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.