

is notably more effective in most situations.<br />

Positive persuasion generally works better than<br />

negative methods. Negative methods can have<br />

unpredictable results, for example causing a fight-orflight<br />

reaction, or otherwise resulting in some form of<br />

coping, such as reactance.<br />

Positive methods, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, create trust <strong>and</strong><br />

bonding. Suggesting that a person be proud also may<br />

work simply because you are showing you respect<br />

them, resulting in them wanting to reciprocate in some<br />

way. Perhaps more so, the thought of feeling proud just<br />

seems better <strong>and</strong> more attractive than feeling bad <strong>and</strong><br />

ashamed.<br />

This does not mean that pride works better than shame<br />

in all situations. There are always exceptions <strong>and</strong> each<br />

case should be understood on its merits. However, the<br />

point remains that, whilst we mostly use shame, pride<br />

Something else to consider when balancing shame <strong>and</strong> pride is that shame is based on avoidance <strong>and</strong><br />

pride is based on attraction. We each have a preference for attraction or avoidance, so shame may be<br />

more effective for a person with a stronger avoidance driver. Also remember that this is only one factor<br />

<strong>and</strong> even a strong avoider may still be more persuaded by an appeal to pride than to shame.<br />

177


66. Pique Technique<br />

Rather than make a st<strong>and</strong>ard request for something, make an unusual request that leads people to<br />

wonder why you are making that particular request (<strong>and</strong> hence pay attention to you).<br />

If they ask you why you are asking for something novel, then you can engage them in other methods of<br />

persuasion.<br />

Example<br />

Santos, Leve <strong>and</strong> Pratkanis (1994) got a 'panh<strong>and</strong>ler' beggar to ask passersby for money. In the control<br />

conditions, when they asked "Can you spare any change?" 44 percent of passersby complied. When<br />

they asked "Can you spare a quarter?" the compliance rate increased to 64 percent. When they asked<br />

"Can you spare 17 cents?" or "Can you spare 37 cents?" about 75 percent of people made a<br />

contribution.<br />

Ask to meet people at seven minutes past the hour, rather than on the hour.<br />

Why it works<br />

Making a novel request creates surprise, breaking the person out of their schema <strong>and</strong> forces them pay<br />

attention, thinking further about your request in a central processing fashion. The novelty in the request<br />

piques their interest (hence the name of the technique).<br />

Effect.<br />

Note that you do not always want people to think too hard about what they are being asked for. In such<br />

cases, the reverse process should be used, asking for a common thing <strong>and</strong> not something that will pique<br />

interest.<br />

One reason why Santos et all's panh<strong>and</strong>ler experiment worked was that when walking past a beggar,<br />

people try to be 'unthinking', not noticing them, as they remind people of unpleasant possibilities that<br />

'could happen to anyone'. The Pique Technique forces them to think <strong>and</strong> hence act.<br />

178


67. Pre-thanking<br />

If you want to persuade somebody to do something, first ask them to do it <strong>and</strong> then, before they have<br />

time to respond, thank them for doing it.<br />

Example<br />

Hi, can you close the door? Thanks -- that's very<br />

kind of you.<br />

Could you lend me fifty? Thanks, I know it's<br />

awkward but I know you're a great friend <strong>and</strong><br />

I'll pay you back tomorrow.<br />

Why it works<br />

A thanks is an act of closure, sending a signal<br />

for the completion of an agreement. An effusive<br />

thanks (but not over-done) can help cement the<br />

closure. This makes it difficult for the other<br />

person to 're-open' the case <strong>and</strong> contradict this.<br />

Do be careful when doing this -- if you ask for<br />

more than the relationship will bear then the<br />

relationship will suffer as a result, even if the person complies with the request.<br />

It can be useful sometimes to include an apology for having to ask. This increases the obligation to<br />

comply as you have now addressed any irritated thoughts by the other person <strong>and</strong> maybe made them<br />

feel a bit guilty for thinking them (as it seems clear you have 'found them out' for having such<br />

uncharitable thoughts).<br />

A variant on this is to put the thanks before the request. This is not as effective <strong>and</strong> can be quite<br />

irritating.<br />

“Thank you for not putting your feet on the table.”<br />

By putting the thanks beforeh<strong>and</strong>, the other person is initially confused <strong>and</strong> is more likely to feel<br />

deceived by the subsequent request. Having said this, this form of the pattern is common in some<br />

cultures where it is accepted as normal.<br />

179


68. Reframing<br />

Description<br />

A frame, or frame of reference is a complex schema of unquestioned beliefs, values <strong>and</strong> so on that we<br />

use when inferring meaning. If any part of that frame is changed (hence 'reframing'), then the meaning<br />

that is inferred may change.<br />

To reframe, step back from what is being said <strong>and</strong> done <strong>and</strong> consider the frame, or 'lens' through which<br />

this reality is being created. Underst<strong>and</strong> the unspoken assumptions, including beliefs <strong>and</strong> schema that<br />

are being used.<br />

Then consider alternative lenses, effectively saying 'Let's look at it another way.' Challenge the beliefs<br />

or other aspects of the frame. St<strong>and</strong> in another frame <strong>and</strong> describe what you see. Change attributes of<br />

the frame to reverse meaning. Select <strong>and</strong> ignore aspects of words, actions <strong>and</strong> frame to emphasize <strong>and</strong><br />

downplay various elements.<br />

Thus, for example, you can reframe:<br />

•A problem as an opportunity<br />

•A weakness as a strength<br />

•An impossibility as a distant possibility<br />

•A distant possibility as a near possibility<br />

•Oppression ('against me') as neutral ('doesn't care about me')<br />

•Unkindness as lack of underst<strong>and</strong>ing<br />

•etc.<br />

You can often change a person's frame simply by changing their emotional state, making them happier,<br />

more aggressive, etc. When they are happier, for example, they will be more positive <strong>and</strong> optimistic<br />

(<strong>and</strong> vice versa).<br />

Example<br />

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<br />

produce an acceptable product in the timeframe.<br />

It does seem stupid, but it's also stupid not to look again <strong>and</strong> see what else can be done.<br />

It's not so much doing away with old ways as building a new <strong>and</strong> exciting future.<br />

We have shown we can argue well. Maybe this means we can also agree well.<br />

Why it works<br />

Watzlawick, Weakl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Fisch (1974) describe the 'gentle art of reframing' thus:<br />

To reframe, then, means to change the conceptual <strong>and</strong>/or emotional setting or viewpoint in relation to<br />

which a situation is experienced <strong>and</strong> to place it in another frame which fits the 'facts' of the same<br />

concrete situation equally well or even better, <strong>and</strong> thereby changing its entire meaning.<br />

We make meaning from the world around us by taking a limited number of facts <strong>and</strong> inferring or<br />

assuming other detail to be able to make sense of things.<br />

180


Reframing leaves the facts alone but may well challenge the assumptions. With care, you can change<br />

the other person's reality without causing conflict.<br />

Within the inference filters we use, we classify things into groups <strong>and</strong> types which have defining<br />

attributes. Reframing may deliberately challenge these. Watzlawick, Weakl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Fisch describe this<br />

as: In it's most abstract terms, reframing means changing the emphasis from one class membership of<br />

an object to another, equally valid class membership, or, especially, introducing such as new class<br />

membership into the conceptualization of all concerned.<br />

Reframing may also challenge superficial desires, appeal to more fundamental needs <strong>and</strong> interests. For<br />

example a request for a pay rise may be reframed as an imperative to keep talented people.<br />

Reframing may even be done physically <strong>and</strong> symbolically, for example where a social leader goes for<br />

dinner with someone who has hereto been ignored, reframing the person as a friend.<br />

Hale (1998) describes how reframing can be used in dramatic games, for example where people play<br />

roles of victim <strong>and</strong> hero.<br />

Philips (1999) describes three ways reframing happens in active listening:<br />

•Reflecting some words <strong>and</strong> ignoring others.<br />

•Inviting or discouraging collaborative meaning-making on selected topics.<br />

•Reformulating what people say (i.e. common usage of reframing).<br />

Bizer <strong>and</strong> Petty (2005) found that people who framed their political view as in opposition to a political<br />

c<strong>and</strong>idate were more resistant to persuasion than those who were positively supportive of a c<strong>and</strong>idate.<br />

The term 'frame' also appears in the common usage of a 'frame of mind', typically used to describe a<br />

cognitive position or mood. Whilst our current emotional state is not the whole of a perceptual frame, it<br />

is an important element of it <strong>and</strong> changing emotions will change the frame <strong>and</strong> hence created meaning.<br />

Beyond personal perception, all ideologies from political systems to religions are frames for creating<br />

meaning. Cultures, likewise, embody methods of interpreting <strong>and</strong> shared ways of making sense of the<br />

world, as are the models by which we perceive ourselves <strong>and</strong> others. When we share frames with<br />

others, we share meaning. When we have different frames we can easily fall into conflict if we<br />

consider the frames of others to be non-legitimate.<br />

Reframing is a particularly useful method when two or more people are stuck in opposing <strong>and</strong><br />

seemingly-intractable positions. Reframing here effectively changes the ground from under their feet.<br />

It is thus a common method in conflict resolution.<br />

A typical approach is to:<br />

•First get each parties to underst<strong>and</strong> their own frame, <strong>and</strong> that it is a frame.<br />

•Then each must appreciate that other people have different frames that are, for them, valid.<br />

•Then each accepts that no one person has the 'right' frame<br />

•And hence accept that the other person's frame is valid.<br />

•Then to equitably explore similarities <strong>and</strong> differences.<br />

181


69. Reverse Psychology<br />

Get somebody do something you want by suggesting that they do the opposite. This works better when<br />

the other person is worked up <strong>and</strong> making emotional decisions rather than thinking things through.<br />

A common form of reverse psychology is to forbid an action. When you say 'do not X' you are also<br />

implanting the suggestion to do X.<br />

If they say they will do something, you can express doubt that they will do this.<br />

They then have to assert they will do it (<strong>and</strong> then actually do it) to prove you wrong.<br />

If the other person is likely to believe you will use reverse psychology, you can go for a reverse-reverse<br />

effect by suggesting what you want them to do, but perhaps in an oblique <strong>and</strong> non-obvious way.<br />

Example<br />

A father suggests that his rather stingy teenage son cannot afford to buy his sister a birthday present.<br />

The boy reacts by buying her a really nice present.<br />

A student who is fed up with a friend who never helps says 'OK. Don't help.<br />

See if I care'. The friend reacts by helping.<br />

A shy guy is provoked into asking a girl out when a friend suggests he is just not interested in girls.<br />

Why it works<br />

Reactance theory says that people who feel their sense of control is being taken away from them will<br />

grab it back by not doing what they are asked. This can even be actions that are clearly against their<br />

best interests, for example as may occur in reaction formation.<br />

Reverse psychology is more likely to be successful with people who have a high need for control.<br />

Rebellious teenagers who naturally do the opposite of what their parents say are classic targets, as are<br />

Type A people <strong>and</strong> those with narcissistic or even psychopathic tendencies.<br />

Doing a reversal can also be used as a deliberate provocation to wake the other person up to their<br />

unreasonable stance. This requires them to think about what is said, which is quite different to the<br />

normal provocation of reactance which works best when they are in an emotional, unthinking state.<br />

Where the other person may suspect reverse psychology is being used (which is typical of savvy<br />

teenagers), then reversing the reverse may be useful or perhaps using some form of cloaking to confuse<br />

the actual method being used.<br />

It can help if it seems that you do not care what decision they actually make.<br />

There is a danger of reverse psychology backfiring, such as when the person realizes that you are<br />

trying to manipulate them <strong>and</strong> deliberately follows your suggestion as subtle revenge. Even if they<br />

believe you, they may also judge you as bad in some way for not making good decisions.<br />

Another danger is that there is often more than one alternative to what you are suggesting <strong>and</strong> the<br />

person chooses just something else rather than the 'opposite' that you intend.<br />

Rather than cause reactance, you can give indication that you are not forcing their decision, but still<br />

implant the suggestion in a self-reversing denial, for example by saying 'I'm not saying you should X'.<br />

The person now has to consider X but as they are not being asked to do it, they may now take it on<br />

board.<br />

182


70. <strong>Social</strong> Engineering<br />

<strong>Social</strong> Engineering is a term used by computer hackers who seek to get confidential information from<br />

company employees by which they can have their way with company computer systems. The methods<br />

they use are simple <strong>and</strong> effective as illustrated here. The core principle is to play on the trust that<br />

people naturally give to one another. The massive cost is the erosion of trust <strong>and</strong>, in consequence,<br />

society.<br />

Hackers are not the only people to use these methods <strong>and</strong> head-hunters, sales people <strong>and</strong> more may act<br />

as 'social engineers' to extract the information they need from unwitting employees whose first goal is<br />

to get their job done with the minimum hassle.<br />

Principles<br />

Bold impersonation<br />

The basic method the social engineer uses is to phone up a company employee <strong>and</strong> ask them for the<br />

information wanted. Of course employees do not just dish out company secrets--but do they? If they<br />

believe they are talking to another employee then many will happily help a colleague. Impersonation is<br />

thus one of the fundamentals of social engineering.<br />

Learn the lingo<br />

The first trick, before asking for the detail wanted, is to sound like an employee, using company jargon<br />

<strong>and</strong> dropping names of other employees. This may be found in websites, magazines <strong>and</strong> across<br />

conversations, including eavesdropping on the chat of others in nearby bars <strong>and</strong> restaurants.<br />

183


Fragmentation<br />

Information is typically picked up one small piece at a time across multiple conversations <strong>and</strong> one of<br />

the a skills of the social engineer is patient piecing together of all the fragments found into a coherent<br />

picture.<br />

This method also helps avoid detection as each person giving you information sees what they say as<br />

harmless -- it is only in combination that they become powerful.<br />

Techniques<br />

Impersonation<br />

One way to get information is to impersonate a manager, whose authority is less likely to be<br />

challenged. Particularly if the name of a real manager is known, along with details the manager would<br />

know, then many employees would think twice about refusing the request.<br />

At the other end of the scale to managers are the deep techies <strong>and</strong> support people. These folks have<br />

credibility on two counts. First, they might reasonably want to know the detail the social engineer<br />

seeks. They also have the authority of an expert <strong>and</strong> can be framed as 'doing important work' or<br />

'helping angry customer'.<br />

In a similar way HR <strong>and</strong> Finance experts can be impersonated to acquire personal <strong>and</strong> financial<br />

information.<br />

Embedding<br />

The social engineer seldom asks the key question up front but will embed it in the middle of the<br />

conversation. Even after getting the information they need they will ask more questions so the last<br />

thing remembered by the other person is a harmless distraction.<br />

Grooming<br />

The social engineer may build trust with a particular employee, questioning them about various<br />

irrelevant information over a number of calls before asking for the target information. The prior<br />

grooming builds a relationship <strong>and</strong> establishes strong credibility such that a request that would<br />

normally be refused is agreed 'just this once' for the friend.<br />

184


Emergency<br />

When we are faced with a crisis we typically look around for help. The social engineer might thus<br />

create or fake an emergency or some other pretext, from customer issues to computer crashes. They<br />

can then step in as the rescuing hero, although to save the day they do want you to give them that little<br />

bit of extra help - that password or downloading a special patch - that enables the rescue <strong>and</strong> gives<br />

them what they want.<br />

And...<br />

Other techniques include:<br />

•Recording your 'hold' music <strong>and</strong> using it back on you (creating familiarity).<br />

•Tell you your personal credit rating is at risk or otherwise create individual fear.<br />

•Phone spoofing: so the call number you see is not the real source number used<br />

•Dumpster diving: going through your trash for information.<br />

•Phishing: Sending fake emails that request details <strong>and</strong> links to 'lookalike' trick sites.<br />

•Shoulder surfing: Watching you enter key details.<br />

•Remote imaging: Using high-resolution cameras from a distance to capture key information.<br />

•Auditing: Acting like an auditor - in person too.<br />

•Dig elsewhere: on Facebook, in the bar around the corner, on your website,<br />

etc.<br />

Covering tracks<br />

A critical task for the social engineer is to avoid detection. Before the event this could mean<br />

information is refused. Afterwards it could lead to prison. Thus they seldom appear in person,<br />

preferring the more anonymous phone or email. Pay-as-you-go phones are bought (for cash) <strong>and</strong><br />

destroyed afterwards. Even voice-tone shifters may be used if there is risk of recording.<br />

Done well, however, nobody ever knows that the social engineer was ever there. To the people they<br />

spoke to, they were just another caller in a non-stop stream, although perhaps just a bit nicer than the<br />

run-of-the-mill grumpy voice.<br />

Defending against it<br />

<strong>Social</strong> engineers know many more tricks than those discussed here. They get around robust firewalls<br />

<strong>and</strong> other security by exploiting the weakness of human nature.<br />

If you want to defend against what can be highly damaging <strong>and</strong> criminal activities, then the first line of<br />

is a good education about social engineering <strong>and</strong> the methods used.<br />

It can also help to perform a serious analysis of processes <strong>and</strong> procedures around security management,<br />

checking methods by which secure information is supplied <strong>and</strong> how often it is assessed <strong>and</strong> revised.<br />

This should be coupled with assessment <strong>and</strong> trial attacks to prove that the education has worked. If the<br />

attacks succeed, do not blame the people -- it simply means your education was not good enough, so<br />

redouble your efforts to make your people proof to these pernicious problems.<br />

185


71. Truth by Association<br />

Why it works<br />

To produce a convincing argument that something<br />

is true, first associate it with something else that is<br />

already accepted as true.<br />

If necessary, spend time developing the unassailable<br />

truth of the first truth before associating the second<br />

item with it.<br />

Example<br />

The basic equations that prove truth by association are as follows:<br />

A = true;<br />

B is associated with A;<br />

Therefore B = true.<br />

We all know that Shakespeare wrote great plays.<br />

Wilkins was a a good friend of Shakespeare <strong>and</strong><br />

wrote several plays which of course are of high<br />

quality.<br />

You already have a Ford which you've said has<br />

been very reliable, which of course you need. So<br />

let's look at some other Fords.<br />

Our brains are associative <strong>and</strong> easily connect things together. In particular, we assume that if two<br />

things are similar in some way, they are likely to be similar in others ways, including abstractions such<br />

as reliability <strong>and</strong> truth.<br />

This principle is used in br<strong>and</strong>ing where the attributes of one item are assumed to also be found in<br />

another item. In this way we conclude all Volvo cars are strong, Porche's are fast, Toyotas are reliable<br />

<strong>and</strong> so on.<br />

186


72. Using evidence<br />

Evidence in persuasion is a powerful tool <strong>and</strong>, as all lawyers know, needs to be used with care to<br />

achieve the maximum effect.<br />

Increasing effectiveness<br />

Evidence given can be more effective under particular conditions, including when:<br />

•The audience is engaged <strong>and</strong> involved.<br />

•The evidence is given in a form that is easy to underst<strong>and</strong>.<br />

•The persuader is unknown or has lower credibility.<br />

•The evidence is delivered with conviction.<br />

•The evidence has not been heard before.<br />

•The evidence confirms their own perceptions.<br />

•The listener is highly dogmatic (<strong>and</strong> by definition is persuaded by facts).<br />

Engagement<br />

By far the most effective of these is engagement of the audience. If they are intellectually involved in<br />

thinking about the situation <strong>and</strong>, for even greater effect, if they experience the evidence for themselves,<br />

then they will be significantly more likely to be persuaded <strong>and</strong> also more likely to permanently change<br />

their viewpoint.<br />

Narrative<br />

A common <strong>and</strong> effective way of making evidence easy to underst<strong>and</strong> is to put in into a story form,<br />

whereby the listener can more easily engage with the flow <strong>and</strong> sequence of events <strong>and</strong> identify with<br />

major characters.<br />

In telling the overall story, a structure is given into which appropriate evidence is given at appropriate<br />

times. Stories thus help the listener to contextualize the evidence, using the situation to give it sense<br />

<strong>and</strong> reason.<br />

No effect<br />

Research has also shown some surprising results in the lack of effect, <strong>and</strong> things that have been shown<br />

to have little effect on how persuasive is evidence is for the listener:<br />

•The amount of emotion in the evidence.<br />

•Biased evidence.<br />

•Evidence given against oneself ('reluctant evidence').<br />

•Whether the evidence is given live, on tape, etc.<br />

Other things...<br />

Other things to remember about using evidence include:<br />

•Some evidence is better than no evidence.<br />

•Weak evidence may be used to undermine stronger evidence (so think hard about what evidence not to<br />

use).<br />

•Evidence can be more effective in creating permanent change in people.<br />

187


73. Using Images to Persuade<br />

Pictures <strong>and</strong> images are often used in advertising <strong>and</strong> other persuasive situations. Beyond just showing<br />

the product, they can have other specific persuasive messages.<br />

Showing the product<br />

The most basic promotion is simply to show the product, making it clear what you are promoting. If<br />

your customer is not sure what you are selling, this will make it clear.<br />

The secret of success with product images is the same as with any image: emotional appeal. If your<br />

product is desirable, then simply showing an appealing picture of it may suffice. Food <strong>and</strong> high-tech<br />

companies both use this principle.<br />

The risk in simple product shots is that customers are not excited <strong>and</strong> quickly move on, or think 'so<br />

what'. It does not matter if your products excite you, which they probably do. It is the majority of<br />

viewing customers who really count.<br />

Br<strong>and</strong>-alignment<br />

An important part of using images in advertising <strong>and</strong> company literature is ensuring the picture<br />

matches the br<strong>and</strong> of the product <strong>and</strong> the organization.<br />

Hence, for example, if the br<strong>and</strong> value of a detergent is 'soft' then softened photography of people with<br />

soft clothing may help. A br<strong>and</strong> value of 'innovative' may be highlighted with unusual <strong>and</strong> surprising<br />

images. A br<strong>and</strong> value of 'leading edge' may be reflected in views of high technology contexts, young<br />

people being dynamic, active marketplaces <strong>and</strong> so on.<br />

Illustrating action<br />

People don't always underst<strong>and</strong> what you are selling, what it is really for or how to use it to best effect.<br />

Pictures can show this, saying 'here's how to do it' or 'look, it's easy.'<br />

Even if it is obvious, when you show the product being used, you make it easier for people to imagine<br />

themselves using it in the same way as they are interpellated into the position of the person in the<br />

picture.<br />

Telling a story<br />

Stories help us create meaning in the way they narrate a sequential reality that aligns with the linear<br />

nature of conscious thought. In the manner that we make stories of our lives as we live each moment<br />

<strong>and</strong> day, we can likewise make sense of stories that unfold in the same way.<br />

Stories can remind us of things that have already happened to us or that we would like to happen. They<br />

can awaken inner fears <strong>and</strong> desires in a style that flat description cannot approach.<br />

Images can tell stories, even when they are static photographs or drawings. In fact many of the best<br />

pictures are great because of the stories they tell. A person looking out of a window with a dreamy<br />

expression tells a story of wishes or fond memories. A group of friends laughing over a beer reminds<br />

us of our own friends <strong>and</strong> how good they make us feel as we relax with them.<br />

188


Beautiful people<br />

Few adverts use pictures of ordinary people in<br />

ordinary clothing. We are constantly faced with<br />

'shiny, happy people' who beautifully smile at us<br />

<strong>and</strong> always look great, whatever they are selling.<br />

A reason for this is that when we see images of<br />

people, we may be pulled into the image or<br />

project ourselves into it or see it as a kind of<br />

mirror as we identify with the people there. We<br />

can only sustain this if we find that<br />

identification pleasant <strong>and</strong> harmonious,<br />

otherwise we push it away, distancing ourselves<br />

from the unpleasantness.<br />

In this way, the most successful images are<br />

those of people who we think we would like or<br />

who we would like to be.<br />

This only backfires if we feel that we are being<br />

manipulated or have such a poor self-image we<br />

cannot identify with the models used. This is<br />

one reason why adverts that use 'ordinary'<br />

people can effect a reversal that harmonizes<br />

with cynics, snagging them as they push away from more conventional images.<br />

Knowing your audience is the secret of success <strong>and</strong> not-beautiful people can work if this knowledge is<br />

used correctly.<br />

There has been much criticism of the use of<br />

beauty in advertising in the way that it creates<br />

dissatisfaction <strong>and</strong> unhappiness where people<br />

believe they must be as attractive as the people<br />

shown (Richins 1991).<br />

In response to this, more 'ordinary' people are seen<br />

now. This can be successful when viewers find it<br />

easier to associate with those who seem more like<br />

them than like their aspirations.<br />

Facial attraction<br />

No matter whether the person in the photo is<br />

beautiful or not, we are programmed to look at<br />

faces, scanning them for familiarity, threat or<br />

opportunity.<br />

Faces hence have an attentive power all of their<br />

own. It is amazing what we can determine from a<br />

face, recognizing complex emotions <strong>and</strong> noticing<br />

how it responds to what we say <strong>and</strong> do.<br />

189


The mathematics of attractive faces, defined by various ratios <strong>and</strong> dimensions, is quite precise. A<br />

'wide-eyed' face, for example, can cause pleasure or repulsion, with only fractions separating the two.<br />

The faces of babies <strong>and</strong> children are designed by nature to be attractive to adults, softening hearts <strong>and</strong><br />

melting any aggression.<br />

Pictures that are mostly face make us think about the person <strong>and</strong> their character. We hence easily relate<br />

to them. When more of the body is shown, the face becomes smaller <strong>and</strong> we look more at what they are<br />

wearing or doing, as well as the other things around them.<br />

The power of eyes<br />

Melanie Bateson <strong>and</strong> colleagues famously found in 2006 that putting a picture of a pair of eyes above a<br />

coffee pot in a university staff room significantly increased the takings in the honesty box. They tried<br />

different eyes <strong>and</strong> found that the most effective eyes were direct <strong>and</strong> staring.<br />

Dan Ariely has noted that most of us cheat, just a bit, although we still like to think of ourselves as<br />

honest (<strong>and</strong> most certainly want others to think this). So when we believe we are being watched, we are<br />

more honest. The Bateson experiment highlights how this is so deeply ingrained we are even persuaded<br />

by a pair of eyes.<br />

Historical people knew this too, <strong>and</strong> the 'evil eye' <strong>and</strong> protective eye symbols have been used for many,<br />

many years. Even the James Bond '007' moniker originated with the '00' as a pair of eyes, with the<br />

magical number 7 to protect them.<br />

We also follow the gaze of people in pictures, wondering what they are looking at. Hence if a number<br />

of people are shown, looking at your product, then viewers will also end up staring at the product too.<br />

Nice scenery<br />

Another image that people often respond well to is the great outdoors. Pictures of trees, mountains,<br />

lakes <strong>and</strong> meadows make us feel good, which is why so many adverts use such images as backdrops,<br />

even when the product has nothing to do with it.<br />

Nature can also be abstractly included with potted plants in inside scenes or even general green hues<br />

across a picture. The warm glow of the sun or sunsets can alternatively be portrayed with red or orange<br />

hues.<br />

190


74. Using Policy to Persuade<br />

What is policy?<br />

Policy is a set of over-arching rules that are intended to guide <strong>and</strong> direct what people do. To be<br />

understood <strong>and</strong> remembered, they are often (or should be) brief <strong>and</strong> clearly stated. Policy can often be<br />

quite specific, for example a retail policy that limits returns to 30 days. On a company website it may<br />

may be found under other names such as 'Customer charter', 'Our Values' <strong>and</strong> so on.<br />

Selling<br />

When selling, you can use policy as a limit beyond which you cannot go. This allows you to say 'no' in<br />

a final way that brooks no argument. Rather than saying 'I don't want to do that' you can say 'It's<br />

against policy'.<br />

You can also offer to break policy to help customers, for example saying 'It's against policy, but I'm<br />

going to do this for you.' This creates delight in customers who realize you are 'going above <strong>and</strong><br />

beyond' to help them. It also causes obligation for them to do something in return (like buy more).<br />

Buying<br />

When you are going to buy something, it can be helpful to look first at the company's policies that<br />

affect you. These include policies around customer satisfaction, such as 'We aim to delight all our<br />

customers' to price promises <strong>and</strong> guarantees of product quality ('We sell only the best'). Also read<br />

carefully harder policies such as those about returning goods <strong>and</strong> general service.<br />

Now when you are buying, bring up those policies. If you are not happy, ask about their policy about<br />

customer satisfaction. If you have found the product cheaper elsewhere (including on the web) bring up<br />

their price promise. 'I am not happy with this' can be a surprisingly powerful phrase that sends<br />

customer agents scurrying to make you happy, as their policy dem<strong>and</strong>s.<br />

You can even talk policy if you do not know if they have one, by using common sense comments, such<br />

as 'Is it your policy to advertise goods that are not in stock?' This question of 'is it your policy to...' can<br />

be used in a host of settings.<br />

You can also ask about policy in the positive sense, such as 'Is it your policy to try to satisfy<br />

customers?' of course they reply 'yes' <strong>and</strong> then you can say what it will take to satisfy you.<br />

Service interactions<br />

Invoking policy when taking to people on the phone can be especially powerful, particularly when they<br />

seem not to care too much about helping you (in fact they may invoke policies about things they are<br />

not allowed to do).<br />

You can use much of the approach for buying in the service context <strong>and</strong> the 'Is it your policy...'<br />

phrasing can be very successful.<br />

Bringing up policy can seem quite threatening, so it can be better to use this method if they do not offer<br />

the help that you need after initial repeating requests.<br />

191


75. Information <strong>Manipulation</strong><br />

In order to persuade or deceive, a person deliberately breaks one of the four conversational maxims:<br />

•Quantity: Information given will be full (as per expected by the listener) <strong>and</strong> without omission.<br />

•Quality: information given will be truthful <strong>and</strong> correct.<br />

•Relation: information will be relevant to the subject matter of the conversation in h<strong>and</strong>.<br />

•Manner: things will be presented in a way that enables others to underst<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> with aligned nonverbal<br />

language.<br />

It is used to persuade by omitting information, telling untruths, going off the subject <strong>and</strong> confusing the<br />

other person. Use excuses. Be economical with the truth.<br />

Example<br />

A student is late h<strong>and</strong>ing in an essay. They approach the lecture trembling <strong>and</strong> weeping, saying how<br />

they have just been dumped by their long-term partner <strong>and</strong> forgot to h<strong>and</strong> in the essay (they had done it<br />

in time, honestly!).<br />

Defending against it<br />

Question what you are told, especially when you find yourself changing your mind as a result. Probe<br />

for detail. Seek corroborating evidence. Watch the body language.<br />

192


76. Leveling as a <strong>Manipulation</strong> Tactic:<br />

Equating One’s Character with Someone Else’s<br />

One of the more subtle but nonetheless highly effective responsibility-avoidance <strong>and</strong> manipulation<br />

tactics is “leveling.” Leveling refers to the manipulator’s attempt to put himself on equal st<strong>and</strong>ing with<br />

others of different character. It generally takes two forms: setting oneself up as a person of equal<br />

stature to a person in authority; <strong>and</strong> trying to equate one’s own character, personal value, integrity, etc.<br />

with someone else’s, especially one of more mature or superior character.<br />

Leveling is a slick way to try <strong>and</strong> “level the playing field” or field of interpersonal contest. Once, I<br />

witnessed a woman confronting her husb<strong>and</strong> about his frequent displays of verbal abuse. She stated:<br />

“I’d like you to simply ask me for what you need instead of launching into me, cursing, <strong>and</strong> berating<br />

me. When I want something from you, I ask for it.” His retort, in a very provocative tone: “Are you<br />

saying you’re better than me?” The implied message he was sending was that the two of them were of<br />

equal character st<strong>and</strong>ing — just two human beings of equal worth. He was also implying that the wife<br />

was being dem<strong>and</strong>ing or “uppity” by challenging him to do things differently (<strong>and</strong> insinuating that her<br />

way was better than his way).<br />

Now classical psychology would have us thinking that the woman’s confrontation represented a<br />

“threat” to her husb<strong>and</strong>’s “ego” <strong>and</strong> that his response was “defensive.” Further, the popular wisdom<br />

would reinforce the notion that both of these individuals are human beings of equal value, although the<br />

behavior patterns of each may not be equally laudable. The woman in the above example may or may<br />

not have been familiar with the tenets of classical psychology or the many commonly accepted beliefs<br />

that flow from it, but she was definitely vulnerable to the tactic. Instead of thinking to herself, “This is<br />

just another way he’s trying to take the wind out of my sails <strong>and</strong> put me in my place,” she thought,<br />

“Maybe I am putting him down <strong>and</strong> of course I don’t mean to imply that I’m better he is, so I’ll back<br />

off.” So, in the end, she did just as he wanted <strong>and</strong> the tactic worked.<br />

The tactic of leveling surfaces as an insidious <strong>and</strong> subtle challenge to the therapist’s authority<br />

whenever manipulators enter counseling. Dr George Simon tells: Whenever I introduce myself as “Dr.<br />

Simon” (an advanced-degree trained professional) to a manipulator, it’s almost inevitable that he or she<br />

will say something like: “May I call you George?” It may seem like a petty issue to be concerned with,<br />

but such statements almost always represent the first subtle step down the slippery slope of resisting<br />

the guidance <strong>and</strong> direction that are so essential when providing services to the manipulator. Remember,<br />

what manipulators need in the therapy experience is not at all the same as what therapists most often<br />

provide to average “neurotics.” (See “Neurosis vs. Character Disorder: Contrasting Needs in<br />

Therapy”.) I always politely say that I prefer “Dr. Simon” <strong>and</strong> then observe carefully their response to<br />

my endorsement of the authority position for indications that they have any modicum of motivation to<br />

accept therapeutic guidance. By the way, many of my long-term “neurotic” patients call me George<br />

(<strong>and</strong> I’m very okay with that) even though their own high levels of conscientiousness <strong>and</strong> respect for<br />

authority prompted them to address me as “Doctor” at first.<br />

There’s a lot more I could say about the tactic of leveling. As I mentioned earlier, it’s often done with<br />

such subtlety that it’s hard to detect, but it’s almost always effective. It’s also a behavior that intensely<br />

interferes with the process of developing any respect for authority or for the value of certain principles<br />

or st<strong>and</strong>ards. Not everything is equal. Some values, beliefs, principles, <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ards of conduct are<br />

superior to others. Respect for that makes civilization possible. Contempt <strong>and</strong> disregard for that<br />

through the use of “leveling” techniques allows the manipulator to set his own rules <strong>and</strong> wreak havoc<br />

in the lives of others.<br />

193


77. Appeal to Authority<br />

Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority,<br />

Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam<br />

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:<br />

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.<br />

Person A makes claim C about subject S.<br />

Therefore, C is true.<br />

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More<br />

formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be<br />

fallacious.<br />

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person<br />

in question is not an expert. In such cases the<br />

reasoning is flawed because the fact that an<br />

unqualified person makes a claim does not provide<br />

any justification for the claim. The claim could be<br />

true, but the fact that an unqualified person made<br />

the claim does not provide any rational reason to<br />

accept the claim as true.<br />

When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are<br />

accepting a claim as true without there being<br />

adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the<br />

person is accepting the claim because they<br />

erroneously believe that the person making the<br />

claim is a legitimate expert <strong>and</strong> hence that the<br />

claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a<br />

tendency to believe authorities (<strong>and</strong> there are, in<br />

fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by<br />

authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.<br />

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when<br />

the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some<br />

acceptable st<strong>and</strong>ards of assessment. The following st<strong>and</strong>ards are widely accepted:<br />

The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.<br />

Claims made by a person who lacks the needed degree of expertise to make a reliable claim will,<br />

obviously, not be well supported. In contrast, claims made by a person with the needed degree of<br />

expertise will be supported by the person's reliability in the area.<br />

Determining whether or not a person has the needed degree of expertise can often be very difficult. In<br />

academic fields (such as philosophy, engineering, history, etc.), the person's formal education,<br />

academic performance, publications, membership in professional societies, papers presented, awards<br />

won <strong>and</strong> so forth can all be reliable indicators of expertise. Outside of academic fields, other st<strong>and</strong>ards<br />

will apply. For example, having sufficient expertise to make a reliable claim about how to tie a shoe<br />

lace only requires the ability to tie the shoe lace <strong>and</strong> impart that information to others. It should be<br />

noted that being an expert does not always require having a university degree. Many people have high<br />

194


degrees of expertise in sophisticated subjects without having ever attended a university. Further, it<br />

should not be simply assumed that a person with a degree is an expert.<br />

Of course, what is required to be an expert is often a matter of great debate. For example, some people<br />

have (<strong>and</strong> do) claim expertise in certain (even all) areas because of a divine inspiration or a special gift.<br />

The followers of such people accept such credentials as establishing the person's expertise while others<br />

often see these self-proclaimed experts as deluded or even as charlatans. In other situations, people<br />

debate over what sort of education <strong>and</strong> experience is needed to be an expert. Thus, what one person<br />

may take to be a fallacious appeal another person might take to be a well supported line of reasoning.<br />

Fortunately, many cases do not involve such debate.<br />

The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.<br />

If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the person is not<br />

an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise<br />

<strong>and</strong> is not reliable.<br />

It is very important to remember that because of the vast scope of human knowledge <strong>and</strong> skill it is<br />

simply not possible for one person to be an expert on everything. Hence, experts will only be true<br />

experts in respect to certain subject areas. In most other areas they will have little or no expertise. Thus,<br />

it is important to determine what subject area a claim falls under.<br />

It is also very important to note that expertise in one area does not automatically confer expertise in<br />

another. For example, being an expert physicist does not automatically make a person an expert on<br />

morality or politics. Unfortunately, this is often overlooked or intentionally ignored. In fact, a great<br />

deal of advertising rests on a violation of this condition. As anyone who watches television knows, it is<br />

extremely common to get famous actors <strong>and</strong> sports heroes to endorse products that they are not<br />

qualified to assess. For example, a person may be a great actor, but that does not automatically make<br />

him an expert on cars or shaving or underwear or diets or politics.<br />

There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.<br />

If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will<br />

fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any<br />

claim being made <strong>and</strong> "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made <strong>and</strong><br />

"supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such<br />

cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side<br />

in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority.<br />

There are many fields in which there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute. Economics is a good<br />

example of such a disputed field. Anyone who is familiar with economics knows that there are many<br />

plausible theories that are incompatible with one another. Because of this, one expert economist could<br />

sincerely claim that the deficit is the key factor while another equally qualified individual could assert<br />

the exact opposite. Another area where dispute is very common (<strong>and</strong> well known) is in the area of<br />

psychology <strong>and</strong> psychiatry. As has been demonstrated in various trials, it is possible to find one expert<br />

that will assert that an individual is insane <strong>and</strong> not competent to st<strong>and</strong> trial <strong>and</strong> to find another equally<br />

qualified expert who will testify, under oath, that the same individual is both sane <strong>and</strong> competent to<br />

st<strong>and</strong> trial. Obviously, one cannot rely on an Appeal to Authority in such a situation without making a<br />

fallacious argument. Such an argument would be fallacious since the evidence would not warrant<br />

accepting the conclusion.<br />

It is important to keep in mind that no field has complete agreement, so some degree of dispute is<br />

acceptable. How much is acceptable is, of course, a matter of serious debate. It is also important to<br />

195


keep in mind that even a field with a great deal of internal dispute might contain areas of significant<br />

agreement. In such cases, an Appeal to Authority could be legitimate.<br />

The person in question is not significantly biased.<br />

If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his are of bias will be less reliable.<br />

Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be<br />

fallacious. This is because the evidence will not justify accepting the claim.<br />

Experts, being people, are vulnerable to biases <strong>and</strong> predjudices. If there is evidence that a person is<br />

biased in some manner that would affect the reliability of her claims, then an Argument from Authority<br />

based on that person is likely to be fallacious. Even if the claim is actually true, the fact that the expert<br />

is biased weakens the argument. This is because there would be reason to believe that the expert might<br />

not be making the claim because he has carefully considered it using his expertise. Rather, there would<br />

be reason to believe that the claim is being made because of the expert's bias or prejudice.<br />

It is important to remember that no person is completely objective. At the very least, a person will be<br />

favorable towards her own views (otherwise she would probably not hold them). Because of this, some<br />

degree of bias must be accepted, provided that the bias is not significant. What counts as a significant<br />

degree of bias is open to dispute <strong>and</strong> can vary a great deal from case to case. For example, many people<br />

would probably suspect that doctors who were paid by tobacco companies to research the effects of<br />

smoking would be biased while other people might believe (or claim) that they would be able to remain<br />

objective.<br />

The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.<br />

Certain areas in which a person may claim expertise may have no legitimacy or validity as areas of<br />

knowledge or study. Obviously, claims made in such areas will not be very reliable.<br />

What counts as a legitimate area of expertise is sometimes difficult to determine. However, there are<br />

cases which are fairly clear cut. For example, if a person claimed to be an expert at something he called<br />

"chromabullet therapy" <strong>and</strong> asserted that firing painted rifle bullets at a person would cure cancer it<br />

would not be very reasonable to accept his claim based on his "expertise." After all, his expertise is in<br />

an area which is devoid of legitimate content. The general idea is that to be a legitimate expert a person<br />

must have mastery over a real field or area of knowledge.<br />

As noted above, determining the legitimacy of a field can often be difficult. In European history,<br />

various scientists had to struggle with the Church <strong>and</strong> established traditions to establish the validity of<br />

their discliplines. For example, experts on evolution faced an uphill battle in getting the legitimacy of<br />

their area accepted.<br />

A modern example involves psychic phenomenon. Some people claim that they are certified "master<br />

psychics" <strong>and</strong> that they are actually experts in the field. Other people contend that their claims of being<br />

certified "master psychics" are simply absurd since there is no real content to such an area of expertise.<br />

If these people are right, then anyone who accepts the claims of these "master psychics" as true are<br />

victims of a fallacious appeal to authority.<br />

196


The authority in question must be identified.<br />

A common variation of the typical Appeal to Authority fallacy is an Appeal to an Unnamed Authority.<br />

This fallacy is also known as an Appeal to an Unidentified Authority.<br />

This fallacy is committed when a person asserts that a claim is true because an expert or authority<br />

makes the claim <strong>and</strong> the person does not actually identify the expert. Since the expert is not named or<br />

identified, there is no way to tell if the person is actually an expert. Unless the person is identified <strong>and</strong><br />

has his expertise established, there is no reason to accept the claim.<br />

This sort of reasoning is not unusual. Typically, the person making the argument will say things like "I<br />

have a book that says...", or "they say...", or "the experts say...", or "scientists believe that...", or "I read<br />

in the paper.." or "I saw on TV..." or some similar statement. in such cases the person is often hoping<br />

that the listener(s) will simply accept the unidentified source as a legitimate authority <strong>and</strong> believe the<br />

claim being made. If a person accepts the claim simply because they accept the unidentified source as<br />

an expert (without good reason to do so), he has fallen prey to this fallacy.<br />

As suggested above, not all Appeals to Authority are fallacious. This is fortunate since people have to<br />

rely on experts. This is because no one person can be an expert on everything <strong>and</strong> people do not have<br />

the time or ability to investigate every single claim themselves.<br />

In many cases, Arguments from Authority will be good arguments. For example, when a person goes<br />

to a skilled doctor <strong>and</strong> the doctor tells him that he has a cold, then the the patient has good reason to<br />

accept the doctor's conclusion. As another example, if a person's computer is acting odd <strong>and</strong> his friend,<br />

who is a computer expert, tells him it is probably his hard drive then he has good reason to believe her.<br />

What distinguishes a fallacious Appeal to Authority from a good Appeal to Authority is that the<br />

argument meets the six conditions discussed above.<br />

In a good Appeal to Authority, there is reason to believe the claim because the expert says the claim is<br />

true. This is because a person who is a legitimate expert is more likely to be right than wrong when<br />

making considered claims within her area of expertise. In a sense, the claim is being accepted because<br />

it is reasonable to believe that the expert has tested the claim <strong>and</strong> found it to be reliable. So, if the<br />

expert has found it to be reliable, then it is reasonable to accept it as being true. Thus, the listener is<br />

accepting a claim based on the testimony of the expert.<br />

It should be noted that even a good Appeal to Authority is not an exceptionally strong argument. After<br />

all, in such cases a claim is being accepted as true simply because a person is asserting that it is true.<br />

The person may be an expert, but her expertise does not really bear on the truth of the claim. This is<br />

because the expertise of a person does not actually determine whether the claim is true or false. Hence,<br />

arguments that deal directly with evidence relating to the claim itself will tend to be stronger.<br />

197


Examples of Appeal to Authority<br />

Dave <strong>and</strong> Kintaro are arguing about Stalin's reign in the Soviet Union.<br />

Dave has been arguing that Stalin was a great leader while Kintaro disagrees with him.<br />

Kintaro: "I don't see how you can consider Stalin to be a great leader. He killed millions of his<br />

own people, he crippled the Soviet economy, kept most of the people in fear <strong>and</strong> laid the<br />

foundations for the violence that is occuring in much of Eastern Europe."<br />

Dave: "Yeah, well you say that. However, I have a book at home that says that Stalin was<br />

acting in the best interest of the people. The millions that were killed were vicious enemies of<br />

the state <strong>and</strong> they had to be killed to protect the rest of the peaceful citizens. This book lays it<br />

all out, so it has to be true."<br />

I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the hit series "Bimbos <strong>and</strong> Studmuffins in the OR." You can<br />

take it from me that when you need a fast acting, effective <strong>and</strong> safe pain killer there is nothing<br />

better than MorphiDope 2000. That is my considered medical opinion.<br />

Siphwe <strong>and</strong> Sasha are having a conversation:<br />

Sasha: "I played the lottery today <strong>and</strong> I know I am going to win something."<br />

Siphwe: "What did you do, rig the outcome?"<br />

Sasha: "No, silly. I called my Super Psychic Buddy at the 1-900-MindPower number. After<br />

consulting his magic Californian Tarot deck, he told me my lucky numbers."<br />

Siphwe: "And you believed him?"<br />

Sasha: "Certainly, he is a certified Californian Master-Mind Psychic. That is why I believe<br />

what he has to say. I mean, like, who else would know what my lucky numbers are?"<br />

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

198


78. Use Double Talk<br />

hokum bunkum.<br />

Have you ever been confused, befuddled, or<br />

annoyed by the speech or method of<br />

communication of another person? Have you<br />

ever listened to someone talk <strong>and</strong> had no idea<br />

what they just said? Double talk, also known<br />

as double speak, is defined as, "deliberately<br />

ambiguous or evasive language." Other<br />

colorful words to describe it are: balderdash,<br />

baloney, hokum, bunkum, drivel, flimflam,<br />

rigmarole, <strong>and</strong> waffling. Hokum <strong>and</strong> bunkum<br />

are my favorites on that list. Sometimes the<br />

language is gibberish mixed in with normal<br />

speech.<br />

Both double talk <strong>and</strong> double speak may be<br />

used in different forms, but with the same<br />

intent, which is to deceive, mislead, <strong>and</strong>/or<br />

withhold information. Watch out for<br />

manipulative double talkers, people who try to<br />

dazzle you with big words <strong>and</strong> intellectual<br />

double-talk. They want to drag you off into<br />

endless arguments that never amount to<br />

anything." It is very unpleasant to be taken<br />

advantage of, <strong>and</strong> this is a vile form of it.<br />

Always mean what you say <strong>and</strong> avoid those<br />

who don't. If someone tries to manipulate you<br />

with double talk, just tell them they are full of<br />

Sometimes it is difficult to muddle through the muck <strong>and</strong> mire of what was said. This "technique," if<br />

you will, is often used by politicians. They go around the world, so to speak, to supposedly answer a<br />

question, <strong>and</strong> when they are finished, they are hoping that no one noticed that the question was never<br />

really answered. It is very frustrating, isn't it? It is also insulting to your intelligence <strong>and</strong> sense of<br />

reason.<br />

Wikipedia encyclopedia<br />

Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words.<br />

Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs, "servicing the target"<br />

for bombing, in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also<br />

refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning (for example, naming a<br />

state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth. Doublespeak is most<br />

closely associated with political language.<br />

The term doublespeak probably has its roots in George Orwell's book, Nineteen Eighty-Four. Although<br />

the term is not used in the book, it is a close relative of one of the book's central concepts, Doublethink.<br />

Another variant, doubletalk, also referring to deliberately ambiguous speech, did exist at the time<br />

Orwell wrote his book, but the usage of doublespeak as well as of doubletalk in the sense emphasizing<br />

ambiguity clearly postdates the publication of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Parallels have also been drawn<br />

between Doublespeak <strong>and</strong> Orwell's classic essay Politics <strong>and</strong> the English Language, which discusses<br />

the distortion of language for political purposes.<br />

199


Edward S. Herman, political economist <strong>and</strong> media analyst, has highlighted some examples of<br />

doublespeak <strong>and</strong> doublethink in modern society. Herman describes in his book, Beyond Hypocrisy the<br />

principle characteristics of doublespeak;<br />

What is really important in the world of doublespeak is<br />

the ability to lie, whether knowingly or unconsciously,<br />

<strong>and</strong> to get away with it; <strong>and</strong> the ability to use lies <strong>and</strong><br />

choose <strong>and</strong> shape facts selectively, blocking out those<br />

that don’t fit an agenda or program. In his essay<br />

"Politics <strong>and</strong> the English Language", George Orwell<br />

observes that political language serves to distort <strong>and</strong><br />

obfuscate reality. Orwell’s description of political<br />

speech is extremely similar to the contemporary<br />

definition of doublespeak;<br />

In our time, political speech <strong>and</strong> writing are largely the<br />

defense of the indefensible… Thus political language<br />

has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging<br />

<strong>and</strong> sheer cloudy vagueness… the great enemy of clear<br />

language is insincerity. Where there is a gap between<br />

one's real <strong>and</strong> one's declared aims, one turns as it were<br />

instinctively to long words <strong>and</strong> exhausted idioms, ...<br />

Theoretical Approaches although the theories that<br />

premise doublespeak are still indefinite, there are some<br />

theories that have parallels with the theory of<br />

doublespeak <strong>and</strong> Orwell's ideology in Nineteen Eighty-Four <strong>and</strong> might possibly provide a better<br />

underst<strong>and</strong>ing of where doublespeak's theories could have come from.<br />

Conflict Theory<br />

Due to the inherently deceptive nature of doublespeak as well as its prominent use in politics,<br />

doublespeak has been linked to the sociological perspective known as conflict theory. Conflict theories<br />

detract from ideas of society being naturally in harmony, instead placing emphasis on political <strong>and</strong><br />

material inequality as its structural features. Antonio Gramsci's concepts on cultural hegemony, in<br />

particular, suggest that the culture <strong>and</strong> values of the economic elite – the bourgeoisie – become<br />

indoctrinated as ‘common sense’ to the working-class, allowing for the maintenance of the status quo<br />

through misplaced belief. Being himself one of the leaders of the Communist Party of Italy, (CPI), his<br />

theories had, in turn, been strongly influenced by the German social thinker Karl Marx, <strong>and</strong> have their<br />

ideological roots grounded in Marxist theory of false consciousness <strong>and</strong> capitalist exploitation. While<br />

Gramsci's views argue that culture (beliefs, perceptions <strong>and</strong> values) allows the ruling class to maintain<br />

domination, Marx's explanation is along more economic lines, with concepts such as commodity<br />

fetishism demonstrating how the ideology of the bourgeoisie (in this case, the existence of property as<br />

a social creation rather than an 'eternal entity') dominate over that of the working classes. In both cases,<br />

both philosophers argue that one view - that of the bourgeoisie - dominates over others, hence the term<br />

conflict theory.<br />

On the other h<strong>and</strong>, Terrence P. Moran of the NCTE has compared the use of doublespeak in the mass<br />

media to laboratory experiments conducted on rats, where a batch of rats were deprived of food, before<br />

one half was fed sugar <strong>and</strong> water <strong>and</strong> the other half a saccharine solution. Both groups exhibited<br />

behavior indicating that their hunger was satisfied, but rats in the second group (which were fed<br />

saccharine solution) died from malnutrition. Moran highlights the structural nature of doublespeak, <strong>and</strong><br />

notes that social institutions such as the mass media adopt an active, top-down approach in managing<br />

opinion. Therefore, Moran parallels doublespeak to producing an illusionary effect;<br />

200


This experiment suggests certain analogies between the environments created for rats by the scientists<br />

<strong>and</strong> the environments created for us humans by language <strong>and</strong> the various mass media of<br />

communication. Like the saccharine environment, an environment created or infiltrated by doublespeak<br />

provides the appearance of nourishment <strong>and</strong> the promise of survival, but the appearance is illusionary<br />

<strong>and</strong> the promise false.<br />

Contemporary writings<br />

Doublespeak might also have some connections with contemporary theories as well. Edward S.<br />

Herman <strong>and</strong> Noam Chomsky note in their book that Orwellian Doublespeak is an important component<br />

of the manipulation of the English language in American media, through a process called<br />

‘dichotomization’; a component of media propag<strong>and</strong>a involving ‘deeply embedded double st<strong>and</strong>ards in<br />

the reporting of news’. For example, the use of state funds by the poor <strong>and</strong> financially needy is<br />

commonly referred to as 'social welfare' or 'h<strong>and</strong>outs', which the 'coddled' poor 'take advantage of'.<br />

These terms, however, do not apply to other beneficiaries of government spending such as tax<br />

incentives <strong>and</strong> military spending.<br />

E xamples of the structural nature of the<br />

use of Doublespeak have been made by<br />

modern scholars. Noam Chomsky argues in<br />

Manufacturing Consent: The Political<br />

Economy of the Mass Media that people in<br />

modern society consist of decision-makers<br />

<strong>and</strong> social participants who have to be<br />

made to agree. According to Chomsky, the<br />

media <strong>and</strong> public relations industry actively<br />

shape public opinion, working to present<br />

messages in line with their economic<br />

agenda for the purposes of controlling of<br />

the 'public mind'. Contrary to the popular<br />

belief that indoctrination is inconsistent<br />

with democracy, Chomsky goes so far as to<br />

argue that 'it's the essence of democracy.'<br />

The point is that in a ... totalitarian state, it<br />

doesn't much matter what people think<br />

because ... you can control what they do.<br />

But when the state loses the bludgeon,<br />

when you can't control people by force <strong>and</strong><br />

when the voice of the people can be heard,<br />

... you have to control what people think.<br />

And the st<strong>and</strong>ard way to do this is to resort to what in more honest days used to be called propag<strong>and</strong>a.<br />

Manufacture of consent. Creation of necessary illusions.<br />

Edward Herman's book Beyond Hypocrisy also includes a doublespeak dictionary of commonly<br />

employed media terms <strong>and</strong> phrases into plain English.<br />

Henceforth, conflict theory demonstrates the dominating ideology of the bourgeoisie <strong>and</strong> Moran's<br />

theory highlights that doublespeak produces an illusionary effect; both theories having parallels to<br />

Orwell's ideology in Nineteen Eighty-Four. Similarly, Herman's theory of doublespeak having an<br />

inherent nature to be manipulative <strong>and</strong> Chomsky's theory of 'dichotomization' relates directly to the<br />

practice of doublespeak <strong>and</strong> how doublespeak is deliberately deceptive in nature.<br />

201


79. Impression Management<br />

How long do you think others take to have an impression about you <strong>and</strong> judge you? 30 seconds? 15<br />

seconds? 5 seconds? Well, forget whatever figure you may have heard because some of the new<br />

research says it could happen with the blink of an eye. One look is all it takes to make an opinion about<br />

you <strong>and</strong> 'label' you. Unfair - you say? Think about it, even we do it.<br />

It happens at a sub-conscious level but more often than<br />

not you make an impression about someone the<br />

moment you meet them. According to one study, where<br />

untrained subjects were shown 20- to 32-second videotaped<br />

segments of job applicants greeting interviewers,<br />

the subjects were asked to rate the applicants on<br />

attributes such as self-assurance <strong>and</strong> likability.<br />

Surprisingly, their assessments were very close to those<br />

of trained interviewers who spent at least 20 minutes<br />

with each applicant.<br />

Our brain the takes first-impression snapshots, creating<br />

a composite of all the signals given off by a new<br />

experience. These usually are a holistic phenomenon in<br />

which clues which could include, mellifluous voice,<br />

Rolex watch, soggy h<strong>and</strong>shake, hunched shoulders, etc,<br />

are processed at once to form an impression larger than their sum. When you see a person with a Rolex<br />

watch, your brain automatically processes the information <strong>and</strong> tells you that this person is well to do.<br />

First impressions are very important to a person whether in there career or private lives. We do not get<br />

a second chance, thus, we should be aware about making a good impression the first time around.<br />

Using Impression management in your daily lives<br />

•Once you underst<strong>and</strong> the impact of first impressions, it is time to get your act together <strong>and</strong> use this<br />

knowledge to your advantage. A better first impression will give you an edge over others around you.<br />

•It's all about the effort - You cannot make good first impressions without making an effort. Be aware<br />

of the situation <strong>and</strong> your surroundings. From your clothes to your accessories to your h<strong>and</strong>shake to<br />

even your smile - everything matters. Positivity <strong>and</strong> confidence will always shine through- people like<br />

those who are sure of themselves.<br />

•Power of Introduction - We under-estimate the power of introduction which is a very important tool. It<br />

is advisable to have two different introductions, one you can use in a formal/business gathering <strong>and</strong> the<br />

other for a social gathering. Write it down on a piece of paper, add your achievments, make it consise<br />

but effective. Practice saying it in front of the mirror with confidence till it comes naturally to you. The<br />

next time you introduce yourself, you will surely make a great first impression.<br />

•Maintaining the impression - Once you manage to create a good impression, make sure to maintain it.<br />

You cannot come across as confident <strong>and</strong> jovial one day <strong>and</strong> snobbish on the next day. It is about<br />

creating a consistency in your impression which will then add on to your image.<br />

Your impression <strong>and</strong> image will influence the br<strong>and</strong> you create for yourself, you may refer to my<br />

article on 'personal br<strong>and</strong>ing' - which will definitely give you an edge over others in the midst of all the<br />

competition. 'Impress' away <strong>and</strong> capture success!<br />

Source: http://rikabothra.hubpages.com/hub/Create-an-Impression<br />

202


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br />

In sociology <strong>and</strong> social psychology, impression management is a goal-directed conscious or<br />

unconscious process in which people attempt to influence the perceptions of other people about a<br />

person, object or event; they do so by regulating <strong>and</strong> controlling information in social interaction<br />

(Piwinger & Ebert 2001, pp. 1–2). It is usually used synonymously with self-presentation, in which a<br />

person tries to influence the perception of their image. The notion of impression management also<br />

refers to practices in professional communication <strong>and</strong> public relations, where the term is used to<br />

describe the process of formation of a company's or organization's public image.<br />

Self-presentation<br />

While impression management <strong>and</strong> self-presentation or giving Face are often used interchangeably,<br />

some authors have argued that they are not the same. In particular, Schlenker (1980) believed that selfpresentation<br />

should be used to describe attempts to control ‘self-relevant’ (pp. 6) images projected in<br />

“real or imagined social interactions’. This is because people may manage impressions of entities other<br />

than themselves such as businesses, cities <strong>and</strong> other individuals (Leary & Kowalski 1990).<br />

Motives <strong>and</strong> strategies<br />

Self-presentation is expressive. We construct an image of<br />

ourselves to claim personal identity, <strong>and</strong> present ourselves<br />

in a manner that is consistent with that image. If we feel<br />

like this is restricted, we exhibit reactance/be defiant. We<br />

try to assert our freedom against those who would seek to<br />

curtail our self-presentation expressiveness. A classic<br />

example is the idea of the "preacher’s daughter", whose<br />

suppressed personal identity <strong>and</strong> emotions cause an<br />

eventual backlash at her family <strong>and</strong> community.<br />

People adopt many different impression management<br />

strategies.<br />

One of them is ingratiation, where we use flattery or praise<br />

to increase our social attractiveness by highlighting our<br />

better characteristics so that others will like us (Schlenker 1980, pp. 169).<br />

Another strategy is intimidation, which is aggressively showing anger to get others to hear <strong>and</strong> obey us.<br />

A strategy that has garnered a great amount of research attention is self-h<strong>and</strong>icapping. In this case<br />

people create 'obstacles' <strong>and</strong> 'excuses’ (Aronson et al. 2009, pp. 174) for themselves so that they can<br />

avoid self-blame when they do poorly. People who self-h<strong>and</strong>icap choose to blame their failures on<br />

obstacles such as drugs <strong>and</strong> alcohol rather than their own lack of ability. Other individuals devise<br />

excuses such as shyness, anxiety, negative mood or physical symptoms as reasons for their failure.<br />

Concerning the strategies followed to establish a certain impression, the main distinction is between<br />

defensive <strong>and</strong> assertive strategies. Whereas defensive strategies include behaviours like avoidance of<br />

threatening situations or means of self-h<strong>and</strong>icapping, assertive strategies refer to more active behaviour<br />

like the verbal idealisation of the self, the use of status symbols or similar practices.<br />

These strategies play important roles in one's maintenance of self-esteem. One's self-esteem is affected<br />

by his evaluation of his own performance <strong>and</strong> his perception of how others react to his performance.<br />

As a result, people actively portray impressions that will elicit self-esteem enhancing reactions from<br />

others.<br />

203


Theory<br />

Impression management (IM) theory states that any individual or organization must establish <strong>and</strong><br />

maintain impressions that are congruent with the perceptions they want to convey to their publics.<br />

From both a communications <strong>and</strong> public relations viewpoint, the theory of impression management<br />

encompasses the vital ways in which one establishes <strong>and</strong> communicates this congruence between<br />

personal or organizational goals <strong>and</strong> their intended actions which create public perception.<br />

The idea that perception is reality is the basis for this sociological <strong>and</strong> social psychology<br />

theory,[citation needed] which is framed around the presumption that the other’s perceptions of you or<br />

your organization become the reality from which they form ideas <strong>and</strong> the basis for intended behaviors.<br />

Basic factors<br />

A range of factors that govern impression management can be identified. It can be stated that<br />

impression management becomes necessary whenever there exists a kind of social situation, whether<br />

real or imaginary. Logically, the awareness of being a potential subject of monitoring is also crucial.<br />

Furthermore, the characteristics of a given social situation are important. Specifically, the surrounding<br />

cultural norms determine the appropriateness of particular nonverbal behaviours. The actions have to<br />

be appropriate to the targets, <strong>and</strong> within that culture, so that the kind of audience as well as the relation<br />

to the audience influences the way impression management is realized. A person's goals are another<br />

factor governing the ways <strong>and</strong> strategies of impression management. This refers to the content of an<br />

assertion, which also leads to distinct ways of presentation of aspects of the self. The degree of selfefficacy<br />

describes whether a person is convinced that it is possible to convey the intended impression.<br />

A new study finds that, all other things being equal,<br />

people are more likely to pay attention to faces that<br />

have been associated with negative gossip than<br />

those with neutral or positive associations. The<br />

study contributes to a body of work showing that<br />

far from being objective, our perceptions are<br />

shaped by unconscious brain processes that<br />

determine what we "choose" to see or ignore —<br />

even before we become aware of it. The findings<br />

also add to the idea that the brain evolved to be<br />

particularly sensitive to "bad guys" or cheaters —<br />

fellow humans who undermine social life by<br />

deception, theft or other non-cooperative behavior.<br />

Strategic interpersonal behavior to shape or influence impressions formed by an audience is not a new<br />

field. Plato spoke of the "stage of human life" <strong>and</strong> Shakespeare crafted the famous sentence "All the<br />

world is a stage, <strong>and</strong> all the men <strong>and</strong> women merely players". In the 20th century, Erving Goffman also<br />

followed a dramaturgical analogy in his seminal book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, in<br />

which he said, "All the world is not, of course, a stage, but the crucial ways in which it isn't are not<br />

easy to specify."<br />

Goffman presented impression management dramaturgically, explaining the motivations behind<br />

complex human performances within a social setting based on a play metaphor. Goffman's work<br />

incorporates aspects of a symbolic interactionist perspective, emphasizing a qualitative analysis of the<br />

interactive nature of the communication process.<br />

The actor, shaped by the environment <strong>and</strong> target audience, sees interaction as a performance. The<br />

objective of the performance is to provide the audience with an impression consistent with the desired<br />

goals of the actor. Thus, impression management is also highly dependent on the situation. In addition<br />

to these goals, individuals differ in responses from the interactional environment, some may be<br />

irresponsive to audience's reactions while others actively respond to audience reactions in order to<br />

elicit positive results. These differences in response towards the environment <strong>and</strong> target audience are<br />

204


called self-monitoring. Another factor in impression management is self-verification, the act of<br />

conforming the audience to the person's self-concept.<br />

The audience can be real or imaginary. IM style norms, part of the mental programming received<br />

through socialization, are so fundamental that we usually do not notice our expectations of them. While<br />

an actor (speaker) tries to project a desired image, an audience (listener) might attribute a resonant or<br />

discordant image. An example is provided by situations in which embarrassment occurs <strong>and</strong> threatens<br />

the image of a participant.<br />

<strong>Social</strong> psychology<br />

The social psychologist, Edward E. Jones, brought the study of impression management to the field of<br />

psychology during the 1960s <strong>and</strong> extended it to include people’s attempts to control others' impression<br />

of their personal characteristics. His work sparked an increased attention towards impression<br />

management as a fundamental interpersonal process.<br />

Self, social identity <strong>and</strong> social interaction<br />

The concept of self is important to the theory of impression management as the images people have of<br />

themselves shape <strong>and</strong> are shaped by social interactions (Schlenker 1980, pp. 47). Our self-concept<br />

develops from social experience early in life. Schlenker (1980) further suggests that children anticipate<br />

the effect of their behaviours will have on others <strong>and</strong> how others will evaluate them, they control the<br />

impressions they might form on others <strong>and</strong> in doing so they control the outcomes they obtain from<br />

social interactions.<br />

<strong>Social</strong> identity refers to how people are defined <strong>and</strong> regarded in social interactions (Schlenker 1980,<br />

pp. 69). Individuals use impression management strategies to influence the social identity they project<br />

to others. The identity that people establish influences their behaviour in front of others, others'<br />

treatment of them <strong>and</strong> the outcomes they receive. Therefore, in their attempts to influence the<br />

impressions others form of themselves, a person plays an important role in affecting his social<br />

outcomes.<br />

The media<br />

The medium of communication influences the actions taken in impression management. Self-efficacy<br />

can differ according to the fact whether the trial to convince somebody is made through face-to-faceinteraction<br />

or by means of an e-mail.[17] Communication via devices like telephone, e-mail or chat is<br />

governed by technical restrictions, so that the way people express personal features etc. can be<br />

changed. This often shows how far people will go.<br />

Significance in empirical research <strong>and</strong> economy<br />

Impression management can distort the results of empirical research that relies on interviews <strong>and</strong><br />

surveys, a phenomenon commonly referred to as "social desirability bias". Impression management<br />

Theory nevertheless constitutes a field of research on its own.[22] When it comes to practical questions<br />

concerning public relations <strong>and</strong> the way organizations should h<strong>and</strong>le their public image, the<br />

assumptions provided by impression management theory can also provide a framework.[23]<br />

An examination of different impression management strategies acted out by individuals who were<br />

facing criminal trials where the trial outcomes could range from a death sentence, life in prison or<br />

acquittal has been reported in the forensic literature. The Perri <strong>and</strong> Lichtenwald article examined<br />

female psychopathic killers, whom as a group were highly motivated to manage the impression that<br />

attorneys, judges, mental health professions <strong>and</strong> ultimately, a jury had of the murderers <strong>and</strong> the murder<br />

they committed. It provides legal case illustrations of the murderers combining <strong>and</strong>/or switching from<br />

one impression management strategy such as ingratiation or supplication to another as they worked<br />

towards their goal of diminishing or eliminating any accountability for the murders they committed.<br />

205


Since the 1990s, researchers in the area of sport <strong>and</strong> exercise psychology have studied selfpresentation.<br />

Concern about how one is perceived has been found to be relevant to the study of athletic<br />

performance. For example, anxiety may be produced when an athlete is in the presence of spectators.<br />

Self-presentational concerns have also been found to be relevant to exercise. For example, the concerns<br />

may elicit motivation to exercise.<br />

More recent research investigating the effects of impression management on social behaviour showed<br />

that social behaviours (e.g. eating) can serve to convey a desired impression to others <strong>and</strong> enhance<br />

one’s self-image. Research on eating has shown that people tend to eat less when they believe that they<br />

are being observed by others.<br />

Lying Up on the Job: Does Deceptive Impression Management Work?<br />

Source: by John Carlson - The Organization | January / February 2012<br />

While lying in the workplace is prevalent, it simply doesn’t work. In fact, the greatest risk is in turning<br />

a blind eye <strong>and</strong> making dishonesty acceptable. The potential damage unleashed by an ethically<br />

permissive workplace may far exceed the lost labor of an employee taking a short nap under his desk.<br />

Discussing deception in the workplace is often uncomfortable. In an episode of “Seinfeld” (#152, “The<br />

Nap”), the character George Costanza uses his infamous hideaway-sleeping desk to nap unnoticed on<br />

the job. He is able to arrange simulated work items — hot coffee <strong>and</strong> such — on his desk to give the<br />

impression of having just stepped away, while he is actually hidden inside sound asleep. George is<br />

inevitably discovered “lying down on the job,” but the outcome in this case is likely to be more<br />

humorous than it would be for an employee who was caught trying to deceive his or her manager in a<br />

real company.<br />

While deception is common in everyday social interactions (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, &<br />

Epstein, 1996), its prevalence in business communication is less widely discussed (Carlson & George,<br />

2004). In fact, deception occurs in business meetings, phone conversations, electronic messages, office<br />

memor<strong>and</strong>a, <strong>and</strong> other everyday organizational media (Carlson & George, 2004). Moreover, while<br />

many of these lies may be casual “white lies,” some are used with clear intentionality, to further an<br />

employee’s goals within the organization. Nevertheless, there has been little consideration of whether<br />

or not such deception is effective.<br />

206


This paper examines the utility of deception from the st<strong>and</strong>point of a subordinate employing it in an<br />

attempt to influence their supervisor’s opinion of them. The following sections discuss a definition of<br />

deceptive impression management (“Deceptive IM”), a study examining the effectiveness of different<br />

forms of Deceptive IM, <strong>and</strong> finally, the implications for managers.<br />

Managing impressions<br />

Employees work actively to influence perceptions about themselves held by their supervisor(s)<br />

(Rosenfeld, Giacalone, & Riordan, 1995). Impression management (IM) is the process through which<br />

individuals manipulate information about themselves so that others view them in the way in which they<br />

would like to be viewed (Schlenker, 1980). Deception can be defined as the communication of<br />

information to a target with the intent of creating a false underst<strong>and</strong>ing on the part of the target (Buller<br />

& Burgoon, 1996). Lying, a form of deception, requires the expression of an actual statement known to<br />

be untrue.<br />

There are several different forms of IM <strong>and</strong> although the “information manipulation” described in the<br />

definition does not require deception — indeed such manipulation may be done with complete honesty<br />

— it does open the door widely for it. Such deception includes the active distortion, destruction, or<br />

omission of information that the supervisor has the right to truthfully receive from the subordinate. For<br />

example, a subordinate who has failed to complete an assigned task might work to manage the<br />

impressions of their supervisor by, (a) truthfully explaining the difficulties encountered <strong>and</strong> affirming<br />

their willingness to redouble their efforts to catch up (honesty), (b) not reporting their failure in a<br />

timely manner (deception), or (c) blaming the failure on a co-worker who was not at fault (lying).<br />

Three types of Deceptive IM<br />

Deceptive IM can be defined as the use of deception in the conduct of impression management<br />

(Carlson, Kacmar, & Carlson, 2005). We believe that deceptive IM differs from other deceptions in<br />

that it generally occurs within an established workplace relationship, <strong>and</strong> may consist of multiple<br />

deceptive acts that must be managed <strong>and</strong> reinforced over a significant period of time. The subordinate<br />

has both a pre-existing relationship with their supervisor as well as an expected future relationship that<br />

must be taken into consideration. As well, the planning of any deceptive act must take into account the<br />

ability of the subordinate’s peers to provide countervailing evidence, intentionally or not, to the<br />

supervisor. Finally, we specifically do not define deceptive IM as a new or separate IM tactic; rather,<br />

we believe that deception may be employed in the enactment of any existing form of IM. We suggest<br />

that there are three common types of deceptive IM agents in today’s organizations:<br />

1. The sycophant is insincere <strong>and</strong> does not provide genuine opinions or honest feedback to their<br />

superior, for example, enthusiastically endorsing your supervisor’s idea even when you don’t like it.<br />

2. The cover-up artist makes up excuses to whitewash a poor performance or explain failed projects,<br />

for example, making up an excuse when the supervisor points out shoddy work.<br />

3. The all-purpose liar will directly provide false information about specific facts if it is to their<br />

advantage, for example, exaggerating the amount he or she contributed to a team project.<br />

Use of Deceptive IM<br />

Importantly, we don’t know is how these different types of deceptive IM might be used, <strong>and</strong> even more<br />

importantly, how effective they might be in influencing important organizational outcomes. An<br />

employee might consider using deceptive IM in a variety of difficult circumstances. Perhaps he or she<br />

is struggling in a hostile work environment or has been assigned to an abusive supervisor; perhaps he<br />

or she wants to cover gaps in knowledge, training, or experience; perhaps he or she is facing family or<br />

health problems that are negatively affecting his or her productivity; or perhaps he or she is simply<br />

trying to jump-start a stagnant career. Moreover, we believe that the use of deception in IM may be<br />

particularly easy for the subordinate to rationalize, since the goal of the deceit isn’t generally to cause<br />

direct harm <strong>and</strong> the subject of the lie is often the subordinate him or herself.<br />

207


Even though lying to others about yourself may be almost as easy as lying to yourself, it is still<br />

expected that subordinates will have a difficult time pulling off deceptive IM. The rationale for the<br />

expectation is straightforward: Separately, both lying <strong>and</strong> IM are difficult to carry out successfully.<br />

Combining the two <strong>and</strong> requiring that they be conducted successfully over a significant period of time<br />

<strong>and</strong> under real-world conditions in which actual performance <strong>and</strong> contributions can be measured is, we<br />

believe, a challenging task (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998).<br />

Current study<br />

The purpose of this study was to gauge the effects of these three different types of deceptive IM<br />

conduct on the relationship with a supervisor, <strong>and</strong> the supervisor’s evaluation of the subordinate’s<br />

behavior. More specifically, two key outcomes were measured: (1) leader-member exchange or<br />

“LMX” (Graen & Sc<strong>and</strong>ura, 1987), which is the quality of the relationship between the supervisor <strong>and</strong><br />

the subordinate, <strong>and</strong> (2) the job performance of the subordinate as evaluated by the supervisor.<br />

To study these deceptive IM practices in existing workplace relationships, supervisors in a division of a<br />

southern-state tax-collection agency were surveyed. Although all 65 supervisors agreed to participate<br />

<strong>and</strong> submitted surveys, only 59 could be matched to completed subordinate surveys. A total of 183<br />

subordinates returned completed surveys usable for this study (for a response rate of 53%).<br />

How common is it?<br />

The first consideration was to examine the frequency of the 3 behaviours referred to above. The most<br />

highly used form of deceptive IM was sycophancy, in that 86 percent of the respondents engaged in<br />

this behavior. Sixty-nine percent of the respondents engaged in the practice of cover-up <strong>and</strong> 56 percent<br />

in the practice of lying. Thus, while the respondents engaged in these behaviors at a relatively high<br />

frequency, they were more likely to engage in sycophancy than lying.<br />

Deceptive IM <strong>and</strong> outcomes<br />

So, is it effective? The answer is “No.” We found that for the outcome of LMX, the relationship<br />

between supervisor <strong>and</strong> subordinate, that lying was the only type of deceptive IM that played a<br />

significant role. It had a negative impact, specifically leading to the deterioration of the supervisorsubordinate<br />

relationship (-.22, p


a deficiency of such significance that the employee feels the need to cover it up. These findings may<br />

suggest that in today’s team-oriented, interconnected workplaces, covering-up all traces of one’s poor<br />

performance isn’t completely possible.<br />

Finally, the most destructive behavior in this study was the act of lying overtly (i.e., the “bald-faced”<br />

lie). Employees who engage in such behavior damage the relationship they have with their supervisor,<br />

a relationship that affects all aspects of their work life. Of course, not every lie needs to be uncovered<br />

for this damage to occur. However, once a lie has been identified, the supervisor’s view of the<br />

subordinate’s truthfulness <strong>and</strong> trustworthiness begins to be undermined.<br />

Implications<br />

To the extent that our results can be generalized, once an employee begins a deceptive IM campaign,<br />

he or she will at some point begin to receive negative feedback (at least in the form of LMX <strong>and</strong><br />

performance reviews), which may serve to feed a vicious circle by motivating even more deceptive IM.<br />

Indeed, this may be a difficult habit for an employee to break, even in the face of costly outcomes.<br />

Nevertheless, just as a gambler’s winning streak must come to an end, a liar engaged in deceptive IM<br />

will eventually be caught <strong>and</strong> face potentially harsh repercussions. Underst<strong>and</strong>ing a subordinate’s<br />

motivations may be a key in explaining this apparently self-destructive behavior.<br />

From the manager’s point of view, these results may seem like a vindication of sorts. Yes, although<br />

your subordinates are trying to manipulate your impression of them by using deception, you appear not<br />

to let these activities affect you so as to the benefit of the deceiver. However, a business culture of<br />

acceptable dishonesty opens the door to a host of concerns. If your subordinates are willing to lie to<br />

you to improve your impression of them, are they also lying to each other? And to customers?<br />

Suppliers? Auditors? And what else are they willing to lie about? The potential damage unleashed by<br />

an ethically permissive workplace may far exceed the lost labor of an employee taking a short nap<br />

under his desk.<br />

References<br />

- Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active<br />

self a limited resource? Journal of Personality <strong>and</strong> <strong>Social</strong> Psychology, 74(5), 1252-1265.<br />

- Carlson, J. R., & George, J. F. (2004). Media Appropriateness in the Conduct <strong>and</strong> Discovery of<br />

Deceptive Communication: The Relative Influence of Richness <strong>and</strong> Synchronicity. Group Decision<br />

<strong>and</strong> Negotiation, 13(2), 191-210.<br />

- Carlson, J. R., Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (2005). Deceptive impression management: Does it<br />

pay? Proceedings from Southern Management Association (SMA) Meetings, Charleston, S.C.<br />

Source: Ivey Business Journal - http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/the-organization/lying-upon-the-job-does-deceptive-impression-management-work<br />

209


80. Giving Assent: Appearing to Cave In while Digging in Your Heels<br />

Source: Dr George Simon<br />

0 ne of the more difficult to detect tactics is<br />

giving assent. This is a favorite tactic of the<br />

aggressive personalities. (See<br />

“Underst<strong>and</strong>ing the Aggressive<br />

Personalities” <strong>and</strong> “Underst<strong>and</strong>ing the<br />

Aggressive Personalities, Part 2”.) When a<br />

person is determined to have his way but is<br />

not gaining sway with you because you’ve<br />

dared to call them on their aggression <strong>and</strong><br />

you’re holding your own ground, they<br />

might feign the willingness to back-down,<br />

back-off, or accede to your call for change.<br />

This “okay, okay!” tactic is the disturbed<br />

character’s attempt to get you off their back<br />

by insinuating that they underst<strong>and</strong> what<br />

you are asking <strong>and</strong> are willing to accede to<br />

it while they actually have no intention of<br />

changing their stance. The eminent<br />

researcher Stanton Same now pointed out<br />

that assenting or false concession is a<br />

shrewd way to appear cooperative without really meaning it.<br />

For the aggressive personalities, nothing is more distasteful than submitting themselves to anyone or<br />

anything. That’s the main reason their lives <strong>and</strong> the lives around them end up like a shipwreck. Cavingin<br />

is so distasteful that the best they will usually muster is a half-hearted or purely superficial assent to<br />

what is being asked of them. Anything more than that is too much like surrender. It often takes many<br />

long months of artful non-traditional therapy to bring such individuals to the point that they can<br />

appreciate that “winning” in the long-run often involves conceding in the short-run.<br />

Providing treatment to aggressive personalities who use the tactic of assent is a real challenge for<br />

therapists trained in traditional modalities that advocate that the therapist not adopt an authoritarian but<br />

rather an unconditionally accepting stance. What the aggressive personality needs to learn — perhaps<br />

more than any other lesson in his life — is to genuinely give-in, give-way, or submit occasionally. So,<br />

in the therapeutic encounter, they need to learn how, when, <strong>and</strong> where to concede. True concession<br />

necessarily involves both the recognition of <strong>and</strong> submission to a higher power or authority. If the<br />

therapist is unwilling to facilitate this during the therapeutic encounter, no such learning can take place.<br />

In my early years as a therapist, I avoided the authority position like the plague. Then, after realizing<br />

that my character-disturbed patients would probably never improve, I began to allow myself to model,<br />

st<strong>and</strong>-up for, <strong>and</strong> actively advocate the principles of conduct I knew my patients had to eventually<br />

submit to themselves if they were ever to become responsible people. Once I did so, everything began<br />

to change.<br />

210


5. Magical <strong>Manipulation</strong><br />

5.1. Misdirection <strong>and</strong> deflection as used by manipulators:<br />

Misdirection is a technique that directs the victim’s' attention toward what the manipulator wants them<br />

to see <strong>and</strong> believe, <strong>and</strong> away from the actual facts <strong>and</strong> truth.<br />

For years businesses have been using fake or misleading customer testimonials to reflect a much more<br />

satisfied experience than is actually the case.<br />

In politics, misdirection is being used all the time to divert attention from the voters away from<br />

unpopular st<strong>and</strong>points.<br />

“Today’s political messages are distilled in the laboratories of public relations <strong>and</strong> consumer br<strong>and</strong>ing<br />

to achieve maximum potency. Their power to shape emotions <strong>and</strong> opinions lies in their uncanny ability<br />

to get under people’s skin without arousing in citizens a powerful immune response.”<br />

Andras Szanto, What Orwell Didn’t Know<br />

There are four common forms of misdirection used by manipulators.<br />

1. Attitude<br />

The first is attitude: by shifting the focus of attention from their own behavior onto the behavior, the<br />

manipulator pushes the victim into defending himself <strong>and</strong> often succeeds in dropping the real issue.<br />

2. "Doing the Offbeat"<br />

Example: Harry, a 42-year-old cocaine addict, missed his mother's birthday because he was high. He<br />

showed up first thing the next morning to mow his mother's lawn <strong>and</strong> fix her screen door, telling her "I<br />

wanted to celebrate your birthday just the two of us. If I had come yesterday, everyone would have<br />

snubbed me."<br />

3. Creating an Impression of Honesty<br />

Example: When Harry’s mother approached him about his cocaine addiction, he said, "Wow, Mom,<br />

I've been wanting to talk to you about this, but I was scared. I've just been so damn depressed since my<br />

divorce, it seems cocaine is the only thing that makes me feel good. I'm so sorry for worrying you…<br />

but everything will be all right, I promise."<br />

Harry's mother was convinced she had made a breakthrough with him, but really Harry has just<br />

redirected her focus onto the problems surrounding his divorce.<br />

4. Time<br />

Mary's husb<strong>and</strong>, Paul, was an alcoholic. Mary said, "when he came home drunk the third night this<br />

week, I was furious. But the next day, he took our kids to the zoo like he had been promising, <strong>and</strong> they<br />

were so happy that I didn't have the heart to bring it up."<br />

By extending the amount of time between his behavior <strong>and</strong> the discussion with Mary, Paul effectively<br />

gave Mary's anger time to dissipate. Even though Paul's addiction was not a secret to Mary, his use of<br />

misdirection of time convinced her to react in ways that in fact supported his alcohol abuse.<br />

211


5.2. Misdirection <strong>and</strong> Deflection as used by magicians<br />

Misdirection also refers to the magician’s ability to manipulate people’s attention, thoughts, <strong>and</strong><br />

memory.<br />

“The principle of misdirection plays such an important role in magic that one might say that magic is<br />

misdirection <strong>and</strong> misdirection is magic”<br />

Hugard (1960, p. 115)<br />

Misdirection can literally be defined as<br />

pointing out the wrong way.<br />

Another way of defining misdirection is<br />

by focusing on its function. Any magic<br />

effect (what the spectator sees) requires<br />

a method (the method used to produce<br />

the effect). The main purpose of<br />

misdirection is to disguise the method<br />

<strong>and</strong> thus prevent the audience from<br />

detecting it whilst still experiencing the<br />

effect.<br />

Our conscious experience of the world<br />

is determined by a cascade of cognitive<br />

<strong>and</strong> neurological processes; generally<br />

starting with the encoding of perceptual<br />

information, which is then further processed <strong>and</strong> stored in memory, before being retrieved <strong>and</strong> thus<br />

entering consciousness. Magicians have developed techniques that manipulate different levels of this<br />

perceptual chain. For example, what we attend to (i.e., manipulating spatial attention), how we<br />

remember an event <strong>and</strong> how we interpret causality.<br />

Time misdirection works because magicians separate the method from the magical effect <strong>and</strong> this<br />

separation generates false causal links between unrelated actions, preventing the audience from being<br />

able to mentally reconstruct the trick.<br />

Magicians often talk about misdirection in terms of creating zones of high <strong>and</strong> low interest, whereby<br />

the former will attract attention at the expense of the latter.<br />

In fact, misdirection is not merely to divert attention away from the secret move. It is more about the<br />

magician’s capacity to draw attention to a particular place, which he calls frame, at a particular time<br />

(Robins, 2007; Magic of Consciousness Symposium; http://assc2007.neuralcorrelate.com).<br />

This creates a sort of tunnel vision in which any action occurring outside of the frame goes unnoticed<br />

<strong>and</strong>, in addition, the smaller the frame the stronger the sense of misdirection (see also Ascanio <strong>and</strong><br />

Etcheverry, 2000)<br />

5.2.1 The four degrees of misdirection<br />

Ascanio <strong>and</strong> Etcheverry (2000) described 3 degrees of misdirection:<br />

1. Simultaneous Acts<br />

The first degree would be when the magician performs two simultaneous actions, the method behind<br />

the magic trick, or secret move, <strong>and</strong> a distractor. Having to attend to both, the spectator cannot focus on<br />

the method <strong>and</strong> that, in general, suffices to make this go unnoticed.<br />

212


2. Perceptual Graduation<br />

In the second degree, the two actions are not perceptually<br />

equivalent, such as when a big move covers a small move, <strong>and</strong> as<br />

a result misdirection is enhanced.<br />

3. Active Misdirection<br />

Ascanio’s third degree, called “active misdirection”.by Sharpe,<br />

involves those methods that attract spatial attention due to some<br />

kind of transient change in sound or movement.<br />

4. Passive Misdirection<br />

Sharpe also distinguishes “passive misdirection”, which involves<br />

those methods that work by unobtrusively manipulating our minds<br />

through the way in which people react to static stimuli.<br />

Paradigms have been developed that can be used to underst<strong>and</strong><br />

the mechanisms of misdirection.<br />

5.2.2. The Misdirection Paradigms<br />

Misdirection employed by a magician during the execution of a “magic trick”, prevents an observer to<br />

detect that the magician makes a cigaret <strong>and</strong> lighter disappear by dropping them into his lap in full<br />

view of the observer.<br />

It has been argued that the mechanism involved in preventing participants from detecting the method is<br />

analogous to inattentional blindness (Kuhn <strong>and</strong> Tatler, 2005; Kuhn <strong>and</strong> Findlay, 2010).<br />

Inattentional blindness<br />

Inattentional blindness refers to the phenomena that people often fail to perceive a fully visible event<br />

when engaged in an attentionally dem<strong>and</strong>ing distractor task (Mack <strong>and</strong> Rock, 1998; Simons <strong>and</strong><br />

Chabris, 1999).<br />

But, whilst inattentional blindness paradigms typically require participants’ attention to be distracted<br />

using an explicit distractor task (e.g., count the number of basket ball passes), the distraction in the<br />

misdirection paradigm occurs implicitly through different misdirection principles (Kuhn <strong>and</strong> Tatler,<br />

2011). Indeed it is people’s failure in realizing that they have been misdirected, that is crucial, <strong>and</strong> one<br />

of the features that distinguishes it from simple distraction (Lamont et al., 2010).<br />

By tracking eye movements as people watched a video of the trick, Kuhn showed that people miss the<br />

deception even when they're looking directly at it. It works because, at the crucial moments, he makes<br />

attention-grabbing gestures <strong>and</strong> eye movements that divert attention (but not gaze) away from the<br />

action. If you watch the video a few times it's hard to believe that you could ever fall for it.<br />

Change blindness<br />

The related phenomena of change blindness refers to people’s failure in noticing substantial changes to<br />

a visual scene, if the visual transient associated with the change is masked (Rensink et al., 1997).<br />

Moreover, if attention is captured using a strong attentional cue, participants often fail to notice the<br />

change, thus demonstrating that attention is needed to consciously perceive it (O’Regan et al., 1999).<br />

There are numerous situations in which a magician may switch an item for something else, <strong>and</strong><br />

misdirection is employed to prevent participants from detecting the change. For example, in a series of<br />

experiments, misdirection has been used to prevent people from seeing an obvious color change to a<br />

213


deck of cards (Teszka et al., 2011). Here linguistic social cues (i.e., asking a question) were used to<br />

prevent participants from detecting this change.<br />

Two types of h<strong>and</strong> motion are used to control the audience’s attention. Slow, circular h<strong>and</strong> motions are<br />

good at engaging <strong>and</strong> keeping attention, while fast, straight ones are useful for quickly diverting it from<br />

one spot to another. The scientific basis of this difference is unknown, says Martinez-Conde. But she<br />

plans to find out.<br />

Illusion<br />

Misdirection can also make people perceive illusory events that have not occurred. For example,<br />

Triplett (1900; Kuhn <strong>and</strong> L<strong>and</strong>, 2006) developed the vanishing ball illusion in which a magician is seen<br />

throwing a ball up in the air a couple of times, before merely pretending to throw it. Most of the<br />

observers claimed to have seen a “ghost ball” leaving the h<strong>and</strong> on the final throw, thus illustrating that<br />

people’s perception of an event is largely influenced by expectations, rather than the physical presence<br />

of the ball.<br />

Cui et al. (2011) developed a related paradigm in which participants were repeatedly asked to view a<br />

video clip of a magician tossing a coin from one h<strong>and</strong> to the other. On some of the trials the coin was<br />

tossed for real, whilst on the other half of the trial the magician merely pretended to toss the coin. On a<br />

large proportion of trials, participants claimed to have seen the coin fly from one h<strong>and</strong> to the other,<br />

even though it was not physically present.<br />

Numerous studies have now demonstrated that misdirection provides an extremely effective way of<br />

manipulating what people see. Rather surprisingly, these studies have consistently shown that people’s<br />

detection of the event (i.e., the lighter or cigarette drop) was independent of where they were looking,<br />

thus demonstrating that misdirection generally relies on manipulating covert (i.e., attention in the<br />

absence of eye movements), rather than overt attention (i.e., were people look). These studies also<br />

clearly illustrate that whilst covert <strong>and</strong> overt attention can be dissociated in space (Posner, 1980), there<br />

is a clear temporal link between the two.<br />

214


Uniqueness of method<br />

One of the key rules in magic states that magicians should never repeat the same trick using the same<br />

method. Indeed all of the published papers to date demonstrate that participants are less susceptible<br />

toward misdirection when the same trial is repeated (Kuhn <strong>and</strong> Tatler, 2005; Kuhn et al., 2008b, 2009;<br />

Kuhn <strong>and</strong> Findlay, 2010; Cui et al., 2011). The fact that the effectiveness of misdirection is greatly<br />

reduced if the same trial is repeated numerous times does raise some questions as to the reliability of<br />

multiple trial presentations.<br />

<strong>Social</strong> cues<br />

With many magical tricks, social cues (i.e., where the magician looks) play a fundamental role in<br />

misdirection. For example, as Sharpe points out “people tend to look in the same direction as the<br />

person they are watching looks” (1988, p. 64). For example, using the vanishing ball illusion, it has<br />

been shown that participants’ susceptibility toward the illusion is greatly influenced by the magician’s<br />

social cues (Kuhn <strong>and</strong> L<strong>and</strong>, 2006). When the magician looked at the h<strong>and</strong> that was concealing the<br />

ball, rather than following the imaginary trajectory of the ball, the effectiveness of the illusion was<br />

greatly reduced.<br />

Humour<br />

Another mysterious way of manipulating attention is with humour: "When people laugh, time st<strong>and</strong>s<br />

still," says magician John Thompson, aka The Great Tomsoni. He frequently uses jokes to conceal<br />

large movements that are particularly difficult to hide. Exactly why laughter disengages attention so<br />

efficiently is unknown.<br />

Forcing<br />

This is any technique that gives the target the illusion of free will when in fact they have none. The<br />

classic example is the "pick a card, any card" trick where the magician uncannily knows what you<br />

picked.<br />

Ron Rensink, a psychologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, says that<br />

forcing is one of the great mysteries of magic, as yet unexplained by cognitive neuroscience. "The<br />

degree to which a magician can control someone's mind tends to be far greater than anything we come<br />

up with in the lab," he says<br />

Forcing can also be achieved by another brain glitch that magicians learned about long before<br />

neuroscientists - false memory. During a trick, a magician will often describe what he has just done in<br />

a way that manipulates people's recollection of it<br />

It is important to realize that, to this days, scientists debate a lot about what exactly makes the public<br />

susceptible to the magician’s misdirection. But even knowing in detail how a trick is done, has not<br />

lead to many useful paradigms that fully explain it’s success. The same is true a forteriori for the tricks<br />

played upon us by manipulators in the real world: Even knowing their tricks wont be able to always<br />

immunize us from becoming their victim..<br />

215


6. Hypnotic manipulation<br />

Hypnosis is another way of influencing people’s thoughts <strong>and</strong> emotions in order to make them want to<br />

do what you want them to do.<br />

Remember the movie "The Prestige"?<br />

Hypnotists rely on authority, environment, ceremonies, social<br />

aspects, bus basically manipulate people’s mind most of all<br />

through the use of specific communication techniques.<br />

It may be a good idea to remember that people will react in<br />

defence as soon as they suspect that they are being forced or<br />

manipulated.<br />

All people love to be liked. Strangely enough however, almost<br />

everybody will pull back from you if you walk straight up to<br />

them <strong>and</strong> tell them you like them. In the same way, they will<br />

pull back as soon as they think you want to sell them something.<br />

If you want people to like you, you have to seduce them first. If<br />

you want to sell them anything, you have to make them want to<br />

buy what you are offering them.<br />

In order to lead us to seeing <strong>and</strong> believing the "impossible" outcome that he's about to produce, a<br />

magician starts with drawing up a plan <strong>and</strong> a strategy which he then studies, rehearses, improves <strong>and</strong><br />

puts into practice until he can produce the desired result so to speak blindfolded <strong>and</strong> without any<br />

hesitation. In the movie, the general plan is described as this:<br />

A/ The pledge: You need to get the people's attention <strong>and</strong> interest, give them a reason to listen to you,<br />

create trust, offer a wider perspective, promise fun, security, happiness, benefit or advantage.<br />

B/ The turn: Without interaction <strong>and</strong> emotional involvement, your pledge will lead to nothing <strong>and</strong> will<br />

soon be forgotten. You will not obtain the desired outcome, unless you work toward it in a planned,<br />

structured, strategic way. You need to obtain interaction <strong>and</strong> emotional involvement from your listener.<br />

C/ The prestige: But of course, unless you can close the deal, nothing is ever won. The turn, therefore<br />

is always function of the prestige. You cannot hit a target if you don’t know what you are aiming at.<br />

Good strategies are of little use if you do not have a fixed goal, determination <strong>and</strong> self confidence.<br />

Also remember the laws of authority <strong>and</strong> of social proof:<br />

When people find themselves in a foreign situation where they feel awkward or unsure of how to act,<br />

they look for those social cues that will dictate their behaviour.<br />

People conform because they believe everyone else is correct<br />

People conform because they fear the social rejection of not going along<br />

People conform simply because it's the norm<br />

People conform because of cultural influences<br />

People conform because somebody of authority says something is correct<br />

People conform because somebody they love believes in something<br />

216


It is said that Milton Erickson could hypnotize anybody. Richard B<strong>and</strong>ler <strong>and</strong> John Grinder developed<br />

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), a special approach to communication, personal development,<br />

<strong>and</strong> psychotherapy based on the techniques used by Milton Erickson.<br />

Here’s how you can put Milton Erickson’s techniques into practice:<br />

6.1. Target somebody <strong>and</strong> get to know their inner world.<br />

At the start, mostly, you don’t know anything<br />

about their values. So you have to be careful: stick<br />

to what you see (appearance, clothes, …) <strong>and</strong><br />

return the information they are giving you. When<br />

connecting this information to such abstract things<br />

as their feelings <strong>and</strong> opinions, be vague. Let their<br />

own imagination fill in the gaps. The deeper the<br />

rapport, the more they will trust what you say.<br />

Instinctively, they will then complete the vague<br />

images that you are offering with content that is<br />

meaningful to them <strong>and</strong> which they will agree with.<br />

This will further deepen the established rapport <strong>and</strong><br />

make them more receptive to what you are saying.<br />

If you say, “On my way here, I saw this beautiful,<br />

green Jaguar”, they might think that a green Jaguar<br />

is not what they consider being a beautiful car.<br />

This would weaken <strong>and</strong> possibly break the rapport.<br />

If, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, you just say: “On my way<br />

here, I saw this beautiful car”, that would probably<br />

help them to feel as if they were seeing a beautiful<br />

car.<br />

So remember: Provide a vivid, detailed description in terms of the senses, to engage the imagination;<br />

Agree, Praise <strong>and</strong> Confirm : Be empathic <strong>and</strong> similar, to create rapport; Compliment: clothes, interior,<br />

this is so great, you are so …; Be vague when it comes to facts or feelings he is supposed to have now,<br />

in order to lead your listener’s imagination <strong>and</strong> emotions in the direction that you have set out,<br />

allowing your vague descriptions to further intensify the established rapport.<br />

How to be vague? Adapt your use of language:<br />

Use Pronouns (it, he, …)instead of concrete nouns;<br />

Use Nominalizations(independent verbs such as “the going”);<br />

Use Metaphors “the black gold” instead of “petrol”);<br />

Use Paradoxes (“the sound of silence”);<br />

Use Alliteration (successive words starting with the same sound);<br />

Use Ellipses (leave out unnecessary words);<br />

Use Personalizing Repetitions (With me, …);<br />

Use Personifications (“the rain is telling us …”);<br />

Use Stories, Fairy Tales <strong>and</strong> Myths<br />

.... <strong>and</strong> meanwhile, discover their values <strong>and</strong> use them in all you say. Make them talk or think about<br />

them selves, their emotions, desires, … by asking questions as: "What are you looking for in a car,<br />

boyfriend, …?", "Why did you buy this?", "What do you like most about it?", "How would you<br />

217


describe your ideal …?". Also: Ask for advice: "what would you do?", "how do you do this?", "what<br />

do you suggest?".<br />

6.2. In a next step, combine Discovering Values with Visualization.<br />

A good but very straightforward method is: The direct suggestion + feed back question. Using phrases<br />

like: “If you were to imagine feeling really sad right now, how would that feel like?” will take people’s<br />

imagination back to moments in which they felt that way, inducing a similar feeling right now.<br />

Of course, saying something like that so blatantly requires that you have previously built up a good<br />

deal of trust <strong>and</strong> comfort. Unless people accept that you have some right to share the information asked<br />

for, <strong>and</strong> unless the context allows for believing that you have a genuine interest in the subject at the<br />

time of asking, you are prone to meet with strong opposition just because it is straight out suggestive.<br />

A more indirect way to obtain the same result is: The manipulative question. You might say: "What do<br />

you need to feel in order to be really comfortable around someone?" , or: "What does it feel like when<br />

you feel incredibly happy / attracted to someone…?"<br />

A still somewhat weaker variation hereof is the indirect manipulative question. This would sound like:<br />

"Have you ever found yourself becoming so longing to buy a product, that the rest of the world just<br />

seems to fade away <strong>and</strong> all you can think of is how much you need to have this thing? And have you<br />

ever felt this so strongly that you were ready to pay almost just about anything to get it?” The<br />

disadvantage here is that you could get a simple “yes” or “no” without the other person ever having<br />

done a conscious effort to re-live the situation. At that point, you simply ask: “why was that?”, “Can<br />

you tell me some more about it?”<br />

These questions have four important advantages:<br />

The answers will provide you with useful information about the deeper structure of the<br />

listener’s mind <strong>and</strong> of his world-view,<br />

They will reveal you which kind of arguments are likely to influence this person. e.g. which<br />

qualities are needed by this person to feel comfortable with somebody [you],<br />

At the same time they will make him actually go through the experience <strong>and</strong> relive the<br />

connected feelings, in order to being able to describe them to you, <strong>and</strong><br />

Their subconscious mind will automatically associate the context with the speaker, the result<br />

being that the listener will instantly feel more attracted to you.<br />

Always keep in mind to: Present evidence for what you say, Submit your proof for verification, Be<br />

confident <strong>and</strong> relaxed, Look into the eyes of the listener (but don’t overdo it) <strong>and</strong> Use your listener’s<br />

Christian name.<br />

6.3. Meanwhile, Create Rapport.<br />

We've used the word before in this article, <strong>and</strong> you have certainly read it many times before. But what<br />

is rapport in fact, <strong>and</strong> how do you create it? We all know that “A man convinced against his will,<br />

remains of the same opinion still ..” That is why every sales- or hypnosis course <strong>and</strong> every article about<br />

dating will tell you that you need to start with creating as much rapport as possible. Only after you<br />

have created sufficiently emotional connection <strong>and</strong> trust, will your listener feel comfortable enough to<br />

actually listen to you, <strong>and</strong> accept <strong>and</strong> emotionally respond to images that you are describing.<br />

218


Creating rapport goes as follows:<br />

A/ Mirror your listener’s body language, That is: his posture, movements, breathing rhythm <strong>and</strong><br />

physical state. Why? Copying his behavior causes him to feel similar to you, which in turn will lead to<br />

your listener starting to copy you in response.<br />

B/ Confirm <strong>and</strong> match your listener’s inner world. That is: his values, perceptions, beliefs, emotions,<br />

ideas <strong>and</strong> assumptions. Why? when you copy your listener’s way of seeing the world (visual, audio<br />

…), his way of expressing himself (words <strong>and</strong> expressions he uses), repeat his values, accept him as he<br />

is <strong>and</strong> confirm him in his beliefs <strong>and</strong> opinions, he will listen to you, accept what you are saying <strong>and</strong><br />

start to like you because he will see you as very similar to himself <strong>and</strong> will appreciate the respect you<br />

show him. After all, you are confirming him in what <strong>and</strong> how he is <strong>and</strong> what you are telling, is the<br />

truth, such as he too perceives it.<br />

Useful techniques for creating rapport are : Agree, Praise <strong>and</strong> Confirm, Practice Overall empathic<br />

interaction, Copy patterns of speech, words <strong>and</strong> images used, Tell about similar experiences, Ask for<br />

advice, Insert pauses between phrases, talk slowly, whisper. Examples: O.k., right, exactly my idea; I<br />

have that same feeling all the time; I was just about to say exactly the same thing; You are great, smart,<br />

good, …; I couldn’t agree more; How would you … ? What would you do if … ?<br />

6.4. Practice mind reading <strong>and</strong> prediction of the future.<br />

Using gathered information for “mind reading” or making correct assumptions is very useful to build a<br />

sensation of rapport <strong>and</strong> will make the listener more receptive to your propositions.<br />

Examples: Right now you may ask yourself; You probably feel something, By now you will see,<br />

underst<strong>and</strong>, agree …; I see that you start to underst<strong>and</strong>, … ; I am so glad to hear that you feel the same<br />

way …; You will soon start feeling, you will see, you will enjoy; We will first … <strong>and</strong> then you will<br />

know, see, feel, …; Once you have fully understood this, you will be able to.<br />

Be careful to use vague or ambiguous phrases: By this time, you might start to become aware of this<br />

special sensation; That (what ??) can feel so good, can’t it?.<br />

A good <strong>and</strong> safe way is to tell things by implication: I wonder if you already realize that the main<br />

advantage …; I don’t know if you already noticed that …; By now, you may feel how the desire keeps<br />

growing; And then this sensation of … will increase more <strong>and</strong> more; You can keep feeling more …;<br />

You will feel completely satisfied; Again, we …; Once you have fully understood this, you will be able<br />

to …; Everybody knows, We all feel that …; You will feel so secure, so relaxed, so happy …<br />

6.5. Use Powerful Links<br />

Telling the listener what he knows, feels <strong>and</strong> thinks, is not enough though: you should link it to what he<br />

must do next.<br />

You do this by using links:<br />

straight links (<strong>and</strong>, also, but, …),<br />

Implicit links (while, during, after, before … you feel, are, will see…) or<br />

Links which reveal a necessity (since you have experienced for yourself … you know; A<br />

causes B; this requires, Because X …follows Y; Since we agreed that A = B, therefore …)<br />

However bear in mind to avoid giving direct orders: Use superpositions instead (NOT: “imagine”, or<br />

“try to imagine”, BUT: “While you imagine this, you will realize that …”; NOT: “look at this”, BUT:<br />

“we can see that …”). You might also want to simultaneously build silent acceptation (which will<br />

219


make it more difficult for the other to disagree later) by finishing your sentences with "Yes?", "Right?",<br />

"You see?", "Got it?"<br />

6.6. Use Suggestive Predicates.<br />

A 'suggestive predicate' is a predicate that sets up the material that immediately follows it as a powerful<br />

suggestion. Among the following examples, you will recognize many introductory phrases used before<br />

in these worksheets: After you come to....; After you've...; And the more you (X)...the more you (Y);<br />

And as you...; Are you curious about...; Are you aware that...; Are you still interested in...; As you hear<br />

these words they...; As you... ...then...; As you consider this...; Be aware of what you can sense...;<br />

Before you think...; Can you imagine...; Can I ask you to...; Can you visualize...; Can you...; Can you<br />

remember...; Could you...; Do you realize that you can become aware of…; Do you think that...; Do<br />

you remember when...; Do you...; Do you ever...; Don't think of...; Has it ever occurred to you that...;<br />

Have you noticed that...; Have you ever wondered...; Have you...; Have you ever...; How would you<br />

feel if...; How do you know that...; How do you feel when...; I don't want you to be...; I want you to<br />

learn...; I know you are curious...; I saw someone do this in minutes once...; I wonder if...; I don't know<br />

how soon...; I wonder could you...; I would like to suggest that...; I want you to bear in mind...; I want<br />

you to become aware...; I can remember...; I'd like you to pretend that...; I'm wondering...; I'm curious<br />

to know...; If you could...; In my experience...; Is it that you are...; Is it possible...; Is it that you have...;<br />

Is it that there is...; It is useful that...; It's just like...; It's impossible...; It's good to know that...; It's<br />

useful that...; It's good that...; It's either (A) or (B); which is it...; It's not important that...; It's as if...;<br />

People can loosen up easily...; Perhaps you are...; Perhaps you can...; Perhaps you could...; Perhaps<br />

you're wondering...; This can be learned easily...; What do you think would happen if...; What would<br />

happen if...; What's it like to...; When you notice... ...then...; Will you...; Would you...; You come to...;<br />

You are learning to anticipate...; You can become aware that...; You know about these things...; You<br />

will feel...<br />

6.7. Tell Stories with embedded comm<strong>and</strong>s.<br />

By inserting embedded comm<strong>and</strong>s, you may talk about anything but simultaneously you will be<br />

programming the listener, “ordering” him to like you, desire your product, accept your argumentation.<br />

An imbedded comm<strong>and</strong> is reinforced considerably when you use the listener’s name to mark the begin<br />

of your comm<strong>and</strong>. We were …, <strong>and</strong> suddenly my friend says: “We are going to ……”; I read an article<br />

/ book / watched a movie / saw on TV …; So, this guy said to her: “I want you to …”; "anyway, they<br />

arrived at the cabin. Now, imagine, …"; It was like … (+ because + feeling) … Now, with me …; You<br />

know …<br />

Notice : the first part of the phrase is in the past tense, the embedded comm<strong>and</strong> is in the present tense!<br />

Telling stories is like painting (mental) pictures with words. Stories are so great to stimulate someone’s<br />

imagination. Because you are talking about fictive experiences or about other people’s experiences, he<br />

will be less critical <strong>and</strong> feel more free in his interpretation of your words. Almost instinctively, the<br />

listener will connect to the situation <strong>and</strong> feel the emotions that the characters in the story feel, <strong>and</strong><br />

apply them to the present moment.<br />

You will make your listener think about anything you want, just by telling him stories about the subject<br />

of your choice. The more vivid, descriptive, detailed <strong>and</strong> emotional your stories, the more he will think<br />

about how these things would feel to him, <strong>and</strong> the more emotional he will react to your stories. After<br />

all, you are not telling him what to do or how to feel, but just telling about what somebody else did <strong>and</strong><br />

felt.<br />

220


It’s important therefore to mention the desired result or feeling over <strong>and</strong> over again: Use chains of<br />

always stronger, connected feelings: A leads to B, B to C …; Link descriptions of actions <strong>and</strong><br />

situations to feelings - For instance: Description of action or situation + <strong>and</strong> this made him feel like …<br />

/ gives you the feeling of … <strong>and</strong> finally, use ambiguous words <strong>and</strong> expressions: light = "not heavy",<br />

but also means "bright", or "told a lie"; below me = blow me; close off = clothes off; laugh = love; new<br />

direction = nude erection; come = cum, ...<br />

6.8. Stimulate Visualization.<br />

When you tell somebody not to think of an old gnome, not to imagine his red pointed cap, not to think<br />

of his long white beard, nor of his high boots <strong>and</strong> typical duds, … What happens ? He inevitably thinks<br />

of a gnome anyway. To underst<strong>and</strong> what you are saying, the listener has no choice but to create in his<br />

mind some representation of an old gnome. A h<strong>and</strong>y way to make your listener think about or imagine<br />

something, is to tell them not to think about it, or that there’s no such thing as …, or that it is<br />

impossible to imagine …<br />

Always remember: Whatever you describe, your listener will visualize. The more sensory details you<br />

include (colors, sounds, smells, feelings, tastes, …), the stronger his response will be. Use vivid<br />

descriptions to allow your listener to feel as if he is directly experiencing what you describe, with all<br />

the emotions that follow from that experience : When you talk about a beach, don’t just refer to it as “a<br />

beach”, but tell how you walked up a hill <strong>and</strong> suddenly spotted this pure strip of l<strong>and</strong>, hidden between<br />

two dunes, where the light blue water glittered between the sun, with the softly murmuring wide ocean<br />

caressing the white s<strong>and</strong>y shore below you in an eternally repeated leisurely rising <strong>and</strong> falling flow of<br />

its white foamy waves.<br />

6.9. Practice Anchoring.<br />

Emotions are associative; they get linked to particular stimuli, which can later revive that emotion,<br />

even if there’s no logical connection between the stimulus itself <strong>and</strong> the emotion. Lots of people react<br />

very emotionally to certain old songs, because they automatically connect these songs to a special<br />

moment in their life.<br />

There are places, sounds, … that make us feel very good or sad, depending on which experiences we<br />

associate them with. If you had a truly positive experience with an Italian girl many years ago, you<br />

may suddenly realize that you have become a lover of all things Italian <strong>and</strong> maybe not even be able to<br />

remember or explain why.<br />

In exactly the same way, you can “anchor” strong emotions, that is: mark them <strong>and</strong> in this way link<br />

them to a touch, to a specific motion, to a painting, to the starlit sky … in fact, to anything at all. The<br />

stronger the emotion felt when the anchor is set, the stronger the response will be when the anchor is<br />

“fired” later.<br />

The more special <strong>and</strong> specific the anchor, the longer it will retain its function. Remember Jung’s<br />

Archetypes? People share a number of inner images. Some are universal, most however culturally<br />

determined.<br />

The trigger words that activate these images are nowadays called: power words. When talking to<br />

women for instance, chances are you trigger a few emotions when using these power expressions <strong>and</strong><br />

words : expressions: It feels as if I loved you before I met you; - as if I have always loved only you; -<br />

as if I have been searching for you all my life; - as if I love you since the dawn of mankind. I will love<br />

you as long as I live … <strong>and</strong> more. Just imagine feeling more intensely than ever before, feel this sense<br />

of overwhelming, irresistible passion… <strong>and</strong> then realize you can feel completely one with yourself,<br />

with the universe … <strong>and</strong> even more. Some Power Words are: angels, sacred, magic, fairy tales,<br />

221


princess, goddess, paranormal experiences, the inner voice, the inner self, the pure soul, biorhythm, the<br />

true nature, bigger whole, wholeness, universal bond, signs, destiny, fate, serendipity, be in touch with<br />

her path, true passion, be connected, connection with self, finding the One, the other half, things that<br />

are meant to be, realization cycle, harmony, peace, safety, protection, sharing, trust, calm ocean, safe<br />

harbor, feelings that bridge time, more, deeper, surrender = give in to, something overwhelming, allenveloping<br />

emotion, emotional growth, grow, learn, reaching deeper levels, enhance, beauty,<br />

adoration, …<br />

6.10. Use presuppositions.<br />

Presuppositions assume that the person you're persuading has already accepted your proposal or has<br />

reached an agreement with you, even he has not yet done so.<br />

See how the questions below "presupposes" your desired outcome. "Are you still willing to join me in<br />

my quest?" (This question does not ask "if" you're willing, but it presupposes that you're already<br />

willing.); "I will give you $100 when you finish this task. (Notice I didn't say "if" but "when."); "When<br />

do you want to start doing your assignment?" (It assumes you already want to do it; the only question<br />

is "when" to start); "How happy are you to be here in this memorable event?" (It assumes you're<br />

already happy; the only question is your level of happiness.); "I'm glad you checked this out. How will<br />

you apply it to your business?" (It assumes you will apply it; the only question is "how" you will apply<br />

it.); "Shall we start the program on Thursday or Friday?" (It assumes the program will push through;<br />

the only question is "when.")<br />

When you ask these questions, people will also start thinking of answers <strong>and</strong> may therefore get<br />

distracted from thoroughly underst<strong>and</strong>ing your question. You can then easily persuade them at this<br />

point.<br />

6.11. Use The Magical Conversational Hypnosis Questions.<br />

You can make people do what you want right now by asking a question that assumes he has already did<br />

your desired request.<br />

Here's an example: "If you made money with this program, would you continue your membership?" -<br />

If he says "yes", then you're in a much better position to persuade. That's because he will never know if<br />

he will make money with your program... unless he joined.<br />

222


Another way of asking is called: The false choice. "Do you want to completely relax or do you prefer<br />

to just chill out?", "Would you prefer to go to "the Kings", or do you prefer "the Shakespeare"?" ...<br />

whatever choice is made, leads to a convenient situation for you! In fact, where it comes down to is :<br />

never ask questions, but make it seem like you are.<br />

Never, never EVER do I ask someone to do something. Tell them they can. Tell them they will. But let<br />

them THINK you are asking. "We have a household goal of $60 once for the year. We only come<br />

around once a year <strong>and</strong> $60 gives us $5 a month to budget with, fight the cause in your name <strong>and</strong> win.<br />

You can meet that goal tonight, right."<br />

Notice there is no question mark at the end of that sentence. That's because there is no question. The<br />

words may sound like a question, but your tone should sound like you are stating a cold hard fact. You<br />

can say no to a question, it's a lot harder to say no to a fact.<br />

Confidence is key. Be confident that your listener wants to do what you are suggesting. Be positive.<br />

Not selling your idea isn’t an option. Talk, confident that the other is interested in what you are having<br />

to say. Confident also that they want to get involved. Most of the time they will do what you want,<br />

because it never even occurs to them to do otherwise. Back that confidence by using strong assertive<br />

language: NOT: “I am trying, maybe we could, …” BUT: “I will” - NOT: not “you could help me if<br />

…” BUT: “you will help me by …”<br />

6.12. Use Subliminal Valorisation.<br />

Make yourself a winner : Have others name you, "The one they trust", "The (only)one that can satisfy<br />

their desire, need, longing..."; Healthy, h<strong>and</strong>some, smart, tender, protective, strong, caring,... Make<br />

them repeat : I want, need, desire … <strong>and</strong> Include specific positive information about yourself: Your<br />

Preferences, Things you are good at <strong>and</strong> Your Successes. Also, don't forget to refer to previous periods<br />

of wellbeing, happiness <strong>and</strong> success.<br />

223


7. Manipulative Relationships<br />

7.1 How to Recognize a Manipulative Relationship<br />

http://www.wikihow.com/Recognize-a-Manipulative-or-Controlling-Relationship<br />

Edited by Foxglove, Sondra C, Jack Herrick, Krystle <strong>and</strong> 73 others<br />

Are you losing yourself to an odd, <strong>and</strong> ultimately destructive, relationship? Do you find your old<br />

friends falling away, while family members remark on how you don't seem like yourself? Before you<br />

can regain your individuality <strong>and</strong> strength, you'll need to determine whether the relationship is taking<br />

something away, <strong>and</strong>, if so, you must put an end to the destructive cycle..<br />

Steps<br />

Screen yourself: Some people are more vulnerable to manipulators than others.<br />

Here are some common traits of those who are vulnerable to manipulators<br />

You feel useful <strong>and</strong> loved only when you can take care of the needs of other people. This goes beyond<br />

being nice to other people. Your sense of worth is tied up in doing things for other people. In fact, you<br />

take this so far that you please other people at the expense of your own well-being. For example, you<br />

might buy something especially nice for your partner or a friend when you would never spend that kind<br />

of money on yourself. Manipulators are drawn to this type of person <strong>and</strong> have no qualms about taking<br />

advantage of this particular personality trait.<br />

224


You need to have the approval <strong>and</strong> acceptance of other people. Although most people appreciate being<br />

accepted, a problem occurs when you feel that you must be accepted by everyone at all times. The core<br />

problem here is the fear of being rejected or ab<strong>and</strong>oned - <strong>and</strong> it is so strong that you would do anything<br />

to avoid the feelings associated with this fear. The manipulator works by giving you the acceptance<br />

that you need - <strong>and</strong> then threatening to withdraw it.<br />

You fear expressing negative emotions. Although expressing anger <strong>and</strong> engaging in a conflict are never<br />

pleasant, some people will go to any length to avoid a confrontation. They want things to be pleasant at<br />

all times. They fear that they will fall apart in the face of negative emotions. Manipulators have an easy<br />

task in this kind of relationship - all they have to do is to threaten to raise their voice, <strong>and</strong> then they get<br />

their way.<br />

You are unable to say no. One of the characteristics of a healthy relationship is appropriate boundaries<br />

that clarify who you are <strong>and</strong> what you st<strong>and</strong> for. In order to maintain healthy boundaries, however, you<br />

must sometimes say no when someone attempts to push your limits. If you are afraid of the conflict<br />

that may arise when you say no, you play into the h<strong>and</strong>s of the manipulator.<br />

Learning effective assertiveness techniques is a way to regain your sense of control in a manipulative<br />

relationship.<br />

You lack a firm sense of your own self. A clear sense of self means that you know what your values<br />

are, who you are, what you st<strong>and</strong> for, <strong>and</strong> where you begin <strong>and</strong> the other person ends. If you have an<br />

unclear sense of self, it is difficult to trust your own judgment or to make decisions that work in your<br />

favor. Without a clear definition of your self, you may be an easy target for a manipulator.<br />

If you are in a manipulative relationship, it is helpful to recognize the personal tendencies that allow<br />

the other person to assert control over you. You can come to underst<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> explore these safely with<br />

the support of a professionally trained therapist. While you may not be able to change the behavior of<br />

the manipulator, you can change your own responses to attempts at manipulation so that you achieve a<br />

firmer sense of your own integrity. The unhappiness resulting from a manipulative relationship can<br />

lead to life-changing experiences that generate insight <strong>and</strong> the ability to cope more effectively with the<br />

dem<strong>and</strong>s of everyday living.<br />

(Braiker, Harriet B. - Who's Pulling Your Strings? How to Break the Cycle of <strong>Manipulation</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />

Regain Control of Your Life.)<br />

Evaluate honestly:<br />

Is this relationship healthy, or is it unhealthy? Try to be objective as you analyze how things have<br />

changed since this relationship began.<br />

Ask yourself if you're in an abusive relationship.<br />

Look at the list below from the University of Virginia, <strong>and</strong> answer honestly <strong>and</strong> without justifying your<br />

partner's behavior (that is, don't say "Well, she's not like that ALL the time," or "It's only happened<br />

once or twice"). Simply answer yes or no. If you find yourself putting down a lot of yes answers,<br />

chances are you're in a controlling relationship [1] :<br />

225


o Does your partner:<br />

Embarrass or make fun of you in front of your friends or family?<br />

Put down your accomplishments or goals?<br />

Make you feel like you are unable to make decisions?<br />

Use intimidation or threats to gain<br />

compliance?<br />

Tell you that you are nothing without<br />

them?<br />

Treat you roughly - grab, push, pinch,<br />

shove or hit you?<br />

Call you several times a night or show up<br />

to make sure you are where you said you<br />

would be?<br />

Use drugs or alcohol as an excuse for<br />

saying hurtful things or abusing you?<br />

Blame you for how they feel or act?<br />

Pressure you sexually for things you aren’t<br />

ready for?<br />

Make you feel like there "is no way out" of the relationship?<br />

Prevent you from doing things you want - like spending time with your friends or family?<br />

Try to keep you from leaving after a fight or leave you somewhere after a fight to "teach you a<br />

lesson"?<br />

o Do you:<br />

Sometimes feel scared of how your partner will act?<br />

Constantly make excuses to other people for your partner’s behavior?<br />

Believe that you can help your partner change if only you changed something about yourself?<br />

Try not to do anything that would cause conflict or make your partner angry?<br />

Feel like no matter what you do, your partner is never happy with you?<br />

Always do what your partner wants you to do instead of what you want?<br />

Stay with your partner because you are afraid of what your partner would do if you broke up?<br />

10 signs that you may be in an abusive relationship:<br />

(Ruthie Hawkins - http://mommynoire.com/8561/are-you-in-an-abusive-relationship-learn-the-signs/)<br />

1. Your partner tries to control you: You should feel free to do whatever you want with your life.<br />

Abuse has many forms. If your partner is playing the role of a puppeteer, controlling your every move,<br />

he is manipulating you. This is a clear sign of emotional abuse.<br />

2. Your partner blames you for the misconduct: If you have to ask your friends <strong>and</strong> family if you’re<br />

partners behavior is abusive, chances are, you are being abused!<br />

3. Your partner uses excessive force to restrain or control you: At no point in a relationship is this<br />

okay! No man or woman should ever intentionally raise their h<strong>and</strong> to strike or use force to restrain their<br />

partner.<br />

4. You make yourself available to your partner no matter what, despite the personal cost, just to avoid<br />

confrontation.<br />

5. When you do talk to your significant other, he puts you down <strong>and</strong> makes you feel stupid.<br />

6. Your partner tries to isolate you, insisting that your time revolve around him, resulting in the loss of<br />

relationships with friends <strong>and</strong> family.<br />

226


7. Your partner tends to have a quick fuse, which makes you leery to talk to your partner about<br />

everyday happenings.<br />

8. You find yourself making excuses for your partners’ behavior.<br />

9. Your partner forces you to have sex, when you do not want to. Even if you are married, it’s rape!<br />

10. Your partner repeatedly threatens to leave you; making you feel that you need them.<br />

Are You in a Manipulative Relationship? - Answer the following questions with a True or False.<br />

_____ I sometimes feel confused about what my partner really wants.<br />

_____ I feel that my partner frequently takes advantage of my giving nature.<br />

_____ Even when I do something that pleases my partner, the positive feelings never last long.<br />

_____ With my partner I feel that it's hard just to be myself or do what I really want.<br />

_____ Around my partner, I feel taken for granted.<br />

_____ I seem to work harder on this relationship than my partner does.<br />

_____ My partner has a very strong impact on what I think <strong>and</strong> feel.<br />

_____ I sometimes feel that I am trapped in my relationship <strong>and</strong> there is no way out.<br />

_____ I don't feel as good about myself in my relationship as I once did.<br />

_____ I feel that I need my partner more than my partner needs me.<br />

_____ No matter how much I have done, I feel that it's not good enough for my partner.<br />

_____ I feel that my partner does not underst<strong>and</strong> who I really am.<br />

There are twelve questions in this quiz. If you answered more than half of them with True, you might<br />

want to consider exploring whether you are in a manipulative relationship.<br />

Evaluate how your other relationships have changed.<br />

o Are your family relationships <strong>and</strong> friendships suddenly filled with tension, every time your<br />

partner's name comes up? Red flags should go up if everyone who cares about you is getting<br />

worried or is being pushed away.<br />

Does this person bring out your best, or worst traits? Do you feed each others' best self, or have<br />

you seen your attitudes change to more closely mirror your partner's, which puts off your<br />

227


family <strong>and</strong> friends?<br />

Be aware of the way he/she behaves with your family <strong>and</strong> friends, especially if she/he<br />

interrupts them, contradicts them, or behaves dismissively. If you feel you need to apologize or<br />

explain her behavior to your family or friends, there's a problem there.<br />

o Are you realizing it's just become easier not to spend time with people you've loved for years,<br />

rather than to make apologies or excuses?<br />

Recognize your blindness to your partner's faults.<br />

Infatuation isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it can be necessary <strong>and</strong> good; however, it does make<br />

one "temporarily insane" for the first part of a relationship. Sometimes our starry-eyed affection can<br />

make us willfully close our eyes to warning signals, even though we really kind of know that our<br />

friends <strong>and</strong> family have a point when they say they don't like this or that about the significant other.<br />

228


Ask yourself:<br />

o Do you find yourself apologizing or defending your significant other's behavior? If you find<br />

yourself getting defensive when someone questions your relationship, you're probably already<br />

aware that there is a problem <strong>and</strong> haven't yet come to terms with it.<br />

o Remember that people in healthy relationships for the most part have nothing to hide or defend,<br />

although clearly they have a right to privacy <strong>and</strong> a healthy relationship is not one which requires<br />

each person to share <strong>and</strong> disclose every aspect of her/himself to her/his partner. In fact, when a<br />

relationship is healthy, your friends <strong>and</strong> family are normally going to recognize that this person<br />

makes you very happy, brings out the best in you, <strong>and</strong> they will rejoice with the two of you.<br />

o Notice if your plans are continually overturned in favor of hers/his. Instead, you're always<br />

changing plans to do what she/he wants, always meeting up with her/his friends.<br />

o Have all of your past attachments to people <strong>and</strong> places been replaced by either old friends of your<br />

new love, or new friends you've made since you've been together? Severing your ties to the<br />

familiar stability of people you have always known means she/he has just made herself/himself the<br />

center of your universe, <strong>and</strong> now has no competition for your attention.<br />

Pay attention to what others think of your partner.<br />

evaluate the entire relationship.<br />

When talking with mutual friends, have they<br />

ever said something about your new<br />

husb<strong>and</strong>/wife that made you stop <strong>and</strong> say,<br />

"Huh? But he/she said something different<br />

to me... You can't have understood that<br />

right." Did you then dismiss the idea that<br />

what your friends heard could have actually<br />

been true? That's a big red flag.<br />

o When you're being controlled or<br />

manipulated, it's usually through half-truths<br />

or omissions, not outright lies. There's just<br />

enough weirdness to make you stop <strong>and</strong><br />

think, but not quite enough to get you to re-<br />

o If this happens more than once, STOP <strong>and</strong> remind yourself that this isn't the first time you've had<br />

this reaction. Start analyzing discrepancies between what your spouse/significant other said <strong>and</strong><br />

what your friends say. If there are a lot of them, call him/her out on them. If his/her reaction or<br />

answers don't satisfy, it is time to re-evaluate in a major way. And don't delay doing the analysis -<br />

it may save you from disaster later.<br />

Keep your support system. Cutting you off from the friends <strong>and</strong> family that make up your support<br />

system helps her/him gain dominance over you — <strong>and</strong> you think it's your decision.<br />

o Notice that a controlling partner will treat your friends with disrespect — your friends will report<br />

rude remarks made behind your back, or you will actually see him/her treat them in a dismissive<br />

("You don't have the same experience I have") or outright rude way ("That's just stupid. You're<br />

wrong"). However, when you're alone with him/her, he/she never says a bad word about those<br />

friends, but rather is kind, loving, <strong>and</strong> even complimentary about them. It makes you believe your<br />

family or friends are simply jealous, don't underst<strong>and</strong> him/her, etc. You forget his/her nastiness to<br />

their faces because he/she's nice behind their backs.<br />

229


o When you find yourself telling your mom/father or sister/brother, "But, you have to underst<strong>and</strong><br />

him/her like I do," that's a bad sign. Why should everyone else underst<strong>and</strong> her/him <strong>and</strong> adjust their<br />

behavior — wouldn't it be easier if he/she would adjust his/hers? It's much easier for him/her to<br />

control you when you've decided your loved ones just don't underst<strong>and</strong> your mate, <strong>and</strong> soon, you<br />

have no one but her/him to turn to.<br />

Recognize excessive jealousy or possessiveness.<br />

If your partner is protective of you, that's sweet. If<br />

they're bizarrely over-protective, it's scary.<br />

Consider whether he/she constantly nags about how<br />

long it takes you to make a trip to the market or to<br />

the post office. Does she/he interrogate you if you<br />

aren't home exactly on time, or if you go out for<br />

any reason? Do they question you too intensely<br />

about why you were talking to another person? Do<br />

they tell you that you don't care about them or your<br />

children if you spend time with a friend?<br />

Watch for double st<strong>and</strong>ards <strong>and</strong> can't-win situations. Does your partner apply one st<strong>and</strong>ard to their<br />

own behavior <strong>and</strong> a different one to yours? For instance, it's okay for your partner to be two hours late<br />

but you get berated if you're five minutes later than expected? It's okay for them to flirt but probably<br />

infidelity if you flirt? Can't-win situations are when you get chewed out whatever you do — if you save<br />

money then you're being too stingy, if you spend it on going out with your partner then you're careless<br />

with money <strong>and</strong> it's your fault. Both of these patterns are common in controlling-manipulative<br />

relationships.<br />

Be wary of "courting" after repeat offenses. He/she does something that is totally unacceptable then<br />

asks your forgiveness, tells you they realize they were wrong, <strong>and</strong> promises to change. They seem<br />

utterly sincere <strong>and</strong> convincing — but it is part of the control. It is a way to use your compassion to<br />

keep you interested. Watch for the bad behavior to resume as soon as they believe they have you<br />

hooked <strong>and</strong> complacent again.<br />

o At this point he/she may even tearfully say she/he wants your help to change, particularly if you<br />

have let them know that you will not tolerate such things again. They may bring you lavish gifts<br />

<strong>and</strong> attempt to sweep you off your feet, again, re-establishing her/his sincerity <strong>and</strong> your belief that<br />

he/she truly loves you (<strong>and</strong> she/he may, but in a really toxic, controlling way).<br />

230


Beware of the backh<strong>and</strong>ed compliment. Saying, "Nobody will ever love you the way I do," seems<br />

sweet, but he/she wants you to believe that nobody but them will ever love you again. It fosters utter<br />

dependence on her/him <strong>and</strong> her/his love. Over time, these ideas erode your sense of confidence. You<br />

will begin to believe you're unworthy of better treatment, <strong>and</strong> they're the best you can hope for.<br />

Do not believe this, you deserve so much more — <strong>and</strong> that is what you should have.<br />

Stop berating yourself for loving this person. Realize that they're amazing — on the surface — <strong>and</strong><br />

you shouldn't beat yourself up for being attracted to that. These people are often an odd mix of very<br />

high intellect or talent, coupled with low self-esteem (although they often seem confident to the point<br />

of arrogance, a mask for their internal lack of true confidence).<br />

Controlling, manipulative people are not able to just let things happen naturally — they must control<br />

things or, in their mind, things will "get away" from her/him — so he/she's compelled by their inner<br />

horrors to make sure they're the one pulling all the strings. But what makes it most awful is that they're<br />

probably gorgeous (you thought so, right?) <strong>and</strong> smart, funny <strong>and</strong> charming. It's no wonder you fell for<br />

them.<br />

Tips<br />

Don't blow off the opinions of your friends <strong>and</strong> family; they do have your best interests in mind. One<br />

person can be ignored — many cannot. Do they tell you you're acting strange lately? Do they comment<br />

on how different you seem — <strong>and</strong> not in a good way? Has anyone you love <strong>and</strong> respect expressed<br />

actual dislike for your partner? Ask yourself, "Is my mom (for example) right about every other thing,<br />

but wrong about this ONE thing — the new boyfriend/girlfriend?" And if more than one close family<br />

member or friend is expressing dislike of the new guy/gal, give more weight to the negative opinions.<br />

Resist the temptation to be bitter about the experience. You've just survived a very tough situation <strong>and</strong><br />

lived to tell the tale!<br />

Key to this entire discussion is the recognition that the establishment of control is subtle, <strong>and</strong> often<br />

occurs over time. The entire purpose of the article is to help you examine your relationship for the<br />

warning signs. Because these signs can be subtle, it can be helpful to see a collection of warning signs;<br />

one sign may not be a problem. Four or five — talk to friends <strong>and</strong> relatives. If they affirm the signs are<br />

there, it may be time to re-evaluate this relationship — <strong>and</strong> try to do it outside of the control of this<br />

person.<br />

Do recognize that almost everyone is capable of some manipulative or controlling behaviors from time<br />

to time — we all want to get our way or to win the argument. But when you begin to recognize more<br />

than a few of the above warning signs, it's time to take a closer look at your relationship <strong>and</strong> decide<br />

whether it's truly an equal partnership.<br />

Make sure your relationship is a two-way street, <strong>and</strong> that your partner is giving as well as receiving. If<br />

you have something big coming up — an exam, for instance — so that if you get together, you will still<br />

need to study. He/she agrees initially to just come over <strong>and</strong> hang out while you study, but when he/she<br />

gets there, says something dismissive, like, "You shouldn't be studying when we're together, you<br />

should spend time with me. That exam isn't such a big deal <strong>and</strong> it's rude of you not to spend time with<br />

me." That should be a red flag. A healthy relationship means there is give <strong>and</strong> take. A controlling or<br />

manipulative relationship forces you to constantly choose between other important events <strong>and</strong> people<br />

in your life <strong>and</strong> your partner. Giving back in a relationship does not only mean showering you with<br />

affection <strong>and</strong> gifts. It means working together in co-operation on non-romantic subjects.<br />

Confess to your friends <strong>and</strong> family - apologize to them for marginalizing them <strong>and</strong> disregarding their<br />

bad opinion of this person. Tell them you wish you had listened to them. Get all the anger <strong>and</strong> hurt out<br />

of your system - they will be only too happy to share. They will rejoice when you tell them it's over.<br />

231


Don't be mean about it. You don't have to be like him/her to get away. Just say it's not a match <strong>and</strong> you<br />

don't intend to continue the relationship. Period. Don't try pointing out all of the above warning signs.<br />

This type of person won't recognize it himself/herself. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing - it wastes<br />

your time <strong>and</strong> makes the pig bitter.<br />

Controlling persons often check out of the relationship before you do; he may become detached <strong>and</strong><br />

apathetic toward you. But unless he is the one to end this relationship, even though it is obvious he is<br />

interested in someone else, or at least looking with interest at others, he will freak out if you are the one<br />

to leave, <strong>and</strong> spend hours berating you for your thoughtless ab<strong>and</strong>onment. Just so you know.<br />

If they seem to say one thing yet do another, then turn your ears off <strong>and</strong> your eyes on, decide based on<br />

behavior <strong>and</strong> conduct rather then words. Often the apologies are not sincere <strong>and</strong> what they really mean<br />

is "sorry you don’t like it but I will do it again."<br />

If they seem to say one thing yet do another, then turn your ears off <strong>and</strong> your eyes on, decide based on<br />

behavior <strong>and</strong> conduct rather then words. Often the apologies are not sincere <strong>and</strong> what they really mean<br />

is "sorry you don’t like it but I will do it again."<br />

Warnings<br />

Severely controlling <strong>and</strong> manipulative people are often produced by external factors such as abusive<br />

parents or clinical mental disorders. You cannot hope to change or rescue such a person, as much as<br />

you may care for them; the best help you can give them is to (A) refuse to be their victim, <strong>and</strong> (B)<br />

direct them to professional help.<br />

If they show up at your door after you've broken it off, don't open it if you're home alone. Make sure<br />

someone else is with you if you do decide to talk to them (not recommended), but even though you<br />

want to be compassionate, the best <strong>and</strong> easiest approach is to simply cut off contact.<br />

Watch for stalking or menacing behaviors or threats, including threats to harm you or your supporters,<br />

or to commit suicide. Don't rely on your own judgment to determine whether threats are serious.<br />

Report them to the police immediately. This person is probably just difficult <strong>and</strong> not dangerous, but<br />

don't take any chances. If necessary, get a restraining order <strong>and</strong> call the cops each <strong>and</strong> every time it is<br />

violated.<br />

Compassion is not easily understood or accepted by these folks, <strong>and</strong> it just hurts you both more in the<br />

end, as it is likely to be used as a weapon against you. Cutting them off may seem cruel, but it ends the<br />

confrontations <strong>and</strong> forces them to move on or get help.<br />

The likelihood of stalking <strong>and</strong> violent behaviors developing in this type of person is higher than in<br />

others, both for you <strong>and</strong> any supporters you might have. If you feel you're being stalked, notify the<br />

authorities <strong>and</strong> take steps to make yourself safe (travel with others, stay with friends or family, avoid<br />

places you frequented together, get a restraining order).<br />

Source: http://sexualassault.virginia.edu/dv_checklist.htm<br />

232


7.2 Are you the manipulative kind yourself?<br />

Source: The Times of India<br />

We have just the test for you to find out where you fit in...<br />

1. You ask your friend to look after your rabbit for the weekend, but you know she's not keen on it,<br />

so...<br />

1. You promise to do her a favour in return<br />

2. You plead that it's a favour, just this once...<br />

3. You buy her flowers if she accepts, as you are aware that she was not keen on it<br />

4. It's unfortunate that she let you down, you'll have to find someone else to take care of your pet<br />

in your absence<br />

2. You want to borrow your friend's beautiful green dress for a party...<br />

1. You ask her directly about it, without batting an eyelid<br />

2. You invite her to the party<br />

3. You hope she says yes<br />

4. You tell her that the dress does not suit her<br />

3. You <strong>and</strong> your partner are planning to see a movie, but you want to see the latest Ranbir Kapoor flick<br />

in town...<br />

1. You mention it to him, but also let him know of the other releases in town<br />

2. You keep raving about the reviews you've heard of the film, till he takes the cue<br />

3. You let him know that you are keen to see the film, but it's okay if he doesn't want to<br />

4. You make a deal with your partner that this time they watch the film you want to see, the next<br />

time they watch a film of his choice<br />

4. A colleague asks you a question by email...<br />

1. You don't reply straight away<br />

2. You reply instantly<br />

3. You reply as they'll then be obligated to return you the favour someday<br />

4. You reply as soon as you get time from the task at h<strong>and</strong><br />

5. You want to take a break, but your company is in midst of the peak period for business...<br />

1. You remind your boss that last year you worked around the same time, when others were on<br />

leave<br />

2. You insist that you need a break or you'll fall ill<br />

3. You say that you'll make up for your absence with overtime after leave<br />

4. You cross your fingers that he gives you permission to take a leave<br />

6. You are on a train or plane, <strong>and</strong> you find the window seat taken...<br />

1. You request the person occupying the window seat to exchange the seat with you if they don't<br />

mind<br />

2. You tell the passenger you feel sick <strong>and</strong> need to sit by the window<br />

3. You ask to exchange seats, by offering them the latest video game to play on<br />

4. You wait, hoping to get a free seat<br />

Results:<br />

Draw the line, you can be quite manipulative<br />

233


Ticking four bs (=nr 2s) from the five questions above shows exactly what your inclinations are. You<br />

don't listen to the other person's point of view. You don't respect anyone, as you are willing to walk<br />

over people to achieve your goals. Remember what goes around, comes around! So develop an attitude<br />

of tolerance, patience, as sometimes you need to hear a 'No' in your life.<br />

You know to use your charms<br />

If you get more cs (=nr 3s), it shows that you get your work done by charming your way through it. It's<br />

a gentle form of manipulation, but there's a danger of it going the other side. So take a break once in a<br />

while from using that charm of yours, learn to listen to people's opinions <strong>and</strong> their needs, <strong>and</strong> not force<br />

them to do what they don't really want to. It'll earn you a few brownie points with those around you.<br />

You are straightforward<br />

If you get three as (=nr 1s) out of five right, then you fall in this category of people. When you want<br />

something, you ask for it, knowing that the answer could be 'No.' Never having to manipulate shows<br />

great strength of character, although some may believe you to be passive, don't pay heed to them. Keep<br />

up the attitude, as it'll help you see things clearly for what they are, <strong>and</strong> help you keep moving forward.<br />

You just don't have 'it' in you<br />

If you've been ticking more ds (=nr 4s) than you need to, stop <strong>and</strong> think. You just are incapable of<br />

manipulating anyone, except yourself. It can put you in a frustrating situation most often, than not.<br />

Develop the streak to ask what you want. Be direct, as resorting to bribe a favour out of people will not<br />

help.<br />

Source:<br />

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-03-12/man-woman/37650428_1_window-seatexchange-seats-charms<br />

234


7.3 … We all manipulate!<br />

We all have needs <strong>and</strong> wants, <strong>and</strong> when we fail to get others to meet these needs via straightforward<br />

means (like requesting <strong>and</strong> negotiation) we employ more indirect/manipulative techniques to achieve<br />

them. Some manipulative strategies are more destructive than others, but in a pinch we all use them.<br />

If, however, we find ourselves in a relationship with a controlling person <strong>and</strong> feel trapped by their<br />

manipulation, we can feel helpless <strong>and</strong> endangered, leading to anxiety, anger <strong>and</strong> depression.<br />

Secrecy is what gives manipulators their power. But when we recognize <strong>and</strong> label how someone is<br />

manipulating us, we strip the manipulator of his or her power over us, which gives us more choices;<br />

empowering us. Below is a list of 23 manipulative techniques.<br />

See how many you recognize in others, <strong>and</strong> in yourself.<br />

1.Physical Aggression, Anger, Intimidation, Threats - "If you don't do what I want you'll be sorry."<br />

2.Guilt - "Oh fine, you go off <strong>and</strong> enjoy your football game while I slave away in the kitchen."<br />

3.Constant Criticism - "Sure you did the laundry, but you folded everything the wrong way."<br />

4.Name Calling, Personal Attacks - "You're a total moron. I can't believe I married such a loser."<br />

5.Passive Aggression - "Well yes, I threw your old wallet away, but I didn't know it had money in it."<br />

6.Over-Dependence - "But I can't do it without you. You have to help me."<br />

7.Distraction - "Sure you're upset about my lying, but what about your affair last year?"<br />

8.Unwillingness To Forgive - "I know you said you were sorry, but I don't think you meant it."<br />

9.Over-Intellectualization - "There were 18 reasons for my behavior. Let me list them for you."<br />

10.Splitting hairs - "Technically I bought the TV, so I should have the right to decide what we watch."<br />

11.Psychiatric Labeling - "You're crazy. Everyone else agrees with me."<br />

12.Withdrawal - "I don't want to talk about it."<br />

13.Empty Promise Procrastination - "We can talk about it some other time - just not right now."<br />

14.Naiveté - "I don't underst<strong>and</strong>. You're going to have to explain it to me one more time."<br />

15.Rapid-Fire Responses - "Then there was your DUI, then the affair, then the gambling..."<br />

16.Double Binds - "So which is it, are you just stupid or are you deliberately trying to hurt me?"<br />

17.Spin & Distortion - "But you always get your way <strong>and</strong> I never get my way."<br />

18.Unwillingness to Compromise - "It's either my way or the highway--which is it going to be?"<br />

19.All-or-Nothing Thinking - "This is a complete disaster. Now we'll have to start all over."<br />

20.Mind Reading - "I know what you really meant by that, despite what you said."<br />

21.Isolationism - "You don't need to be spending time with family or friends. I'm all you need."<br />

22.Rhetorical Questions - "Why do you always...", "Why can't you ever..."<br />

23.Appealing to a Higher Authority - "It's not just my opinion, look at what the Bible says about it."<br />

Source: “common manipulation tricks” - by Clay Watkins, LMFT<br />

Clay Watkins is a licensed marriage <strong>and</strong> family therapist <strong>and</strong> specializes in men’s <strong>and</strong> couples issues.<br />

All contents © 2000-2009 Village Counseling Center<br />

http://www.villagecounseling.net/manipulations.shtml<br />

235


236


7.4. How to Deal With a Manipulator<br />

Source:<br />

This article was created by a professional eHow Contributor <strong>and</strong> edited by experienced copy editors,<br />

both qualified members of the Dem<strong>and</strong> Media Studios community.<br />

Manipulators seek one thing: control. Anyone can be manipulative or manipulated: parents, lovers,<br />

spouses, friends, children, employers or employees. Because any relationship that involves<br />

manipulation is destined for problems, you need to recognize <strong>and</strong> deal with a manipulator for your own<br />

mental <strong>and</strong> emotional health.<br />

1<br />

Identify manipulative behaviors. Manipulators are very good at what they do: controlling others. Their<br />

tactics vary, but the goal is always to get the manipulated to do what the manipulator wants.<br />

Manipulative behaviors can include threatening, flattering, giving you guilt or demeaning you. They<br />

may keep you guessing by alternating between excesses of affection <strong>and</strong> charm <strong>and</strong> coldness or anger.<br />

If you often feel stressed <strong>and</strong> resentful when dealing with someone, you may be enmeshed in a<br />

manipulative relationship.<br />

2<br />

Look at ways in which you play into the manipulator's h<strong>and</strong>s. List things you have done or not done to<br />

please the manipulator <strong>and</strong> how you felt when at the time.<br />

237


3<br />

Figure out which buttons the manipulator is pressing. For example, if you are a giving <strong>and</strong> caring<br />

person, a manipulator might suggest that you are cold <strong>and</strong> selfish if you are start resisting the<br />

manipulator's schemes.<br />

4<br />

Stop making excuses for the manipulator. If you blame the manipulative behavior on his insecurities or<br />

unhappy childhood, know that such excuses are a key part of his manipulative strategy. Be wary of<br />

anyone who regularly "plays the victim."<br />

5<br />

Turn down "generous" offers of help, money, time, etc. To a manipulator, these are always "quid pro<br />

quo." Manipulators use "gifts" they give to get something out of you.<br />

6<br />

Assert yourself. Say no to manipulative dem<strong>and</strong>s calmly <strong>and</strong> rationally.<br />

7<br />

Establish <strong>and</strong> maintain boundaries. You need to distance yourself emotionally in order to deal with the<br />

manipulative comments <strong>and</strong> behaviors. Cultivate detachment <strong>and</strong> consider it necessary "tough love."<br />

8<br />

Challenge lies <strong>and</strong> half-truths. Use logic instead of emotion to argue back. If necessary, end the battle<br />

by "agreeing to disagree." Hold your position. Be prepared to repeat yourself many times until the<br />

manipulator backs off.<br />

9<br />

Prepare yourself for the manipulator to escalate her behavior. The manipulator will not give up control<br />

without a fight. You will hear how "mean" you are <strong>and</strong> how "hurt" she is by your "uncaring" behavior.<br />

The manipulator's behavior may become worse than ever or she may totally withdraw. St<strong>and</strong> firm,<br />

don't get defensive <strong>and</strong> don't take the bait.<br />

10<br />

See how the manipulator responds to the changes you have made. Some people see the error of their<br />

ways <strong>and</strong> come to appreciate the benefits of a more equitable relationship. Once you deal with the<br />

manipulator, you will feel more optimistic, more powerful <strong>and</strong> once again in control of your destiny.<br />

Read more: How to Deal With a Manipulator | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_2106098_dealmanipulator.html#ixzz2NnNtiOVU<br />

238


239


8. Biographical References<br />

I want to finish this book with biographical articles about the three people that have most influenced<br />

this work. In fact, many articles in this book are directly based on their writings, on public domain<br />

articles published on the internet or taken from their publications on the internet (blogs).<br />

8.1. Robert Cialdini - Biography from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br />

Dr. Robert B. Cialdini<br />

Born (1945-04-27) April 27, 1945<br />

Occupation Psychologist, Author<br />

Robert B. Cialdini is Regents’ Professor Emeritus of<br />

Psychology <strong>and</strong> Marketing at Arizona State University.<br />

He is best known for his book on persuasion <strong>and</strong> marketing,<br />

Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Influence has sold<br />

over 2 million copies <strong>and</strong> has been translated into twenty-six<br />

languages. It has been listed on the New York Times<br />

Business Best Seller List. Fortune Magazine lists Influence<br />

in their "75 Smartest Business Books."<br />

Influence:<br />

The Psychology of Persuasion (ISBN 0-688-12816-5) has<br />

also been published as a textbook under the title Influence:<br />

Science <strong>and</strong> Practice (ISBN 0-321-01147-3).<br />

In writing the book, he spent three years going "undercover" applying for jobs <strong>and</strong> training at used car<br />

dealerships, fund-raising organizations, <strong>and</strong> telemarketing firms to observe real-life situations of<br />

persuasion. The book also reviews many of the most important theories <strong>and</strong> experiments in social<br />

psychology.<br />

Harvard Business Review lists Dr. Cialdini's research in "Breakthrough Ideas for Today's Business<br />

Agenda".<br />

The Psychology of Persuasion was included in 50 Psychology Classics (ISBN 978-1-85788-386-2) by<br />

Tom Butler-Bowdon, alongside works by Adler, Freud, Jung, Pavlov <strong>and</strong> Piaget.<br />

6 key principles of influence by Robert Cialdini<br />

Reciprocity - People tend to return a favor, thus the pervasiveness of free samples in marketing. In his<br />

conferences, he often uses the example of Ethiopia providing thous<strong>and</strong>s of dollars in humanitarian aid<br />

to Mexico just after the 1985 earthquake, despite Ethiopia suffering from a crippling famine <strong>and</strong> civil<br />

war at the time. Ethiopia had been reciprocating for the diplomatic support Mexico provided when<br />

Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935. The good cop/bad cop strategy is also based on this principle.<br />

Commitment <strong>and</strong> Consistency - If people commit, orally or in writing, to an idea or goal, they are more<br />

likely to honor that commitment because of establishing that idea or goal as being congruent with their<br />

self-image. Even if the original incentive or motivation is removed after they have already agreed, they<br />

will continue to honor the agreement. Cialdini notes Chinese brainwashing on American prisoners of<br />

war to rewrite their self-image <strong>and</strong> gain automatic unenforced compliance. See cognitive dissonance.<br />

<strong>Social</strong> Proof - People will do things that they see other people are doing. For example, in one<br />

experiment, one or more confederates would look up into the sky; byst<strong>and</strong>ers would then look up into<br />

240


the sky to see what they were seeing. At one point this experiment aborted, as so many people were<br />

looking up that they stopped traffic. See conformity, <strong>and</strong> the Asch conformity experiments.<br />

Authority - People will tend to obey authority figures, even if they are asked to perform objectionable<br />

acts. Cialdini cites incidents such as the Milgram experiments in the early 1960s <strong>and</strong> the My Lai<br />

massacre.<br />

Liking - People are easily persuaded by other people that they like. Cialdini cites the marketing of<br />

Tupperware in what might now be called viral marketing. People were more likely to buy if they liked<br />

the person selling it to them. Some of the many biases favoring more attractive people are discussed.<br />

See physical attractiveness stereotype.<br />

Scarcity - Perceived scarcity will generate dem<strong>and</strong>. For example, saying offers are available for a<br />

"limited time only" encourages sales.<br />

Selected publications<br />

Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive. Authors: Noah J. Goldstein, Steve J. Martin <strong>and</strong><br />

Robert B. Cialdini. Simon <strong>and</strong> Schuster, 2008, ISBN 978-1-4165-7096-7.<br />

Compliance with a request in two cultures: The differential influence of social proof <strong>and</strong><br />

commitment/consistency on collectivists <strong>and</strong> individualists. Authors: Cialdini, R.B., Wosinska, W.,<br />

Barrett, D.W., Butner, J. & Gornik-Durose, M. (1999). Personality <strong>and</strong> <strong>Social</strong> Psychology Bulletin 25,<br />

1242-1253.<br />

Cialdini, R. B., Sagarin, B. J., & Rice, W. E. (2001). Training in ethical influence. In J. Darley, D.<br />

Messick, <strong>and</strong> T. Tyler (Eds.). <strong>Social</strong> influences on ethical behavior in organizations (pp. 137–153).<br />

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.<br />

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). The science of persuasion. Scientific American, 284, 76-81.<br />

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science <strong>and</strong> practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. ISBN 978-0-<br />

205-60999-4.<br />

Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., & Cialdini, R. B. (2002) <strong>Social</strong> Psychology: Unraveling the Mystery<br />

(2nd Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.<br />

Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (2002). On-line persuasion: An examination of differences in<br />

computer-mediated interpersonal influence. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research <strong>and</strong> Practice, 6, 38-51.<br />

Sagarin, B. J., Cialdini, R. B., Rice, W. E., & Serna, S. B. (2002). Dispelling the illusion of<br />

invulnerability: The motivations <strong>and</strong> mechanisms of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Personality<br />

<strong>and</strong> <strong>Social</strong> Psychology, 83, 526-541.<br />

<strong>Social</strong> influence<br />

References1.^ Useem, Jerry (2005-03-21). "The Smartest Books We Know - March 21, 2005".<br />

Money.cnn.com.<br />

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/03/21/8254826/index.htm. Retrieved<br />

2013-01-27.<br />

241


8.2. George K. Simon – Biography from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br />

Born (1948-02-01) February 1, 1948<br />

Detroit, Michigan,<br />

United States<br />

Occupation Author, Public Speaker<br />

www.drgeorgesimon.com<br />

George K. Simon (born February 1, 1948) is a bestselling author <strong>and</strong><br />

frequent weblog contributor. His wife, Dr. Sherry Simon, is also a<br />

professional, living <strong>and</strong> working in Little Rock.<br />

Life<br />

Dr. George K. Simon, Jr., Ph.D. received his degree in clinical<br />

psychology from Texas Tech University. He has studied <strong>and</strong> worked<br />

with manipulators <strong>and</strong> other disturbed characters <strong>and</strong> their victims for<br />

many years. He has given over 250 workshops <strong>and</strong> seminars as well<br />

as made TV <strong>and</strong> radio appearances on the subject of dealing with manipulative people <strong>and</strong> other<br />

difficult personalities.<br />

Writing career<br />

Simon's first book, In Sheep's Clothing: Underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>and</strong> Dealing with Manipulative People deals<br />

with psychological manipulation. Dr. Simon discusses the tactics manipulators use to deceive <strong>and</strong> get<br />

the better of others. The book explains the tactics manipulators use to deceive <strong>and</strong> get the better of<br />

others <strong>and</strong> offers tips on how to avoid being victimized <strong>and</strong> how to be more empowered in any<br />

relationship.<br />

His latest book, "Character Disturbance: the Phenomenon of Our Age," attempts to provide an in-depth<br />

but readily underst<strong>and</strong>able explanation of the most difficult <strong>and</strong> problematic personalities a person is<br />

likely to encounter as well as practical ways to keep from being victimized by them. This book also<br />

advances the perspective that the phenomenon of "neurosis" about which most traditional<br />

psychological frameworks are concerned <strong>and</strong> which was largely an outgrowth of the highly repressive<br />

Victorian culture, has faded in both prevalence <strong>and</strong> intensity in modern times, <strong>and</strong> that the issue of<br />

greater social concern in an era of permissiveness <strong>and</strong> entitlement is necessarily character dysfunction,<br />

which manifests itself not so much in bizarre psychosomatic symptoms but rather in distorted thinking<br />

patterns, problematic attitudes, <strong>and</strong> irresponsible behaviors, <strong>and</strong> which can neither be adequately<br />

understood nor effectively dealt with via traditional approaches.<br />

Dr. Simon has written numerous articles on character impairment for several popular weblogs, <strong>and</strong> is<br />

the principal composer of the patriotic anthem known as America, My Home<br />

Television appearances<br />

In 1997 Dr. Simon appeared on the nationally syndicated The O'Reilly Report which originally aired<br />

on the Fox News Channel. In the Interview he discussed his book In Sheep's Clothing: Underst<strong>and</strong>ing<br />

<strong>and</strong> Dealing with Manipulative People. He has also appeared on CBS as well as Arkansas KTHV.<br />

Other appearances include. 3-18-97 "AM Focus" WMC NBC-Ch-4 Memphis, 3-28-97 "Metro<br />

Monitor" WBRC Fox Ch-6 Birmingham, 4-13-97 "Good Morning Texas" WFAA Dallas, 9-3-96 "Ch<br />

11 Evening News" KTHV, 12-12-96 KTHV Morning Show.<br />

Bibliography<br />

In Sheep's Clothing 02010-08-01August 2010 First published in 1996 by. A. J. Christopher &<br />

Company ISBN 096516960X. Currently, Parkhurst Brothers ISBN 9781935166306<br />

242


Character Disturbance 02011-10-01October 2011 Published by Parkhurst Brothers ISBN<br />

9781935166337<br />

References<br />

1.^ Dr. George K Simon, Author, In Sheep’s Clothing- Underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>and</strong> Dealing with Manipulative<br />

People. Manipulative-people.com. Retrieved on 2012-06-18.<br />

2.^ Simon, George (2010). In Sheep's Clothing: Underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>and</strong> Dealing with Manipulative People.<br />

Little Rock: Parkhurst Brothers. p. 176. ISBN 978-1-935166-30-6.<br />

3.^ dealing with DIFFICULT people. Arkansasonline.com (2007-09-16). Retrieved on 2012-06-18.<br />

4.^ Simon, George (2011). Character Disturbance: The Phenomenon of Our Age. Little Rock:<br />

Parkhurst Brothers. p. 256. ISBN 978=1=935166-33-7.<br />

5.^ http://counsellingresource.com/features/2012/07/11/budding-psychopaths-immature-characters/<br />

6.^ http://www.manipulative-people.com/<br />

7.^ http://parkhurstbrothers.com/catalog/anthem-for-the-millennium<br />

8.^ Dr. George Simon’s interview with Bill O’Reilly (Fox News- the orielly report) on his book In<br />

Sheep’s Clothing- Underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>and</strong> Dealing with Manipulative People « boldcorsic.<br />

Theboldcorsicanflame.wordpress.com (2011-11-28). Retrieved on 2012-06-18.<br />

9.^ Tactics of Manipulative People. YouTube (2008-07-15). Retrieved on 2012-06-18.<br />

10.^ Dr. George Simon interview | Video. todaysthv.com (2012-06-07). Retrieved on 2012-06-18.<br />

11.^ Conversation with Dr. George Simon: Underst<strong>and</strong>ing the troubled personality – 48 Hours. CBS<br />

News. Retrieved on 2012-06-18.<br />

243


8.3. Milton H. Erickson – Biography from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br />

Milton Hyl<strong>and</strong> Erickson<br />

Born 5 December 1901 (1901-12-05)<br />

Aurum, Nevada<br />

Died 25 March 1980 (1980-03-26)<br />

Phoenix, Arizona<br />

Occupation psychiatrist <strong>and</strong> psychotherapist<br />

Spouse(s) Helen, Elizabeth<br />

Milton Hyl<strong>and</strong> Erickson (5 December 1901 – 25 March<br />

1980) was an American psychiatrist specializing in<br />

medical hypnosis <strong>and</strong> family therapy. He was founding<br />

president of the American Society for Clinical Hypnosis<br />

<strong>and</strong> a fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, the<br />

American <strong>Psychological</strong> Association, <strong>and</strong> the American<br />

Psychopathological Association. He is noted for his<br />

approach to the unconscious mind as creative <strong>and</strong><br />

solution-generating. He is also noted for influencing brief<br />

therapy, strategic family therapy, family systems therapy,<br />

solution focused brief therapy, <strong>and</strong> neuro-linguistic<br />

programming.<br />

Personal history<br />

Erickson frequently drew upon his own experiences to provide examples of the power of the<br />

unconscious mind. He was largely self-taught <strong>and</strong> a great many of his anecdotal <strong>and</strong> autobiographical<br />

teaching stories are collected by Sidney Rosen in the book My Voice Will Go With You. Erickson<br />

identified many of even his earliest personal experiences as hypnotic or autohypnotic.<br />

Erickson grew up in Lowell, Wisconsin, in a modest farming family <strong>and</strong> intended to become a farmer<br />

like his father. He was a late developer <strong>and</strong> was both dyslexic <strong>and</strong> color blind. He overcame his<br />

dyslexia <strong>and</strong> had many other inspirations via a series of spontaneous autohypnotic "flashes of light" or<br />

"creative moments", as described in the paper Autohypnotic Experiences of Milton H. Erickson<br />

At age 17, he contracted polio <strong>and</strong> was so severely paralysed that the doctors believed he would die. In<br />

the critical night when he was at his worst, he had another formative "autohypnotic experience".<br />

E: As I lay in bed that night, I overheard the three doctors tell my parents in the other room that their<br />

boy would be dead in the morning. I felt intense anger that anyone should tell a mother her boy would<br />

be dead by morning. My mother then came in with as serene a face as can be. I asked her to arrange the<br />

dresser, push it up against the side of the bed at an angle. She did not underst<strong>and</strong> why, she thought I<br />

was delirious. My speech was difficult. But at that angle by virtue of the mirror on the dresser I could<br />

see through the doorway, through the west window of the other room. I was damned if I would die<br />

without seeing one more sunset. If I had any skill in drawing, I could still sketch that sunset. R: Your<br />

anger <strong>and</strong> wanting to see another sunset was a way you kept yourself alive through that critical day in<br />

spite of the doctors' predictions. But why do you call that an autohypnotic experience? E: I saw that<br />

vast sunset covering the whole sky. But I know there was also a tree there outside the window, but I<br />

blocked it out. R: You blocked it out? It was that selective perception that enables you to say you were<br />

in an altered state? E: Yes, I did not do it consciously. I saw all the sunset, but I didn't see the fence <strong>and</strong><br />

large boulder that were there. I blocked out everything except the sunset. After I saw the sunset, I lost<br />

consciousness for three days. When I finally awakened, I asked my father why they had taken out that<br />

fence, tree, <strong>and</strong> boulder. I did not realize I had blotted them out when I fixed my attention so intensely<br />

on the sunset. Then, as I recovered <strong>and</strong> became aware of my lack of abilities, I wondered how I was<br />

going to earn a living. I had already published a paper in a national agricultural journal. "Why Young<br />

244


Folks Leave the Farm." I no longer had the strength to be a farmer, but maybe I could make it as a<br />

doctor.<br />

Recovering, still almost entirely lame in bed, <strong>and</strong> unable to speak, he became strongly aware of the<br />

significance of non-verbal communication - body language, tone of voice <strong>and</strong> the way that these nonverbal<br />

expressions often directly contradicted the verbal ones.<br />

I had polio, <strong>and</strong> I was totally paralyzed, <strong>and</strong> the inflammation was so great that I had a sensory<br />

paralysis too. I could move my eyes <strong>and</strong> my hearing was undisturbed. I got very lonesome lying in bed,<br />

unable to move anything except my eyeballs. I was quarantined on the farm with seven sisters, one<br />

brother, two parents, <strong>and</strong> a practical nurse. And how could I entertain myself? I started watching<br />

people <strong>and</strong> my environment. I soon learned that my sisters could say "no" when they meant "yes." And<br />

they could say "yes" <strong>and</strong> mean "no" at the same time. They could offer another sister an apple <strong>and</strong> hold<br />

it back. And I began studying nonverbal language <strong>and</strong> body language. I had a baby sister who had<br />

begun to learn to creep. I would have to learn to st<strong>and</strong> up <strong>and</strong> walk. And you can imagine the intensity<br />

with which I watched as my baby sister grew from creeping to learning how to st<strong>and</strong> up.[4]<br />

He began to recall "body memories" of the muscular activity of his own body. By concentrating on<br />

these memories, he slowly began to regain control of parts of his body to the point where he was<br />

eventually again able to talk <strong>and</strong> use his arms. Still unable to walk, he decided to train his body further,<br />

by embarking - alone - on a thous<strong>and</strong> mile canoe trip with only a few dollars. After this grueling trip,<br />

he was able to walk with a cane. This experience may have contributed to Erickson's technique of<br />

using "ordeals" in a therapeutic context. (See below).<br />

Erickson was an avid medical student, <strong>and</strong> was so curious about <strong>and</strong> engaged with psychiatry that he<br />

got a psychology degree while he was still studying medicine.<br />

Much later, in his fifties he developed post-polio syndrome, characterized by pain <strong>and</strong> muscle<br />

weakness caused by the chronic over-use of partially paralyzed muscles. The condition left him even<br />

more severely paralyzed, but having been through the experience once before, he now had a strategy<br />

for recovering some use of his muscles, which he employed again. After this second recovery, he was<br />

obliged to use a wheelchair, <strong>and</strong> suffered chronic pain, which he controlled with self-hypnosis:<br />

It usually takes me an hour after I awaken to get all the pain out. It used to be easier when I was<br />

younger. I have more muscle <strong>and</strong> joint difficulties now... Recently the only way I could get control<br />

over the pain was by sitting in bed, pulling a chair close, <strong>and</strong> pressing my larynx against the back of the<br />

chair. That was very uncomfortable: But it was discomfort I was deliberately creating.<br />

In the early 1950s, anthropologist/cyberneticist Gregory Bateson involved Erickson as a consultant as<br />

part of his extensive research on communication. The two had met earlier, after Bateson <strong>and</strong> Margaret<br />

Mead had called upon him to analyse the films Mead had made of trance states in Bali. Through<br />

Bateson, Erickson met Jay Haley, Richard B<strong>and</strong>ler <strong>and</strong> John Grinder, amongst others, <strong>and</strong> had a<br />

profound influence on them all. They went on to write several books about him.<br />

In 1973, Jay Haley published Uncommon Therapy, which for the first time brought Erickson <strong>and</strong> his<br />

approaches to the attention of those outside the clinical hypnosis community. His fame <strong>and</strong> reputation<br />

spread rapidly, <strong>and</strong> so many people wished to meet him that he began holding teaching seminars,<br />

which continued until his death.<br />

Milton H. Erickson died in March 1980, aged 78, leaving four sons, four daughters, <strong>and</strong> a lasting<br />

legacy to the worlds of psychology, psychiatry, psychotherapy, hypnotherapy, pedagogics <strong>and</strong><br />

communications.<br />

245


Hypnosis<br />

Erickson is noted for his often unconventional approach to psychotherapy, such as described in the<br />

book Uncommon Therapy, by Jay Haley, <strong>and</strong> the book Hypnotherapy: An Exploratory Casebook, by<br />

Milton H. Erickson <strong>and</strong> Ernest L. Rossi (1979, New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc.). He developed an<br />

extensive use of therapeutic metaphor <strong>and</strong> story as well as hypnosis <strong>and</strong> coined the term brief therapy<br />

for his approach of addressing therapeutic changes in relatively few sessions.<br />

Erickson's use of interventions influenced the strategic therapy <strong>and</strong> family systems therapy<br />

practitioners beginning in the 1950s among them, Virginia Satir <strong>and</strong> Jay Haley. He was noted for his<br />

ability to "utilize" anything about a patient to help them change, including their beliefs, favorite words,<br />

cultural background, personal history, or even their neurotic habits.<br />

Through conceptualizing the unconscious as highly separate from the conscious mind, with its own<br />

awareness, interests, responses, <strong>and</strong> learnings, he taught that the unconscious mind was creative,<br />

solution-generating, <strong>and</strong> often positive.<br />

He was an important influence on neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), which was in part based upon<br />

his working methods.<br />

Erickson believed that the unconscious mind was always listening, <strong>and</strong> that, whether or not the patient<br />

was in trance, suggestions could be made which would have a hypnotic influence, as long as those<br />

suggestions found some resonance at the unconscious level. The patient can be aware of this, or can be<br />

completely oblivious that something is happening. Erickson would see if the patient would respond to<br />

one or another kind of indirect suggestion, <strong>and</strong> allow the unconscious mind to actively participate in<br />

the therapeutic process. In this way, what seemed like a normal conversation might induce a hypnotic<br />

trance, or a therapeutic change in the subject. According to Weitzenhoffer, "[Erickson's] conception of<br />

the unconscious is definitely not the one held by Freud."<br />

Erickson was an irrepressible practical joker, <strong>and</strong> it was not uncommon for him to slip indirect<br />

suggestions into all kinds of situations, including in his own books, papers, lectures <strong>and</strong> seminars.<br />

Erickson also believed that it was even appropriate for the therapist to go into trance.<br />

I go into trances so that I will be more sensitive to the intonations <strong>and</strong> inflections of my patients'<br />

speech. And to enable me to hear better, see better.<br />

Erickson maintained that trance is a common, everyday occurrence. For example, when waiting for<br />

buses <strong>and</strong> trains, reading or listening, or even being involved in strenuous physical exercise, it's quite<br />

normal to become immersed in the activity <strong>and</strong> go into a trance state, removed from any other<br />

irrelevant stimuli. These states are so common <strong>and</strong> familiar that most people do not consciously<br />

recognize them as hypnotic phenomena.<br />

The same situation is in evidence in everyday life, however, whenever attention is fixated with a<br />

question or an experience of the amazing, the unusual, or anything that holds a person's interest. At<br />

such moments people experience the common everyday trance; they tend to gaze off to the right or left,<br />

depending upon which cerebral hemisphere is most dominant (Baleen, 1969) <strong>and</strong> get that faraway or<br />

blank look. Their eyes may actually close, their bodies tend to become immobile (a form of catalepsy),<br />

certain reflexes (e.g., swallowing, respiration, etc.) may be suppressed, <strong>and</strong> they seem momentarily<br />

oblivious to their surroundings until they have completed their inner search on the unconscious level<br />

for the new idea, response, or frames of reference that will restabilize their general reality orientation.<br />

We hypothesize that in everyday life consciousness is in a continual state of flux between the general<br />

reality orientation <strong>and</strong> the momentary microdynamics of trance...[9]<br />

246


Because Erickson expected trance states to occur naturally <strong>and</strong> frequently, he was prepared to exploit<br />

them therapeutically, even when the patient was not present with him in the consulting room. He also<br />

discovered many techniques for how to increase the likelihood that a trance state would occur. He<br />

developed both verbal <strong>and</strong> non-verbal techniques, <strong>and</strong> pioneered the idea that the common experiences<br />

of wonderment, engrossment <strong>and</strong> confusion are, in reality, just kinds of trance. (These phenomena are<br />

of course central to many spiritual <strong>and</strong> religious disciplines, <strong>and</strong> are regularly employed by evangelists,<br />

cult leaders <strong>and</strong> holy men of all kinds).[citation needed]<br />

Clearly there are a great many kinds of trance. Many people are familiar with the idea of a "deep"<br />

trance, <strong>and</strong> earlier in his career Erickson was a pioneer in researching the unique <strong>and</strong> remarkable<br />

phenomena that are associated with that state, spending many hours at a time with individual test<br />

subjects, deepening the trance.<br />

That a trance may be "light" or "deep" suggest a one dimensional continuum of trance depth, but<br />

Erickson would often work with multiple trances in the same patient, for example suggesting that the<br />

hypnotised patient behave "as if awake", blurring the line between the hypnotic <strong>and</strong> awake state.<br />

Erickson believed there are multiple states that may be utilized. This resonates with Charles Tart's idea<br />

(put forward in the book Waking Up) that all states of consciousness are trances, <strong>and</strong> that what we call<br />

"normal" waking consciousness is just a "consensus trance". NLP also makes central use of the idea of<br />

changing state, without it explicitly being a hypnotic phenomenon.<br />

Indirect techniques<br />

Where classical hypnosis is authoritative <strong>and</strong> direct, <strong>and</strong> often encounters resistance in the subject,<br />

Erickson's approach is permissive, accommodating <strong>and</strong> indirect. For example, where a classical<br />

hypnotist might say "You are going into a trance", an Ericksonian hypnotist would be more likely to<br />

say "you can comfortably learn how to go into a trance". In this way, he provides an opportunity for the<br />

subject to accept the suggestions they are most comfortable with, at their own pace, <strong>and</strong> with an<br />

awareness of the benefits. The subject knows they are not being hustled, <strong>and</strong> takes full ownership of,<br />

<strong>and</strong> participation in their transformation. Because the induction takes place during the course of a<br />

normal conversation, Ericksonian hypnosis is often known as Covert or Conversational Hypnosis.<br />

Erickson maintained that it was not possible consciously to instruct the unconscious mind, <strong>and</strong> that<br />

authoritarian suggestions were likely to be met with resistance. The unconscious mind responds to<br />

openings, opportunities, metaphors, symbols, <strong>and</strong> contradictions. Effective hypnotic suggestion, then,<br />

should be "artfully vague", leaving space for the subject to fill in the gaps with their own unconscious<br />

underst<strong>and</strong>ings - even if they do not consciously grasp what is happening. The skilled hypnotherapist<br />

constructs these gaps of meaning in a way most suited to the individual subject - in a way which is<br />

most likely to produce the desired change.<br />

For example the authoritative "you will stop smoking" is likely to find less leverage on the unconscious<br />

level than "you can become a non-smoker". The first is a direct comm<strong>and</strong>, to be obeyed or ignored<br />

(<strong>and</strong> notice that it draws attention to the act of smoking), the second is an opening, an invitation to<br />

possible lasting change, without pressure, <strong>and</strong> which is less likely to raise resistance.<br />

Richard B<strong>and</strong>ler <strong>and</strong> John Grinder identified this kind of "artful vagueness" as a central characteristic<br />

of their 'Milton Model', a systematic attempt to codify Erickson's hypnotic language patterns.<br />

Confusion technique<br />

In all my techniques, almost all, there is a confusion. A confused person has their conscious mind busy<br />

<strong>and</strong> occupied, <strong>and</strong> is very much inclined to draw upon unconscious learnings to make sense of things.<br />

A confused person is in a trance of their own making - <strong>and</strong> therefore goes readily into that trance<br />

247


without resistance. Confusion might be created by ambiguous words, complex or endless sentences,<br />

pattern interruption or a myriad of other techniques to incite transderivational searches.<br />

Scottish surgeon James Braid, who coined the term "hypnotism", claimed that focused attention was<br />

essential for creating hypnotic trances; indeed, his thesis was that hypnosis was in essence a state of<br />

extreme focus. But it can be difficult for people racked by pain, fear or suspicion to focus on anything<br />

at all. Thus other techniques for inducing trance become important, or as Erickson explained:<br />

... long <strong>and</strong> frequent use of the confusion technique has many times effected exceedingly rapid<br />

hypnotic inductions under unfavourable conditions such as acute pain of terminal malignant disease<br />

<strong>and</strong> in persons interested but hostile, aggressive, <strong>and</strong> resistant...<br />

H<strong>and</strong>shake induction<br />

Among Erickson's best-known innovations is the hypnotic h<strong>and</strong>shake induction, which is a type of<br />

confusion technique. The induction is done by the hypnotist going to shake h<strong>and</strong>s with the subject, then<br />

interrupting the flow of the h<strong>and</strong>shake in some way, such as by grabbing the subject's wrist instead. If<br />

the h<strong>and</strong>shake continues to develop in a way which is out-of-keeping with expectations, a simple, nonverbal<br />

trance is created, which may then be reinforced or utilized by the hypnotist. All these responses<br />

happen naturally <strong>and</strong> automatically without telling the subject to consciously focus on an idea.<br />

Although it is believed this technique originated from Erickson, it actually did not. Richard B<strong>and</strong>ler<br />

told people Milton taught him this technique. But he imbedded some parts that in fact were impossible<br />

for Milton to have done. Such as "gradually lessening the pressure with his right h<strong>and</strong>" which of course<br />

was impossible for Erickson to have done since he was almost completely paralysed in his right h<strong>and</strong>.<br />

B<strong>and</strong>ler talks about this in one of his videos Creating Therapeutic Change.<br />

This induction works because shaking h<strong>and</strong>s is one of the actions learned <strong>and</strong> operated as a single<br />

"chunk" of behavior; tying shoelaces is another classic example. If the behavior is diverted or frozen<br />

midway, the person literally has no mental space for this - he is stopped in the middle of unconsciously<br />

executing a behavior that hasn't got a "middle". The mind responds by suspending itself in trance until<br />

either something happens to give a new direction, or it "snaps out". A skilled hypnotist can often use<br />

that momentary confusion <strong>and</strong> suspension of normal processes to induce trance quickly <strong>and</strong> easily.<br />

The various descriptions of Erickson's hypnotic h<strong>and</strong>shake, including his own very detailed accounts,<br />

indicate that a certain amount of improvisation is involved, <strong>and</strong> that watching <strong>and</strong> acting upon the<br />

subject's responses is key to a successful outcome.<br />

Erickson described the routine as follows:<br />

Initiation:<br />

When I begin by shaking h<strong>and</strong>s, I do so normally. The "hypnotic touch" then begins when I let loose.<br />

The letting loose becomes transformed from a firm grip into a gentle touch by the thumb, a lingering<br />

drawing away of the little finger, a faint brushing of the subject's h<strong>and</strong> with the middle finger - just<br />

enough vague sensation to attract the attention. As the subject gives attention to the touch of your<br />

thumb, you shift to a touch with your little finger. As your subject's attention follows that, you shift to a<br />

touch with your middle finger <strong>and</strong> then again to the thumb.<br />

This arousal of attention is merely an arousal without constituting a stimulus for a response.<br />

The subject's withdrawal from the h<strong>and</strong>shake is arrested by this attention arousal, which establishes a<br />

waiting set, <strong>and</strong> expectancy.<br />

Then almost, but not quite simultaneously (to ensure separate neural recognition), you touch the<br />

undersurface of the h<strong>and</strong> (wrist) so gently that it barely suggests an upward push. This is followed by a<br />

similar utterly slight downward touch, <strong>and</strong> then I sever contact so gently that the subject does not know<br />

exactly when - <strong>and</strong> the subject's h<strong>and</strong> is left going neither up nor down, but cataleptic.<br />

248


Termination: If you don't want your subject to know what you are doing, you simply distract their<br />

attention, usually by some appropriate remark, <strong>and</strong> casually terminate. Sometimes they remark, "What<br />

did you say? I got absentminded there for a moment <strong>and</strong> wasn't paying attention to anything." This is<br />

slightly distressing to the subjects <strong>and</strong> indicative of the fact that their attention was so focused <strong>and</strong><br />

fixated on the peculiar h<strong>and</strong> stimuli that they were momentarily entranced so they did not hear what<br />

was said.<br />

Utilisation:<br />

Any utilisation leads to increasing trance depth. All utilisation should proceed as a continuation of<br />

extension of the initial procedure. Much can be done nonverbally; for example, if any subjects are just<br />

looking blankly at me, I may slowly shift my gaze downward, causing them to look at their h<strong>and</strong>,<br />

which I touch <strong>and</strong> say "look at this spot.". This intensifies the trance state. Then, whether the subjects<br />

are looking at you or at their h<strong>and</strong> or just staring blankly, you can use your left h<strong>and</strong> to touch their<br />

elevated right h<strong>and</strong> from above or the side - so long as you merely give the suggestion of downward<br />

movement. Occasionally a downward nudge or push is required. If a strong push or nudge is required,<br />

check for anaesthesia.<br />

Richard B<strong>and</strong>ler was a keen proponent of the h<strong>and</strong>shake induction, <strong>and</strong> developed his own variant,<br />

which is commonly taught in NLP workshops.<br />

Any habitual pattern which is interrupted unexpectedly will cause sudden <strong>and</strong> light trance. The<br />

h<strong>and</strong>shake is a particularly good pattern to interrupt because the formality of a h<strong>and</strong>shake is a widely<br />

understood set of social rules. Since everyone knows that it would be impolite to comment on the<br />

quality of a h<strong>and</strong>shake, regardless of how strange it may be, the subject is obliged to embark on an<br />

inner search (known as a transderivational search, a universal <strong>and</strong> compelling type of trance) to<br />

identify the meaning or purpose of the subverted pattern.<br />

Resistance<br />

Erickson recognised that many people were intimidated by hypnosis <strong>and</strong> the therapeutic process, <strong>and</strong><br />

took care to respect the special resistances of the individual patient. In the therapeutic process he said<br />

that "you always give the patient every opportunity to resist". Here are some more relevant quotes<br />

pertaining to resistance:<br />

Whatever the behaviour offered by the subjects, it should be accepted <strong>and</strong> utilized to develop further<br />

responsive behaviour. Any attempt to "correct" or alter the subjects' behaviour, or to force them to do<br />

things they are not interested in, militates against trance induction <strong>and</strong> certainly deep trance experience.<br />

If the patient can be led to accept one suggestion, they will more readily accept others. With resistant<br />

patients, it becomes necessary to find a suggestion that they can accept. Resistance is always important,<br />

<strong>and</strong> should always be respected, so if the resistance itself is encouraged, the patient is made to feel<br />

more comfortable, because they know that they are allowed to respond however they wish.<br />

Many times, the apparently active resistance encountered in subjects is no more than an unconscious<br />

measure of testing the hypnotist's willingness to meet them halfway instead of trying to force them to<br />

act entirely in accord with his ideas.<br />

Although the idea of working with resistance is essentially a hypnotic one, it goes beyond hypnosis <strong>and</strong><br />

trance. In a typical example, a girl that bit her nails was told that she was cheating herself of really<br />

enjoying the nail biting. He encouraged her to let some of her nails grow a little longer before biting<br />

them, so that she really could derive the fullest pleasure from the activity. She decided to grow all of<br />

her nails long enough that she might really enjoy biting them, <strong>and</strong> then, after some days, she realised<br />

that she didn't want to bite them anyway.<br />

Ericksonian therapy<br />

Erickson is most famous as a hypnotherapist, but his extensive research into <strong>and</strong> experience with<br />

hypnosis led him to develop an effective therapeutic technique. Many of these techniques are not<br />

249


explicitly hypnotic, but they are extensions of hypnotic strategies <strong>and</strong> language patterns. Erickson<br />

recognized that resistance to trance resembles resistance to change, <strong>and</strong> developed his therapeutic<br />

approach with that awareness.<br />

Jay Haley identified several strategies, which appeared repeatedly in Erickson's therapeutic approach.<br />

Encouraging Resistance - For Erickson, the classic therapeutic request to "tell me everything about..."<br />

was both aggressive <strong>and</strong> disrespectful, instead he would ask the resistant patient to withhold<br />

information <strong>and</strong> only to tell what they were really ready to reveal:<br />

I usually say, "There are a number of things that you don't want me to know about, that you don't want<br />

to tell me. There are a lot of things about yourself that you don't want to discuss, therefore let's discuss<br />

those that you are willing to discuss." She has blanket permission to withhold anything <strong>and</strong> everything.<br />

But she did come to discuss things. And therefore she starts discussing this, discussing that. And it's<br />

always "Well, this is all right to talk about." And before she's finished, she has mentioned everything.<br />

And each new item - "Well, this really isn't so important that I have to withhold it. I can use the<br />

withholding permission for more important matters." Simply a hypnotic technique. To make them<br />

respond to the idea of withholding, <strong>and</strong> to respond to the idea of communicating.<br />

Some people might react to a direction by thinking "why should I?" or "You can't make me", called a<br />

polarity response because it motivates the subject to consider the polar opposite of the suggestion. The<br />

conscious mind recognizes negation in speech ("Don't do X") but according to Erickson, the<br />

unconscious mind pays more attention to the "X" than the injunction "Don't do". Erickson thus used<br />

this as the basis for suggestions that deliberately played on negation <strong>and</strong> tonally marked the important<br />

wording, to provide that whatever the client did, it was beneficial: "You don't have to go into a trance,<br />

so you can easily wonder about what you notice no faster than you feel ready to become aware that<br />

your h<strong>and</strong> is slowly rising....."<br />

Providing a Worse Alternative (The 'Double Bind')<br />

Example: "Do you want to go into a trance now, or later?" The 'double bind' is a way of overloading<br />

the subject with two options, the acceptance of either of which represents acceptance of a therapeutic<br />

suggestion.<br />

My first well-remembered intentional use of the double bind occurred in early boyhood. One winter<br />

day, with the weather below zero, my father led a calf out of the barn to the water trough. After the calf<br />

had satisfied its thirst, they turned back to the barn, but at the doorway the calf stubbornly braced its<br />

feet, <strong>and</strong> despite my father's desperate pulling on the halter, he could not budge the animal. I was<br />

outside playing in the snow <strong>and</strong>, observing the impasse, began laughing heartily. My father challenged<br />

me to pull the calf into the barn. Recognizing the situation as one of unreasoning stubborn resistance<br />

on the part of the calf, I decided to let the calf have full opportunity to resist, since that was what it<br />

apparently wished to do. Accordingly I presented the calf with a double bind by seizing it by the tail<br />

<strong>and</strong> pulling it away from the barn, while my father continued to pull it inward. The calf promptly chose<br />

to resist the weaker of the two forces <strong>and</strong> dragged me into the barn.<br />

Communicating by Metaphor<br />

This is explored extensively in Sydney Rosen's My Voice Will Go With You, but an example is given<br />

in the first chapter of David Gordon's book Phoenix:<br />

I was returning from high school one day <strong>and</strong> a runaway horse with a bridle on sped past a group of us<br />

into a farmer's yard looking for a drink of water. The horse was perspiring heavily. And the farmer<br />

didn't recognize it so we cornered it. I hopped on the horse's back. Since it had a bridle on, I took hold<br />

of the tick rein <strong>and</strong> said, "Giddy-up." Headed for the highway, I knew the horse would turn in the right<br />

direction. I didn't know what the right direction was. And the horse trotted <strong>and</strong> galloped along. Now<br />

<strong>and</strong> then he would forget he was on the highway <strong>and</strong> start into a field. So I would pull on him a bit <strong>and</strong><br />

call his attention to the fact the highway was where he was supposed to be. And finally, about four<br />

250


miles from where I had boarded him, he turned into a farm yard <strong>and</strong> the farmer said, "So that's how that<br />

critter came back. Where did you find him?" I said, "About four miles from here." "How did you know<br />

you should come here?" I said, "I didn't know. The horse knew. All I did was keep his attention on the<br />

road."<br />

Erickson's metaphorical strategies can be compared with the teaching tales of the Sufis (those of for<br />

example the Nasreddin) <strong>and</strong> the Zen tradition of Koans, each also designed to act on the unconscious<br />

mind.<br />

Encouraging a Relapse<br />

To bypass simple short-lived "obedience" which tends to lead to lapses in the absence of the therapist,<br />

Erickson would occasionally arrange for his patients to fail in their attempts to improve, for example<br />

by overreaching. Failure is part of life, <strong>and</strong> in that fragile time where the patient is learning to live,<br />

think <strong>and</strong> behave differently, a r<strong>and</strong>om failure can be catastrophic. Deliberately causing a relapse<br />

allowed Erickson to control the variables of that failure, <strong>and</strong> to cast it in a positive therapeutic light for<br />

the patient.<br />

Encouraging a Response by Frustrating It<br />

This paradoxical approach acts directly on the patient's own resistance to change. Obese patients are<br />

asked to gain weight, or in a family therapy session, a stubbornly silent family member is ignored until<br />

the frustration obliges them to blurt out some desperate truth. Once again, this approach has its roots in<br />

Erickson's hypnotic language patterns of the form "I don't want you to go into a trance yet".<br />

Compare this with "Prescribing the Symptom" (below).<br />

Utilizing Space <strong>and</strong> Position<br />

Hypnosis <strong>and</strong> therapy are experienced subjectively by the patient, <strong>and</strong> any part of their total experience<br />

can be used to reinforce an idea. The physical position or even the posture of the patient can be a<br />

significant part of the subjective experience. Manipulating these factors can contribute to a therapeutic<br />

transformation.<br />

If I send someone out of the room - for example, the mother <strong>and</strong> child - I carefully move father from<br />

his chair <strong>and</strong> put him into mother's chair. Or if I send the child out, I might put mother in the child's<br />

chair, at least temporarily. Sometimes I comment on this by saying, 'As you sit where your son was<br />

sitting, you can think more clearly about him.' Or, 'If you sit where your husb<strong>and</strong> sat, maybe it will<br />

give you somewhat of his view about me'. Over a series of interviews with an entire family, I shuffle<br />

them about, so that what was originally mother's chair is now where father is sitting. The family<br />

grouping remains, <strong>and</strong> yet that family grouping is being rearranged, which is what you are after when<br />

changing a family."<br />

This may be directly compared with Fritz Perls' use of an "empty chair" as a context for imagined<br />

interactions (where the client was often invited to occupy the chair <strong>and</strong> thus take on the role of the<br />

person imagined to be sitting there); Bert Hellinger's approach, which requires the client to arrange<br />

family members (played by volunteers) in a row or pattern which matches the client's internal<br />

underst<strong>and</strong>ing, <strong>and</strong> then to reorganise the row; <strong>and</strong> Virginia Satir's work with tableaux <strong>and</strong> posture.<br />

Emphasizing the Positive<br />

Erickson claimed that his sensory "disabilities" (dyslexia, colour blindness, being tone-deaf) helped<br />

him to focus on aspects of communication <strong>and</strong> behavior which most other people overlooked. This is a<br />

typical example of emphasizing the positive.<br />

251


Erickson would often compliment the patient for a symptom, <strong>and</strong> would even encourage it, in very<br />

specific ways. In one amusing example, a woman whose in-laws caused her nauseous feelings in the<br />

gut every time they visited unexpectedly was "taught" to vomit spectacularly whenever the visits were<br />

especially inconvenient. Naturally the in-laws would always sympathetically help her clean up the<br />

vomit. Fairly soon, the annoying relatives started calling in advance before turning up, to see if she<br />

were "well enough" to see them.<br />

The subject of dozens of songs, "emphasizing the positive" is a well known self-help strategy, <strong>and</strong> can<br />

be compared with "positive reformulation" in Gestalt Therapy.<br />

Prescribing the Symptom <strong>and</strong> Amplifying a Deviation<br />

Very typically, Erickson would instruct his patients to actively <strong>and</strong> consciously perform the symptom<br />

that was bothering them (see the nailbiting example under #Resistance), usually with some minor or<br />

trivial deviation from the original symptom. In many cases, the deviation could be amplified <strong>and</strong> used<br />

as a "wedge" to transform the whole behaviour.<br />

INTERVIEWER: Suppose someone called you <strong>and</strong> said there was a kid, nineteen or twenty years old,<br />

who has been a very good boy, but all of a sudden this week he started walking around the<br />

neighborhood carrying a large cross. The neighbors are upset <strong>and</strong> the family's upset, <strong>and</strong> would you do<br />

something about it. How would you think about that as a problem? Some kind of bizarre behavior like<br />

that.<br />

ERICKSON: Well, if the kid came in to see me, the first thing I would do would be to want to examine<br />

the cross. And I would want to improve it in a very minor way. As soon as I got the slightest minor<br />

change in it, the way would be open for a larger change. And pretty soon I could deal with the<br />

advantages of a different cross - he ought to have at least two. He ought to have at least three so he<br />

could make a choice each day of which one. It's pretty hard to express a psychotic pattern of behavior<br />

over an ever-increasing number of crosses.[14]<br />

Seeding Ideas<br />

Erickson would often ensure that the patients had been exposed to an idea, often in a metaphorical<br />

form (hidden from the conscious mind) in advance of utilizing it for a therapeutic purpose. He called<br />

this "seeding ideas", <strong>and</strong> it can be observed to occur at many levels both coarse <strong>and</strong> fine grained, in<br />

many of his case histories. In a simple example, the question "Have you ever been in a trance before?"<br />

seeds the idea that a trance is imminent - the presupposition inherent in the word before is "not now,<br />

but later".<br />

Avoiding Self-Exploration<br />

In common with most brief therapy practitioners, Erickson was entirely uninterested in analysing the<br />

patient's early psychological development. Occasionally in his case histories, he will briefly discuss the<br />

patient's background, but only as much as it pertains to the resources available to the patient in the<br />

present.<br />

INTERVIEWER: You don't feel that exploring the past is particularly relevant? I'm always trying to<br />

get clear in my mind how much of the past I need to consider when doing brief therapy.<br />

ERICKSON: You know, I had one patient this last July who had four or five years of psychoanalysis<br />

<strong>and</strong> got nowhere with it. And someone who knows her said, "How much attention did you give to the<br />

past?" I said, "You know, I completely forgot about that." That patient is, I think, a reasonably cured<br />

person. It was a severe washing compulsion, as much as twenty hours a day. I didn't go in to the cause<br />

or the etiology; the only searching question I asked was "When you get in the shower to scrub yourself<br />

for hours, tell me, do you start at the top of your head, or the soles of your feet, or in the middle? Do<br />

you wash from the neck down, or do you start with your feet <strong>and</strong> wash up? Or do you start with your<br />

head <strong>and</strong> wash down?"<br />

252


INTERVIEWER: Why did you ask that?<br />

ERICKSON: So that she knew I was really interested.<br />

INTERVIEWER: So that you could join her in this?<br />

ERICKSON: No, so that she knew I was really interested.<br />

Shocks <strong>and</strong> ordeals<br />

Erickson is famous for pioneering indirect techniques, but his shock therapy tends to get less attention.<br />

Erickson was prepared to use psychological shocks <strong>and</strong> ordeals in order to achieve given results:<br />

When the old gentleman asked if he could be helped for his fear of riding in an elevator, I told him I<br />

could probably scare the pants off him in another direction. He told me that nothing could be worse<br />

than his fear of an elevator.<br />

The elevators in that particular building were operated by young girls, <strong>and</strong> I made special arrangements<br />

with one in advance. She agreed to cooperate <strong>and</strong> thought it would be fun. I went with the gentleman to<br />

the elevator. He wasn't afraid of walking into an elevator, but when it started to move it became an<br />

unbearable experience. So I chose an unbusy time <strong>and</strong> I had him walk in <strong>and</strong> out of the elevator, back<br />

in <strong>and</strong> out. Then at a point when we walked in, I told the girl to close the door <strong>and</strong> said, "Let's go up."<br />

She went up one story <strong>and</strong> stopped in between floors. The gentleman started to yell, "What's wrong!" I<br />

said, "The elevator operator wants to kiss you." Shocked, the gentleman said, "But I'm a married man!"<br />

The girl said, "I don't mind that." She walked toward him, <strong>and</strong> he stepped back <strong>and</strong> said, "You start the<br />

elevator." So she started it. She went up to about the fourth floor <strong>and</strong> stopped it again between floors.<br />

She said, "I just have a craving for a kiss." He said, "You go about your business." He wanted that<br />

elevator moving, not st<strong>and</strong>ing still. She replied, "Well, let's go down <strong>and</strong> start all over again," <strong>and</strong> she<br />

began to take the elevator down. He said, "Not down, up!" since he didn't want to go through that all<br />

over again.<br />

She started up <strong>and</strong> then stopped the elevator between floors <strong>and</strong> said, "Do you promise you'll ride down<br />

in my elevator with me when you're through work?" He said, "I'll promise anything if you promise not<br />

to kiss me." He went up in the elevator, relieved <strong>and</strong> without fear - of the elevator - <strong>and</strong> could ride one<br />

from then on.<br />

Controversy<br />

Erickson's work on hypnotism was controversial during his lifetime <strong>and</strong> has remained so to the present<br />

day. Some of his central presuppositions have been questioned by other researchers <strong>and</strong> the opaque<br />

nature of his explanations has led to a variety of competing interpretations of his approach.<br />

A friend <strong>and</strong> colleague of Erickson, the hypnosis researcher André Weitzenhoffer, a prolific <strong>and</strong> wellrespected<br />

author in the field of hypnosis himself, has extensively criticised the ideas <strong>and</strong> influence of<br />

Erickson in various writings, such as his textbook The Practice of Hypnotism. Weitzenhoffer displays a<br />

clear, <strong>and</strong> explicitly stated, bias against Ericksonian Hypnosis in his book, in favor of what he terms<br />

the semi-traditional, scientific, approach.<br />

The author Jeffrey Masson dedicated a whole sub-section of his book Against Therapy to criticism of<br />

Milton Erickson. Masson questions the accuracy of Erickson's case reports. Regarding Erickson's<br />

report of a female patient who was allegedly hypnotised to have spontaneous orgasms throughout the<br />

day, Masson writes, "The whole thing is tinged with fantasy <strong>and</strong> has a feeling of unreality about it."<br />

Masson was particularly concerned by Erickson's own reports of cases in which he acted in a manner<br />

he felt might be construed as sexually inappropriate. He even goes so far as to suggest that Erickson<br />

may have obtained "sexual pleasure" from cases like the following, where he reports asking a young<br />

female client to gradually strip naked in his office, allegedly as a psychotherapeutic exercise.<br />

253


"Now you need to know how to undress <strong>and</strong> go to bed in the presence of a man. So start undressing."<br />

Slowly, in an almost automatic fashion, she undressed. I had her show me her right breast, her left<br />

breast, her right nipple, her left nipple. Her belly button. Her genital area. Her knees. Her gluteal<br />

[buttock] regions. I asked her to point where she would like to have her husb<strong>and</strong> kiss her. I had her turn<br />

around [naked]. I had her dress slowly. She dressed. I dismissed her.<br />

Masson also notes that Erickson, as a psychiatrist in the Arizona State Hospital, was an enthusiastic<br />

advocate of the use of restraints, a subject which he delivered a well-attended talk on, <strong>and</strong> frequently<br />

had patients confined by straitjackets. Masson cites various instances of Erickson's behaviour toward<br />

psychiatric patients which he considers "cruel, crude jokes". Referring to Erickson's authoritarian<br />

approach as "prison-camp therapy" <strong>and</strong> "therapist-as-boss", Masson concludes, "It is not surprising that<br />

Erickson succumbed to the opportunity to abuse his patients, as the examples quoted make clear."<br />

Self-professed "sceptical hypnotist" Alex Ts<strong>and</strong>er cited Massons concerns in his 2005 book "Beyond<br />

Erickson: A Fresh Look at "The Emperor of Hypnosis"". The title of which alludes to Charcot's<br />

characterisation in the previous century as "The Emperor of the Neuroses". Ts<strong>and</strong>er re-evaluates a<br />

swathe of Ericksons accounts of his therapeutic approaches <strong>and</strong> lecture demonstrations in the context<br />

of scientific literature on hypnotism <strong>and</strong> his own experience in giving live demonstrations of hypnotic<br />

technique. Emphasising social-psychological perspectives, Ts<strong>and</strong>er introduces an "interpretive filter"<br />

with which he re-evaluates Erickson's own accounts of his demonstrations <strong>and</strong> introduces prosaic<br />

explanations for occurrences that both Erickson <strong>and</strong> other authors tend to portray as remarkable.<br />

Influence on others<br />

Erickson's friend, <strong>and</strong> sometime collaborator, Andre Weitzenhoffer, a well-known hypnosis researcher<br />

himself, has repeatedly raised concerns over the nature of Erickson's legacy.<br />

The majority of today's Ericksonians consist of individuals who have never known Erickson, even less<br />

been directly trained by him. Today, <strong>and</strong> for some time now, much of the teaching of the Ericksonian<br />

approach is <strong>and</strong> has been done by individuals who have acquired their knowledge second <strong>and</strong> third<br />

h<strong>and</strong>. [...] Some of those who did spend time with Erickson, like Jeffrey Zeig, Ernest Rossi, <strong>and</strong><br />

William O'Hanlon have tried, I believe, to present <strong>and</strong> preserve as much as they could what they<br />

believed <strong>and</strong> have understood Erickson's thought <strong>and</strong> methods to be. They have succeeded to do so to a<br />

fair degree. Others, like Richard B<strong>and</strong>ler <strong>and</strong> John Grinder have on the other h<strong>and</strong>, offered a much<br />

adulterated, <strong>and</strong> at times fanciful, version of what they perceived Erickson as saying <strong>and</strong> doing guided<br />

by their personal theorizing. [...] Further distortions have resulted outside of the United States due to<br />

translation problems as well as for other reasons. More <strong>and</strong> more the Ericksonians have become a<br />

heterogeneous group of practitioners.[20]<br />

One of his first students <strong>and</strong> developers of his work was Jay Haley. Other important followers include<br />

Stephen Gilligan, Jeffrey K. Zeig, Stephen R. Lankton <strong>and</strong> Stephen Brooks.<br />

It has been claimed that Erickson was modeled (see Milton model) by Richard B<strong>and</strong>ler <strong>and</strong> John<br />

Grinder, the co-founders of Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP).<br />

In the sphere of business coaching <strong>and</strong> training, he influenced the methods that behaviour training<br />

companies, such as Erickson College International, Krauthammer, Gustav Käser Training International<br />

or Dynargie used in communicating with coachees <strong>and</strong> training participants.<br />

Books<br />

Erickson was a prolific writer, often working in collaboration with others. His chief collaborator was<br />

Ernest L. Rossi. His books include:<br />

Hypnotic Realities ISBN 0-8290-0112-3 (With Ernest L. Rossi)<br />

254


Hypnotherapy - An Exploratory Casebook ISBN 0-8290-0244-8 (With Ernest L. Rossi)<br />

Experiencing Hypnosis ISBN 0-8290-0246-4 (With Ernest L. Rossi)<br />

The Practical Application of Medical <strong>and</strong> Dental Hypnosis ISBN 0-87630-570-2 (with Seymour<br />

Hershman <strong>and</strong> Irving I. Secter) (out of print)<br />

Time Distortion in Hypnosis ISBN 1-899836-95-0 (With Linn F. Cooper)<br />

His clinical papers have been collected into a four volume work:<br />

Collected Papers on Hypnosis: Volume 1 - Nature of Hypnosis <strong>and</strong> Suggestion ISBN 0-8290-1206-0<br />

(Ernest L. Rossi, Editor)<br />

Collected Papers on Hypnosis: Volume 2 - Sensory, Perceptual <strong>and</strong> Psychophysiological Processes<br />

ISBN 0-8290-1207-9 (Ernest L. Rossi, Editor)<br />

Collected Papers on Hypnosis: Volume 3 - Hypnotic Investigation of Psychodynamic Processes ISBN<br />

0-8290-1208-7 (Ernest L. Rossi, Editor)<br />

Collected Papers on Hypnosis: Volume 4 - Innovative Hypnotherapy ISBN 0-8290-1209-5 (Ernest L.<br />

Rossi, Editor)<br />

- note, these four volumes are sometimes made available digitally under the misleading (<strong>and</strong> erroneous)<br />

name 'Complete Works'.<br />

Some books collecting transcriptions of his lectures <strong>and</strong> seminars:<br />

My Voice Will Go With You - The Teaching Tales of Milton H. Erickson ISBN 0-393-30135-4<br />

(Sidney Rosen, Editor)<br />

Seminars, Workshops <strong>and</strong> Lectures of Milton H. Erickson Volume 1 - Healing in Hypnosis ISBN 1-<br />

85343-405-1 (Margaret O. Ryan & Florence Sharp, Editors)<br />

Seminars, Workshops <strong>and</strong> Lectures of Milton H. Erickson Volume 2 - Life Reframing in Hypnosis<br />

ISBN 0-8290-1581-7 (Florence Sharp, Editor)<br />

Seminars, Workshops <strong>and</strong> Lectures of Milton H. Erickson Volume 3 - Mind-Body Communication in<br />

Hypnosis ISBN 0-8290-1805-0 (Ernest L. Rossi, Editor)<br />

Seminars, Workshops <strong>and</strong> Lectures of Milton H. Erickson Volume 4 - Creative Choice in Hypnosis<br />

ISBN 1-85343-421-3 (Ernest L. Rossi & Margaret O. Ryan, Editors)<br />

Conversations with Milton H. Erickson, M.D., edited by Jay Haley (WW Norton <strong>and</strong> Company: New<br />

York, 1999)<br />

Volume I: Changing Individuals<br />

Volume II: Changing Couples<br />

Volume III: Changing Children <strong>and</strong> Families<br />

Milton H. Erickson, M.D.: In His Own Voice, edited by Jay Haley <strong>and</strong> co-edited by Madeleine<br />

Richeport (WW Norton & Company: New York, 1991).<br />

Other works which collect specific parts of Erickson's output:<br />

The Wisdom of Milton H Erickson: The Complete Volume ISBN 1-904424-17-1 (Ronald A.Havens,<br />

Editor)<br />

An Uncommon Casebook: Complete Clinical Work of Milton H.Erickson, M.D. ISBN 0-393-70101-8<br />

(William Hudson O'Hanlon & Angela L. Hexum)<br />

Many books have been written about Erickson <strong>and</strong> his techniques, which typically include extended<br />

citations from his papers, lectures <strong>and</strong> workshops, including:<br />

Milton H. Erickson, M.D.: An American Healer (Profiles in Healing series) ISBN 0918172551 ISBN<br />

978-0918172556 (Bradford Keeney PhD (Editor), Betty Alice Erickson MS (Editor)<br />

Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H.Erickson: Volume 1 ISBN 1-55552-052-9, John<br />

Grinder & Richard B<strong>and</strong>ler<br />

Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H.Erickson: Volume 2 ISBN 1-55552-053-7, John<br />

Grinder, Richard B<strong>and</strong>ler & Judith DeLozier<br />

255


Milton H.Erickson (Key Figures in Counselling & Psychotherapy Series) ISBN 0-8039-7575-9 (Jeffrey<br />

K. Zeig & W. Michael Munion)<br />

Uncommon Therapy: Psychiatric Techniques of Milton H.Erickson, M.D. by Jay Haley (WW Norton<br />

& Company: New York, 1993).<br />

The Answer Within: A Clinical Framework of Ericksonian Hypnotherapy ISBN 978-1-84590-121-9<br />

(Stephen Lankton & Carol Hicks Lankton)<br />

Assembling Ericksonian Therapy ISBN 1-932462-10-4 (Stephen Lankton)<br />

Phoenix: Therapeutic Patterns of Milton H.Erickson ISBN 0-916990-10-9 (David Gordon, Maribeth<br />

Meyers-Anderson)<br />

Enchantment <strong>and</strong> Intervention in Family Therapy: Using Metaphors in Family Therapy ISBN 978-1-<br />

84590-083-0 (Stephen Lankton & Carol Hicks Lankton)<br />

A Guide to Trance L<strong>and</strong>: A Practical H<strong>and</strong>book of Ericksonian <strong>and</strong> Solution-Oriented Hypnosis by<br />

Bill O'Hanlon (WW Norton & Company: New York, 2009).<br />

Healing the Divided Self: Clinical <strong>and</strong> Ericksonian Hypnotherapy for Dissociative Conditions by<br />

Claire Frederick <strong>and</strong> Maggie Phillips (WW Norton & Company: New York, 1995).<br />

Solution-Oriented Hypnosis: An Ericksonian Approach by Bill O'Hanlon <strong>and</strong> Michael Martin (WW<br />

Norton & Company: New York, 1991).<br />

Resolving Sexual Abuse: Solution-Focused Therapy <strong>and</strong> Ericksonian Hypnosis for Adult Survivors by<br />

Yvonne M. Dolan (WW Norton & Company: New York, 1991).<br />

My Voice Will Go With You: The Teaching Tales of Milton H. Erickson by Sidney Rosen (WW<br />

Norton & Company: New York, 1991)<br />

Taproots: Underlying Principles of Milton Erickson's Therapy <strong>and</strong> Hypnosis by Bill O'Hanlon (WW<br />

Norton & Company: New York 1981).<br />

Beyond Erickson: A Fresh Look at "The Emperor of Hypnosis", Milton H. Erickson by Alex Ts<strong>and</strong>er<br />

(Summitother,Bristol, 2005. ISBN 0-9550731-0-3).<br />

256


9. Economic <strong>Manipulation</strong><br />

9.1. The <strong>Manipulation</strong> Matrix<br />

The Art Of <strong>Manipulation</strong> - Nir Eyal<br />

When Is <strong>Manipulation</strong> Wrong?<br />

Let’s admit it, we in the consumer web industry are in the manipulation<br />

business. We build products meant to persuade people to do what we want them<br />

to do. We call these people “users” <strong>and</strong> even if we don’t say it aloud, we<br />

secretly wish every one of them would become fiendishly addicted.<br />

Users take our technologies with them to bed. When they wake up, they check<br />

for notifications, tweets, <strong>and</strong> updates before saying “good morning” to their<br />

loved ones. Ian Bogost, the famed game creator <strong>and</strong> professor, calls the wave of<br />

habit-forming technologies the “cigarette of this century” <strong>and</strong> warns of equally<br />

addictive <strong>and</strong> potentially destructive side-effects.<br />

<strong>Manipulation</strong> is a designed experience crafted to change behavior — we all know what it feels like.<br />

We’re uncomfortable when we sense someone is trying to make us do something we wouldn’t do<br />

otherwise, like when at a car dealership or a timeshare presentation.<br />

Yet, manipulation can’t be all bad. If it were, what explains the numerous multi-billion dollar<br />

industries that rely heavily on users wilfully submitting to manipulation? If manipulation is a designed<br />

experience crafted to change behavior, then Weight Watchers, one of the most successful massmanipulation<br />

products in history, fits the definition.<br />

Much like in the consumer web industry, Weight Watchers customers’ decisions are programed by the<br />

designer of the system. Yet few question the morality of Weight Watchers. But what’s the difference?<br />

Why is manipulating users through flashy advertising or addictive video games thought to be<br />

distasteful while a strict system of food rationing is considered laudable?<br />

A More Addictive World<br />

Unfortunately, our moral compass has not caught-up with what technology now makes possible.<br />

Ubiquitous access to the web, transferring greater amounts of personal data at faster speeds than ever<br />

before, has created a more addictive world. Addictiveness is accelerating <strong>and</strong> according to Paul<br />

Graham of Y Combinator, we haven’t had time to develop societal “antibodies to addictive new<br />

things.” Graham puts responsibility on the user: “Unless we want to be canaries in the coal mine of<br />

each new addiction—the people whose sad example becomes a lesson to future generations—we’ll<br />

have to figure out for ourselves what to avoid <strong>and</strong> how.”<br />

But what of the people who make these manipulative experiences? The corporations who unleash these<br />

addictive technologies are, after all, made up of human beings with a moral sense of right <strong>and</strong> wrong.<br />

We too have families <strong>and</strong> kids who are susceptible to addiction <strong>and</strong> manipulation. What shared<br />

responsibilities do we code slingers <strong>and</strong> behavior designers have to our users, to future generations, <strong>and</strong><br />

to ourselves?<br />

257


The <strong>Manipulation</strong> Matrix<br />

I offer a simple decision support tool for entrepreneurs, employees, <strong>and</strong> investors to be used long<br />

before product is shipped or code is written; even before customer development has begun. The<br />

<strong>Manipulation</strong> Matrix does not try <strong>and</strong> answer which businesses are moral or which will succeed. Nor<br />

does it describe what can <strong>and</strong> cannot become a habit-forming technology. The matrix seeks to help you<br />

answer not, “Can I hook users?” but “Should I attempt to?”<br />

To use the <strong>Manipulation</strong> Matrix, the maker needs to ask two questions. First, “Will I use the product<br />

myself?” <strong>and</strong> second, “Will the product help users materially improve their lives?”<br />

The Facilitator<br />

When you create something that you will use <strong>and</strong> believe makes the user’s life better, you’re<br />

facilitating a healthful habit. It’s important to note that only you can decide if you would actually use<br />

the service <strong>and</strong> what “materially improving the life of the user” really means.<br />

If you find yourself squirming as you ask yourself those questions or needing to create a preamble<br />

starting with, “If I were a…” STOP! You failed. You have to actually want to use the product <strong>and</strong><br />

believe it materially benefits your life as well as the lives of your users. The one exception is if you<br />

would have been a user in your younger years. For example, in the case of an education company, you<br />

may not need to use the service right now, but are positive you would have used it in your not so<br />

distant past. Note however that the further you are from your former self, the lower your odds of<br />

success.<br />

While I don’t know Mark Zuckerberg or the Twitter founders personally, I believe from their welldocumented<br />

stories that they would see themselves as making products in this quadrant. There is also a<br />

long list of companies creating new products to improve lives by facilitating healthful habits. Whether<br />

getting users to exercise more, creating a habit of journaling, or improving back posture, these<br />

companies are run by authentic entrepreneurs who desperately want their products to exist, firstly to<br />

satisfy their own needs.<br />

But what about when an addiction to a well-intended product becomes extreme, even harmful? For a<br />

product in this quadrant, I agree with Paul Graham in saying the responsibility falls to the user. In any<br />

normal distribution, a small percentage of people will be on the extremes. If the designers make a<br />

product that they would use themselves, <strong>and</strong> they believe it improves the lives of their users, they have<br />

fulfilled their moral obligation. To take liberties with Mahatma G<strong>and</strong>hi, facilitators “build the change<br />

they want to see in the world.”<br />

The Peddler<br />

But heady altruistic ambitions can at times, get ahead of reality. Too often, designers of manipulative<br />

technology have a strong motivation to improve the lives of their users, but when pressed, they admit<br />

they would not actually use their own creations. Their holier-than-thou products often try to “gamify”<br />

some task no one actually wants to do by inserting hackneyed incentives like badges or points that<br />

don’t actually hold value for the user.<br />

Fitness apps, charity websites, <strong>and</strong> products that claim to suddenly turn hard work into fun often fall in<br />

this quadrant. But possibly the most common example is in peddler advertising. Countless companies<br />

convince themselves they’re making ad campaigns users will love. They expect their videos to go viral<br />

<strong>and</strong> their br<strong>and</strong>ed apps to be used daily. Their reality distortion fields keep them from asking the<br />

critical question of, “Would I actually find this useful?” The answer to this uncomfortable question is<br />

nearly always “No,” so they bend their brain into the mind of a user they believe might find the ad<br />

valuable.<br />

258


Materially improving users’ lives is a tall order. But attempting to create a persuasive technology<br />

which you don’t find valuable enough to use yourself is nearly impossible. There’s nothing immoral<br />

about peddling; it’s just the odds of success are depressingly low. You’ll lack the empathy <strong>and</strong> insights<br />

needed to create something users actually want. The peddler’s project tends to end up a time-wasting<br />

failure because fundamentally, no one finds it useful or fun. If it were, the peddler would be using it<br />

instead of hawking it.<br />

The Entertainer<br />

In fact, sometimes makers just want to have fun. If a creator of a potentially addictive technology<br />

makes something that they would use but can’t in good conscience claim improves the lives of their<br />

users, they’re making entertainment.<br />

Entertainment is art <strong>and</strong> is important for its own sake. Art provides joy, helps us see the world<br />

differently, <strong>and</strong> connects us with the human condition. These are all important <strong>and</strong> age old pursuits.<br />

Entertainment, however, has particular attributes which the entrepreneur, employee, <strong>and</strong> investor<br />

should be aware of when using the <strong>Manipulation</strong> Matrix.<br />

Art is often fleeting; products that form addictions around entertainment tend to fade quickly from<br />

users’ lives. A hit song, repeated over <strong>and</strong> over again in the mind, becomes nostalgia after it is replaced<br />

by the next single. A blog article like this one is read, shared, <strong>and</strong> thought about for a few minutes until<br />

the next interesting piece of brain c<strong>and</strong>y comes along. Games like Farmville <strong>and</strong> Angry Birds engross<br />

users for a while, but then are relegated to the gaming dustbin along other hyper-addictive has-beens<br />

like Pac Man <strong>and</strong> Tetris.<br />

Entertainment is a hits-driven business because the brain adapts to stimulus. Art is about creating<br />

continuous novelty <strong>and</strong> building an enterprise on ephemeral desires is a constantly running treadmill.<br />

In this quadrant, the sustainable business isn’t the game, the song, or the book — it’s the distribution<br />

system for getting those goods to market while they’re still hot.<br />

The Dealer<br />

Creating a product that the designer does not believe improves the user’s life <strong>and</strong> which the maker<br />

would not use is exploitation. In the absence of these two criteria, presumably the only reason you’re<br />

hooking users is to make a buck. Certainly there is money to be made addicting users to behaviors that<br />

do little more than extract cash; <strong>and</strong> where there is cash, there will be someone willing to take it.<br />

The question is: Is that someone you? Casinos <strong>and</strong> drug dealers offer users a good time, but when the<br />

addiction takes hold, the fun stops.<br />

In a satirical take on Zynga’s Farmville franchise Ian Bogost created Cow Clicker, a Facebook app<br />

where users did nothing but incessantly click on virtual cows to hear a satisfying “moo.” Bogost<br />

intended to lampoon Farmville by blatantly implementing the same game mechanics <strong>and</strong> viral hacks he<br />

thought would be laughably obvious to users. But after the app’s usage exploded <strong>and</strong> some people<br />

became frighteningly obsessed with the game, Bogost shut it down, bringing on what he called, “The<br />

Cowpocalypse.”<br />

259


Judging for Yourself<br />

Bogost was right in comparing addictive technology to<br />

the cigarette. Certainly, the incessant need for a smoke<br />

in what was once the majority of the adult population<br />

has been replaced by a nearly equal compulsion to<br />

constantly check our devices. But unlike the addiction<br />

to nicotine, new technologies offer an opportunity to<br />

dramatically improve the lives of users. It’s clear that<br />

like all technologies, recent advances in the habitforming<br />

potential of web innovation have both positive<br />

<strong>and</strong> negative effects.<br />

But if the innovator has a clear conscience that the<br />

product materially improves people’s lives — first<br />

among them, the creator’s — then the only path is to<br />

push forward. Users bear ultimate responsibility for<br />

their actions <strong>and</strong> makers should not be blamed for the<br />

misuse or overuse of their products.<br />

However, as the march of technology makes the world<br />

a more addictive place, innovators need to consider<br />

their role. It will be years, perhaps generations, before society develops the antibodies to new<br />

addictions. In the meantime, users will have to judge the yet unknown consequences for themselves,<br />

while creators will have to live with the moral repercussions of how they spend their professional lives.<br />

My hope is that <strong>Manipulation</strong> Matrix helps innovators consider the implications of the products they<br />

create. Perhaps after reading this, you’ll start a new business. Maybe you’ll join an existing company<br />

with a mission you believe in. Or, perhaps after reading this you’ll decide it’s time to quit your job,<br />

which you now come to realize no longer agrees with your moral compass.<br />

Photo Credit: byJess.net, Sarah G…, <strong>and</strong> NirAndFar.com<br />

Source: http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/01/the-art-of-manipulation/<br />

Editor’s Note: Nir Eyal is a founder of two startups <strong>and</strong> an advisor to several Bay Area companies <strong>and</strong><br />

incubators. He is a Lecturer in Marketing at the Stanford Graduate School of Business <strong>and</strong> blogs about<br />

the intersection of psychology, technology, <strong>and</strong> business at NirAndFar.com. Follow him on<br />

Twitter@nireyal <strong>and</strong> see his previous Techcrunch posts here..<br />

260


9.2. Administrative <strong>Manipulation</strong><br />

Administrative manipulations <strong>and</strong> psychological manipulation used to manipulate or deceive people.<br />

1. Psychology<br />

Psychology is used extensively to control <strong>and</strong> manipulate people.<br />

2. Delay Tactics: don't know when, probably in a very very long time, if ever<br />

Delay tactics are attempts to put off as far into the future something that needs to be addressed; or to<br />

continually re-schedule to future dates; or to delay to reach an expiration date or end date.<br />

It's also used with the "we just don't remember anymore" excuse or lie.<br />

3. Fronts: what's the real reason<br />

Fronts are when one justification or reason is given, as a front, instead of the real, hidden, motive for<br />

the action or event.<br />

4. Fronts <strong>and</strong> Possibilities: to deceive (linked to "fronts" <strong>and</strong> brainwashing)<br />

Administrations <strong>and</strong> people will sometimes claim that the reason for or the cause of something, is<br />

something, when this is actually false but possible, in order to hide the real reason, cause, or motive.<br />

5. Divide <strong>and</strong> Conquer: division <strong>and</strong> conflict<br />

Conflicts are often created to cause division so that the different conflicting groups can be more easily<br />

manipulated or controlled.<br />

6. Divide <strong>and</strong> Dismiss: to weaken complaints<br />

When complaints are filed against organizations it is sometimes the practice to try to divide the<br />

complaints to different members or departments so that the complaint can be dismissed.<br />

It is often the complaint as a whole or the sum of the events that occurred that is the proof when filing a<br />

complaint against an organization <strong>and</strong> not the divided sections.<br />

Dividing the complaint into different sections weakens the complaint <strong>and</strong> proof.<br />

7. Creating Chaos <strong>and</strong> Justification: for action <strong>and</strong> control<br />

Creating chaotic systems is often done to justify taking action or control over the system; or to justify<br />

new rules.<br />

Creating chaotic systems is also often a tactic done by organized crime to hide the crimes they commit,<br />

without rules <strong>and</strong> laws there is no crime committed.<br />

8. Security <strong>and</strong> Authority: attacks to increase power<br />

261


Security authorities or organizations will sometimes provoke <strong>and</strong> welcome attacks on themselves or<br />

those they are sworn to protect, <strong>and</strong> in some cases they may even attack themselves, so that they can<br />

obtain more power <strong>and</strong> authority over those they are said to protect.<br />

9. Administrative Maze <strong>and</strong> Complexity<br />

In order to discourage complaints or to increase the<br />

need for a specialist, administrations will create<br />

complex procedures <strong>and</strong> forms to discourage grievances<br />

or complaints, or to require the help of specialist<br />

requiring the payment of fees.<br />

10. Ambiguities: no answer at all<br />

Answers are sometimes provided or given as an<br />

ambiguity. Ambiguities may give the illusion that an<br />

answer has been provide but in most cases, it's not an<br />

answer at all.<br />

11. The Pretence of Incompetence: to escape repercussions<br />

In some cases, administrations will use the pretence of incompetence, in order to escape responsibility<br />

or accusations.<br />

Examples:<br />

There's no deceit involved, we are just incompetent <strong>and</strong> make all kinds of errors.<br />

We don't underst<strong>and</strong> your complaint, it's too confusing, hard to underst<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> unclear.<br />

We didn't know that by giving ourselves multi-million dollar bonuses <strong>and</strong> salaries the company<br />

would go bankrupt.<br />

12. The Administrative Frustrate <strong>and</strong><br />

Discourage Game<br />

Administrations will sometimes use tactics<br />

to frustrate <strong>and</strong> discourage individuals.<br />

Examples:<br />

Delay <strong>and</strong> the Pretense of<br />

Incompetence tactics can be used to<br />

frustrate <strong>and</strong> discourage individuals.<br />

Complaints can be arbitrarily<br />

dismissed without giving any kind of reasoning, justification, or by simply using a general<br />

ambiguity.<br />

After filing forms <strong>and</strong> investing a lot of time, an individual can be advised at the end of the<br />

proceeding that he was in the wrong department or organization all along, <strong>and</strong> that the process<br />

needs to be restarted somewhere else.<br />

Tactics used to frustrate <strong>and</strong> discourage can also induce the feelings of hopelessness in individuals or<br />

victims.<br />

262


It is also linked to learned helplessness "helplessness would make someone more dependent, less<br />

defiant <strong>and</strong> more compliant,"<br />

13. Fear: to manipulate <strong>and</strong> control<br />

Fear is often used to manipulate people or to control them.<br />

14. <strong>Psychological</strong> Harassment or Workplace <strong>Psychological</strong> Harassment<br />

<strong>Psychological</strong> Harassment consists of using psychological manipulations to induce stress, a weapon<br />

that uses coritsol <strong>and</strong> adrenaline, <strong>and</strong> wear a person out tactics to lead to a burnout to get rid of<br />

someone or eliminate their means of subsistence.<br />

15. Invisible Weapons: <strong>Psychological</strong> the Mind Physical the Body<br />

One invisible weapon or technology that affects the mind, psychological manipulations or harassment<br />

is used to use another invisible weapon that affects the body, the weapon of high levels of stress <strong>and</strong><br />

sleep deprivation, coritsol <strong>and</strong> adrenaline, which can lead to acid-base disorders <strong>and</strong> serious illness<br />

such as brain aneurysm, heart attacks, <strong>and</strong> cancer.<br />

Source: <strong>Psychological</strong> Harassment Information Association<br />

http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/administrative_manipulation.htm<br />

263


9.3. <strong>Manipulation</strong> in Advertising <strong>and</strong> Selling<br />

Intrusive & Manipulative Marketing, Advertising <strong>and</strong> Selling<br />

www.unenticed.com is a blog is about freeing yourself from being manipulated by advertising <strong>and</strong><br />

marketing.<br />

Foot in the door<br />

While there are people who find advertising fun, many just find<br />

it intrusive <strong>and</strong> annoying. While some crave to buy as many<br />

things as possible, many don't like the marketing schemes that<br />

are designed to get people's money. While some welcome a talk<br />

with a telemarketer, many just want to get rid of those<br />

unrequested calls.<br />

Personal Persuasion<br />

Manipulators know that you won't just comply to what<br />

they want you to. Therefore, they start with a small<br />

request, one that is almost impossible to turn down. If<br />

you accept complying to it, they are in a position to<br />

"work" on you. You have committed to their first<br />

request. Now they can proceed with getting you to<br />

commit to larger <strong>and</strong> larger requests, until they have you<br />

commit to what they wanted you to all along.<br />

On the street, for example, a seller of lottery tickets, or<br />

someone wanting you to convert to a religion, may ask<br />

you whether he may ask you something. You'll feel that,<br />

of course, he may ask you something, go ahead! This is<br />

the first request you committed to, they have their foot<br />

in your door.<br />

Another way is asking you to try something. It seems<br />

there's nothing wrong with trying something, but now<br />

you have made an initial commitment that they can work<br />

on.<br />

Sales people <strong>and</strong> telemarketers are paid to persuade you into<br />

purchases. They can make you spend too much money, on things<br />

you don't need.<br />

While it may seem like a harmless first step, it is a good idea to judge what it is about. If you're aware<br />

from the start that that first simple request is intended as a foot in the door, you can consider the option<br />

of refusing it. Often, it is possible to see beforeh<strong>and</strong> what they want you to do, like buying something.<br />

If you don't feel like having them try to convince you to do that, you can just refuse that first request.<br />

264


Flattery <strong>and</strong> other likability tricks<br />

Manipulators want you to like them. It helps hiding the<br />

aggressiveness of them approaching you <strong>and</strong> wanting<br />

something from you, leading you, or requesting things of<br />

you. Thus, you'll trust them, <strong>and</strong> let yourself be persuaded<br />

by them. You also won't easily be rude to them in order to<br />

st<strong>and</strong> up against manipulations.<br />

So, they'll be nice <strong>and</strong> friendly to you, <strong>and</strong> flatter you to<br />

be liked, or give you things. They'll tell you how clever<br />

you are, how friendly you are, or make you other<br />

compliments. They'll be very honest, so as to appear<br />

trustworthy, at least about things that don't matter for<br />

making the deal. Even psychopaths, the worst of<br />

manipulators, usually seem very nice, while they, in fact,<br />

don't have much of a conscience at all.<br />

Even when you're aware of what they're doing, you may<br />

not st<strong>and</strong> up against it, as you think that you cannot be rude to a person who treats you nicely. But the<br />

aggression may not show obviously, if you can see it is there, why not be aggressive yourself? How<br />

else can you st<strong>and</strong> up for yourself?<br />

A person who wants something from you, <strong>and</strong> is flattering you, is probably doing that for that purpose.<br />

Keep you eyes on your own objectives, <strong>and</strong> on the other person's.<br />

Returning the favor<br />

When a manipulator gives you a gift, he<br />

wants to use your feeling of needing to return<br />

the favor to have you take an action he wants.<br />

You're usually not in a position to return a<br />

similarly valued gift, so you'll do something<br />

else, like buying that car, to reciprocate.<br />

When a company offers you a free coffee,<br />

they may do that hoping that you will feel<br />

obligated to buy at that company to<br />

compensate for what you accepted.<br />

It is usually made hard for you to not accept<br />

some gift. When someone h<strong>and</strong>s you<br />

something, it is hard not to take it. When you<br />

refuse that coffee, you're encouraged to do<br />

accept it. When you don't want that free beer,<br />

they may act insulted.<br />

To not accept a gift being h<strong>and</strong>ed to you, it helps to put your h<strong>and</strong>s in your pockets, <strong>and</strong> keep them<br />

there. In some situations, you could insist on paying for the gift to release the debt, or returning the<br />

favor with another gift. You can tell that you will not return the favor, while offering to give the gift<br />

back. When you can ask whether they expect something in return, <strong>and</strong> the answer is no, you are<br />

relieved from any obligation to reciprocate. But you can also simply not bother: they give you<br />

something for a manipulative reason, <strong>and</strong> without you wanting to do so, so the social rule to return the<br />

favor doesn't apply.<br />

265


Sometimes the gift you get is not so tangible: someone's time. The longer time you spend with a sales<br />

person, the more you'll feel compelled to return the favor of it by buying the product you showed an<br />

interest in. You can tell them that you have no intention of buying, so that it is up to them not to give<br />

you all the time of the world.<br />

When you orient yourself without any help from sales people, you will not feel compelled to return the<br />

favor of their precious time, because they haven't even given you that gift. It has the added advantage<br />

of your not getting subjected to all kinds of other manipulations. There are nowadays all kinds of<br />

websites that offer you information about products for free.<br />

The free bonus<br />

A variation on the free gift is<br />

the free bonus. A product<br />

you're offered at a steep price<br />

comes with a free bonus item,<br />

<strong>and</strong> because of that doesn't<br />

seem so pricy anymore. A cell<br />

phone subscription may come<br />

with a "free" laptop, a<br />

briefcase can come with a<br />

"free" key ring, a bag of crisps<br />

can come with a collectible<br />

item for children. Of course, there is no such thing as a free lunch, you are the one paying for the "free"<br />

bonus item.<br />

Sometimes it is just tempting to go for that bonus, simply because it is a bonus. But does the bonus<br />

item really have value for you? Often, extras are a dime a dozen things, <strong>and</strong> don't really have that much<br />

value for you in particular, when you come to consider it. The real value may be low, especially if it's a<br />

usually expensive item, like, for example, a laptop.<br />

266<br />

It's good to keep in mind that you are paying for that extra thing.<br />

You may be paying for more than you intended to buy, when a free<br />

bonus is part of the deal.<br />

Comparing to make it look cheaper<br />

To make something expensive look cheaper, advertisers <strong>and</strong> sales<br />

people often have you compare a price to other ones, so that it<br />

looks cheaper. So an ad may display an "original price" next to the<br />

current price, with the original price being higher. [law about<br />

something having been sold for higher price]<br />

Escape by: Don't trust advertising <strong>and</strong> sales. They do this all the<br />

time. Get your own information on prices, if price matters to you.


Negotiating starting with a very high request<br />

The seller starts out with a almost ridiculously high price. You'll feel like you'd have to pay that high<br />

price in order to buy, but you hav to turn it down. Then he comes with a much lower price, which<br />

seems reasonable compared to the first price, but is actually higher than you at first intended to pay.<br />

You accept the offer, because it seems reasonable compared to the initial one.<br />

The first high price is intended for you to increase what you'd want to pay, it's a ploy. When you realize<br />

that this is done to you, you might, for example, respond with a ridiculously low price in return. That'll<br />

feel like being rude.<br />

To make something seem cheap, very expensive, top line models are shown first. Then the average<br />

models are shown, making them seem comparably cheap. However, still more expensive than you<br />

would have bought otherwise.<br />

Ask to see the cheapest models, to have a better idea of prices.<br />

The last item in stock<br />

When you are pondering whether or not to buy an item, a sales person may say that it's the last one in<br />

stock. You're now supposed to be called into action because you have only this chance at buying it, <strong>and</strong><br />

most people will actually make the purchase.<br />

Escape by: Realizing it's a ploy. There's probably more, don't worry about it. When they can sell<br />

something, they get it in stock.<br />

The sales person has them too<br />

Pondering the purchase of an item, the sales person says that he has the item too.<br />

Escape by: Realizing it's a ploy. Don't take it into account.<br />

Drawing you in<br />

To get some kind of control over you, the<br />

manipulator needs to draw you into some kind<br />

of situation to have you participate.<br />

Examples: You need to be in a store, <strong>and</strong> as<br />

long as possible, to get to buying something<br />

there. So they try to get you into the store. For<br />

a sales person to be able to persuade you to<br />

buy something, he'll have to get into a situation<br />

that he'll be talking with you.<br />

Escape by: Noticing what they're doing to<br />

draw you in. Are they getting you lost in a<br />

large store? Do sales people approach you?<br />

You can stop a sales person from controlling<br />

you by waiting until you have actually made<br />

up your mind before you approach him to make the purchase. Get information about products from<br />

elsewhere, so that you don't need sales people.<br />

Persistence<br />

267


Hurrying<br />

By keeping pressuring you, subtly or not so subtly, manipulators may get you<br />

to succumb to what they want. Even if it was only to stop them from bugging<br />

you.<br />

Escape by: Don't give in, but when a manipulator's persistence starts to annoy<br />

you, tell them. Tell them to stop, to go away, <strong>and</strong> persist at that. If you<br />

succumb, you reward them for their persistence, which will make them do it<br />

again. All you have to do is keep repeating telling them to stop. Get angry if<br />

they don't.<br />

To force you into a decision without thinking it through, manipulators may press you to hurry. They<br />

may put up some kind of deadline, put you into a hasty mood by way of music, or tell you that it's the<br />

last item in stock. This scares you, <strong>and</strong> because of that you'll feel like you'll have to do something.<br />

Escape by: Be prepared, so that you know what you want, <strong>and</strong> rushing you won't affect you. Avoid<br />

situations where you're made to hurry, or don't buy when you are in such a situation.<br />

You "should" buy from this person<br />

You may come to believe that you "should" buy from someone. However, if that person has been<br />

manipulating you into believing that, why would you? Why would you have any such obligation<br />

towards someone who treats you without respect?<br />

Hiding the manipulation<br />

In order for you not to be suspicious of being<br />

manipulated, manipulators use various<br />

techniques. They make sure they're likable,<br />

seem trustworthy <strong>and</strong> unthreatening.<br />

So, how do you notice you're being<br />

manipulated? Unfortunately, normally you<br />

don't.<br />

The first warning sign is that someone who<br />

might want something from you, is behaving<br />

in a likable, seemingly trustworthy <strong>and</strong><br />

unthreatening way.<br />

The second warning sign would be that you<br />

feel yourself reacting with a feeling that is<br />

out of character when dealing with such a nice person. Feeling guilty, or feeling pushed to do<br />

something.<br />

If you notice that you're being guided towards a buying decision, you are being manipulated.<br />

Escape by: Not making the decision to buy just yet. Take a day or so to let the influence of the<br />

manipulator wear off, <strong>and</strong> then make an intuitive decision.<br />

268


Not complying can't be justified<br />

The manipulator asks you various rhetorical questions ("You are a good person, right?") that make it<br />

virtually impossible for you to justify not complying with what he wants.<br />

Escape by: Realize you have been manipulated into feeling you can't justify it. So, don't justify it, <strong>and</strong><br />

don't do it anyway: You don't want it.<br />

Reward <strong>and</strong> punishment<br />

The manipulator rewards you for doing things he wants you to, <strong>and</strong> punishes when you do things he<br />

doesn't want you to do.<br />

Sometimes, as punishment can be resisted, it is made to look like a reward. For example, if in a group<br />

everyone is rewarded for certain behavior, but not getting the reward means that you're out, getting the<br />

reward is the normal situation. Not getting it is, in fact, a punishment.<br />

Escape by: If the manipulator does not, in fact, have a position of power, you can resist punishment.<br />

Taking the lead<br />

Manipulators often simply take the lead in a situation, taking initiatives <strong>and</strong> subtly telling you to do<br />

certain things. Most people will simply comply, as long as it doesn't seem to go too much against their<br />

interests. This however, opens the door to all kinds of other manipulative behavior.<br />

Escape by: Be aware what you're complying with! The manipulator does not have a natural right to<br />

lead you, although it might seem so. Take into account what you yourself want, <strong>and</strong> don't just let that<br />

be rejected by the manipulator.<br />

You're phoned by someone you suspect wants to sell you something.<br />

If you let them, they'll take the lead in the conversation, controlling the direction, <strong>and</strong> trying to get you<br />

to buy something.<br />

Escape by: Don't let them take the lead. If someone from some company calls you without you<br />

expecting it, immediately take the lead by asking them for the reason they're calling. If they don't tell<br />

you, they're trying to manipulate you, <strong>and</strong> you won't need to bother being polite, just hang up the<br />

phone. If they do tell you, <strong>and</strong> you're not interested, tell them, say goodbye, <strong>and</strong> hang up the phone.<br />

These people will do anything to extend the conversation when you show signs of wanting to end it.<br />

Don't bother being polite if it seems they're trying to trap you.<br />

Taking away your objections<br />

Someone wanting you to make a particular decision may have you raise your objections. Then, for<br />

every objection he offers a solution. When all your objections have thus been counter-acted, you feel<br />

like you "should" make the decision.<br />

However, how you really feel about it may not be addressed at all. Also, feeling like you "should"<br />

make a particular decision is a bad sign, as it indicates that this is not about your real feelings, but<br />

about pressure that's been put on you.<br />

269


Escape by: Don't make a decision just yet when someone has been discussing your to it objections with<br />

you. The other person is not there to help you make the right decision for yourself, but to convince you<br />

to make a decision that's suitable to him. It's better to wait some time before deciding. You might give<br />

it some thought, but actually, your intuition doesn't need thought to decide right. All you need is<br />

clearing your head before deciding.<br />

Manipulative Questions.<br />

Many sales people are taught how to ask a br<strong>and</strong> of manipulative question. Let's call them "Reverse<br />

Focus Questions." Here are a few examples:<br />

Are you tired of market volatility yet?<br />

If I could show you a way to get (some wild claim) would you be interested?<br />

What is the biggest headache in your future?<br />

What's financial issues are keeping you up at night?<br />

What concerns you most about retiring?<br />

What is giving you the most grief at this point?<br />

If you could solve just one financial problem what would it be?<br />

So, what's wrong with such questions? Everything! First, they come from a different time in history - a<br />

different economy, one in which consumers were optimistic. Meaning, they're as obsolete as stock in<br />

Yugo. Second, they are designed to force the focus back to the seller. Meaning, they're self-serving,<br />

<strong>and</strong> in the Age of Cynicism, that "ain't" good. It's like asking, "Enough about me; how do you like me<br />

so far?"<br />

To underst<strong>and</strong> this, picture a target with a bull's eye <strong>and</strong> two outer rings:<br />

Bull's eye. Me Me Me! This is the sales person. His agenda, his goal, his self-interest. In a mythical<br />

world, all roads would lead directly to here. This is where the source of all those bad questions are<br />

born.<br />

Inner Ring.<br />

Bounce Questions. These are the most crass questions. In concept, they are designed to focus on the<br />

seller <strong>and</strong> his self-interest. In function, they are the seller's attempt to 1) manipulate <strong>and</strong> control the<br />

topics of the conversation, 2) frame the context in the mind of the prospect. Unfortunately, because<br />

consumers are so sceptical, these questions are now met with a wall of resistance. Here are a few<br />

examples:.<br />

Are you tired of market volatility yet?<br />

If I could show you a way to get (some wild claim) would you be interested?<br />

Are you concerned about excess risk (or financial security or anything else that leads to your<br />

product)?<br />

Are you wildly happy with your current carrier?<br />

How would you like to save money on ______?<br />

When you think about healthcare, what keeps you up at night?<br />

The key to those questions is that they always contain a part of the larger context or topic. That larger<br />

topic is the product or service being sold, <strong>and</strong> the smaller topic serves to bounce the conversation to the<br />

larger one. Let's look at some examples:<br />

Larger (ultimate) Topic / Smaller (immediate) Topic<br />

270


Financial Planning Service<br />

•Are you tired of market volatility yet?<br />

•How much money have you lost in the stock market?<br />

•How many of your investments totally safe?<br />

•How much money can you afford to lose in the stock market?<br />

Insurance<br />

Do you ever lose any sleep thinking your insurance might not be up to date?<br />

Do you know anyone who has suffered from too little insurance coverage?<br />

Are you 100% confident that you have enough insurance coverage?<br />

What's the worst thing that could happen if you didn't have enough insurance?<br />

Outer Ring.<br />

This is where the seller puts the h<strong>and</strong>cuffs on the prospect, using the prospect's own words to trap him<br />

into the sale.<br />

As you can probably see from the table, any answer that plays to the seller's agenda puts the prospect in<br />

a trap, a "double bind." In other words, no matter what he says after that, he can't win. He either has to<br />

agree with the seller or back down from the statement he just made. (Of course, he could always just<br />

walk away.) It's as though he drew a casual line in the s<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> now he has to defend it. One of the<br />

most powerful manipulative tricks is to get the prospect to make a "public" declaration, then use his<br />

declaration to justify the sales pitch. For example:<br />

"Yes, I am concerned for my family's safety. Those highways are crazy!" Gotcha! Now, the seller can<br />

use safety as the basis for his pitch.<br />

Example: "Considering how important safety is to you, what are you doing about it? Let's look at a<br />

way to guarantee the safety of your wife <strong>and</strong> kids. How does that sound?"<br />

"Tell me about it. When I see a man wearing a boring tie, I think, what a loser." Gotcha! Now, the<br />

seller can use "loser" as the basis to sell custom clothing.<br />

Example: "You're absolutely right about the tie. And, beyond that, if the tie is beautiful <strong>and</strong> matches<br />

the quality of the suit, the man looks like someone to take seriously. Who doesn't want that?"<br />

"Ever since this market meltdown, I don't trust the stock market." Gotcha! Now the seller can use that<br />

statement as the justification to sell his products.<br />

Example: "Actually, there's a really simple way to invest <strong>and</strong> avoid all that market risk."<br />

How can you use this concept?<br />

If you ask the right question at the wrong time, then it is actually the wrong question. The counsel we<br />

give our coaching clients is to ask very simple questions in the beginning. Most advisors go for the<br />

throat (pain) right away; that's not good. So, just enjoy the conversation <strong>and</strong> ask simple questions. And,<br />

the way you do that is to make a statement first, then ask the question. The statement sets up the<br />

question. It would go something like this, <strong>and</strong> notice how easy the questions are:<br />

Most people have a mutual fund. Is that part of your portfolio?<br />

The financial industry is really confusing. Have you noticed that?<br />

271


Tax laws are in flux. Are you prepared for the changes?<br />

The questions have to be asked in such a way as to NOT seem invasive to the prospect. What's an<br />

invasive question? Something like this: What is your total net worth? How much investible money do<br />

you have right now?<br />

Once you can get the prospect talking easily, you can turn to questions that take more thought <strong>and</strong> elicit<br />

longer answers.<br />

In Closing. Think of yourself as a mentor <strong>and</strong> your prospect as your protegee - the person you are<br />

going to help. There are two ways to approach the relationship. 1) you could dictate <strong>and</strong> preach at him.<br />

2) you could underst<strong>and</strong> his mind <strong>and</strong> appeal to his values. Which way to do you think would be more<br />

effective?<br />

Unfortunately, most Advisors take the low road, ask the wrong questions <strong>and</strong> even fail to listen to the<br />

answers. That approach is horribly dysfunctional, <strong>and</strong> given that today is the Age of Cynicism, it's an<br />

approach that could destroy your credibility.<br />

Abusing social forms<br />

One night, someone rang at my door, <strong>and</strong> politely asked whether he could ask me something. Sensing<br />

that this person wanted to sell me something, I said that it depended what the question was about. So he<br />

gave me an indication of what he wanted to sell, which had to do with some lottery. I told him I was<br />

not interested, <strong>and</strong> considered this my final answer to his question of whether he could ask me<br />

something.<br />

As I proceeded to close my door, he started arguing that everybody likes to win things in a lottery. I, on<br />

the other h<strong>and</strong>, felt I had been clear that the conversation was over, <strong>and</strong> I saw no reason to change my<br />

mind about it. While I went on closing the door, slowly, so as not to appear aggressive, he kept talking.<br />

He, in fact, kept talking until after I had closed the door. He then yelled something about my lack of<br />

decency, <strong>and</strong> had no choice but to leave.<br />

Of course, this person was not respectful towards me. He was trying to manipulate me into listening to<br />

what he wanted to say. He probably would have proceeded not giving me the option not to sign up, if I<br />

had wanted to be polite at all cost. He was, in fact, abusing unspoken rules of politeness in order to get<br />

me to do what he wanted. Then he blamed me for his own disrespect.<br />

Aggressive sales at your door<br />

When I accidently read in a regional newspaper that they were going to have people go door to door,<br />

<strong>and</strong> aggressively promote the paper, I considered myself forewarned. Particularly the mentioning of<br />

"aggressiveness," that to marketers seems like a positive value, got me annoyed. After all, aggression<br />

in marketing means "pushy <strong>and</strong> disrespectful." Of course, niceness is used to hide the disrespectful<br />

edge, but that, in fact, doesn't make it any less disrespectful.<br />

So, one night a tall, strong looking man stood at my doorstep, <strong>and</strong> he had some kind of list with<br />

questions. He said he was there for the newspaper, <strong>and</strong> in a comm<strong>and</strong>ing voice he proceeded to ask me<br />

questions, like whether I had read the newspaper previously. Now I had no interest in the newspaper,<br />

<strong>and</strong> I had no interest in answering his questions. If he was respecting me, he would have asked whether<br />

I was willing to answer his questions, or whether I had at all an interest in the newspaper. So I<br />

answered the questions he should have asked first, <strong>and</strong> on every one of his questions said that I was not<br />

interested. After 3 or 4 of his questions, he got the point. He left.<br />

A free gift<br />

272


At a supermarket, I was offered a free gift, wrapped in paper, so that I couldn't see what it was. I<br />

thought, there is no such thing as a free lunch, so I asked what this gift was. The sales person told me<br />

that it was a nice, fun, great little thing. Who could say no to that? I said that I wasn't interested, <strong>and</strong><br />

walked away. She looked at me in astonishment.<br />

Ending the conversation<br />

Sales people contacting you usually try to lead the conversation, steering it in the direction they want,<br />

which is giving you the feeling that you need to buy something from them. Of course, they're only in a<br />

position to lead because you let them.<br />

To avoid their manipulation of you, it is a good idea to take the lead yourself. You can do that at the<br />

start of the conversation by asking them directly for the goal of their approach of you. If you then<br />

decide you're not interested, you can tell them, <strong>and</strong> the conversation should be over. If the sales person<br />

is not giving up yet, it may be necessary to not go into their further questions that are designed to trick<br />

you into following their lead anyway, <strong>and</strong> repeat that you're not interested.<br />

Remember that sales people are, in fact, approaching you in an aggressive way. They may be trying to<br />

appear respectful of you with their friendliness, they really aren't. Stopping them from manipulating<br />

you may take some counter aggression from you. That aggression need not be hostile or abusive.<br />

Taking the lead <strong>and</strong> asserting yourself will do.<br />

It is not that sales people have a right to tell you about their product. They don't have a right to<br />

convince you to buy from them.<br />

273


What about the sales person?<br />

What is this manipulative <strong>and</strong> disrespectful approach of people doing to the sales person?<br />

He is not being himself, as he is faking feelings. He doesn't care about you, but only about your wallet,<br />

so the kindness is fake. Manipulating your desires, he isn't treating you like a human being.<br />

A person learning to act in such ways is unlearning to be a sensitive human being. He is unlearning to<br />

be himself, by being fake. He is unlearning to feel.<br />

Now to be happy, you need to be yourself. If you're not yourself, anything looking like happyness is<br />

just something on the surface. So a person who makes it his job to manipulate people, is making it only<br />

harder for himself to be happy. That's pretty sad, actually.<br />

Telemarketing<br />

Sales people calling you at home, their telemarketing scripts, <strong>and</strong> how to end the conversation quickly.<br />

Many people hate being called at their homes, like at dinner time, by telemarketers. It is a pretty<br />

aggresive way of marketing products, a sales person calling you at your home.<br />

Mostly call centers are hired by other companies wanting to sell something over the phone. These call<br />

centers train their people to effectively persuade people to buy stuff. They call people using a list of<br />

phone numbers, <strong>and</strong> it's often a computer that actually selects the number <strong>and</strong> makes the call.<br />

Telemarketing scripts<br />

When you are called by a telemarketer to convince you to buy something, the telemarketer steers the<br />

conversation according to a script. The person calling you works with a computer, <strong>and</strong> has the turns<br />

that the conversation can take all marked up in the script. The things to say, the questions to ask,<br />

answers to your questions, <strong>and</strong> ways to overcome your objections, it is all scripted. There's nothing<br />

spontaneous about telemarketing.<br />

These scripts are designed to "create interest" in you for a product, <strong>and</strong> to eventually have you take an<br />

"action" like making an appointment or buying a product. But first they'll try to lower your defenses by<br />

"establishing trust," <strong>and</strong>, most importantly, to make the telemarketer in charge of the conversation, so<br />

that you can be steered to where they want you. The telemarketer is guided by the script to create an<br />

image of being trustworthy <strong>and</strong> sincere, with opening sentences that are designed for that.<br />

Even if you don't want to talk to the telemarketer, their call script contains ways to draw you into a<br />

conversation anyway. Before you know it, you are discussing their product <strong>and</strong> your choices with<br />

them, even if you never felt like doing that. Unless you stop it.<br />

Why would you want this?<br />

Why would you want to engage in such a conversation?<br />

It is not that you are respected really, they do want to persuade you, <strong>and</strong> have everything that they can<br />

controlled.<br />

If you are actually interested in such a product, you can also Google it on the internet for information,<br />

or check out Epinions.com, or another review site, instead of having yourself being manipulated on the<br />

phone. That also leaves you the freedom to buy at another company, as why would you want to give a<br />

company an advantage just because they approach you? Isn't it better that you have the initiative? It<br />

274


also leaves you the freedom to buy a product at another time, not just when someone has succeeded in<br />

persuading you to.<br />

It is good to keep in mind that the telemarketer is calling you, <strong>and</strong> depends on you doing something.<br />

Naturally, you are the one calling the shots in such a situation. However, they'll try to have you take on<br />

a role that is in effect submissive, where you give up the advantage of that position.<br />

Getting rid of telemarketers<br />

First of all, it is important to find out that you're being called by a telemarketer. In order to lower your<br />

defenses, they'll try not making it obvious that they are one. But you'll suspect it soon enough, so you<br />

can outright ask them what their intentions are. If they dodge that question, you can be certain they<br />

don't like answering it for a reason, <strong>and</strong> that it's better to get rid of them sooner rather than later.<br />

Usually, you'll get some kind of mini sales pitch to the question about their intentions, that you might<br />

want to cut short.<br />

Telemarketers have all kinds of tricks to extend the conversation when you try to end it. If you say<br />

you're not interested, they'll ask you why you're not interested. Well, you're not interested because<br />

you're not interested, <strong>and</strong> there is no reason for you to explain or even justify that. But if you, like most<br />

people, don't want to be rude, you'll start explaining why you're not interested, <strong>and</strong> thereby give the<br />

telemarketer the opportunity to draw you into a conversation.<br />

When you justify why you're not interested, the telemarketer will go into your objections, <strong>and</strong> present<br />

counter arguments to them. When you stay nice, <strong>and</strong> don't tell the reason you really want to end the<br />

conversation, you'll eventually feel like you "should" want the telemarketers product, but you don't<br />

really feel like it. Therefore, it's a good idea to just be honest when you don't want to be bothered by<br />

them, or to even don't bother saying anything at all <strong>and</strong> hang up the phone.<br />

In order to entice you into a conversation, they may say it'll only take a few minutes. When they bother<br />

to tell you that it will be only a few minutes, you can be certain that they do that for a reason, usually<br />

that they really want a quarter of an hour of your time. But by the time you realize that, they'll have<br />

already hooked you.<br />

While telemarketers want to discuss your choices with you, it is, of course, not so that you have some<br />

kind of obligation to discuss these with telemarketers. And why would you? They may have<br />

information about the product they want to sell, but they do want to persuade you, <strong>and</strong> will not give<br />

you objective information.<br />

Stop them from calling you again: It is a good idea to always tell telemarketers that they can't call you<br />

again, <strong>and</strong> should take you off any call lists.<br />

The positive, not the negative<br />

Manipulative advertising often focuses only on positive aspects of product, never on negative ones.<br />

When supermarkets lower some of their prices, they make sure everyone knows about it. When, after a<br />

while they raise prices again, they keep their mouths shut.<br />

If any information you get is remarkably positive, it is probably one-sided. There is no such thing as<br />

something that has only positive aspects. See if you can get additional information to complete the<br />

picture, or try to think of what negative aspects might be. Keep in mind that when something seems too<br />

good to be true, it probably is.<br />

Positive valuation<br />

275


Many ads will tell you that a product is great, amazing, super, mega whatever. Or it is supposed to be<br />

easy, convenient or h<strong>and</strong>y.<br />

Companies pay advertisers to use such words. Such qualifications have little to do with how you will<br />

really experience a product. Why not ignore them altogether?<br />

Presenting it as better than it actually is<br />

Not only will advertisers show only the positive, they will also present products as better than they<br />

actually are. The pizza in the advertisement sure looks more delicious than the real product. That's<br />

because it isn't the real product.<br />

Promotional photos of food usually aren't very real. The food is made to look good by using plastic<br />

vegetables, putting some extra of the good looking stuff on top of it, <strong>and</strong> making it shine artifically.<br />

Photographers know how to make things look good. They manipulate the lighting, make sure the<br />

model smiles, <strong>and</strong> choose the best angle. Photos are not like the real thing, although they appear like<br />

they are.<br />

The attractive person<br />

The advertiser uses an attractive person to deliver the message, as attractive people are accomodated<br />

<strong>and</strong> trusted more. Attractive young men or women often deliver the message in advertisements.<br />

This is, of course, a staged situation, the attractive person is paid to deliver the message. Separate<br />

enjoying that person from believing the message.<br />

The famous person<br />

A famous person in an advertisement tells how good the product is.<br />

Advertizing companies pay celebrities to appear in ads. It is not like the celebrity spontanuously<br />

supports the product, he or she is asked <strong>and</strong> paid. They may not even use the product themselves<br />

(although they may say so).<br />

Gifts with a logo<br />

Anything you get that has a company logo on it, is designed to make you more loyal to the company<br />

the logo is from. You are reminded of the company many times, <strong>and</strong> so are others near you. It is nice to<br />

receive a gift, but the gift is there because it will influence you.<br />

You may not want such a mini billboard, <strong>and</strong> refuse such gifts.<br />

276


Identification<br />

Ads or gifts displaying a particular lifestyle make you associate a product or br<strong>and</strong> with that lifestyle.<br />

Identifying with that lifestyle, you open up to the possibility of wanting the product.<br />

Perhaps look whether a product suits you, not the lifestyle.<br />

Appealing to your insecurities<br />

There are aspects of our lives that we feel insecure about. We may deep down believe we are not<br />

worthwhile, not attractive enough, etc.<br />

Often, products will not really deal with such insecurities, but only offer a temporary or otherwise<br />

insufficient fix.<br />

Win!<br />

Buy something <strong>and</strong> "win" a gift!<br />

What would the odds be to actually "win" such a gift? One in ten? One in a hundred? One in thous<strong>and</strong>?<br />

Or even less? Usually, the odds are pretty low - you are likely not going to "win."<br />

So, why bother about "winning?"<br />

Bait <strong>and</strong> Switch<br />

If you came to a store because of an advertisement that stated a h<strong>and</strong>somely low price, <strong>and</strong> the product<br />

isn't there, you can suspect being manipulated with the "Bait <strong>and</strong> Switch" method. When you are then<br />

guided towards a similar, but more expensive product, you can be sure of that. The "bait" is the first,<br />

attractively priced product, <strong>and</strong> then you are "switched" to the product that they wanted to sell to you in<br />

the first place.<br />

In many countries, the Bait <strong>and</strong> Switch method is illegal.<br />

Hiding important information<br />

Sometimes there is important information about a product, that you as a consumer need to know. When<br />

a product is bad for your health, or addictive, like tobacco, you do need to know. Deliberately hiding<br />

Sources:<br />

Ewald Berkers - http://www.unenticed.com/english.php?section=personal+persuasion<br />

Getting Beyond Getting Taken is a blog about deception <strong>and</strong> manipulation, <strong>and</strong> how to protect against<br />

it.<br />

Michael Lovas - Staff writer - http://www.benefitspro.com/2011/02/01/manipulation-in-sales<br />

BenefitsPro.com helps benefits brokers, HR managers, <strong>and</strong> retirement advisors get the information they<br />

need to keep their finger on the pulse of the ever-changing benefits community.<br />

http://www.aboutpeople.com/documents/ML-<strong>Manipulation</strong>inSales-QuestionsNottoAsk-<br />

RegisterMar2011.pdf<br />

10. <strong>Manipulation</strong> Quotes<br />

Sources:<br />

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/manipulation.html#MVuzQoB9Mgltt3Rc.99<br />

277


http://www.searchquotes.com/search/<strong>Manipulation</strong>/<br />

Love comes when manipulation stops; when you think more about the other person than about his or<br />

her reactions to you. When you dare to reveal yourself fully. When you dare to be vulnerable.<br />

Joyce Brothers<br />

Love, Yourself, Person The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If<br />

you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.<br />

Philip K. Dick<br />

Must, Reality, Words I do respect people's faith, but I don't respect their manipulation of that faith in<br />

order to create fear <strong>and</strong> control.<br />

Javier Bardem<br />

Faith, Respect, Fear The conscious <strong>and</strong> intelligent manipulation of the organized habits <strong>and</strong> opinions of<br />

the masses is an important element in democratic society.<br />

Edward Bernays<br />

Society, Important, Opinions The principle that human nature, in its psychological aspects, is nothing<br />

more than a product of history <strong>and</strong> given social relations removes all barriers to coercion <strong>and</strong><br />

manipulation by the powerful.<br />

Noam Chomsky<br />

Nature, History, Powerful The concept of romantic love affords a means of emotional manipulation<br />

which the male is free to exploit, since love is the only circumstance in which the female is<br />

(ideologically) pardoned for sexual activity.<br />

Kate Millett<br />

Love, Romantic, Emotional When people learn no tools of judgment <strong>and</strong> merely follow their hopes, the<br />

seeds of political manipulation are sown.<br />

Stephen Jay Gould<br />

Political, Learn, Follow Everything about the left is perception, manipulation, <strong>and</strong> lies. Everything.<br />

Everything is 'Wag the Dog.' Everything is a structured deception.<br />

Rush Limbaugh<br />

Everything, Deception, Lies It's so easy to manipulate an audience, but it's nearly always clear that you<br />

are being manipulated. I think even people that are not critically attuned are aware of cynical<br />

manipulation in film.<br />

John Boorman<br />

Easy, Film, Audience Speculation is only a word covering the making of money out of the<br />

manipulation of prices, instead of supplying goods <strong>and</strong> services.<br />

Henry Ford<br />

Money, Making, Word It's not like I'm anti-China. I just think it's ridiculous that we allow them to do<br />

what they're doing to this country, with the manipulation of the currency, that you write about <strong>and</strong><br />

underst<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> all of the other things that they do.<br />

Donald Trump<br />

278


Country, Underst<strong>and</strong>, Write I've not seen in my lifetime any politician who is a heroic figure. The<br />

manipulation that all politicians use on one level or another is so transparent.<br />

<strong>Dean</strong> Koontz<br />

Another, Seen, Level Madison Avenue is a very powerful aggression against private consciousness. A<br />

dem<strong>and</strong> that you yield your private consciousness to public manipulation.<br />

Marshall McLuhan<br />

Powerful, Against, Public I will say that the idea of a woman being deceptive came from that original<br />

discussion with critics <strong>and</strong> reporters about if woman could do that kind of thing. Evelyn, herself, grew<br />

out of the discussions about how capable women are of deceit <strong>and</strong> lying <strong>and</strong> manipulation.<br />

Neil LaBute<br />

Women, Woman, Kind <strong>Social</strong> engineering is using deception, manipulation <strong>and</strong> influence to convince<br />

a human who has access to a computer system to do something, like click on an attachment in an email.<br />

Kevin Mitnick<br />

Human, <strong>Social</strong>, Deception <strong>Social</strong> engineering is using manipulation, influence <strong>and</strong> deception to get a<br />

person, a trusted insider within an organization, to comply with a request, <strong>and</strong> the request is usually to<br />

release information or to perform some sort of action item that benefits that attacker.<br />

Kevin Mitnick<br />

Person, <strong>Social</strong>, Action Well, you always discover a lot in the ing room. Particularly the action, because<br />

you have to over-shoot a lot <strong>and</strong> shoot an enormous amount of material because many of the sequences<br />

have to be discovered in the ing <strong>and</strong> manipulation of it.<br />

Christopher Nolan<br />

Action, Room, Material This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built<br />

primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people<br />

into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that.<br />

John Perkins<br />

Life, Men, History Acting is the work of two people-it's only possible when you have the complicity,<br />

the help, even the manipulation of a director.<br />

Victoria Abril<br />

Work, Help, Two Politicians, no matter who they are, shouldn't be able to manipulate the public on a<br />

single issue <strong>and</strong> then call an election at the height of support - that's a little bit of a manipulation of<br />

democracy.<br />

Jim Bolger<br />

Single, Little, Democracy The future author is one who discovers that language, the exploration <strong>and</strong><br />

manipulation of the resources of language, will serve him in winning through to his way.<br />

Thornton Wilder<br />

Future, Winning, Him If there are four equations <strong>and</strong> only three variables, <strong>and</strong> no one of the equations<br />

is derivable from the others by algebraic manipulation then there is another variable missing.<br />

Talcott Parsons<br />

Others, Another, Three Most of the power of painting comes through the manipulation of space... but I<br />

don't underst<strong>and</strong> that.<br />

Jasper Johns<br />

279


Power, Through, Underst<strong>and</strong> There is a considerable amount of manipulation in the printmaking from<br />

the straight photograph to the finished print. If I do my job correctly that shouldn't be visible at all, it<br />

should be transparent.<br />

John Sexton<br />

Job, Straight, Finished Mexico was conquered more by manipulation of myth <strong>and</strong> archetype.<br />

Norman Spinrad<br />

Myth, Mexico, Conquered I can't really put it in one sentence because although on one h<strong>and</strong> Preacher<br />

is about faith <strong>and</strong> yes it is also about, I suppose, the search for God, the search for faith <strong>and</strong> the<br />

manipulation <strong>and</strong> the abuse committed by figures in whom I suppose people have faith.<br />

Garth Ennis<br />

Faith, God, Put China's idea of fair trade is government subsidies of its textile <strong>and</strong> apparel exports to<br />

the United States, currency manipulation, <strong>and</strong> forgiveness of loans by its government banks.<br />

Virginia Foxx<br />

Government, Idea, Fair I got tired of different drum sounds so you buy different effects for more<br />

manipulation.<br />

Ikue Mori<br />

Tired, Different, Sounds So we should preserve it. I don't think that digital storage is necessarily a good<br />

thing, but I definitely think that digital manipulation is interesting.<br />

Sean Booth<br />

Good, Definitely, Digital Well, it arose out of two long-term concerns - the first being the possibility of<br />

genetic manipulation, nature versus nurture, what constitutes how people get to be how they are.<br />

Katherine Dunn<br />

“You are a manipulator. * I like to think of myself more as an outcome engineer.”<br />

J.R. Ward, Lover Eternal<br />

“Just because something isn't a lie does not mean that it isn't deceptive. A liar knows that he is a liar,<br />

but one who speaks mere portions of truth in order to deceive is a craftsman of destruction.”<br />

Criss Jami<br />

“And pity--people who inspire it in you are actually very powerful people. To get someone else to take<br />

care of you, to feel sorry for you--that takes a lot of strength, smarts, manipulation. Very powerful<br />

people.”<br />

Deb Caletti, The Secret Life of Prince Charming<br />

“When you know what a man wants you know who he is, <strong>and</strong> how to move him.”<br />

George R.R. Martin, A Storm of Swords<br />

“There are those whose primary ability is to spin wheels of manipulation. It is their second skin <strong>and</strong><br />

without these spinning wheels, they simply do not know how to function. They are like toys on wheels<br />

of manipulation <strong>and</strong> control. If you remove one of the wheels, they'll never be able to feel secure, be<br />

whole.”<br />

C. JoyBell C.<br />

“<strong>Manipulation</strong>, fueled with good intent, can be a blessing. But when used wickedly, it is the beginning<br />

of a magician's karmic calamity.”<br />

T.F. Hodge, From Within I Rise: Spiritual Triumph Over Death <strong>and</strong> Conscious Encounters with "The<br />

Divine Presence"<br />

280


“The conscious <strong>and</strong> intelligent manipulation of the organized habits <strong>and</strong> opinions of the masses is an<br />

important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society<br />

constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed,<br />

our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.<br />

This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of<br />

human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning<br />

society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our<br />

social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of<br />

persons...who underst<strong>and</strong> the mental processes <strong>and</strong> social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the<br />

wires which control the public mind.”<br />

Edward L. Bernays, Propag<strong>and</strong>a<br />

“Belief can be manipulated. Only knowledge is dangerous.”<br />

Frank Herbert<br />

“If you are an approval addict, your behaviour is as easy to control as that of any other junkie. All a<br />

manipulator need do is a simple two-step process: Give you what you crave, <strong>and</strong> then threaten to take it<br />

away. Every drug dealer in the world plays this game.”<br />

Harriet B. Braiker, Who's Pulling Your Strings? How to Break the Cycle of <strong>Manipulation</strong> <strong>and</strong> Regain<br />

Control of Your Life<br />

“So, in the interests of survival, they trained themselves to be agreeing machines instead of thinking<br />

machines. All their minds had to do was to discover what other people were thinking, <strong>and</strong> then they<br />

thought that, too.”<br />

Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions<br />

“In a culture that is becoming ever more story-stupid, in which a representative of the Coca-Cola<br />

company can, with a straight face, pronounce, as he donates a collection of archival Coca-Cola<br />

commercials to the Library of Congress, that 'Coca-Cola has become an integral part of people's lives<br />

by helping to tell these stories,' it is perhaps not surprising that people have trouble teaching <strong>and</strong><br />

receiving a novel as complex <strong>and</strong> flawed as Huck Finn, but it is even more urgent that we learn to look<br />

passionately <strong>and</strong> technically at stories, if only to protect ourselves from the false <strong>and</strong> manipulative ones<br />

being circulated among us.”<br />

George Saunders, The Braindead Megaphone<br />

“Welcome to the human race. Nobody controls his own life, Ender. The best you can do is choose to<br />

fill the roles given you by good people, by people who love you.”<br />

Orson Scott Card<br />

“The storms come <strong>and</strong> go, the waves crash overhead, the big fish eat the little fish, <strong>and</strong> I keep on<br />

paddling. (Varys)”<br />

George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings<br />

“Mrs. Hopewell had no bad qualities of her own but she was able to use other people's in such a<br />

constructive way that she never felt the lack.”<br />

Flannery O'Connor, A Good Man is Hard to Find <strong>and</strong> Other Stories<br />

“What man ever openly apologizes for sl<strong>and</strong>er? It is not so much a feeling of sl<strong>and</strong>er as it is that of a<br />

massive lie, a misdeed not only to the sl<strong>and</strong>ered but also to those manipulated in the process. He has<br />

made them all, every one, his enemies, thereupon he is so overwhelmed with guilt that he will deny it<br />

until his grave.”<br />

Criss Jami<br />

281


“Almost all people are hypnotics. The proper authority saw to it that the proper belief should be<br />

induced, <strong>and</strong> the people believed properly.”<br />

Charles Fort<br />

“The chief means of resisting manipulation is humility – knowing who we really are <strong>and</strong> facing it. You<br />

can only serve by love. You can only love by choice. True love cannot be the result of decree, force or<br />

manipulation. Jesus always kept his strength to make loving choices. He calls us to make loving<br />

choices necessary to be the servant of all." "Humility permits me to own my feelings – <strong>and</strong> to admit<br />

them. Now I'm free to say, ‘I'm angry’. I'm free to admit what I am reacting to. I am free to ask if anger<br />

is what the person wanted to produce in me, <strong>and</strong> to ask for help in changing if my reaction is<br />

inappropriate.”<br />

Gayle D. Erwin, The Jesus Style<br />

“Ale: Are you manipulating me again? * T.C.: Try not to fall for it. I dare you.”<br />

Steve Kluger<br />

“Ender didn't like fighting. He didn't like Peter's kind the strong against the weak <strong>and</strong> he didn't like his<br />

own kind either the smart against the stupid.”<br />

? Orson Scott Card<br />

“sodoyouthinkyoucouldtrustmetogotothedancetonight?" she blurted before losing her nerve.<br />

Viktor <strong>and</strong> Viveka exchanged a quick glance.<br />

Are they considering it? They are! They trust -<br />

"No," they said together.<br />

Frankie resisted the urge to spark. Or scream. Or threaten to go on a charging strike. She had prepared<br />

herself for this. It had always been a possibility. That's why she'd read 'Acting For Young Actors: The<br />

Ultimate Teenage Guide' by Mary Lou Belli <strong>and</strong> Dihah Lenney. So she could act like she understood<br />

their rejection. Act like she accepted it. And act like she would return to her room with grace. "Well,<br />

thanks for hearing me out," she said, kissing them on the cheeks <strong>and</strong> skipping off to bed. "Good night."<br />

"Good night?" Viktor responded. "That's it? No argument?"<br />

"No argument," Frankie said with a sweet smile. "You have to see this punishment through or you're<br />

not teaching me anything. I get it."<br />

"O-kay." Viktor returned to his medical journal, shaking his head as if he couldn't quite believe what he<br />

was hearing.<br />

"We love you." Viveka blew another kiss.<br />

"I love you, too." Frankie blew two back.<br />

Time for Plan B.”<br />

Lisi Harrison, Monster High<br />

“When people can do something simple to avoid conflict--say, hit a button or unlock a latch--they'll<br />

generally do it.”<br />

Keith Ablow, Murder Suicide<br />

“There is no greater fool than he who thinks himself wise <strong>and</strong> no one wiser than he who suspects he is<br />

a fool”<br />

De Valois<br />

282


“The Lottery, with its weekly pay-out of enormous prizes, was the one public event to which the proles<br />

paid serious attention. It was probable that there were some millions of proles for whom the Lottery<br />

was the principal if not the only reason for remaining alive. It was their delight, their folly, their<br />

anodyne, their intellectual stimulant. Where the Lottery was concerned, even people who could barely<br />

read <strong>and</strong> write seemed capable of intricate calculations <strong>and</strong> staggering feats of memory. There was a<br />

whole tribe of men who made their living simply by selling systems, forecasts, <strong>and</strong> lucky amulets.<br />

Winston had nothing to do with the Lottery, which was managed by the Ministry of Plenty, but he was<br />

aware (indeed everyone in the party was aware) that the prizes were largely imaginary. Only small<br />

sums were actually paid out, the winners of the big prizes being nonexistent persons.”<br />

George Orwell, 1984<br />

“The household was pervaded by this atmosphere of a calm adult woman <strong>and</strong> a man who gave into<br />

animal impulses. She reported to him in great detail what her analyst ... said about his binges <strong>and</strong> his<br />

hostility; she used Charley's money to pay Dr. Andrews to catalog his abnormalities. And of course<br />

Charley never heard anything directly from the doctor; he had no way of keeping her from reporting<br />

what served her <strong>and</strong> holding back what did not. The doctor, too, had no way of getting to the truth of<br />

what she told him; no doubt she only gave him the facts that suited her picture, so that the doctor's<br />

picture of Charley was based on what she wanted him to know. By the time she had ed both going <strong>and</strong><br />

coming there was little of it outside her control.”<br />

Philip K. Dick, Confessions of a Crap Artist<br />

“How did you get back?' asked Vautrin.<br />

'I walked,' replied Eugene.<br />

'I wouldn't like half-pleasures, myself,' observed the tempter. 'I'd want to go there in my own carriage,<br />

have my own box, <strong>and</strong> come back in comfort. All or nothing, that's my motto.'<br />

'And a very good one,' said Madame Vauquer.”<br />

Honoré de Balzac, Père Goriot<br />

“Madame de Nucingen was already there, dressed with the deliberate aim of appealing to all eyes,<br />

knowing that thereby she would seem even more attractive to Eugène.”<br />

Honoré de Balzac, Père Goriot<br />

“We can be seduced...by powerful political groups that promise more wealth <strong>and</strong> lower taxes. Those<br />

with power can use clever, psychological tricks <strong>and</strong> play upon our weaknesses <strong>and</strong> brokenness in order<br />

to attract us to their way of thinking. We can be manipulated into illusion.”<br />

Jean Vanier, Finding Peace<br />

“The words “I love you” could contain all the bloodthirsty despair of the abattoir, all the hopelessness<br />

of the most isolated, frozen gulag, all the lurid sadness of death row.”<br />

Pat Conroy, My Losing Season: A Memoir<br />

“His (Lenin's)humanitarianism was a very abstract passion. It embraced humanity in general but he<br />

seems to have had little love for, or even interest in, humanity in particular. He saw the people with<br />

whom he dealt, his comrades, not as individuals but as receptacles for his ideas. On that basis, <strong>and</strong> no<br />

other, they were judged. He judged man not by their moral qualities but by their views, or rather the<br />

degree to which they accepted his.”<br />

Paul Johnson, Modern Times<br />

283


“The black widow, who had dispatched a lover or two, was sought out for her wisdom. The young<br />

spider asked her, "Did you keep his harmful secret under the threat of danger, or did you spin a web so<br />

confusing that he didn't know if you were friend or foe? Did you release him from the web <strong>and</strong> your<br />

presence or will you give another the venom in which to finish him?" The black widow was quiet <strong>and</strong><br />

then said, "All of the above.”<br />

Donna Lynn Hope<br />

“The principles underlying propag<strong>and</strong>a are extremely simple. Find some common desire, some<br />

widespread unconscious fear or anxiety; think out some way to relate this wish or fear to the product<br />

you have to sell; then build a bridge of verbal or pictorial symbols over which your customer can pass<br />

from fact to compensatory dream, <strong>and</strong> from the dream to the illusion that your product, when<br />

purchased, will make the dream come true. They are selling hope.<br />

We no longer buy oranges, we buy vitality. We do not just buy an auto, we buy prestige. And so with<br />

all the rest. In toothpaste, for example, we buy not a mere cleanser <strong>and</strong> antiseptic, but release from the<br />

fear of being sexually repulsive. In vodka <strong>and</strong> whisky we are not buying a protoplasmic poison which<br />

in small doses, may depress the nervous system in a psychologically valuable way; we are buying<br />

friendliness <strong>and</strong> good fellowship, the warmth of Dingley Dell <strong>and</strong> the brilliance of the Mermaid<br />

Tavern. With our laxatives we buy the health of a Greek god. With the monthly best seller we acquire<br />

culture, the envy of our less literate neighbors <strong>and</strong> the respect of the sophisticated. In every case the<br />

motivation analyst has found some deep-seated wish or fear, whose energy can be used to move the<br />

customer to part with cash <strong>and</strong> so, indirectly, to turn the wheels of industry.”<br />

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited<br />

“Totalitarian propag<strong>and</strong>a…functions not through external pressure, but through internalized belief. It’s<br />

how we get things done in an advanced free-market democracy. And it is the form of deception that<br />

citizens of open societies need to worry about the most.”<br />

Andras Szanto, What Orwell Didn’t Know<br />

“The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the<br />

meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.”<br />

Philip K. Dick<br />

“Love comes when manipulation stops; when you think more about the other person than about his or<br />

her reactions to you. When you dare to reveal yourself fully. When you dare to be vulnerable.”<br />

Dr. Joyce Brothers<br />

284


285


286


287

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!