Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Definitive dictionary of power
Thank you John!
These are all notes that I'll come back to when I will go again through the dictionary, add all the new definitions, improve the existing ones, and generally improve the dictionary overall, including the design.
Been thinking of a new definition that may be helpful:
- Inveterate manipulator: individual for whom manipulation is the norm, not the exception. He manipulates and gaslight as second nature.
Major telling sign: games, power moves, and manipulation even for minor or inconsequential issues that he wouldn't gain anything from. Sometimes, the manipulation is only costing him.
That may make the inveterate manipulator's behavior incomprehensible sometimes
To differentiate from "(normal) manipulator", who largely manipulates when there is something to gain.
I think it's an important differentiation because most people, including strategically minded people, can manipulate when interests diverge or when there is something in it for them -and sometimes we may also call that, or overlap, with persuasion-.
Also a major difference:
it's possible to have a (good?) relationship with people who manipulate sometimes or when it "makes sense".
And you may stamp out that behavior when you show that you see what they're doing, or show them the costs -ie.: losing trust, respect, destroy relationship, will rescind contract, etc. etc.-
It's impossible to have a good relationship with an inveterate manipulator -especially as a man who sees the games-.
True intimacy is also hardly possible with an inveterate manipulator.
Hi Lucio,
very interesting concept. Sharing some thoughts of mine on this, and in particular on the manipulation of these people being "incomprehensible" and "costing them":
- The payoff for pathological/inveterate manipulators' is different from the payoff that a normal person would derive from the same manipulation
IMO, the mistake that most people make in assessing the behavior of others is comparing others’ payoff to their own payoff, assuming they behaved the same.
In other words, most people think:
“It's impossible that X is always manipulating. It would make no sense. If I did behave like that, I would destroy my life. And I would gain nothing long-term. And I would not accomplish anything more than I could by not manipulating”.
But this is a fallacy.
Because: the payoff for a pathological/inveterate manipulator is not the same that a normal person would derive from behaving the same.
My hunch as to the most common pathological manipulators, ie those with dark triad traits, is that most of them would fall under the "psychopathy" and "narcissistic personality disorder" categories.
Pure machiavellians, in contrast, would not be classified as “pathological manipulators”, but more probably as “opportunistic manipulators” (which is the more "effective" strategy anyway).
And this is not by chance.
- What is their payoff?
Their payoff is mainly "psychological", not external/real life.
Psychopaths and sociopaths are driven by boredom. They are always bored out of their minds, and the main reason they manipulate is to "escape their boredom". They feel no empathy, thus they only derive satisfaction from having power over others. The more this is achieved with underhanded means, the better escape from boredom they derive.
Narcissists (ie narcissistic personality disordered people) are, instead, driven by gaining status at the expense of others to assuage their constant suppressed feeling of worthlessness, and thus to feel better.
They manipulate to gain “supply”. Their self-worth constantly alternates between "grandiose" and "worthless". To escape the "worthless state", they manipulate. They also lie to gaslight their victims and the bystanders into believing they are benevolent, while masking their malevolence. And to escape accountability and shame.
In both cases, there is an existential need to continually manipulate that is in play here.
While a normal person manipulates only "opportunistically and sporadically", and most of all can usually admit having done so, it is simply impossible for a psychopath or a narcissist to either stop manipulating, or to admit having manipulated, including in cases where the payoff in terms of social status would be bigger than what would derive from sticking to the lie.
(Sometimes, some "high-level" inveterate manipulators can realize that an admission can be beneficial. But that's very rare, and also a "last-resort solution").
A normal person, in contrast, is not solely driven by external social status considerations, and can recognize the longer-term damage that can derive from having a big castle of manipulation/lying inevitably crumble in the end.
Pathological/inveterate manipulators are simply incapable of seeing the bigger picture, and will always go down to the bitter end. They, after all, must lie for their continued, day to day psychological survival.
- The normal person feels guilt and shame from having manipulated, thus increasing the likelihood of either an admission, or at least a change in behavior. In contrast, the pathological manipulator will never admit, never change behavior, and always double down on his manipulations.
The normal person instinctively recognizes the long-term damage that would derive from his "sticking to the manipulation" even when found out.
He also feels guilt and shame. This makes it very probable that he will either confess, including on his own, or at least change behavior.
The pathological manipulator, in contrast, has a life whose survival continually depends on his manipulations.
He simply cannot confess, and cannot change behavior.
In the case of sociopaths and psychopaths, confessing would amount to opening the lid on a lifetime of crimes and deception, and would lead to ostracization.
In the case of narcissistic personality disordered people, confessing would amount to admitting blame - which by definition is impossible for a narcissist, because it would amount to psychological death.
For the pathological manipulator, continuing to manipulate and doubling down on the manipulation is the only solution that makes sense.
Yeah, I think you make great points in that analysis, Bel.
My comment on the costs is from a more rational and practical cost/benefit -the level I'm interested in and that TPM mostly focuses on-.
Whether the inveterate doesn't see that or if he can't help himself is a different issue -a more speculative one, and with fewer objective measures to rely on-.
As of now, I believe the cost-analysis level is an important conduit to tell apart the inveterate and lost case, from the more normal ones you may be able to work with.
If I understand correctly, the idea is that one can skip the "diagnosis", and instead mainly derive his clue whether to keep interacting or not, from the degree to which the manipulator is unable to stop manipulating even when it is counterproductive to him/her.
Seems a great great concept. Avoids the need to identify internal psychological traits, about which one can only speculate, and zeroes in on an externally observable trait.
Since the "inveterate manipulator" cannot stop manipulating even when it would be in its best interests to do so, he/she is likely to betray us even when we're offering win/win and have adopted CYA.
I'm thinking about:
Change the "be straight approach" to "honorable man approach".
I think it's more universal, easier to understand and remember... And less likely to cause confusions (a video editor once said he didn't wanna help me because it wasn't cool to tell people to be more like heterosexual men LOL).
"Straight communication" would then be a subset of the "honorable man approach".
If anyone has any thoughts, please let me know.
Personally I'm in favor of the change.
"Straight" did sound a bit complex to conceptualize.
"Honorable man" sounds more straightforward.
EDIT: I think it's mostly a matter of "immediacy of recognition" of meaning.
Thank you so much Bel, super helpful!
