Let's move on to another middle-like start

In my last post I detailed a manipulative method I am not especially familiar with except through reading. It didn't hit a personal chord as much as it is something I read that made sense. So let's move on to something more familiar to me. Before I get into that, I should give some personal background. Dry textbook reading is no one's favorite, and I should give my perspective so this might make more sense to readers. I'm a person who, in my view, sits midway between those most easily manipulated and those who are mess-with-proof. In fact, I have observed that I come in several notches higher, even, than the midpoint (I see others being taken while I figuratively shake my head.) Some struggle visibly with those who seek to move them around like chess pieces, yet I am definitely not on the "do not care, don't listen or give it a thought" list at the other end of that road. I see it as a bit of a spectrum (as many things are when you think about it that way.) Those who don't care one whit what others might ask of them or think of them may have what we'd consider a problem (no insight, no compassion, a toxic-level self-centeredness, to name some possibilities.) And those who protect themselves the least need others to supervise them if they can't get it together - they'll be broke and kidnapped also, in no time, if they accede to every stranger's wishes and requests.

So, here I am in the middle-ground somewhere, and like everyone else, I have my strong points and my weak spots. I watched the video posted by Urspo yesterday (in the comments of my most recent post) and learned a new word origin. I also found myself thinking that I would never hand over my watch to a stranger; would never buy his doubtful promise. Then I thought about the day and age, the social customs, and converted my opinion to a big question mark. In a small-town atmosphere, fearing censure by social peers, I might have given in, also. I can't say without totally understanding the setting and the personnel. Our fast-paced, high-population world of today is different than Thompson's working stage.

I do know, however, that people looking to gain trust look for certain traits upon which to capitalize. Something else I read about, but which immediately resonated with me, is the practice of the manipulator to home in on the trait of conscientiousness. Specifically, I've been taken to task for the following:

"Don't you believe that [insert universally-accepted social platitude here]?" or... "Didn't you say that you [insert previously-claimed universally-strived-for trait here, such as maintaining truthful consistency or keeping promises]?"

One of these people is trying to procure a specific response from the other

To me, the above is heavy-handed, yet I've seen people roll right over in the face of it, and I understand why. It is uncomfortable to have others pointedly question our behavior and our values, and it's not something done within the realm of polite social interactions, so it can take us by surprise. Some of us think better on our feet than others. I'm one who does not. So I employ a strategy I read about long ago: Claiming the right to take my time. This can be used for just about any unpleasant interaction. I'm going to get now into a gender generalization, although I typically don't do that because I don't often believe those hold water. But in this case, I will, inaccurate though it may sometimes be.

I don't know the reasons for this difference, but I've noticed that females believe they must respond to each question or challenge, while males very often meet those with silence. I believe the latter approach can be very useful. I've adopted the no-response tactic, and the results are profound, possibly because it's not expected from a female. I've been yelled at; I've been labeled "B word"; I've had people freak out in my presence, just because I didn't immediately jump when they lit the proverbial fuse under me. I may add in a neutral remark such as, "I'll have to think about that," or "not sure I agree." This gives me time to reflect upon what has been going on, and a manipulator does not want anyone to stop and carefully think. The main point here, though, is that the desired response, or ANY response, is NOT required just because someone has the nerve to expect it. Tool #1 in the arsenal of "fighting no-good-ers" is to remember that your response is due only when and if you decide it is. And it never has to be what your questioner hopes to hear. Their freak-out should not sway you, just in and of itself. They'd hope it would. But you may need time to think, and another's objection to that may be (but is not necessarily) an indicator that "something is up."

This has been all over the map. Does anyone have any insight? I'd like to be more organized in my approach, but I'm touching on some things as they come to mind. I hope others will reply and even add in suggestions for sub-topics to explore.

No better place to start than right in the middle

I plan to host a series, and I hope people will help me write it. (That means commenting if you have a comment, and even if you don't, just commenting for the heck of it anyway, so we can pick collective brains.) I'm interested in exploring what's involved in everyday interactions when people try to steer and direct you for their purposes. As I understand it, all human interaction have to potential to contain some element of this. And we all have a sense for what we feel comfortable tolerating (or find acceptable) and what "rubs the wrong way." I believe that much of the time, discomfort goes on beneath the conscious level. So let's explore what goes wrong, and how to bring it up into the light.

Since I don't know where to start or how to structure this, I'll start smack dab anywhere. Some of this has come from reading I've done, but mostly it's come from personal experience (reinforced and clarified, in some cases, by reading the thoughts of others who have made their research available to all.)

The topic is manipulators. More specifically, the worst kind. Or less specifically, any kind. I think it's worthwhile to talk about the big and the bad and the small and less bad. A series could be written; a year would not cover it. Not with the kind of "research" I've amassed. So let's start with something fundamental that I believe is used frequently, if not necessarily always, when the slickster tries to pull a fast one on "unsuspecting you."

Has it ever been pointed out to you that pointer-outer has done you a favor? More than one favor, maybe, and great favors, as they remind you? Now, it's normal for well-meaning loved-ones to take a bow when they've done you right, but I'm talking about niceties you have to stop and think about because you know you didn't ask for them. And furthermore, you're not sure you would have agreed, given the choice. Or at least, you feel a little quizzical over why it's being pointed out to you by favor-doer that their deed should get some spotlight.

Do you know where this is going? While your head's still reeling over strange conversation, something is then asked of you. The strong implication is that you got, so you should give.

And do you think it's billed as optional? Maybe - on the surface. A surface so thin you don't even know it's there.

Have you ever had anyone interact a little strangely with you, and upon reflection you realize they tried to ingratiate themselves to you (maybe pointing it out, maybe not), and then asked you (surprisingly) for something? Have you ever been given the creeps as such? So that you ponder what's creepy or what seems somewhat... "off"?

The look on your face as you try to figure out what just happened