Hello everyone,

Here, I would like to show you a list from a French psychomotor therapist named Isabelle Nazare-Aga. It's from her book titled Les Manipulateurs sont parmis nous (Manipulators are among us). Here's a link where it talks about the book but the site is in french language only. But if you google translate it, more below the page, you'll see the list eventually and a small summary of her book.

[www.ciao.fr]

I've corrected it a little bit myself so it's more legilble but it's not perfect:

The 30 characteristics of the manipulator
(Source : " Les manipulateurs sont parmi nous" d' Isabelle Nazare-Aga). (Source: "The manipulators are among
us" by Isabelle Nazare-Aga).


1. He/She blames the other, on behalf of the family relationship, friendship, love,
professional dedication, etc..

2. He/She carries the responsibility over others or resigns of his own responsibilties.

3. He/She does not clearly communicate its demands, needs, feelings and opinions.

4. He/She responds vaguely very often.

5. He/She changes his opinions, attitudes, feelings, according to the person or situation.

6. He/She relies on logical reasons to disguise his claims.

7. He/She makes others believe they must be perfect, they should never change their minds, they must know
everything and respond immediately to requests and questions.

8. He/She discredits the qualifications, competence, personality of others: He/She critics, devalues and judges
without seeming to, .
9. He/She delivers messages through intermediaries (phone instead of choosing the face-to-face, leave written
notes).

10. He/She sows discord and creates suspicion, divide and rule, and could break a couple.

11. He/She knows how to put himself as a victim so we are sorry for him/her (exaggerated disease, environment
"challenging" work overload, etc.).

12. He/She ignores the requests (even if he/she says taking care of them).

13. He/She uses the moral principles on others to satisfy their needs (concept of humanity, love, racism, "good"
or "bad" mother, etc.)

14. He/She covertly threatens or openly blackmail.

15. He/She changes the subject suddenly during a conversation

16. He/She avoids the interview or meeting, or he/she escapes it.

17. He/She relies on the ignorance of others and a belief in its superiority.

18. He/She lies

19. He/She preaches the false to learn the truth, distort and interpret.

20. He/She is egocentric.

21. He/She may be jealous even if he/she is a parent or spouse.

22. He/She does not tolerate criticism and denies the obviousness.

23. He/She does not take into account the rights, needs and desires of others.

24. He/She uses very often the last moment to ask, order, or make others act.

25. His speech seems logical or coherent, while his/her attitudes, actions or lifestyle meet the opposite pattern.

26. He/She uses flattery to please us, makes gifts or suddenly starts to pamper us.

27. He/She produces a state of discomfort or a feeling of unfreedom (trap).

28. He/She is quite effective in achieving his/her own goals, but at the expense of others.

29. He/She makes us do things we probably would not make our in own free will.

30. He/She is constantly the subject of discussions between people who know him/her, even if He/She is not there.


Note that a person is considered a manipulator if there is at least 14 characteristics noted on the said person.
If the book has been written in other language, I strongly recommend it to everyone. It has keys how to deal with these kind of people.

Peace



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/2010 01:13PM by rogue80.

Some of this does not make sense. There is nothing wrong with giving vague answers to questions unless the questioner has a right or a need for specific information. Manipulators often try to get very specific information from people they intend to manipulate. Vague answers are sometimes wisely self-protective.

Number 6, about logic, does not make sense to me.

To use the phone or written message instead of face-to-face is not manipulative. A written message can be used to prove it was left, while a manipulator usually likes to be able to deny the original message. Also, a manipulator likes to be able to see the expressions and to use facial expressions to create a sense of threat while delivering words that can not be reported as a threat, for example. A phone can be a tool to create distance, to avoid confrontation, but except for if it is used to harass with repeated calls, it is not very manipulative. It is easy for the listener to hang up, or even to be laughing at the speaker without letting him know.

And the last one, that confuses me. I would not judge a person's character by the fact that others talk about him or her, I would look instead at the kind of social group it is. Why should people talk about someone all the time? If you are in a social group in which they don't know how to have conversations without gossip, then it says more about them than about the person they are discussing. They don't have very interesting lives. I would of course look at the whole situation and probably avoid the whole group.

I am sure there is some awkwardness in the google translation but I would not go out of my way to lend much credence to this writer.

Quote
dsm
Some of this does not make sense. There is nothing wrong with giving vague answers to questions unless the questioner has a right or a need for specific information. Manipulators often try to get very specific information from people they intend to manipulate. Vague answers are sometimes wisely self-protective.

I understand you point of view with this issue. It is self-protective and that's why a manipulator will use it if he has the opportunity. Maybe, indeed, it’s not well translated (I think it should say: He/She expresses him/herself vaguely) but let’s see what it is supposed to mean with an example: The manipulator likes to answer vaguely to our question about what he’s doing in his/her hobby. He/she then answers that he/she is doing photography and begins to enumerate almost all the specific terms corresponding to the hobby (like the model of the photos, the style of developing them, etc.) in a monologue that he/she only him/her understand. So we look at him/her interrogated because we didn’t understand all the jargon and he/she looks at us and says: “What? You don’t even know that?!” This is a mean to put him/herself better than us. It is the same if someone talks about a person who is author/artist/celebrity and we don’t know this said person. We will then ask who this person is and the manipulator looks at us like we are the most uncultivated human being.

Not that it’s bad to enumerate specific terms in a subject but, isn’t it convenient when the person explains to you a little bit more? That is, if you’re interested of the subject.

The manipulator will also use the kind of mystery talking by starting a sentence without finishing it thus, letting us interpret what was the message. It’s a good method to hook us and then the manipulator can play with the message depending on our answer. The reason why a manipulator does this method is for:
• seduce with the mystery
• never feel that he/she is out of arguments (feeling “cornered”)
• giving him/herself position of authority and make believe that he/she knows better than the others
• letting us interpret so he/she can changes his/her opinions
• devaluate us if we guessed/interpret wrongly
• taking off his own responsibilities

Quote
dsm
Number 6, about logic, does not make sense to me.

Maybe it’s better explained in the extracts from the book of George K. Simon, In Sheep’s Clothing found there:

[www.culteducation.com]

Quote

Rationalization – A rationalization is the excuse an aggressor tries to offer for engaging in an inappropriate or harmful behavior. It can be an effective tactic, especially when the explanation or justification the aggressor offers makes just enough sense that any reasonably conscientious person is likely to fall for it. It's a powerful tactic because it not only serves to remove any internal resistance the aggressor might have about doing what he wants to do (quieting any qualms of conscience he might have) but also to keep others off his back. If the aggressor can convince you he's justified in whatever he's doing, then he's freer to pursue his goals without interference.

In the story of little Lisa, Mary felt uneasy about the relentlessness with which Joe pursued his quest to make his daughter an obedient, all-A student once again. And, she was aware of Lisa's expressed desire to pursue counseling as a means of addressing and perhaps solving some of her problems. Although Mary felt uneasy about Joe's forcefulness and sensed the impact on her daughter, she allowed herself to become persuaded by his rationalizations that any concerned parent ought to know his daughter better than some relatively dispassionate outsider and that he was only doing his duty by doing as much as he possibly could to "help" his "little girl." When a manipulator really wants to make headway with their rationalizations they'll be sure their excuses are combined with other effective tactics. For example, when Joe was "selling" Mary on the justification for shoving his agenda down everyone's throat he was also sending out subtle invitations for her to feel ashamed (shaming her for not being as "concerned" a parent as he was) as well as making her feel guilty (guilt-tripping her) for not being as conscientious as he was pretending to be.

Quote
dsm
To use the phone or written message instead of face-to-face is not manipulative. A written message can be used to prove it was left, while a manipulator usually likes to be able to deny the original message. Also, a manipulator likes to be able to see the expressions and to use facial expressions to create a sense of threat while delivering words that cannot be reported as a threat, for example. A phone can be a tool to create distance, to avoid confrontation, but except for if it is used to harass with repeated calls, it is not very manipulative. It is easy for the listener to hang up, or even to be laughing at the speaker without letting him know.

When the message is given by the phone by an intermediary or by a written message, it can give you less to no chance to explanation or to reaction. Let’s not confuse a post-it message or a phone call which will helps to coordinate and communicate between the interlocutors but rather to put us in a situation where we are helpless. Let me explain again with an example: Back to house after the job, I see a piece of paper on the table showing the writing of my cousin (manipulator) explaining that he went at my home and took the chicken in the fridge that I needed for the dinner of tonight with some friend. He knew that and I explained him yesterday that I had this dinner planned. Not only he did eat the chicken for his lunch but he says that after his job, he’ll be here at my home tonight because he doesn’t want to see his girlfriend. Looks bad eh?

On the phone, it will be most likely to be made by an intermediary (for taking the last example, by his brother) so you can’t deal directly with the manipulator.

Quote
dsm
And the last one, that confuses me. I would not judge a person's character by the fact that others talk about him or her, I would look instead at the kind of social group it is. Why should people talk about someone all the time? If you are in a social group in which they don't know how to have conversations without gossip, then it says more about them than about the person they are discussing. They don't have very interesting lives. I would of course look at the whole situation and probably avoid the whole group.

In a working place where a supervisor (manipulator) always bullying the employees, it will be a big issue to discuss. The employee, by complaining (with reasons) and, hopefully, trying to find solutions, will try to discuss the matters together. Maybe it will be during the breaks or maybe it will be during a weekend meeting. Avoiding the subject will just make the matter worse.

A manipulator is an energy sucker for the people around them. It’s really not easy to deal with them and that’s why they are a subject we often talk about, mostly if the person is a relative.

Sorry if my writing seems a little confuse, english isn't my first language but I try my best in re-reading my post to check errors ;)

to me that list seems to subjective and leads to false labeling. i do not buy it. one doesn't need 14 of those characteristics either to be a manipulator, they can use just 1. your example of the chicken eater is not one of a manipulator but a selfish, mean person. manipulators get people to do things they would not normally do.

Quote
archaeologist
one doesn't need 14 of those characteristics either to be a manipulator, they can use just 1

Indeed, we have all the potential to be a manipulator because we have at least one of those. But, a "full time" manipulator had at least 14 of these characteristics.

Quote

your example of the chicken eater is not one of a manipulator but a selfish, mean person

That is the description of most manipulators.

Quote

manipulators get people to do things they would not normally do

29. He/She makes us do things we probably would not make our in own free will.

Quote
rogue80

Quote
archaeologist
one doesn't need 14 of those characteristics either to be a manipulator, they can use just 1

Indeed, we have all the potential to be a manipulator because we have at least one of those. But, a "full time" manipulator had at least 14 of these characteristics.

Quote

your example of the chicken eater is not one of a manipulator but a selfish, mean person

That is the description of most manipulators.

Quote

manipulators get people to do things they would not normally do

29. He/She makes us do things we probably would not make our in own free will.

i really do not see how a person could be a part time manipulator and so I will simply just disagree with your assessment and points. manipulation is not going and eating someone's chicken. i think there si too much distortion in your definitions and application because you wiould put Billy Graham under the category of manipulation as well with those terms. for that matter all evangelists

archaeologist:

What exactly is your interest here?

Were you in a cult group or does this issue somehow directly affect your family?

Are you in some way associated with a group discussed on this message board?

Quote
archaeologist
i really do not see how a person could be a part time manipulator and so I will simply just disagree with your assessment and points. manipulation is not going and eating someone's chicken. i think there si too much distortion in your definitions and application because you wiould put Billy Graham under the category of manipulation as well with those terms. for that matter all evangelists

The point I'm trying to show is that we have to be careful with people that have these characteristics. I'm not trying to imply that every evangelists or any cult are manipulators. Like the pastor Reynald Kozycki has said on this website :
[www.coeurnet.org] (french website, sorry)

Quote

The manner of presenting information is never neutral, it can easily exaggerate certain points or minimize others, it can also be generalized.

It would be a sophism to consider that everyone who eat a chicken without a permission is a manipulator. Well maybe the chicken eater example is not a good one... sorry.

I don't know much about Billy Graham and his evangelical activities but here's what Kozycki says about evangelical "schools":

Quote

These groups tend to develop systems to train their leaders who are akin to some brainwashing. But let there be no mistake, these outbursts favoring manipulation in some "shaky" evangelical churches are unfortunately not characteristic of Protestantism, or even religion. No transmitter of information, knowledge, ideology escapes the danger to be an instrument of manipulation, hence the need to seek safe clues, and humility mixed with some caution.

To whom it may concern:

Archaeologist has been banned from this message board.

Just another "Internet troll."