Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Bel's thoughts
I m a bit hesitant sharing ideas on dealing with relatives because I m a bit of a wuss dealing with my own. But here goes. Building on that flip of what's wrong with you to focus on them.
How about
"Of course you re welcome here any time. You know that. (With a tone of that is obvious and a dismissive hand gesture)
Hey I hope you don't mind me asking but you're normally pretty happy and confident.  Is there anything you want to talk about?"
Because if the behaviour is out of character they might have some life problem. And it's a twofer coz if this passive aggressive guilt tripping behaviour is in character you have still moved the focus to what is wrong with them
You're spot on Transitioned. The "shifting focus" suggestion is so powerful. I picked that up and wrote more about that in the new thread I opened in the general forum on a more malicious power move ("What's wrong with you").
I was at a quick lunch with Bella and a couple of friends.
This interaction took place:
Me: Hey Bella, can I try a bite of your dish?
Bella: Sure!
Female friend: I wouldn't have given it to him.
Me: Why not?
Me: (realizing the above was not sufficient to check this, I said the following with a "joking vulnerable tone":) Why are you such a baddie?
Yep, good correction, Bel.
If the power mover was malicious the "why not" may only give her more ammo to one-up you.
Planted information
I am reading Roger Dawson's book "Secrets of power negotiating" recommended by TPM. I got to the chapter on "planted information", and it was eye-opening for me.
The underlying concept is that we humans tend to believe more the information that we obtain surreptitiously, than the information we get directly.
Dawson's example is:
A seller is making a presentation. He catches a glimpse of a paper that two clients are passing between them. The paper has the words "let's go with the lower price of the other competitor" scribbled on.
The thing is: the paper is a ruse, precisely meant to make the seller lower his price. And, it usually works.
Dawson tells how he himself used to emotionally believe planted information even when he knew it was likely planted information: that is, the principle works automatically.
Compliments using the "planted information" principle
Then I had this epiphany: my former boss used to do the exact same thing in the context of complimenting people when first getting to know them (or, should I say, love-bombing them to get them attached).
He would say to one person:
Boss: Don't tell Bel, but he's really good at his work.
Then this person would come to me and tell me.
(This person was a formerly love-bombed person on the way out, to maximise the effect on both sides. This same person later told me that my former boss had used the exact same technique on him before: ie boss had said to another third person that he was good at his work, and not to tell him).
So far I did not understand why he used this indirect method: it did not make sense to me, when he could just have told me directly.
Now I understand: he was using the principle behind "planted information" to maximise the probability that I would believe his compliment and get attached to him.
Uses in triangulation
This manipulative power move is not limited to compliments. It can be used for smear campaigns as well.
By telling a third party something about a mark (and choosing a third party who is unable to keep the "secret", or subtly goading the third party into speaking) the manipulator can increase the chances that other people may believe the smear campaign.
In other words, triangulation does not only work by keeping the hands of the triangulator clean: it also inherently exploits the "planted information" principle to maximize effectiveness, the power of the message, and its believability.
Defense
As Dawson says, just understanding the "planted information" principle greatly decreases the power of these kinds of manipulative moves.
And I suspect that going meta on all this, in the right context, might do the trick of really popping the balloon for good.
Nice one, Bel!
Just recently I was negotiating with agent standing between me and the owner.
I sent the agent a snapshot of another offer I had and told him his offer had to come in lower to be interesting (a "show proof power move").
He replied showing the snapshot of the communication between him and the owner:
Problem (for him) was: it showed the owner was super eager to move forward, a huge intel insight that I could use to drive the price further down and sweeten the pill with some form of "immediate payment transfer of first month rent and prompt monthly payments".
I thought that was a major mistake and then... Then I had to think "what if it was on purpose and there's a catch here?".
However, turns out in the end, it wasn't on purpose.
Sometimes (often?) people also simply make mistakes.
I agree that his move was a mistake: he reinforced that the owner was very interested in concluding the agreement.
He mirrored what you did (sending you a text conversation with another) but didn't think about the content of what he was sharing, and whether it was productive or not for him.
The impression I have from his move is that he was feeling "cornered" (from a negotiation perspective) and tried to show he was "on par" with you anyway he could, but was not a thoughtful negotiator.
A real "equalizing move" with yours would have been sharing an offer by another prospective renter.
Or, if he were really high-Mach, he could have asked the owner to send him a message to the tune of "Too low, not really interested in that. If he wishes to raise his offer though we may consider it", and then share that.
Instead, he just divulged inside information counterproductively; and he also somewhat reduced the "separation/higher authority" advantage inherent in an agent negotiating on behalf of another.
Though it's the opposite of what agents usually do, it might be a good move to establish more trust with the offerer, in some situations. But it doesn't seem the case here.
From the perspective of "planted information" though, the concept that information obtained surreptitiously is "more believed" still applies.
A possible defense against "planted information" triangulationsÂ
Let's suppose that a "messenger" comes to us and tells us:
Messenger: You know, X told me that you have been doing this and this to him... he complained that you did bad. But he also told me he's over you now and is happy as he has another better situation/partner/collaborator/whatever.
Just to explore options, a possible very strong response to pop the "planted information" balloon would be:
Me: Nice! I wonder why he told these things to you, instead of me, if he wanted to let me know this.
Maybe because lies that come through third parties are more believable than if they were spoken directly?
It's so, so sad that he's so alone to have to resort to this... I hope he may be able to get better for real sometime soon!
This basically goes meta on everything that may be going on, and also assures that the "originator" will pick up that the mark is aware of everything, and is blowing the cover effectively.
Having the "messenger" get back to the "originator" with the "going meta" statement is more effective than calling the originator directly, because it also plays the same game back.
Drawback
The above assumes that the recipient is sure that the "messenger" is speaking the truth. This may not be the case, ie the messenger may be the one spreading false information.
So it is probably only to be used when the recipient already has known both the originator and the messenger for a sufficient time.
In instances of no prior knowledge, or of doubt, instead it is probably best to assume that the messenger is the bad one, and keep the relationship with the originator as if nothing were said.
Extreme emotionality can be a ruse to manipulate people into something other than what it appears directed to
I was looking at some videos of police stops, and I noticed that the most emotional people (those who make reference to "my rights" and "constitutional rights" and frame the police as aggressing them) are often those who have warrants for prior crimes, or have committed the most egregious violations.
Then I watched this clip from Ocean's Eight:
She essentially steals the products by faking that she wants to "return them", and aptly fakes getting angry that the store wouldn't accept to refund them even though she doesn't (obviously) have the receipt.
The store clerk lets her go and even gives her a bag (which she uses to fake she has bought the products and get out of the store) because the clerk is glad that she - who got emotional and angry - appears to be willing to let go of her angry request.
This is a modus operandi I often watched first person in real life from dark triads. Getting angry at something inconspicuous distracts the mark from the real objective of the dark triad, and is very effective.
When someone gets angry for small stuff or for seemingly inconpicuous reasons, always have the "red alert" go off and be on the lookout for what's really going on. If necessary, instead of trying to deescalate, investigate more.
When someone gets angry for small stuff or for seemingly inconpicuous reasons, always have the "red alert" go off and be on the lookout for what's really going on. If necessary, instead of trying to deescalate, investigate more.
Man, this is genius advice!! It deserves to be in PU. PU lists a similar manipulation technique under Drama & nagging, but the principle here is different, as it's used not so much to nudge people into action, but to distract them from the main course of action.
A colleague of mine used something similar at the university. She hadn't done her last assignment, and ended up failing a semester. She then questioned the professor, and when he answered that she hadn't handed out the assignment, she started getting emotional and accused him of having lost it, threatened to turn him to the head of department and stuff.
She sounded so convincing, that the professor started to believe he might habe been guilty. Somehow he ended up "finding it" and giving her the grades she needed to pass.
She then told our group of friends, laughing, in a bar how she managed to pass the semester with a non-existing assingment. This ruse must be more common than I previously thought.
