Dr.

Simon 05 Apr 2013 character, covert-aggression, manipulation tactics, manipulators, responsibility

Covertly aggressive people are among the most manipulative personalities. They use certain tactics to
accomplish two things simultaneously: 1) conceal their aggressive intentions, and 2) invite you to fear, be
doubtful, or optimally, to concede or give in. And there are a handful of tactics covert aggressors tend to
use more frequently tactics that are generally the most effective in manipulating others especially
neurotics. Recognizing these manipulation tactics and knowing how to respond to them are the keys to
personal empowerment.
I cant stress enough how capable the more skilled manipulators are of using just about any behavior
imaginable to accomplish their aims. This is especially true when the manipulator has a good read on
the character of their target of manipulation. When a covert aggressor (CA) knows his or her opponent
inside out (i.e. knows their sensitivities, fears, insecurities, core beliefs, level of conscientiousness, etc.), a
vast opportunity opens up for using that persons traits (often, their most socially desirable traits) against
them in a covert war for dominance. Because its so unrealistic to list all the possible ways a covertly
aggressive individual can get the better of another person, I find it helpful to focus attention on the more
common tactics CAs employ and to explain in depth why the tactics are so effective. Understanding the
basics of how manipulationworks gives the potential victim of covert-aggression a better intuitive grasp
of the nature of troublesome encounters with all disturbed characters and heightens their sensitivity to the
many possible tactics a manipulator might employ.
Lets talk first about the tactic of rationalization. Actually, a better term for this tactic would be excusemaking or justifying. The term rationalization derives from the Freudian notion that people sometimes
unconsciously defend themselves against the anxiety they might experience by engaging in actions that
violate their conscience. By finding reasons that seem to make their actions more benign, appropriate,
acceptable, or understandable, any qualms of conscience are assuaged. But this scenario, of course,
assumes that the person actually has a well-developed conscience. And this type of rationalization is a
strictly internal and largely unconscious process.
When disturbed characters make excuses for their behavior, they know what theyre doing. They have a
clear purpose in mind when theyre seeking to justify themselves. They use this tactic only when they
know full well theyve done something or plan to do something most everyone would regard as wrong.
But even knowing its wrong, and knowing how negatively the action reflects on them, they remain
determined to do it. They might feel entitled to do it (as in the case of more narcissistic individuals) or
they may simply pit themselves against the generally accepted rules (as in the case of the aggressive
personalities. Whats most important to recognize is that at the very moment theyre making the excuse,
theyre not defending at all or unconsciously fending off any anxiety. Rather, theyre actively fighting
against a principle they know society wants them to adopt. And more importantly, theyre also trying to
get you to go along with it. Covertly aggressive folks prefer this kind of tactic as opposed to open
defiance because it not only helps conceal their aggressive intentions (as well as some telltale aspects of
their character) but also simultaneously helps them maintain a more favorable social image (by getting
someone else to see things their way or buy into the purported reasonableness of their actions). And once
they get the other person to become more accepting of their premise, theyre well on their way to winning
the contests of image and interpersonal control.
Think just a little bit more about this tactic. Its a testament to what Ive said all along about disturbed
characters and their level of awareness (for more on this you might want to read the post: They Know
What Theyre Doing). Why are the elaborate explanations and justifications necessary if the person
doesnt realize how most people would judge their actions? Its not that they dont know most folks
would regard their behavior as wrong. And its also not that they truly believe in their hearts that what
theyve done is okay. Rather, they simply dont want you to negatively appraise their character and
possibly be done with them. And, more importantly, they dont want to accept and internalize the notion
that such behavior should not be done again. The very fact that at the moment they engage in the tactic
theyre resisting accepting a principle and obstructing the internalization of that principle into their own
social conscience is the best indication theyre likely to do the very same thing again in any similar

circumstance. Think about it. How many times have you relented after half-heartedly accepting
someones lame excuse only to find yourself dealing with the exact same behavior time and time again?!
Lets look at another tactic: denial. Now this is also a term that had its roots in classical Freudian
psychology. Freud conceived it as a primitive and unconscious defense against unbearable emotional
pain. And there actually is a type of denial that fits this classic definition. I give an example of it in my
book Character Disturbance:
A woman has been married to the same man for 40 years. She has just rushed him to the hospital
because, while they were out in the yard working, he began having trouble speaking and looked in some
distress. The doctors later tell her that he has suffered a stroke, is virtually brain-dead, and will not
recover. Yet, every day she is by his bedside, holding his hand and talking to him. The nurses tell her
that he cannot hear, but she talks to him anyway. The doctors tell her he will not recover, but she only
replies, I know hell pull through, hes such a strong man. This woman is in a unique psychological
state the state of denial. She can hardly believe what has happened. Not long ago she was in the yard
with her darling, enjoying one of their favorite activities. The day before, they were at a friends home
for a get-together. He seemed the picture of happiness and health. He didnt even seem that sick when
she brought him to the hospital. Now in a blink of an eye theyre telling her hes gone. This is far
more emotional pain than she can bear just yet. Shes not ready to accept that her partner of 40 years
wont be coming home with her. Shes not quite ready to face a life without him. So, her unconscious
mind has provided her with an effective (albeit most likely temporary) defense against the pain.
Eventually, as she becomes better able to accept the distressing reality, her denial will break down. When
it does, the pain it served to contain will gush forth and she will grieve.
This is classic denial. And to this day its simply amazing to me how many people, especially mental
health professionals, will simply assume that this is whats always at work when character disturbed
people deny their wrongdoings. Character disturbed patients will resist admitting things everyone knows
they have done and the therapist might say: Give him (or her) time, theyre still in denial. And they
make equally unwarranted assumptions, like mounds of shame and guilt must certainly underlie the
denial. Why else would they deny, especially the obvious? They must have more shame and guilt about
what theyve done than they can bear, right? Wrong! Refusing to acknowledge the truth is not the same
thing as neurotic denial. Its simply lying and very different in character from the phenomenon I
described in the first example. At first glance, someones denial might look like classic, neurotic denial.
But when CAs and other disturbed characters engage in denial, its a very different thing. I give an
example of denial the manipulation tactic at work in my book also:
Joe, the class bully, strolls up to one of his unsuspecting classmates and engages in one of his favorite
mischievous pastimes pushing the books out of her arms and spilling them on the floor. It just so
happens that the hall monitor catches the event and sternly hollers: Joe! to which Joe, spreading his
arms wide open and with a look of great shock, surprise, and innocence on his face retorts: Whaaaat?
Does Joe really not understand the reality of what has happened? Does he actually think he didnt do
what the hall monitor saw him do? Is he in some kind of altered psychological state? Is his possible
altered state brought about by more emotional pain than he could possibly stand to bear? Is he so
consumed with shame and/or guilt for what hes done that he simply cant allow himself to believe he
actually did such a horrible thing? More than likely, none of the aforementioned possibilities is correct.
Joe is probably more concerned that he has another detention hall coming, which means another note to
his parents, and possibly even a suspension. So, hes got one long-shot tactic to try. Hell do his best to
make the hall monitor believe she didnt really see what she thought she saw. The hallway was crowded.
Maybe it was someone else. Maybe it was just an accident. If he acts surprised, innocent, and
righteously indignant enough, maybe, just maybe, shell begin to doubt herself. He hopes that, unlike
him, she might be just neurotic enough (i.e. has an overactive conscience and excessive sense of guilt or
shame) to think she might have misjudged the situation. Maybe shell even berate herself for jumping to
conclusions or for causing a possibly innocent person unwarranted emotional pain. This tactic might
have worked before. Maybe it will work again.

Manipulators will often couple denial with other tactics such as feigning innocence. This is when the
person youve confronted acts like they have no idea what youre talking about or pretends in a selfrighteous manner that theyve done absolutely nothing to be ashamed of or guilty for. Sometimes they
can use denial and feigning innocence with such intensity and seeming conviction that you begin
questioning your perceptions and your sanity. You start out knowing that youve nailed them on a
behavior and somehow they get you to wondering if you havent gotten it all wrong. A very effective
one-two manipulation punch indeed.
By far, however, the biggest weapons in any CAs arsenal are the tactics of shaming and guilt-tripping.
And the reason for this is quite simple: neurotics, by definition, have a high degree of conscientiousness
and hate to think theyve said or done anything wrong or shameful. So, the perfect way to control them is
to make them think theyve done something about which they should feel guilty or be ashamed.
Sometimes conscientious people try to lay guilt or shame on disturbed characters, thinking it will
somehow prompt them to modify their behavior. But they quickly learn that these tactics dont work on
disturbed characters. You have to have a big sense of right and wrong and an equally big desire to be a
good person for these tactics to have any effect. In short, you have to have a pretty well-developed
conscience, something disturbed characters lack.
In next weeks post well discuss some of the other more popular manipulation tactics. Then, in the
following weeks post, well be concluding the series on the aggressive personalities by taking a close
look at predatory aggressors (i.e. psychopaths, sociopaths). Following that there will be some posts on
topics that readers have been asking for information about. So, stay tuned!
Manipulative-People.com
50Dr. Simon 17 Aug 2012 Abuse, awareness, covert-aggression, covert-aggressive personality, disturbed
characters, manipulation,manipulation tactics, manipulators, thinking errors, Unhealthy Relationships
During my many years working with victims in abusive relationships, I heard the same types of questions
asked over and over again: Why cant they see what theyre doing?; Do you think they really meant to
hurt me?; Dont they probably have issues theyre unaware of and that theyve never really faced
before?; and, How do I get them to recognize the harm they do? And because I had broad-based
training as a therapist, including training in all the traditional approaches, at first even I believed that my
role in helping disturbed characters change would be to assist them in getting in touch with the
unconscious underpinnings of their behavior (e.g., early childhood trauma, mistrust of others, fear of
intimacy, etc.). What a surprise it was to learn how very different in every respect the disturbed
characters were from their victims in relationships, especially with respect to their levels of awareness.
A couple of years ago I posted an article titled: Confessions of a Covert-Aggressive Personality. It
featured the testimony of someone who acknowledged many of the things I had been saying for years
about certain personalities. And it quickly became by far the most widely-read post on this blog. I think
thats largely because it validated for a lot of folks what they had suspected in their hearts about their
dysfunctional partners but still couldnt bring themselves to believe.
At the present time, readers trying to access the original article are being re-directed to another article.
The other article has some great information in it to be sure, but it lacks the focus of the original article
with respect to the disturbed characters awareness. The original article also featured the testimony of
one person (though slightly altered and embellished with material from a few other sources to assure
anonymity). So it seemed important to fashion another article on the original topic, but this time blending
the testimonies of no fewer than 7 individuals who have contacted me directly through the blog and
several others with whom Ive come into contact via other means. Many have read one or both of my
books and found themselves described accurately in them. And, as is often the case, some had finally
reached a point in their lives when they decided it was time to take a serious look at their character and to
begin the process of character re-construction. Their testimonies are remarkably similar, and in the
confession that follows, Ive taken great pains to borrow small passages and phrases from different
testimonies, to edit the text so as to preserve gender neutrality, and to assemble the testimonies in such a
way so as to make it impossible to identify any one individual while still illustrating the most notable

characteristics these impaired characters have in common. The text of this confession will read as one
persons self-admissions. But it is actually a composite of many, fashioned in a way to drive the point
home about the disturbed characters level of awareness:
Dr. Simon, I have read your book In Sheeps Clothing and have to admit that I am the covert-aggressive
personality you describe. Every description you give fits me like a glove. I have all the thinking errors
you talk about. Ive always known I had them, but it was weird to see them laid out in black and white.
And I think I could illuminate you a bit on some manipulation tactics Ive used that you dont mention
in your book. Ive always been a person determined to win and Ive learned lots of ways to eventually get
what I want or to get others to see things my way. But thats beside the point. Im now at the point in my
life where Im tired of all the trouble Ive caused and I want to change the person I am. That wasnt
always the case. When my partner first gave me your book to read, I wanted to turn things around on
them and make them think everything was all their fault. My pride was getting the better of me and I
didnt want them to think they had my number. So, I acted all offended, pretended I didnt know what
they were talking about, and tried to find as many examples as I could where I thought I could prove they
were just as guilty, or maybe even more so, of many of the things they were confronting me about
(guilting is one of my favorite weapons). But Ive had to admit that Ive made quite a mess of things
over the years and Im really wanting to face some things about myself and to make some changes. Dr.
Simon, Ive been in many types of counseling over the years. And when I was younger, my parents put
me into a hospital program. But back then, I liked the person I was and didnt want to change. And it felt
good to think Id figured out how to get just about anything I wanted in life. So I played the game, gave
lip service to everything, but in my heart I was determined to be the same person Id always been. And
I always knew what I was doing when I was manipulating others. I also knew what I was doing to them
in the process because their reactions were so obvious and clear. The fact is I simply didnt care. The
only thing that really mattered to me was getting what I wanted and saving face. But Im realizing more
and more how much I have lost over the years because of that attitude. The big question I have now is
how to change. Ive read the Ten Commandments of Character you talk about in your other book
[Character Disturbance], and I see where a lot of these things apply to me. Still, I wonder what it will
take for me to actually put the things you talk about into practice.
Theres a part of me that wishes I could share with you the many other stories that would drive home the
point about the disturbed characters level of awareness. But I think the altered confession offered
above illustrates matters fairly well. In fact it illustrates quite clearly five of the important differences that
characterize folks who are primarily best thought of as neurotic to some degree and folks who are
primarily impaired in character (these differences are discussed at length on pages 30-58 in Character
Disturbance). Suffice it to say that if youre dealing with someone in your life who fits the description I
offer of the disturbed character, despite the fact that you might feel tempted to believe otherwise, theyre
probably quite aware of the behavior thats driving you nuts. This is such a crucial thing to remember,
because its usually your doubt about whether they really know what theyre doing that leads you to
mistrust your gut instincts and to be manipulated. And as to whether disturbed characters can or will
change, I think the confession above says it all. They certainly can. The real question is whether time,
circumstances, and personal reckonings have helped them acquire the motivation to do so.
Seduction as a Manipulation Tactic: Playing On Your Need to be Valued
By Dr George Simon, PhD 13 Comments
Playing to the desire of another to be valued and liked can be a powerful manipulation tool.

Leave a Comment

Ive been posting a series of articles on behaviors which persons with disturbed characters frequently
display that not only prevent them from developing a good sense of social responsibility but also
frequently serve as tactics to manipulate and impression-manage others. Some of the behaviors weve
looked at include rationalization, blaming others, blaming and vilifying the victim, minimization,
shaming and guilt-tripping, and overt and covert intimidation:

Understanding Rationalization: Making Excuses as an Effective Manipulation Tactic

Playing the Blame Game as a Manipulation Tactic
Vilifying the Victim
Minimization: Trivializing Behavior as a Manipulation Tactic
Manipulation via Shaming and Guilt-Tripping: Using the Conscience of the Neurotic against Them
Manipulation via Overt or Covert Intimidation
Perhaps one of the most insidious ways to favorably manage the impression of others while
simultaneously trying to get something you want from them is seduction. Now, most of us are vulnerable
to seduction techniques. Thats because most of us want to be liked and valued. So, when someone shows
us attention or behaves toward us in a way that invites us to feel somewhat special, we almost never think
that theyre doing so because theres something they want. Rather, wed like to think theres something
really remarkable about us that is motivating the person to behave that way.

One of the most damaging legacies of traditional psychology is the over-weighting it gives to peoples
insecurities and fears and the relatively complete inattention it gives to the myriad ways that they fight
and maneuver for the things they want. Everyday life is approximately 95% fighting and 5% running. But
traditional psychology is overly concerned about how and why we run, not how and why we fight. By
fight I dont mean physical violence. Rather, I mean the forceful goal-directed energy we all expend to
get the things we want.

Sometimes, seduction can be very deliberate, calculated, and carried out in such a manner that the other
person is swept away.
Responsible people assert themselves and fight for the things they want in direct, fair, restrained, and nondestructive ways. Disordered characters lie, cheat, and sometimes shmooze to get what they want. They
dont like to be denied, so rather than approach things directly and run the risk of not winning, theyd
prefer to approach things on the sly and catch the other unaware. Playing to the desire of another to be

valued and liked can be a powerful manipulation tool. Most of the time, this is not done with malicious
intent or with such intensity that it does any real damage. Also, most of the time, the person on the
receiving end is aware enough to know that theyre being buttered-up and will enjoy the flattery while not
taking it so seriously. But sometimes, seduction can be very deliberate, calculated, and carried out in such
a manner that the other person is swept away. Then they can become quite blinded about the nature of the
person doing the seducing. Only after the manipulator gets what he or she wants will their true character
start to show. By then, its often too late.

One of the most fundamental and life-empowering principles I introduced in my book In Sheeps
Clothing [Amazon-US | Amazon-UK] is that once people replace the destructive legacy of traditional
psychology i.e., that everyone is almost always struggling with fears or insecurities with a mindset
that life is far more about people maneuvering and angling for the things they want than it is about them
running, and once they realize that theres a class of individuals best characterized as unscrupulous and
exploitive fighters who will advance their own agendas with almost complete disregard for the needs of
others, they arrive at a position to avoid being taken advantage of in the future.

This post marks the end of the series on manipulation, impression-management, and responsibility
resistance behaviors. Next well begin a new series on the tools people need to employ not only to be
impervious to such ploys but also to generally empower themselves in relationships with others and avoid
victimization by disordered characters.
Understanding Rationalization: Making Excuses as an Effective Manipulation Tactic
By Dr George Simon, PhD 9 Comments
Effective manipulation tactics simultaneously put others on the defensive while also obscuring or denying
the malevolent intent of the person using them. Such tactics are particularly effective on neurotic
individuals especially those who always want to think the best of people and who strive hard to
understand what would make a person behave in a problematic way.

Leave a Comment

I recently finished posting a series of articles on the erroneous patterns of thinking common to individuals
with significant disturbances of character. The next series of posts will explore some behavior patterns
that typically accompany those erroneous patterns of thinking.

Disordered characters tend to engage in certain automatic (i.e., habitual, but nonetheless conscious and
deliberate) behaviors that simultaneously serve the purposes of justifying antisocial behavior, resisting
any subordination of their wills to a higher authority, manipulating and controlling others, and managing
the impressions others have of them and the nature of their character. In the end, by frequently engaging
in these behaviors disturbed characters reinforce in their own minds the notion that their preferred way of
doing things is okay and there is no need to change their ways of relating to others.

Some of the tactics disturbed characters use to avoid responsibility and manipulate others have been
traditionally viewed as ego defense mechanisms, arising out of the erroneous but still common notion that
everyone feels badly to some degree when they want act on their primal urges and against the interest of
the greater good. As a result, it was presumed that everyone exhibiting such behaviors was defending
against feelings of shame and guilt. But, as I have pointed out before, all metaphors can be stretched
beyond their capacity to be useful, and traditional metaphors about why people do the things they do
become greatly strained when trying to understand and deal with disordered characters. (See Shame,
Guilt and Character Development.)

The concept of defense mechanisms becomes the most greatly tested when were trying to truly
understand the behavioral habits and tactics of the disordered character. When it comes to understanding
and dealing with the disturbed character, many of the behaviors we have traditionally thought of as
defense mechanisms are better viewed as automatic (although conscious and deliberate) behaviors that
simultaneously serve to justify or excuse antisocial behavior, obstruct the internalization of pro-social
values (avoid responsibility), effectively manipulate and control others who dont quite understand the
true intentions and motivations of the disordered character, and manage the impressions others have so as
to keep any social pressure to change at bay.

Almost any behavior can and has been used at one time or another by a disturbed character as a means to
avoid responsibility and manipulate others.
The manipulation and responsibility avoidance tactics disordered characters employ are too numerous to
list. In fact, almost any behavior can and has been used at one time or another by a disturbed character as
a means to avoid responsibility and manipulate others. This series of posts will examine some of the more
common tactics, beginning with rationalization.

Sometimes the disordered character will go to great lengths to attempt to justify a behavior he knows is
wrong or knows others regard as wrong. Disturbed characters are forever making excuses for their
harmful or hurtful conduct. They have an answer for everything theyre challenged about. When others

confront them, they come up with a litany of reasons why their behavior was justified. In my work with
disordered characters, Ive heard literally thousands of excuses for irresponsible behavior.

Now the traditional thinking on rationalization of course is that it is an unconscious defense mechanism.
The theory behind this is that a person unknowingly tries to alleviate pangs of guilt by finding some way
to grant legitimacy to their behavior. But if someone really is feeling pangs of guilt, the uneasiness they
feel about their behavior is internal. So, when rationalization as a defense mechanism is truly employed,
the exculpating dialogue that takes place is internal. When disturbed characters use the responsibilityavoidance tactic of rationalization (alternately: justification, or excuse-making) theyre not primarily
trying to reconcile their conduct with their consciences, but rather trying to manipulate others into getting
off their case by getting them to buy into the excuses they make. Their rationalizations are part of an
external dialogue designed to cast the disturbed character as not as bad a person as others might otherwise
think he is. So, their excuses are also part of their impression management scheme. Habitually attempting
to justify behaviors they know are regarded by most people as clearly wrong is also another way the
disturbed character resists internalizing appropriate standards of conduct and controls and therefore
makes it ever more likely he will engage in the wrongful behavior again.

When used effectively by the disordered character, they simultaneously put others on the defensive while
obscuring or denying the malevolent intent of the person using the tactic.
The responsibility-avoidance behaviors Ill be posting about are also effective manipulation tools because
when used effectively by the disordered character, they simultaneously put others on the defensive while
obscuring or denying the malevolent intent of the person using the tactic. The tactics are particularly
effective on neurotic individuals, especially those who always want to think the best of people and who
strive hard to understand what would make a person behave in a problematic way.

Possibly the most important point I make in my book, In Sheeps Clothing [Amazon-US | Amazon-UK],
in my other writings, and in all my workshops, is that its important to understand the mode of behavior
(i.e., the mindset and emotional state) the disordered character is in when he is in the process of using the
tactics. He is not in the defensive mode. It may appear so, especially to someone who has been
indoctrinated with traditional notions about the motivations of behavior, and especially when some of the
tactics can prompt a good neurotic who is confronting negative behavior to feel like an attacker. But at the
very moment the disturbed character is making excuses (rationalizing), blaming others (scapegoating),
etc. he is primarily fighting. When you confront a disordered character about a harmful behavior, he is
more than likely fully aware of the pro-social principle at stake. For example, when you point out that he
was wrong to strike his wife, he understands very well that society frowns this kind of behavior. So, when
he starts with the tactics She is always pushing my buttons (blaming others); I didnt really hurt

her (minimizing); and Am I supposed to always just take it? (playing the victim) he is well aware
that society wants him to accept and submit to the principle that its not okay to strike your spouse. Hes
also aware how civilized persons view the kind of people who, despite societys rules, engage in such
behavior. But hes still actively resisting submission to this principle and fighting against internalizing the
value. He also doesnt want you on his case or to see him as the uncivilized sort that he is. He wants you
to back off, accept his justifications, and keep the kind of image of him he wants you to have. So,
whenever a disturbed character uses these tactics, you know one thing for absolute certain: he will do it
again. Hell do it again because the use of the tactic testifies to the fact that hes still at war with the
principle. Hes fighting the very socialization process that could civilize him. You could say that hes
defending his ego, but that would be a relatively insignificant point and a distortion of the bigger picture.
The main thing to remember is that when he engages in these behaviors, he is primarily fighting
submission to the principles that serve the greater good and simultaneously trying to manipulate you into
seeing things his way.

Keeping all of the aforementioned principles in mind, in the next several posts well be exploring more
examples of the more common tactics which disturbed characters use to manipulate and control others
and to resist becoming responsible.

Shame, Guilt and Character Development

By Dr George Simon, PhD 5 Comments
Neurotics are too quick to feel ashamed when theyve fallen short and too guilty when they think theyve
done wrong. In contrast, disordered characters are disturbingly lacking in their capacity to experience
even healthy levels of shame or guilt.

Leave a Comment

Ive posted on how neurotics differ from disordered characters on dimensions such as their levels of
awareness (Neurosis vs. Character Disorder: Levels of Awareness), needs in therapy (Neurosis vs.
Character Disorder: Contrasting Needs in Therapy), and use of defense mechanisms such as denial
(Understanding Denial as a Defense Mechanism). But there is perhaps no greater difference between
these two groups of individuals as there is with respect to issues related to shame and guilt.

Because they are persons of conscience, neurotics experience high, often excessive, and sometimes toxic
levels of shame and guilt. Shame is the emotional state we experience when we feel badly about who we

are and guilt is the condition we experience when feel badly about what weve done. Judging themselves
as harshly as they tend to do, neurotics are quick to feel ashamed of themselves when they fail to measure
up to the high standards they set for themselves. Theyre also quick to feel guilty when they think theyve
done something hurtful, or harmful. Some neurotics experienced levels of shame and guilt growing up
that were so toxic that it led them to develop truly pathological symptoms of their neurosis. But most
neurotics dont carry with them extreme levels of guilt or shame. Nonetheless, they are hypersensitive to
these feelings and are quick to feel badly about themselves when theyve done something that reflects
negatively on their character and too quick to beat themselves up emotionally when they think theyve
committed social sins.

When he does something harmful, the disturbed character lacks the pangs of guilt or shame that emanate
from a well-developed conscience. Shamelessness and guiltlessness are the disturbed characters most
hallmark features. Disordered characters dont feel badly enough about themselves when they fail to
measure up to reasonable expectations, and they dont feel guilty enough when they do things hurtful or
harmful to others. They actually appear to lack sufficient capacity to experience the guilt or shame
necessary to keep most of us behaving in a pro-social manner.

The capacity to experience both shame and guilt is essential for sound character development.
The plethora of books dealing with shame and guilt that dominated the self-help and recovery market of
the 60s, 70s, and even 80s, was largely written by, for, and about neurotics. Shame and blame were the
names of their game, and most of those books blamed toxic levels of guilt and/or shame for a wide variety
of psychological problems that damaged a persons self-esteem. These books largely made us believe that
there was no such thing as good shame or healthy guilt. Some authors and theorists later relented on the
topic of guilt, acknowledging that at least some measure of guilt is necessary to keep us civilized. But
even today, the dominant opinion about shame, even among more empirically-based researchers and
theorists, is that its a bad thing, period. The general consensus seems to be that while its a relatively
good thing to feel badly about something youve done thats harmful, feeling badly about oneself
about who one literally is is never a good thing. After working for many years with disturbed
characters, I came to see the short-sightedness of this premise some time ago. It is precisely because most
of us might experience some genuine self-disgust with the kind of person we might find ourselves
becoming when we habitually engage in the kinds of behaviors disordered characters display that prompts
us to change our ways and restore a self-image we can live with. Ive known many individuals who made
significant changes in their characters not only because they regretted their irresponsible behaviors, but
also because they became unsettled enough with the kind of person they had allowed themselves to
become (i.e., became too ashamed of themselves) that they decided a character makeover was in order. In
my opinion, the capacity to experience both shame and guilt is essential for sound character development.
As is usually the case, however, its a matter of degree. When individuals experience toxic levels of either
guilt or shame, especially when either is truly unwarranted, there can indeed be a negative impact on
psychological health.

Some professionals (and non-professionals) take issue with the premises above. They insist that
disordered characters actually do feel guilt and shame but that they effectively utilize or perhaps overutilize certain defense mechanisms such as denial and projection to assuage the emotional pain
associated with that guilt or pain. This is because they continue to accept the tenets of classical
psychology (i.e., that everyone is neurotic to a greater or lesser degree) and because believing that all
individuals are fundamentally similar makes it hard for them to imagine how anyone could behave in a
manner that appears so shameless unless they were in fact defending themselves against real pain
underneath it all. My work has taught me, however, that being embarrassed at being uncovered or found
out is not the same as being ashamed of oneself. Shame is one of those mechanisms that makes a person
think twice about doing something wrong in the first place. Moreover, a person who truly feels ashamed
of himself is certainly not likely do the same shameful things over and over again. Character-disordered
people will sometimes claim they didnt come clean with themselves or others because they were
ashamed. But this is often a lie they tell because they know a neurotic person is likely to find it plausible.
Individuals overly invested in the classical explanations of human behavior might also tend to believe that
those who commit criminal behaviors in a manner that is so careless, reckless, impulsive, and thoughtless,
do so because they have a subconscious desire (arising out of pangs of conscience) to be caught. There
has never been any empirical support for this notion, but that has not kept many from adhering to it. In
fact, there is mounting evidence that some of the most seriously disturbed characters act the way they do
because they experience few if any pangs of conscience. A very renowned researcher, Dr. Robert Hare,
has aptly titled his very revealing book about the most seriously disturbed character the psychopath
Without Conscience [Amazon-US | Amazon-UK].
Playing the Blame Game as a Manipulation Tactic
By Dr George Simon, PhD 18 Comments
By habitually blaming others for his own indiscretions, the disturbed character resists modifying his
problematic attitudes and behavior patterns.

Leave a Comment

Ive been publishing a series of articles on the habitual behaviors that not only keep persons with
disturbed characters from developing a sense of accountability and responsibility but which also serve as
effective tactics of manipulation. (See Understanding the Dysfunctional Tactics of Disturbed
Characters, which kicked off the series.)

Perhaps no behavior which disordered characters are prone to displaying is more common than their
tendency to blame others when they do something wrong. Confront them on something they did that was
insensitive, inappropriate, hurtful, or even harmful, and youll find them playing the blame game
pinning the fault on someone or something else. Youll often hear them claim that some person or
circumstance made them do what they did instead of acknowledging that they had a choice about how to
respond to the situation and failed to choose wisely.

The tactic of blaming has sometimes been called projecting the blame. The term projection stems from
psychodynamic psychology and refers to one of the automatic mental behaviors conceptualized by
traditional theorists as ego defense mechanisms. The rationale behind that notion is that sometimes
individuals unconsciously project onto others motivations, intentions, or actions that they actually
harbor themselves but which they would feel far too unnerved or guilty about to acknowledge as their
own.

Neurotic individuals do indeed unknowingly engage in projection defenses. But disordered characters
know what they are doing.
Neurotic individuals do indeed unknowingly engage in projection defenses. But disordered characters
know what they are doing. They are fully conscious about what they know others would see as the
wrongfulness of their behavior, despite the fact that they might be perfectly comfortable with their course
of action themselves. They dont have enough guilt or shame about what theyre doing to change course.
Nor are they so consumed with emotional pain that they must ascribe to others the motivations they cant
tolerate in themselves. Rather, when they blame others for their wrongful acts, its simply an attempt to
justify their stance by casting themselves as being in a position where they simply had no choice but to
respond the way they did. In this way, they simultaneously evade responsibility as well as manipulate and
manage the impressions of others. The tactic goes hand in hand with the tactic of portraying oneself as a
victim. Its typically an effective tactic that gets others to pay attention to everyone or everything else
except the disordered character and his wrongful behavior as the source of a problem.

Sometimes the tactic of blaming can be quite subtle. By calling attention to a wide variety of contributing
circumstances, a manipulator can effectively obscure his or her role in the creation of a problem. This it
wasnt me tactic is hard to detect when your attention is drawn to other culprits through this
diversionary sleight of hand.

Holding manipulators and other disturbed characters accountable for their choices and actions is a must. A
person who wont acknowledge his or her bad choices and bad habits and repeatedly blames others for his
shortcomings will never correct his erroneous thinking or behavior. Whenever he plays the blame game,
you know the disturbed character has no intentions of changing his ways. Habitually blaming others for

his own indiscretions is a principal way the disturbed character resists modifying his problematic attitudes
and behavior patterns.
Minimization: Trivializing Behavior as a Manipulation Tactic
By Dr George Simon, PhD 10 Comments
When he uses the tactic of minimization, the disturbed character is attempting to convince someone else
that the wrongful thing he did wasnt really as bad or as harmful as he knows it was and as he knows the
other person thinks it was.

Leave a Comment

This article is the second in a series of posts on the tactics disturbed characters use to resist
accountability, manage the impressions others have of them, and hoodwink and manipulate others.

A prior series of posts dealt with some of the most essential differences between individuals best
described as neurotic as opposed to individuals best described as disturbed in character. (See Neurosis
vs. Character Disorder: Levels of Awareness.). Neurotics and disordered characters also differ from one
another in how they typically react to problem behaviors. When neurotics do something they think might
negatively impact another, they tend to catastrophize the situation or become overly concerned with the
damage they might have done. Conversely, disturbed characters are overly prone to minimizing the
seriousness of their misconduct and trivializing the damage they cause in their relationships and to the
general social order.

Minimization is a close cousin to the tactic of denial, which is also often misinterpreted as a defense
mechanism and which I wrote about extensively in a prior post (See Understanding Denial as a Defense
Mechanism.). When he uses the tactic of minimization, the disturbed character is attempting to convince
someone else that the wrongful thing he did wasnt really as bad or as harmful as he knows it was and as
he knows the other person thinks it was. He might admit part of what he did was wrong, and usually not
the most serious part. By using the tactic, he tries to manipulate others into thinking hes not such bad a
person (impression management) and continues his active war against submission to a principle of social
behavior.

As is true when other tactics are used, when the disordered character minimizes the nature and
seriousness of his conduct, you know for sure that he is likely to engage in the same or similar behaviors
again. As long as he continues to minimize, he wont take seriously the problems he needs to correct. It

isnt that he doesnt recognize the seriousness of the issues. If he didnt think others regarded the issue as
serious, he wouldnt feel the need to trivialize it. But refusing to accept the principle at hand and to accept
the need to change his stance indicate hes sure to repeat his misconduct.

People use these tactics for a lot of reasons, but the biggest reason of all is that they generally work!
I remember one of the first times I witnessed the effectiveness of the minimization tactic. A couple had
come to my office for counseling, and the womans main complaint was that she was becoming
increasingly fearful of what appeared to be her husbands escalating level of aggressiveness. She
complained that during an argument, he shoved her, and because hed never done that before it concerned
her. His comment: Yeh, I might have touched her and pushed her a little bit, but you could hardly call it a
shove and theres no way she can claim I hurt her or meant to hurt her. Shes making me out to be a
monster, and Im not. Besides, she pushed me to the brink! This mans statement combined several
effective tactics from minimizing and trivializing the event (touched her and pushed her a little bit) to
denial of malevolent intent (no way she can claim I meant to hurt her), vilifying the victim (Shes
making me out to be a monster) and externalizing the blame (She pushed me to the brink!) among
others. Before long, the woman was back-peddling and feeling bad for even bringing up the issue. It
became all too clear that people use these tactics for a lot of reasons, but the biggest reason of all is that
they generally work!

In my work with this couple, it also became clear how traditional notions about human behavior
especially paradigms designed to understand neurosis are inadequate and sometimes even destructive
when it comes to understanding the modus operandi of the disturbed character. Having been a veteran of
traditional therapy, the woman in this case commented many times that she knew she was making him
[her husband] defensive and she that didnt want to make him feel badly about himself but didnt know
how else to address the issue. Clearly, she perceived him to be in a defensive posture when he was in
fact on the offensive. What was even more disconcerting was the look of resignation on her face as she
herself assumed the submissive position after his barrage of tactics succeeded in their intent. Its still
amazing to me today how many folks (including therapists) cant distinguish an offense from a defense.
(See An Offense is Not a Defense.)

Upcoming posts will examine some of the other more common tactics disturbed characters use to resist
accountability, take advantage of and manipulate others, and manage the impressions others form and
keep of them.
Leveling as a Manipulation Tactic: Equating Ones Character with Someone Elses
By Dr George Simon, PhD 36 Comments

Leveling is a slick tool which manipulators use to try and level the playing field or field of
interpersonal contest.

Leave a Comment

Ive been posting a series of articles on behaviors commonly displayed by persons with disturbed
character. These behaviors interfere with the normal process of socialization and character development,
and they also often serve as tactics to manipulate and control others.

One of the more subtle but nonetheless highly effective responsibility-avoidance and manipulation tactics
is leveling. Leveling refers to the disturbed characters attempt to put himself on equal standing with
others of different character. It generally takes two forms: setting oneself up as a person of equal stature to
a person in authority; and trying to equate ones own character, personal value, integrity, etc. with
someone elses, especially one of more mature or superior character.

Leveling is a slick way to try and level the playing field or field of interpersonal contest. Once, I
witnessed a woman confronting her husband about his frequent displays of verbal abuse. She stated: Id
like you to simply ask me for what you need instead of launching into me, cursing, and berating me.
When I want something from you, I ask for it. His retort, in a very provocative tone: Are you saying
youre better than me? The implied message he was sending was that the two of them were of equal
character standing just two human beings of equal worth. He was also implying that the wife was
being demanding or uppity by challenging him to do things differently (and insinuating that her way
was better than his way).

Classical psychology would have us thinking that the womans confrontation represented a threat to her
husbands ego
Now classical psychology would have us thinking that the womans confrontation represented a threat
to her husbands ego and that his response was defensive. Further, the popular wisdom would
reinforce the notion that both of these individuals are human beings of equal value, although the behavior
patterns of each may not be equally laudable. The woman in the above example may or may not have
been familiar with the tenets of classical psychology or the many commonly accepted beliefs that flow
from it, but she was definitely vulnerable to the tactic. Instead of thinking to herself, This is just another
way hes trying to take the wind out of my sails and put me in my place, she thought, Maybe I am
putting him down and of course I dont mean to imply that Im better he is, so Ill back off. So, in the
end, she did just as he wanted and the tactic worked.

The tactic of leveling surfaces as an insidious and subtle challenge to the therapists authority whenever
disturbed characters enter counseling. Whenever I introduce myself as Dr. Simon (an advanced-degree
trained professional) to a disturbed character, its almost inevitable that he or she will say something like:
May I call you George? It may seem like a petty issue to be concerned with, but such statements almost
always represent the first subtle step down the slippery slope of resisting the guidance and direction that
are so essential when providing services to the disturbed character. Remember, what disturbed characters
need in the therapy experience is not at all the same as what therapists most often provide to average
neurotics. (See Neurosis vs. Character Disorder: Contrasting Needs in Therapy.) I always politely say
that I prefer Dr. Simon and then observe carefully their response to my endorsement of the authority
position for indications that they have any modicum of motivation to accept therapeutic guidance. By the
way, many of my long-term neurotic patients call me George (and Im very okay with that) even though
their own high levels of conscientiousness and respect for authority prompted them to address me as
Doctor at first.

Theres a lot more I could say about the tactic of leveling. As I mentioned earlier, its often done with
such subtlety that its hard to detect, but its almost always effective. Its also a behavior that intensely
interferes with the process of developing any respect for authority or for the value of certain principles or
standards. Not everything is equal. Some values, beliefs, principles, and standards of conduct are superior
to others. Respect for that makes civilization possible. Contempt and disregard for that through the use of
leveling techniques allows the disturbed character to set his own rules and wreak havoc in the lives of
others.

Playing the Servant Role: Manipulating by Casting the Will to Dominate as Duty or Subservience
By Dr George Simon, PhD 13 Comments
One of the more subtle ways that a person hell-bent upon power and control can veil their will to
dominate is to cloak it under the cover of subservience to a higher cause or the purported desire to be of
service.

Leave a Comment

Ive been posting a series of articles on behaviors that persons with significant disturbances of character
frequently display. When disordered characters habitually engage in these behaviors, they interfere with
the normal socialization process, preventing the disturbed character from internalizing pro-social values
and standards of conduct and reinforcing maladaptive coping patterns. Such behaviors also have a
powerful capacity to manipulate and impression-manage others, thus making them behaviors disturbed
characters are unwilling to give up easily. Some of the behaviors weve discussed already include
feigning innocence and ignorance, rationalization, blaming others, and lying:

Acting Innocent and Playing Dumb as Manipulation Tactics

Understanding Rationalization: Making Excuses as an Effective Manipulation Tactic
Playing the Blame Game as a Manipulation Tactic
Lying: The Ultimate Manipulation Tactic
One of the more subtle ways that a person hell-bent upon power and control can veil their will to
dominate is to cloak it under the cover of subservience to a higher cause or the purported desire to be of
service. In my work over the years with disturbed characters and their victims, Ive seen many examples
of this tactic and I know well the damage it can inflict on a relationship.

Early in my clinical training, I happened to observe a therapy session that involved a young girl and her
parents. To put it mildly, the child appeared a nervous wreck. She was not only anxious much of the time,
but also she had been having nightmares and was fairly depressed. Her mother confided to the therapist
that she thought her father was pushing her too hard. Her father was a prominent and successful
businessman who had big plans for his daughter. But whenever the mother confronted the father about
what she believed to be the relentless pressure he was placing on their child, he would retort that he was
only trying to be a good father, to be sure that he afforded the child every opportunity, and to help her
achieve her full potential. Toward that end, he had insisted she be placed in advanced programs, insisted
on all-A report cards, and had frequent conferences with the teachers when he thought they werent doing
enough to help. When the girl buckled under the pressure, he hired a tutor, boasting that he was the kind
of parent who would do anything he could to help his daughter achieve her potential. (All this was for a
child who the educational professionals had repeatedly indicated was of only average intellectual ability.)

The father didnt seem to care that the child was buckling under the pressure
I was so struck by the dynamics in this family that I made a case study of it and eventually included a
modified version of it in my book In Sheeps Clothing. What struck me the most about this family was
how determined the father was to have his way (the hallmark of an aggressive personality), how selfquestioning and guilty the mother felt whenever she questioned his motives, and how differently the
childs emotional suffering affected her parents. The childs suffering was so obvious it would be hard to
ignore. The mother didnt ignore it but didnt feel valid in her interpretations of events. The father didnt

seem to care that the child was buckling under the pressure; what was important to him was that she
accomplish the plans he had long set for her. I then came to realize how effective playing the servant role
could be as a manipulation tactic. Its hard to see someone as a ruthless oppressor when theyre constantly
laying claim to tireless efforts on anothers behalf. My gut was reacting instinctively to this mans
aggression (as was his wifes), yet it was hard to point out clearly the nature of his acts (even the therapist
assigned to this case aligned with the fathers position for awhile). So, I eventually came to understand
one of the main reasons people get manipulated, especially by aggressive personalities. They dont trust
their gut-level feelings and instincts. Instead of paying attention to their inner fear and angst, and instead
of ascribing validity to their initial response, they listen to the rationalizations and buy into the message
being implied (e.g., Im the servant here, not the oppressor, dont you see?). They then part company
with their intuition and succumb to the manipulation.

One of the early pioneers of cognitive-behavioral therapy coined the term dominance under the guise of
service to describe the tactic of playing the role of servant. Its an effective tactic and one thats hard to
spot right away. But like the other tactics weve been discussing, it can inflict a fair amount of damage if
not challenged.