Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
People sometimes reveal their motives by inferring about others' motives
Hi Guys.
Here's one thing I frequently noticed: people reveal their motives, including their darker motives, by inferring about other people's motives or prospective reactions.
It's a phenomenon that concerns all of us.
Reasoning
We have no real way to know what another person is thinking, or why he or she is doing whatever he or she is doing.
And we have no way to know how other people would react to our comments or actions.
But we do have a frame of reference that we superimpose on the world: our own way of interpreting, internally emoting and reacting.
Some examples
- If I am an envious person, I'm going to unconsciously interpret others as motivated by envy in their reactions to me
- If I am a jealous person, I'm going to unconsciously think that my partner may be jealous of me
- If I am a serial compulsive cheater, I'm going to assume everyone cheats
- If I have a superiority complex, I am going to think everybody believes he's the most intelligent guy and has the biggest ego
This is very useful to read other people
It's when they make inferences about others that they usually reveal something about themselves.
One simple example.
Some people tend to congratulate others for their successes by saying:
I'm happy for you.
It's the "for you" part that's revealing.
I have personally found that the reason to add "for you", in their mind, is because they want to reassure the other person: "You have no need to worry, I don't want it for myself".
In other words, they assume that - unless the caveat is there - the other person may think that their compliment is due to being interested in "appropriating their gain"
This, in turn, reveals their own underlying "appropriation wishes", and thus some envy. It's some sort of unconscious reaction formation.
Exceptions
It's not always the case, of course.
Sometimes, a person can infer motives (eg, malevolence) in others without being motivated by that motive (in this case, malevolence) himself.
But even in these cases, it's telling that the best social course of action is usually to keep the inference to oneself.
The reason for this is that humans unconsciously understand that everyone "tends to see other people's motives as he himself is in his motives".
How to distinguish?
So how to distinguish between cases where the inference is just that, ie a logical inference, and cases where the inference is motivated by one's darker motives?
One useful means to distinguish is the flexibility and variability of the inferences of the person.
Reaction formation, by its nature, is inflexible and compulsive precisely because it derives from an internal, personal and unchanging disposition.
So if I have a big issue with my own envy, no matter what others do, I am always going to interpret them as motivated by envy themselves.
I will read all people the same, and approach them and react accordingly. I will show no real variability in my approaches and reactions.
But if I do not have a problem with envy myself (or rather, if I am low in the spectrum of envy - assuming, as TPM teaches, that everyone has hidden darker motives, but some people worked on them and transcended them to become eagles), then I am free to interpret other people according to their real motives and actions.
I can treat the envious guy as an envious guy, and the kind and generous guy as a kind and generous guy. I don't have an internal reason to "see the world black or white".
This is, by the way, one of the reason why highly neurotic or highly narcissistic people are incapable of really reading others: they are inflexible, precisely because they derive their view of the world not from objectivity but from their own internal motives, their "colored glasses".
The importance of ridding ourselves of our own darker motives: becoming able to see the world objectively
We could even say that a part of the journey toward power is:
to become able to process our trauma to rid ourselves of our internal darker motives, to become able to approach the world and its people with the flexibility they deserve: treat the good guy good, and the bad guy as a bad guy.
Great thread, Bel!
If not already there, I may even add it to the "tips for assessing characters".
You add already some good caveats and exceptions.
I'd add some more:
- I wouldn't think too much of the wording in "happy for you", since it's a stock sentence. As a matter of fact, if one is not too close to you, the strange thing would be too happy for someone you are not related and invested in any way (so kind of faking happiness). But I personally wouldn't put too much weight on whether that "for you" is there or not. Body language tells you much more here.
- Smarter, higher IQ or very power-aware Machivellians will avoid giving away their worldview. It's always an arms' race of assessing VS evading, and you can't expect everyone to fall for this
Some ways I have seen manipulators may give away their world-view:
- when they are speaking about a third party who is not related to anybody present. This is due to the fact that they are then not trying to manage their facade with respect to someone present, and that they unconsciously assume everybody is manipulative like them; they have no “real morality” to guide them;
- when they want to “empathize” with you. When they want you to establish a “bond with them”, they may create a “bad actions bond” by either justifying bad actions as a general “necessity”, or by going further and confessing how they treated someone other bad “for your benefit”;
- when you ask for a suggestion on how to handle things. They have really no idea for most cases, but frequently they will just amuse themselves and suggest the most outrageous, sometimes even criminal, course of action, disguised as a “joke”;
- when after power moving for a long time they forged the idea in their mind that their victim is an idiot; in this case duper’s delight kick in, and they start giving away their motives left and right (look for the duper’s delight smirk);
- when they speak in general abstract terms: if they speak in the abstract, they are not always intending to manipulate and thus they may give away their “real thoughts”.
Great stuff, Bel.
I think that if one could add a practical example it would help a lot to make these more "real" and help people understand.
Rationale:
Generally speaking, one may have one or more examples in his mind and the general concept makes immediately more sense based on that "example / legstands" that the general concept is based on.
Those who don't have it may struggle to make sense of the concept, and potentially even to find much utility in it.
I know you know that, BTW, but it may be worth reminding ourselves sometimes.
You're right Lucio, I was thinking about the examples while writing.
Here they are:
- person giving away his worldview when they are speaking about a third party who is not related to anybody present
An example of this:
- person “empathizing” over bad actions
My former boss once told me, after I got back to hear his offer to start working with him again:
You now see it Bel: in this profession you have to steal clients just to survive.
- when you ask for a suggestion on how to handle things
My former boss didn't remove my name from his law firm door for months after I left, nothwithstanding my written request.
When I asked one particular person for a suggetion on what to do, this person told me:
Just go there by night and splash black indelible paint over all the plaque.
- when they speak in general abstract terms
A person tells something like:
Sometimes you just have to play by being bad and taking what you can take. It's not our fault if most people are idiots that can be scammed.
- when they forget what they told you / think you are just oblivious to their power moves
I once was speaking with a close relative who needed help with an inheritance matter.
I was starting to withdraw from the work, and one morning he called me and told me with distressed voice that he had health problems and was in fear of dying.
He told me he wanted to talk with me to prepare his will.
I felt guilty and decided to continue to help him.
Two weeks later we were both in a library. I saw a book on drafting wills.
I picked the book up and brought it to him.
This ensued:
Me: Look, this book might be of help.
Him: What should I need that for?
Me: Didn't you tell me you wanted to prepare a will recently?
Him: (flinching) Ah yes, of course. (slight smile microexpression)
This led me to ultimately distance me from this person.
Awesome! Thank you both for understanding my point and for sharing Bel!
This may turn into material for a future brewing article/lesson improvement: how to spot a manipulator.
And if you want to write that one day, just let me know.
Two additional examples about the first case:
- person giving away his worldview when they are speaking about a third party who is not related to anybody present
- I believe this is also the case explained in the blog article about a job interview with a boss who spoke of employees as "monkeys".
2. Another example of this was an acquaintance of mine (who I spoke about many times on my journal) who before-TPM heavily and seriously power moved on me covertly for a whole day while on vacation in front of Bella, to try to humiliate me in front of her.
I now remember that:
- he had then recently separated from his wife at her request, and that
- the evening before his power moves started, he let it slip that he "hated other men who had a woman", and "they had to all die".
Now I see it all more clearly, and also see how knowing this could have helped me then to predict what was going to happen, and can indeed help me now for future cases.
Thanks for sharing in such detail Bel.
I found the general ideas together with the concrete examples useful.
One useful means to distinguish is the flexibility and variability of the inferences of the person.
Reaction formation, by its nature, is inflexible and compulsive precisely because it derives from an internal, personal and unchanging disposition.
I found this point particularly insightful.
I do find that, if we do put in the effort to pay attention over a long enough period of time, we get to sense where are consistencies and inconsistencies in someone's behaviour.
Brief Personal Example
I had an ex-manager that couldn't show his true colours out in the open because it conflicts with the goals of the business.
For a period of time, he often seemed annoyed with me even though I had "achieved" the goals of the project.
For example, I would accomplish the following:
- I would deliver on the agreed milestones to the customers.
- Work with the project managers on any issues
- Provide support to the customers after delivery
One day he finally said to me in his office
Can we quickly get all these matters out of the way?
Then, we can focus on new initiatives.
Then, it suddenly hit me why this guy was the "subject matter expert" in so many projects like 10 projects.
Probably, the more projects he was on, he would get more visibility, credibility, scope and influence.
He didn't care about whether the projects added value to the customers or the business.
He wanted more projects (especially new ones) so he could advance his agenda.
But he can't openly say that he doesn't care about the customers or the business.
So to link my story back to your point, I could have taken his annoyance with me as something I could infer about his motives earlier.
Especially when that annoyance didn't seem to make sense.
This would have helped me navigate the situation better since he was my reporting manager.
