5 common tricks used by manipulators to lead people by the nose

2024 Author: Malcolm Clapton | [email protected]. Last modified: 2024-01-13 00:26

An excerpt from Nikita Nepryakhin's book "I manipulate you" about cunning methods of manipulation and ways to counter them.

1. A bad person is a bad argument

“What can a person argue about who has not changed his passport? What views on architecture can a man express without a registration? And in general, how can we be interested in the opinion of a bald man with such a nose? Let him first fix his nose, grow hair, and then speak out! - remember this famous joke of Mikhail Zhvanetsky?

Manipulation "Bad person - bad argument" is reduced to discredit a person in any way, and through his denigration to show that everything he says (arguments, arguments, ideas, thoughts, suggestions) has no right to exist.

Discrediting can hit anything: a person can be ignorant, inexperienced, incompetent, and unsympathetic - in general, anything can be found in the arsenal of a manipulator.

Of course, it offends, humiliates, drives out of oneself, acts on an emotional level. A kind of attack on the person himself, and not on what he says. Essentially, there is absolutely nothing here.

• "You first dress like a human, and then go in with your ideas."
• "And this is what a person with a criminal record tells us?"
• "Why are you listening to him, he even manages to make a mistake in the word" contract "!"
• "You first pick the goat out of your nose, and then teach us all here!"
• "You first come on time to meetings, and then try to take the floor!"

These are all examples of the manipulation “Bad person - bad argument”. It seems to me that here is a very telling and understandable name: in order to discredit an argument or opinion of a person, you can discredit him, and it does not matter how.

Often the victim tries to "hit with a reciprocal uppercut." But isn't that a lucrative scenario for the manipulator? After all, his main task is to get away from a constructive reaction to the words of the victim. Conflicting is a common and familiar situation for an aggressor, he is like a fish in water there.

Counteraction

How can one defend against such manipulation? First of all, no retaliatory attacks, mutual insults, because otherwise you will follow the manipulator's script.

The main tactic is to ignore the vilification.

You have to be above this, because you know the true motives of your opponent, why give in? Moreover, when you know the manipulation scenario itself and understand the final goals of the aggressor, it is much easier to maintain self-control: there is no misunderstanding of what to do in such a situation.

And now the main thing: we must transfer the situation from an acute emotional phase to a cold rational one. Let's think about whether there is a logical connection between what I say and what my opponent accuses me of. Well, okay, I don't know how to work, for example, in Excel, but does this mean that my business plan is incorrect?

In countering the manipulation "Bad person - bad argument" can only help the transition to a logical channel, analysis of the cause-and-effect relationship and knowledge of the laws of argumentation:

• • Option 1: "Tell me, what is the connection between my knowledge of a computer program and my department budget plan?"
  • Option 2: "Do I understand correctly: if I now translate my budget into Excel, you will unconditionally accept it?"

2. Inconsistency of words with deeds

Why do you think I chose the image of a cow to illustrate the next manipulation called "Inconsistency of words with deeds"? The thing is that the people have a wonderful saying "Whose cow would moan …", which describes the essence of this manipulation.

As in the previous kind of manipulation, here the discussion of the topic is essentially replaced by the discussion of the opponent. Only if before that there was any slanderous discrediting, in this case the manipulator shows the inconsistency of the interlocutor's arguments with his own behavior, manifestations of character, life principles and position.

Let's say you are talking about a war, and your counterpart asks: "How can you reason if you yourself have not participated in any war?"

"Inconsistency between words and deeds" - a variety of manipulations:

• "What do you teach me when you yourself did this in your youth?"
• “You are here talking about modern fashion, but you yourself are wearing worn out, dirty shoes made in China! Do not make me laugh!"
• "Here you are talking about not showing aggression towards animals, but you yourself wear a leather jacket!"
• "You will first learn to speak Russian yourself without mistakes, and then make comments on how to put stress on me!"

For example, a father teaches his son: “Smoking is harmful! It is very harmful to your health! This is a very addictive habit! - and gives a number of arguments. According to the laws of logic and constructive dialogue, the opponent is obliged to give a counterargument to each of the arguments, or - another option - to defend his position. But that's not easy, right? And it's also time consuming.

Even children and adolescents without rich communication experience understand that it is easier to turn their blow against the interlocutor himself, thereby devaluing the importance of his words. Therefore, it is not surprising that the son, in response to his father's words, reacts like this: "Why are you teaching me here when you smoke yourself?"

Counteraction

There is a reasonable feeling that there is no constructive response against such manipulation. After all, everything is logical: words are at odds with deeds. Nevertheless, I want to emphasize once again: this is not a counterargument on the merits of the case, not a discussion of the problem, but a blow to the person himself, although in some cases it is deserved (but, unfortunately, not in most cases).

Let's go back to the father-son situation. What answer options exist to neutralize this unconscious (unconscious?) Manipulation? Is it right if the father admits the inadequacy? No, this will mean the recognition of someone else's victory.

And would it be right if the father starts playing along with his son and demonstrates how sick he is, what rotten teeth he has because of smoking, in what condition his lungs are, and so on? I'm afraid this strategy is also wrong, because he only discredits himself even more, having lost his father's authority. Appealing to the fact that the father wants what is best for his son will be completely incomprehensible to a teenager.

Perhaps it would be correct to say, “When you grow up, then you will be clever! ", Or" As long as I fully support you, you will listen to me! ", Or" One more word, and you will be punished and you will stay at home for a week! "? In no case! Indeed, in response to manipulation, the father himself resorts to aggression, fixing an absolutely wrong communication model in the child's mind.

So what do you do? Let's go back to the manipulation scenario.

The main strategy is not to succumb to the scenario line, but to break it. Our opponent discredits us by demonstrating that our words are at odds with our deeds. He sticks to us a kind of "minus sign". So, in order to break the script, we have to translate "minus" into "plus".

I call this logical reframing. And in most cases, for a competent and conflict-free answer, the stereotyped phrase "precisely because" will help, which immediately turns our supposedly weak side into a strong one, instantly increasing the authority in the issue of discussion.

See how this can be done effectively:

- What do you teach me if you smoke yourself?

- So it’s precisely because I smoke myself, I’m telling you this! Not a grandmother from the next doorway, not someone outside, but me. I know where this can lead!

Notice how the background and the degree of the conversation have changed. Instead of self-flagellation due to logical reframing, or the template “that's why”, an expert position appears and words take on a completely different meaning.

3. Ignorance

The manipulator is always playing on our emotional strings, this is what I call the target of manipulation. And very often this string is the fear of appearing ignorant, inexperienced, incompetent or ignorant.

We are very often afraid to admit that we do not know or do not understand something, we are embarrassed to show our ignorance. This is the basis of manipulation, which I call very simply: "Ignorance."

Here are some of the most common examples of such manipulation:

• "Everyone has known for a long time that …"
• "Yes, you read Wikipedia for a start, everything is written there …"
• "The well-known postulate of economic theory confirms my opinion."
• “What can you say about the coefficient of determination? A? You see, I'm definitely right here!"
• “Well, you've probably read this book! This is a classic of business literature! All educated people read it! There it says the same thing. So I propose to accept my point of view."
• "I'm not sure if the validity you specified can be correlated, so you will have to change some of the metrics in the report."

You probably already understood that very often highly educated people use such manipulation. Complicated terms, English words, incomprehensible abbreviations, scientific phrases, facts that are difficult to verify here and now - this is what is used in Ignorance when they play on ignorance and a sense of false shame.

The manipulator additionally makes the victim believe in his superiority, this is a complicating factor. At the same time, the manipulator often uses such a tone and intonation, as if talking about the most elementary things.

There are times when the manipulator simply pours in learned clever words, without fully understanding their meaning. The main thing is to sound clever, and the victim would be ashamed to show his ignorance - then everything will work! Sometimes manipulators use phrases-amplifiers: “Everyone knows”, “It has been known for a long time”, “The fact is well-known”, “Absolutely obvious”, “Everyone understands”. Compare: "The best cars are German" and "Everyone has long known that the best cars are German." All these are also manifestations of the "Ignorance" manipulation.

Counteraction

It's amazing why people are so afraid to show their ignorance? Does ignorance of some term, postulate or scientific theory somehow diminish their dignity? Is it really so scary if you haven't read or heard something? Is it really so scary to clarify the meaning and meaning, especially from the manipulator himself?

What is the manipulator waiting for? That we get scared and show false shame. It's a shame to ask and clarify.

The only way to break this really simple manipulation is to simply admit your ignorance, ask and clarify. Without self-flagellation, embarrassment, absolutely calm and with dignity.

And then you will see that the manipulator itself has a rather vague and vague idea of what it refers to. Watching a manipulator “get confused in his own testimony” is always a funny sight, because he himself falls into a trap set by him. And sometimes he can refer to non-existent facts, fictitious scientific theses, so you always have to ask and clarify. Believe me, your reputation or authority will not disappear.

4. Greasing

At one time, Abraham Lincoln said: "A drop of honey will catch more flies than a gallon of bile." What a capacious and apt observation! It is on this effect that the next uncomplicated, but very common and, most importantly, effective manipulation called "Greasing" is based.

The main target of this manipulation is an appeal to our vanity, the purpose of which is to cloud our consciousness, to flatter our pride with the help of correctly selected compliments.

• "The erudition of my interlocutor is beyond doubt, so I am sure that he will not argue …"
• "A person is not subtle and deep enough, of course, he will not appreciate and understand, but here you are …"
• "You, as one of the best specialists in our company, must …"
• "As an educated person, you will agree that …"
• "We are well aware of your honesty, decency and openness, so you will definitely …"
• "I rely on your prudence and sharpness of mind and I am sure that you will agree with me …"

What do all these seemingly different examples have in common? Manipulation script.

Please note that in each of the replicas given, the same mechanism of influence is present: compliment + command.

There is always a compliment here, which, like honey, is pleasant to our ears: “smart”, “educated”, “subtle”, “erudite”, “honest”, “decent”. But pay attention that further the command is always given: "agree", "accept", "do", "will not argue", "support".

It turns out an interesting logical connection: if I do not follow the command, then I am not smart, not educated, not intelligent. This is the trick and the script line of the "Greasing" manipulation. And despite its apparent simplicity, in most cases it works flawlessly. The stronger the victim's self-esteem and vanity, the more effectively this manipulation works, despite the fact that the commands within the script can be quite radical.

Counteraction

Neutralization of this manipulation is as simple as the script line of the "Grease" manipulation itself.

The formula is as follows: accepting the compliment and rejecting the team.

For example

- I rely on your prudence and sharpness of mind and I am sure that you will agree with me …

- Thank you for your appreciation, but I have to disagree …

Can be further enhanced

Pay attention to the fact that you must definitely accept the compliment, otherwise a logical trap that is unfavorable for you will slam. Of course, you should not see a manipulative element in every compliment, otherwise you can reach a paranoid state. But when you see that, with the help of flattery and pleasant words addressed to you, they are imperceptibly forced to do what you do not want to do, it is worth stopping this manipulation instantly.

5. Unbalancing

Unfortunately, the manipulator often resorts to emotional irritation of his opponent in order to achieve his goal. A familiar appeal to the interlocutor, caustic jokes, caustic remarks, impudent ridicule, indirect hints, boorish humor, impermissible sarcasm, absurd questions are used. I call this manipulation "Unbalance", and its name speaks for itself. The trick is rude and impermissible, nevertheless widespread and effective.

The main task of the manipulator is to do everything possible to unsettle the opponent, take him out of his comfort zone, and cause a persistent state of stress.

In an emotional state, the victim will probably do something ill-considered, spontaneous, unprofitable for himself in the heat of the moment, which means that the manipulation has worked. The main thing is to get away from unwanted discussion and constructive discussion.

The manipulator can constantly deliberately distort the name or position of his opponent: familiar "Ivanov" instead of respectful "Sergei Vladimirovich", "associate professor" instead of "professor", "Ivan Petrovich … oh … that is, Peter Ivanovich", "manager" instead of "general director" …

The manipulator can play up the shortcomings of his victim: imitate bad diction, slips of the tongue, speech errors, stuttering. Or insert phrases that provoke a conflict: “Oh, you made me laugh right now! "," Are you definitely an expert on this issue? "," Do you talk to your wife like that? "," Oh my God … What else? "," Anything else smart? "And the like. Not only verbal components can be used. The aggressor may resort to dismissive gestures, annoying actions. For example, constantly clicking a pen, not responding to the remarks of a counterpart.

The ways of irritation and emotional destabilization are endless. The main thing is constantly.

The key property of the manipulation "Unbalance" is the repeated repetition of the irritating action. Drip-drip-drip.

Practice shows that the threefold repetition of the manipulative element already reaches its goal: the opponent begins to get irritated and lose his temper. An emotional wave covers, rationality and cold reason fade into the background.

Counteraction

It is important to understand that any actions within the framework of "Unbalancing" are always a provocation, always a pre-thought scenario. Drip-drip-drip. In no case should one succumb to such a provocation. You can't take it to heart, because it's just a game on the part of the manipulator. You must recognize it and be above it. After all, if they managed to "wind up" you, if they managed to knock the ground out from under your feet, you lost. This means that the enemy has achieved his goal.

Calmness and composure is the main recipe for counteraction. Therefore, you can simply ignore any attempts to break your emotional harmony. You are in control, not a manipulator.

Or you can just say so: “I understand what you are trying to do now. You want to throw me off balance. Unfortunately, it won't work. Therefore, I propose not to resort to this anymore, but to conduct the dialogue in a constructive and respectful manner."

In this case, we reveal the manipulation and translate its hidden nature into an open one.

You can read about other common manipulations in the book “I manipulate you. Methods of countering latent influence Nikita Nepryakhin.