The ManipulationBible - Wladislaw Jachtchenko

["Of course, it\u2019s a delicate balance when your own parents are involved. Compassion plays a large part: won\u2019t they be sad if you don\u2019t conform to their wishes? But the remedy is to remind your parents gently that the unfortunate situation is of their own making. That\u2019s how I went about it. I simply pointed out that we had agreed on two or three days \u2013 not eight. Trick 2: The Foot in the Door Technique You\u2019ve probably heard of this ruse: once you\u2019ve got your foot in the door, it\u2019s easier to get in. For manipulators like you and me, this means that we should start by asking someone for a small favor \u2013 then wait a little while \u2013 and then finally bring out the big request and reap the benefits. This trick is so effective because people like to be consistent \u2013 that is, steadfast and free of contradiction \u2013 in their behavior. \u201cIf I did this person a favor before, I can\u2019t just tell them to get lost the second time round!\u201d The classic experiment went as follows:19 researchers asked a group of California residents whether they would be willing to put up a large sign on their front lawn bearing the words \u201cDrive carefully\u201d. Only 17 percent said yes. A second group of residents in the same region appeared much keener to put up the signs: 76 percent of them gave their approval. What was different about the second group? It was simple. A few weeks previously, the researchers had requested them to stick a small, almost indiscernible sticker in their window, saying \u201cBe a safe driver\u201d. And when the researchers came back a while later and asked about the big sign, the take-up was phenomenal.","The second group wanted to be consistent with their first decision. This is known as the \u201cconsistency principle\u201d or the \u201cBenjamin Franklin effect\u201d. In the 18th century, Franklin observed that someone who has once done you a kindness is more likely to do you another than someone who you yourself have been kind to. So here\u2019s a tip for everyday life: if you want one of your neighbors to help you move house, don\u2019t ask them straight up if they have a few hours on Sunday to give you a hand. Instead, drop a hint a few days before that you\u2019re about to move house \u2013 and you\u2019d like to ask their advice on where to buy good, affordable furniture. They won\u2019t refuse you such a small favor. This will plant the idea of \u201cmoving house\u201d in their mind, and they will even feel a little bit responsible for it \u2013 after all, the new house will be furnished on their recommendation. Then, a few days later, ask them if they could help you carry some things. They will almost certainly lend you their muscles. Note: Asking someone for a small favor triggers the consistency effect, letting you take advantage of them at a later stage. Trick 3: The Door in the Face Technique This strategy works precisely the other way round. There\u2019s a compelling psychological experiment to support it, too:20 a group of students were asked to go on a day trip with juvenile offenders and supervise them, unpaid. The vast majority said no (83 percent). In another group of students, three times as many agreed to do the day trip. How come? These students had","previously been asked whether they would mentor the juvenile offenders for two hours a week, over a period of two years. They all said no. Then came the decisive follow- up question: \u201cWould you take the young offenders on a one- off trip to the zoo?\u201d And suddenly half of them said yes. Let\u2019s return to our everyday example of the house move: don\u2019t just ask your neighbor to give you a hand for two hours, but start by asking them whether they can help you all day on Saturday. They will probably say no. And then ask them whether they can spare \u201cjust an hour\u201d to help you (we all know from experience that one hour can quickly become two) \u2013 and they will in all likelihood say yes. The psychological principle behind the door in the face trick is the contrast effect: compared to a whole day, an hour suddenly seems like very little. And compared to two years supporting young offenders on a regular basis, one day seems like nothing. Trick 4: The Authority Trick Arguments from authority date back to antiquity. They are formally known as \u201cargumenta ad verecundiam\u201d (literally \u201carguments to awe\u201d). The misconception is that because a leading authority says something, it must be true. We can easily exploit this misconception \u2013 by citing a scientist or study whose findings conveniently support our view. In doing so, we can safely disregard the following: \u2022 whether the scientist or study is trustworthy (they just have to sound important) \u2022 whether the scientist is expressing their opinion in their own field of research or on a subject that they know nothing about (what matters is that they have a","professorship and work at a prestigious-sounding university) \u2022 whether they are representing a minority view (99 percent of researchers might oppose them and criticize their methods, but you don\u2019t need to draw attention to that) \u2022 whether you\u2019re really quoting them correctly (who\u2019s going to check your sources anyway?) \u2022 whether the study you cite is representative and its methods are scientifically correct (who can be the real judge of that?) And if you think that only dummies would fall for arguments from authority, here\u2019s my favorite example, when leading researchers were blinded by authority for a full 30 years. In the 1920s, the then famous and highly esteemed zoologist Theophilus Painter believed he had discovered that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes (i.e. 48 in total). It was only in 1955 that two other scientists proved that there were really only 23 pairs. The astonishing thing was that over the 30 years in between, other scientists, including the Chinese cell researcher Hsu, also discovered the right number of chromosome pairs (23), but under the influence of the great zoologist Painter, they reinterpreted their results to produce the \u201ccorrect\u201d number of 24 chromosomes. Hsu later wryly remarked, \u201cI had difficulty in getting the count to equal 48.\u201d But he still managed to count the \u201cright\u201d number of chromosome pairs, his vision filtered by Painter\u2019s all-consuming authority.21","So, if even leading scientists can spend decades bowing blindly to authority \u2013 despite clear evidence to the contrary \u2013 how impressionable must your average Joe be? Especially in the online era, it\u2019s easy to find an unreliable or misquoted study to support any old senseless claim. It\u2019s never been as easy as in the 21st century to pluck arguments from authority out of thin air. Trick 5: The Majority Trick The appeal to the majority is related to the argument from authority. It is also called \u201cargumentum ad populum\u201d (literally \u201cappeal to the people\u201d). Because most people believe something, it must be true. The trap here is that the majority often get it wrong. Although I\u2019ve known this trick for years, I nearly fell for it recently. While checking in to a hotel in Spain, a friendly woman told me that all the hotel guests had signed up for a boat trip with her. It was nice and cheap, of course \u2013 and it would be easiest for me to book straight away too. \u201cEveryone else has booked?\u201d I thought. \u201cThen it must be worth it. I don\u2019t want to miss out.\u201d And I nearly did put my name down. Fortunately, though, just before paying up, I asked her what was on offer \u2013 to which she replied, \u201cLots of people, lots of alcohol, lots of techno music.\u201d Those were three very good reasons for me to give it a miss. This little incident shows that even years of experience in manipulation doesn\u2019t always protect us from falling for these traps. We often just switch off, from tiredness or laziness \u2013 and that\u2019s precisely when we become easy targets for bogus arguments like these.","OceanofPDF.com","6. Steering the Conversation with Questions To ask is to lead. German proverb You can use pointed questions to take control of a conversation on both the factual and the emotional level. In purely factual terms, questions force your opposite number to focus their full attention on answering the question. And you can also use them to deflect, to establish facts, to scrutinize arguments (before rebutting them) or even to shut down conversations. But questions also influence us emotionally. They can offend, discourage, irritate, flatter, and provoke all sorts of very specific emotions \u2013 whatever their factual content. We\u2019re all already familiar with rhetorical, open and closed questions. But let\u2019s take a look at ten more types of question that are especially useful to manipulators. Type 1: Hidden Questions Picture a job interview. As we all (hopefully) know, it is forbidden in employment law to ask an interviewee personal questions. But who\u2019s to say we can\u2019t covertly ask a young female applicant whether she is married, to ascertain whether she might have children? How do we go","about it? The smart interviewer will ask her, \u201cIs your husband on board with the move to Munich?\u201d The interviewee will either reply, \u201cI don\u2019t have a husband,\u201d or she\u2019ll say, \u201cYes, he\u2019s fine with it.\u201d In both cases, the hidden question will give the employer a piece of private information that they are not actually allowed to ask for. And if a cunning interviewer can do it, so can you! Type 2: Either-Or Questions Imagine a sales pitch. Somebody calls you to foist some new product on you. You calmly hear them out, but you aren\u2019t convinced. Do you really need it? Isn\u2019t it a bit too expensive? And is the guy on the phone telling the truth? But while you\u2019re considering whether to say yes or no, the crafty salesman asks you this nice little either-or question: \u201cShall I drop by on Wednesday morning or Friday afternoon?\u201d It\u2019s a trap, of course. This \u201cfalse dichotomy\u201d or \u201cfalse dilemma\u201d implies that you only have two options in a given situation. But there are always more alternatives available to you. A third option would be to say, \u201cI don\u2019t want your product.\u201d And a fourth: \u201cI need to think about it. I\u2019ll get back to you.\u201d But lots of people fall for this cheap trick. The question makes them feel compelled to accept either A or B. Once you\u2019ve learned the salesman\u2019s tricks, you can convince anyone.","Type 3: Flattering Questions Questions can also be used to flatter people. The sneaky thing about a compliment is that it\u2019s always well received. We always let ourselves be drawn in by it, even if we know that it wasn\u2019t sincerely meant. My favorite politics lecturer, about 65 years old at the time, illustrated this perfectly: \u201cMy wife knows she\u2019s not the prettiest any more \u2013 but she still wants to hear it!\u201d A wonderful quip that is well worth remembering. Note: A compliment is always an effective weapon, even if the recipient sees straight through it. How do you merge a compliment with a question? Easy. You ask, \u201cHow did you manage X so well?\u201d And the recipient will be delighted. They will feel flattered, and will go off on one about how wonderful they are and how they did it. Even if they react more modestly, you\u2019ll have built a rapport in no time! Type 4: Attack Questions You can attack someone with a question too: \u201cWhat kind of a stupid remark is that?\u201d Or more mildly put: \u201cHow did you end up with such a half-baked idea?\u201d These phrases are laced with venom that no listener will fail to notice. The advantage of these verbal attacks disguised as questions is that most people are slow on the counter- attack. They generally don\u2019t know how to parry onslaughts like these. So you don\u2019t have much to fear. Quite the opposite: people will usually be on the back foot following an attack question, vehemently defending and justifying","themselves. The French have an apt saying for this: \u201cQui s\u2019excuse, s\u2019accuse\u201d. \u201cHe who excuses himself accuses himself\u201d (i.e. admits his guilt) \u2013 and digs himself into an even deeper hole. Type 5: Counter-Questions We have already looked at counter-questions in the chapter on seeming confident when you haven\u2019t got a clue. A brief note: most people won\u2019t recognize the counter-question technique as a trick, and will automatically give you an answer. We are usually conditioned to believe that \u201cIf someone asks you a question, you should answer\u201d \u2013 and we can turn this in our favor. Nine in ten people fall into the trap. The Hasidic Jews were said to be masters of this questioning technique. A Christian master once asked his Jewish servant, \u201cWhy do Jews always answer questions with another question?\u201d The quick-witted servant replied, \u201cWhy shouldn\u2019t a Jew answer a question with another question?\u201d Type 6: Leading Questions Leading questions are all about carefully wording the question so as to influence the other person\u2019s answer. A classic example of a closed leading question is something like, \u201cI\u2019m sure you agree that\u2026 don\u2019t you?\u201d An example of an open leading question is, \u201cYesterday the boss went absolutely ballistic over Project X and tore it apart completely. What do you make of Project X?\u201d","The open leading question capitalizes on people\u2019s reluctance to deviate from others\u2019 set expectations. The closed leading question exploits their fear of challenging an authority \u2013 so here, too, they will give a preconditioned answer. Type 7: Loaded Questions Loaded questions are a very radical form of leading question. Leading questions \u201cprompt\u201d someone to answer a certain way, while loaded questions \u201cplant\u201d something on them. A classic example is, \u201cDo you still beat your wife?\u201d This carries the brazen insinuation that this has been the case in the past. Cornering someone like this can make them inadvertently reveal the truth. Here\u2019s an example more suitable for everyday use: \u201cWhen did you stop liking your job?\u201d I\u2019ve asked this question dozens of times. Most people insist that they like their work \u2013 which is perfectly understandable. If they didn\u2019t believe it, they\u2019d be living in constant cognitive dissonance. We\u2019ll take a closer look at the concept of cognitive dissonance later on. For now, let\u2019s just say that few people could bear going to work every day to do a job they loathed \u2013 as these two cognitions (their perceptions and their wishes) would be totally incompatible. So we tell ourselves that we like our work \u2013 and eventually start to believe it. When I phrase the question like this (\u201cSince when\u2026?\u201d), I usually discover new realities that deviate from the standard \u201cI like my job.\u201d Try it on your friends at your next opportunity. You\u2019ll see just how quickly you can break down their defenses!","Type 8: Quickfire Questions Quickfire questions are a way of overwhelming someone with information, to make them look weak and incompetent. For example: \u201cWhat are you trying to achieve here, how long will it take, and how and why haven\u2019t you thought of any alternative strategies?\u201d That\u2019s four questions in one, rattled off in a single sentence. If you ever need to fluster someone, throw several elements into the question. Even if they address two or three of your questions, you can fire back, \u201cYou\u2019ve ignored the most important part of my question, which was\u2026\u201d Mean? Sure. But it works on most people! Type 9: Echo Questions A typical echo question repeats the information you\u2019ve heard and sounds something like this: \u201cSo you\u2019re saying that\u2026?\u201d On its own, this type of question is actually a commendable way of trying to understand the content of what you\u2019ve heard. You repeat \u2013 or better, paraphrase \u2013 what the other person has said. This interpersonal communication technique is akin to \u201cactive listening\u201d: I pay attention to what the other person has said, and use the echo question to check whether I\u2019ve understood it properly. This has a handy side effect for our purposes: consciously or unconsciously, the other person will notice and acknowledge the fact that I\u2019m doing my best to follow everything they\u2019ve said. Few people really listen to us on a day-to-day basis; most people just want to push their own agenda \u2013 and others\u2019 opinions are of little interest to them.","So, if we finally meet someone who makes an effort to understand us, who asks questions and seems to be taking a genuine interest, we are sure to enjoy talking to them. But here\u2019s the trap: it\u2019s not that difficult to fake an interest in other people. How can they know whether we\u2019re really interested or just putting it on? They can\u2019t. It\u2019s impossible to know for sure. Needless to say, you shouldn\u2019t ask too many echo questions, and you should avoid mechanical repetition at all costs. It\u2019s best to stick to the key points that seem especially important to your opposite number. Type 10: Provocative Questions Of course, we can also word a question in a deliberately provocative or downright offensive way. For example: \u201cOut of interest, how long did you spend on this dreadful presentation?\u201d This question will obviously anger your victim. What\u2019s the point in that? Well, when people get angry, they make mistakes. And we can then use these mistakes to our own advantage. There\u2019s a lovely quote to illustrate this, which is attributed to various sources (it most likely comes from Groucho Marx): \u201cIf you speak when angry, you\u2019ll make the best speech you\u2019ll ever regret.\u201d If we infuriate someone with a deliberately provocative question, they will overreact \u2013 and that\u2019s precisely when they will say something that we can hold against them later. It\u2019s mean, obviously. But it works \u2013 especially on emotional sorts. And that leads us nicely on to the next chapter: how can you use emotions to manipulate people?","OceanofPDF.com","7. Overwhelming People with Emotions Reason is the slave of the passions. David Hume The iceberg model has been mentioned in just about every communication workshop that I\u2019ve attended. It is presented and interpreted in all sorts of ways, but one of its most frequent applications is as follows: the visible and audible elements of communication constitute only twenty percent (sometimes it\u2019s ten, seven, or \u201conly a fraction\u201d). The remainder is constituted by emotions (the \u201crelationship message\u201d or the \u201cunconscious\u201d). It goes without saying that we can\u2019t measure the exact contribution of our emotions and unconscious in our lives. And it\u2019s different for every individual: fact-oriented people will operate at a more argumentative level, while more empathetic temperaments will likely lend greater import to their unconscious. Emotions play an intriguing role in our society. On the one hand, research into them is still in its early stages. One the other, we simply take them for granted 99 percent of the time. If someone feels something, that\u2019s just how it is. Thoughts can be challenged. Emotions can\u2019t.","This is especially striking in the 21st century, because nowadays we like to measure and control everything around us. We count our money, our YouTube views, our Facebook likes, and our Twitter followers. We count our steps. Our calories. Only our emotions still possess this unquantifiable and uncontrollable aura. Even in ancient times, emotions were thought to reveal the truth. Feeling was considered more trustworthy than reason. Your emotions never lie! This eventually found its expression in the Latinized expression \u201csentimens superior [sentiment is superior]\u201d. What does all this have to do with manipulation? Well, because emotions play such a sacrosanct role in our society, they are treated as true and trustworthy, and are never challenged or scrutinized. And if something is never challenged or scrutinized, that makes it all the more appealing to budding manipulators. The question is: how can we utilize emotions to control other people? Here are my top five emotional tricks. Trick 1: The Emotional Outburst As the name suggests, this is a sudden explosion of feeling \u2013 usually a negative one. Imagine that two people are in a negotiation. Both parties are being pretty reasonable. And then out of nowhere, one of them suddenly starts shouting: \u201cHow can you suggest such a thing? Don\u2019t you have a conscience? That\u2019s ridiculously unfair! I\u2019d never have expected that from you!\u201d How would you feel if someone started throwing such accusations at you? Probably not great. And you would","presume that your usually calm and judicious counterpart had good reason to jump down your throat. The potential stumbling block here is that emotions have to look and sound authentic. But skillful negotiators always have this feigned emotional outburst in their theatrical repertoire. Shouting, waving your arms about, goggling your eyes, looking aghast \u2013 behavior like this does not have to be real. You just need to act it convincingly \u2013 and your opposite number will instantly start to feel bad. And if you\u2019re thinking, \u201cWe\u2019re not cavemen any more \u2013 shouting and screaming wouldn\u2019t work for me,\u201d then you\u2019re the exception here. A vigorous emotional outburst will have a big impact on most people. Only recently, I was attending a court case in a coaching capacity, observing a client of mine (who is a lawyer) and analyzing his speeches throughout the trial. Things were proceeding as normal, quietly and calmly. No agreement had been reached. So far, so good. But suddenly, the opposing lawyer began screaming and shouting \u2013 totally out of the blue. What happened? The other parties listened to him, visibly intimidated, and quickly backed down. This is by no means an isolated incident. Watch what happens after an emotional outburst like this at work or at home. Most people simply cave in. Trick 2: The Appeal to Friendship This trick dates back to antiquity, and connoisseurs call it the \u201cargumentum ad amicitiam\u201d (literally \u201cargument for friendship\u201d, in the sense of \u201cappeal to friendship [or love]\u201d).","Typical examples are when people say things like, \u201cIf you\u2019re a real friend, you\u2019ll do this for me,\u201d or, \u201cIf you really love me, you\u2019ll trust me on this.\u201d This is a crafty little trap, designed to guilt-trip us: either we do as we\u2019re asked, or we aren\u2019t a true friend or partner. Most people won\u2019t put up a fight \u2013 because they really don\u2019t want to lose their status as a friend or partner. Marilyn Monroe gave us a relatively modern reimagining of this manipulation technique. The following quotation of hers pops up frequently on online dating profiles: \u201cIf you can\u2019t handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don\u2019t deserve me at my best.\u201d In other words: \u201cIf you want to be my friend, you\u2019ve got to put up with all my lousy moods, like it or not!\u201d Well, nobody\u2019s perfect. And Marilyn could afford not to be. But one thing\u2019s for certain: this is a flawless example of emotional blackmail. Trick 3: The Appeal to Pity Another foolproof strategy is the appeal to pity: the \u201cargumentum ad misericordiam\u201d. This is another technique that has been working splendidly for 2,000 years. Someone presents themselves as a hopeless unfortunate who desperately needs your help \u2013 and out of empathy you agree to do as they ask, even if you really don\u2019t want to. A very close friend of mine was planning to celebrate his 30th birthday in Munich with his friends. But his mother had other ideas. She decided that her son should celebrate his birthday with her. And she sighed a failsafe appeal to pity down the phone: \u201cI\u2019m so old now! Who knows how long I\u2019ve got left? And your 30th birthday is definitely the last big one I\u2019ll be here to see. Please come to Osnabr\u00fcck and","celebrate with me!\u201d My friend had no desire at all to celebrate his birthday in Osnabr\u00fcck, at the other end of Germany. But he still went! Why does this plea for pity work so well? It\u2019s simple: our parents and our social institutions usually raise us not to be \u201cselfish\u201d. We shouldn\u2019t be thinking of ourselves all the time \u2013 we should put our own interests last. Because we generally bow to social pressure to conform, we end up internalizing this attitude. So, if you are faced with somebody whose behavior is predictably proper, try pushing this button. You can be fairly certain of success. Remember to present things in the following way: \u2022 your situation is utterly hopeless \u2022 there\u2019s nothing you can do by yourself to make it better \u2022 your victim is the only (or the best) person who can save you from your desperate state of affairs. Trick 4: The Appeal to Fear Of course, you can also use fear to control people\u2019s behavior. Since time immemorial, insurance agents have depended on the \u201cargumentum ad metum\u201d to earn their keep. \u201cYou never know what might happen \u2013 best be prepared for it!\u201d To make your concerns seem credible, make sure that you do the following when using this trick: \u2022 make the anticipated consequences sound sufficiently catastrophic for your victim \u2022 make this disastrous turn of events sound conceivable (at least from your victim\u2019s perspective) \u2013 there\u2019s no statistic that you can\u2019t turn in your favor here","\u2022 provide a concrete solution as to how you victim can avoid such consequences \u2022 ensure that your suggested solution is feasible, and not too challenging. Trick 5: The Appeal to Flattery People usually think of themselves as superior to others \u2013 we will come to this later, in the section on cognitive biases. You can tap into this illusion of superiority with the \u201cargumentum ad superbiam\u201d (the Latin superbia means \u201carrogance\u201d). I recently encountered a classic case. A former colleague rang me to ask which learning techniques I would recommend to someone with learning difficulties. I had little desire to give him a detailed answer. My ex-colleague presumably noticed this, and to encourage me to elaborate, he nonchalantly added, \u201cI\u2019m asking you because you did two degrees in different disciplines \u2013 you\u2019re the quickest learner I know. You\u2019re the expert here, so I\u2019m sure you can help me out!\u201d I couldn\u2019t help chuckling. I recognized the maneuver in an instant. So, unfortunately for him, the trick didn\u2019t work. But it was worth a try. The only mistake he made was to lay it on too thick. The key to flattery is to consider it carefully, and keep it within reason. If he\u2019d left out that last sentence, though \u2013 who knows, perhaps I\u2019d have fallen for it. OceanofPDF.com","8. Attacking the Content \u2013 and Disarming the Mind The best way to defeat a bad argument is not to interrupt. Anonymous There\u2019s a very particular world out there. The world of debating clubs. Debating is a relatively unknown sport in most parts of the world \u2013 but it enjoys popularity in the UK, the USA, and many other countries. A debate is a fight with words. The main goal is to attack your opponent\u2019s arguments and dismantle them. Rebutting other people\u2019s opinions is fun \u2013 and ideally, there will be nothing much left of your opponent\u2019s argument by the end. In my time on the global debating circuit, I came up against the smartest minds from Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, Oxford, and many more of the world\u2019s elite universities. In my first international tournaments, I stood no chance against them. They had so many rebuttal techniques up their sleeves \u2013 techniques that I could only dream of. It took two or three years for me to absorb them and start beating teams from Harvard and Oxford in the European and World Championships. What I lacked at the outset was their facility to attack their opponent at a factual level. The world we live in teaches us","to be nice to one another. Only a very small number of people have heard of the art of refutation \u2013 let alone studied it systematically. And that\u2019s where we\u2019ve been going wrong. Because attacking other people\u2019s arguments is fun! And it also helps us get our own way in everyday life. Here are seven top tips for craftily contradicting other people\u2019s opinions. Trick 1: Expanding the Target Most people don\u2019t know how to argue. It sounds haughty, but it\u2019s true. Let\u2019s define \u201carguing\u201d as follows: giving detailed, plausible reasons for your own claims, that are consistent, clear and relevant, structured in logical sequence, and that adequately support your claims. Once we manipulators know this, we can easily exploit our opponent\u2019s argumentative shortcomings. As the quote at the beginning of the chapter so aptly puts it, you shouldn\u2019t interrupt someone who\u2019s bad at explaining their opinions. In other words: let the other person talk. Because the longer they speak, the wider the target you will have to aim at. Politicians know this. They give the briefest possible explanations for their decisions. Because every explanation could contain a mistake. And the more explanations someone makes, the more mistakes might creep in. Trial judges work in the same way, usually writing criminal verdicts of no more than one or two lines. This reduces the chance of the verdict being repealed by a higher authority.","Judges know that the more you write, the larger the target becomes. CEOs also explain their reasoning as little as possible. They announce a big decision, say that it was not an easy decision to make, express their sympathies toward the people affected \u2013 but make no mention of their real reasons. The press release will only contain what\u2019s intended to see the light of day. Not interrupting someone\u2019s arguments is a technique designed to give them room to make as many mistakes as possible in their explanation. And if they hit a stumbling block, we can just ask, \u201cWhy do you think that?\u201d \u201cWhat are your reasons?\u201d or \u201cCould you spell that out a bit more clearly?\u201d You ask as many questions as possible about their reasons and motivations, until you have enough material to pick it all apart with ease. Trick 2: The Straw Man The straw man argument is a sneaky rebuttal technique that appears in two forms. The aim here is to avoid addressing the other side\u2019s actual argument, but to twist their words or use only their weakest arguments as a \u201cstraw man\u201d that you can rebut in isolation \u2013 creating the false impression that you have completely destroyed your opponent\u2019s position. Straw Man Version 1: Distorting or Misrepresenting Your Opponent\u2019s Argument This form of straw man argument deliberately overlooks what has actually been said, exaggerating and contorting your opponent\u2019s argument until it sounds ridiculous and","wrong. It is then very easy to refute. Of course, you have to make sure that you don\u2019t distort things too far. But if your opponent isn\u2019t in the room and you are only \u201cquoting\u201d them, you have an especially easy job of it. Even if your adversary is present, you can still twist their words. You should be careful to reproduce their precise choice of words as far as possible \u2013 before weaving in your own nuances on a specific point. This will help your manipulation go undetected. Straw Man Version 2: Singling Out Your Opponent\u2019s Weak Spots Here, you are not trying to put words into your opponent\u2019s mouth. Instead, you start from what they actually said. But the trick is to single out the least substantiated aspect of their argument \u2013 and rebut this in isolation. In other words, you act as if the stronger parts of their argument never existed. This is as easy as anything in practice \u2013 because people tend to give not one, but multiple explanations for their pet theories. Trick 3: The Infinite Regress Our next form of attack derives from a philosophical problem that confounded Aristotle, and has continued to torment every philosopher since. The problem with most arguments is that they leave open the question \u201cWhy?\u201d Argument aficionados call this problem \u201cinfinite regress\u201d \u2013 and even bigger show-offs call it \u201cregressus ad infinitum\u201d.","Here\u2019s an example: \u201cWe should introduce an upper cap on the number of refugees in the country, because we can\u2019t integrate an infinite number of people.\u201d \u2013 \u201cWhy?\u201d \u2013 \u201cBecause we only have limited resources available, and we also need to think about our own population.\u201d \u2013 \u201cWhy?\u201d \u2013 \u201cBecause refugees have to be supported by the taxpayer, and it would be unfair to give a sizeable chunk of tax revenue to refugees.\u201d \u2013 \u201cWhy?\u201d \u2013 \u201cBecause we don\u2019t get anything for free in this country, and we aren\u2019t responsible for the crises in countries like Syria.\u201d \u2013 \u201cWhy?\u201d \u2013 \u201cBecause those countries\u2019 problems are of their own making \u2013 authoritarian regimes, religious fundamentalism and so on \u2013 and we don\u2019t bear any moral responsibility for those problems.\u201d \u2013 \u201cWhy?\u201d \u2013 \u201cBecause moral responsibility presupposes that we must be at least partially responsible for a situation in order to incur any moral duty to act.\u201d \u2013 \u201cWhy?\u201d \u2026It could go on for ever. At some point, our opponent will run out of answers \u2013 and we\u2019ll have \u201cwon\u201d. The philosophical problem behind this is known as the \u201cM\u00fcnchhausen trilemma\u201d;22 M\u00fcnchhausen is said to have pulled himself out of a swamp by his own hair. The theory states that there is no \u201cfinal explanation\u201d for anything. By asking endless follow-up questions, you either end up in an infinite regress (as above), or you end up with a circular argument (in which the proposition presupposes the proof). Or you just give up. The only way of providing a \u201cfinal explanation\u201d is to posit an assertion as unquestionable dogma \u2013 as in Aristotle\u2019s image of the \u201cunmoved mover\u201d. The \u201cfinal explanation\u201d is provided by a dormant source (for Christians, this is God) that created everything and that cannot be called into question.","Note: Try bombarding your opponent with endless \u201cwhys\u201d \u2013 at some point they will have to give up. Trick 4: The Accusation of Irrelevance During an argument, people often deviate from the claim or topic at hand. They make points that are correct, but unimportant in the context of the debate. When this happens, we can accuse them of spouting irrelevancies in either of two ways. Option 1: The Justified Accusation of Irrelevance If everything someone says is beside the point, you can simply tell them, \u201cThat\u2019s irrelevant!\u201d \u2013 but you also have to justify why it is of no importance in the wider conversation. To make a justified accusation of irrelevance, we need to keep focused on the issue being discussed, know our way around the subject, avoid switching off, and not get annoyed by red herrings (deliberate distractions from the matter at hand) from the other side. Option 2: The Unjustified Accusation of Irrelevance Even if someone says something genuinely relevant, we can act as if it is all beside the point. The first advantage of this is that the other person will be completely thrown. Second, it will also be difficult for them to explain on the spot why their view is not only true, but also significant. What many people don\u2019t know is that a good argument does not stop at explaining something and illustrating it","with a pertinent example. You also have to point out why what you are saying is relevant. Otherwise the listener can simply object, \u201cSounds plausible enough \u2013 so what?\u201d 99 percent of people forget to assert the relevance of their argument. And because few can defend themselves on the spot, the unjustified accusation of irrelevance is very effective. Trick 5: The Contradiction Trap In logic, a contradiction is an intellectual catastrophe. People who contradict themselves violate the most basic rules of logic, showing that their position was not thought through. Picking up on a contradiction in conversation gives you the perfect ammunition. But there are other ways of giving yourself the upper hand. You can also look for contradictions with things that your opponent said in another argument months ago. If you don\u2019t have a particularly good memory, an alternative strategy is to steer a conversation across as many different subjects as possible. Because people are often consistent within one topic, but not across multiple different ones. Here\u2019s a real-life example of a glaring contradiction from my own experience: one of my friends is obsessed with healthy eating \u2013 and smokes. Another very good friend of mine once gave me a lecture on how we should all donate to people in need. He explained that, in line with the concept of effective altruism, we should think carefully about what our","donations can achieve \u2013 and donate the amount that will give a person in need as much help as possible. To the question of whether he had ever donated money to a cause, he said no. Trick 6: The Personal Priority This is a case of agreeing with the other person, but pointing out that there is something much more important that they have overlooked. And telling them why. This is an indirect form of argumentative attack: we aren\u2019t saying that their opinion is wrong \u2013 or that it is irrelevant. The mean thing about this trick in everyday conversations is that nobody can prove what is objectively more significant. In professional conversations between equals, and in your private life too, you can simply declare, \u201cBut X is more important to me. That\u2019s just how it is!\u201d There\u2019s nothing anyone can say to that. Trick 7: The \u201cPrecisely Because\u201d Trick Last but not least, there\u2019s the \u201cprecisely because\u201d trick, a form of attack that always comes unexpected. Someone criticizes something \u2013 but we prove to them that what they see as a downside is actually a plus point that supports our own view. Here\u2019s an example: imagine that Steve is selling pricey products and services. A customer tells him, \u201cIt\u2019s so expensive!\u201d If Steve is quick-witted enough, he\u2019ll turn this supposed negative into a positive. He will reply along the following lines: \u201cOur products are expensive precisely because they","are the very top of the range, and our service is unbeatable. Quality comes at a price.\u201d OceanofPDF.com","9. Attacking the Person \u2013 and Leaving Them Speechless Insults are arguments used by those who are in the wrong. Jean-Jacques Rousseau23 Even in ancient times, people differentiated between attacks on content (ad rem) and personal attacks (ad hominem).24 And although we have been taught not to insult people, not to interrupt, not to shout, and so on, we all know perfectly well that personal attacks are a very effective way to rile people and leave them lost for words. The king of insults in this day and age is undoubtedly Donald Trump. Has his rude, arrogant, offensive manner got him anywhere? You could say. President of the United States isn\u2019t exactly the least important job in the world. An exhaustive list of all his insults would fill a whole book. A few years ago, the New York Times published a remarkable article on the 329 people, places and things that Donald Trump has insulted on Twitter alone.25 The fascinating question is why Trump\u2019s verbal onslaughts work so well. And here\u2019s the answer: his opponents, in TV debates for instance, weren\u2019t ready for such harsh personal attacks \u2013 and were caught completely off-guard.","The effectiveness of these onslaughts came not from his actual insults, but from his fellow campaigners\u2019 hopeless reactions. To viewers, Trump was the strong man, while the politicians around him looked weak and inarticulate. Jeb Bush, who was the Republican favorite at the beginning of the campaign, repeated the same sentence in several TV debates: \u201cDonald, you\u2019re not going to be able to insult your way to the presidency.\u201d He was wrong on that one. Let\u2019s consider why Trump\u2019s insults worked: \u2022 To Rand Paul, Trump said: \u201cI never attacked him on his looks\u2026 and believe me, there\u2019s plenty of subject matter right there.\u201d How did Paul react? He smiled, said nothing \u2013 and looked weak. \u2022 Trump constantly interrupted poor Jeb Bush, heckling him with now infamous cries of \u201cWrong!\u201d How did Bush react? He snapped, \u201cDon\u2019t interrupt me, sir.\u201d When Trump interrupted him again, Bush sighed sulkily \u2013 and looked weak. \u2022 In a debate with Ted Cruz, he said, \u201cYou are the single biggest liar.\u201d Cruz\u2019s reaction? He smiled sheepishly, looked at his feet \u2013 and looked weak. \u2022 In another debate, he told Marco Rubio that he was a \u201clightweight\u201d. Rubio shrugged, looked helplessly at the moderators \u2013 and looked weak. \u2022 And finally Hillary Clinton: in one TV debate, he interrupted her 25 times in the first 26 minutes. And when Hillary said it was good that Trump wasn\u2019t in charge of the law in their country, Trump said, \u201cBecause you\u2019d be in jail.\u201d A crass threat in the middle of the most important TV duel of the year. She said","nothing in response, put down her microphone \u2013 and looked weak. Trump also dominated his political rivals at non-verbal and para-verbal levels: his gestures were the broadest, he spoke the loudest, and he never let anyone interrupt him \u2013 opponent and moderator alike. In The Art of Always Being Right, Schopenhauer asserts that the best way of responding to insults is with factual arguments: \u201cFor explaining to someone calmly that they are incorrect, that have misjudged things and come to false conclusions\u2026 will embitter them far more than a crude, insulting phrase.\u201d26 He got that one wrong, for a change! Because to explain anything to anyone, you first need to be able to finish your sentence. Trump didn\u2019t allow anyone this luxury \u2013 interrupting all his opponents before they could get going. In formal disputes between academics, it may be that the most effective way of rebutting the other person is to do it calmly. In Trump\u2019s world, though, reason regularly loses out to provocation. Why Do Insults Work? The question is why insults work. It\u2019s because they wound our ego. And when our ego is wounded, we are flooded by negative emotions. These are usually so strong that they momentarily paralyze our powers of reasoning, inducing a brief blackout. Once our wounded pride releases its hold a few minutes later, it\u2019s far too late for a smart comeback \u2013 and we\u2019re left standing there like losers. As in the above examples. In my \u201ccomeback coaching\u201d sessions, I see this phenomenon every time I throw an unprovoked verbal","insult \u2013 for practice \u2013 at a specific participant in the workshop. They sit there like a rabbit in the headlights, dumbstruck. We have never been taught to respond quickly and calmly to insults and unfair argumentative tactics (interrupting, heckling, misquoting, etc.). School was a kind of utopia, where we spent hours writing essays, reciting poems from memory, and learning to interpret them. But when a colleague provokes us by sneering, \u201cYour presentation was terrible!\u201d we find ourselves lost for words and can only scowl back at them. Pride, low self-esteem, and lack of practice make it easy for spiteful types to exploit their victims\u2019 defenseless. Should You Really Insult Others? Let\u2019s return to philosophy for a moment. Rousseau says that insults are the \u201carguments\u201d of those who are in the wrong. And that may well be so. Schopenhauer, though, is equally astute in his observation that being right is all very well, but being believed is a different kettle of fish. He writes: \u201cA man may be objectively in the right, and nevertheless in the eyes of bystanders, and sometimes in his own, he may come off worst.\u201d27 Anyone who wants to come out on top \u2013 and get their own way at all costs \u2013 can get ahead by insulting people. If you want to know how to manipulate someone, you first need to establish whether your opponent has any weaknesses, where you can find them, and how you can get to them. Is it their appearance? Their professional or personal failings? Their lack of recognition? Poor decisions in the past? A bad reputation? Everyone has a weak spot. And it\u2019s your job to find them, to make your personal attacks hit harder. (You","should take care not to overstep the mark with personal attacks, of course. Make sure they aren\u2019t a breach of the peace.) OceanofPDF.com","10. Shutting Down Disagreeable Conversations It is a very dangerous thing to listen. If one listens one may be convinced; and a man who allows himself to be convinced by an argument is a thoroughly unreasonable person. Oscar Wilde Sometimes what we want most is just to end a conversation. When we have the weaker argument, for instance, and are at risk of losing the debate; or when we just aren\u2019t in the mood, or don\u2019t have time; or when we don\u2019t want to share our opinion; or when we don\u2019t have an opinion but don\u2019t want to admit it \u2013 and so on. In this final installment of the Top 10 Skills for Everyday Manipulation, you will learn the five most effective tricks for swiftly ducking out of disagreeable conversations. Like any real pro, you will need nerves of steel to pull off these techniques. Even when you\u2019re on the defensive, you must keep your poker face at all times. You obviously mustn\u2019t let on that you\u2019re trying to wriggle out of the conversation. So here\u2019s the golden rule: before using any of these tricks, you must disguise yourself behind a confident demeanor, keeping your body language and tone of voice utterly","professional (see the chapter on dazzling people with your appearance). Trick 1: Thought-Terminating Clich\u00e9s A thought-terminating clich\u00e9 can nip any argument in the bud, silencing your opponent. Arguments of this kind are also known as \u201ckiller phrases\u201d. Let\u2019s look at three of the best-known clich\u00e9s \u2013 the so-called \u201cthree golden rules of bureaucracy\u201d: 1. \u201cWe\u2019ve always done it this way!\u201d 2. \u201cWe\u2019ve never done it that way!\u201d 3. \u201cWho knows what would come of it!\u201d This little selection can be interchanged with the following evergreen phrases, which are just as useful for our purposes. If they work for bureaucrats, there\u2019s no reason why they shouldn\u2019t work for us: 4. \u201cWhere would that leave us?\u201d 5. \u201cThat isn\u2019t our responsibility.\u201d 6. \u201cWe can\u2019t afford that.\u201d But that isn\u2019t all! You can also try out these verbal wrecking balls: 7. \u201cI\u2019m not in the mood for this conversation.\u201d 8. \u201cI don\u2019t have time right now.\u201d 9. \u201cThis isn\u2019t a good moment to talk about it.\u201d 10. \u201cI\u2019m not going to discuss that with you.\u201d 11. \u201cThat\u2019s rubbish!\u201d 12. \u201cLet\u2019s talk about this another time.\u201d","13. \u201cThat\u2019s beyond our remit.\u201d 14. \u201cUnfortunately, we have no alternative.\u201d 15. \u201cThere\u2019s no way out of it.\u201d 16. \u201cIn theory, I suppose. But it won\u2019t work in practice.\u201d 17. \u201cI\u2019ve tried that already.\u201d 18. \u201cI\u2019m not interested.\u201d 19. \u201cI\u2019ll discuss that internally.\u201d 20. \u201cNo, I\u2019ve just got a bad feeling about it!\u201d There are many more out there. But the interesting question is why these killer phrases work. The answer is that most people are not tenacious enough. We were all brought up to be polite \u2013 and not to be pushy. As a result, you need only serve up one of these empty phrases, and the other person will back off. They won\u2019t want to seem discourteous and stubborn, so they won\u2019t dig any deeper. Any further discussion will be nipped in the bud. That said, if someone tries to shut you up with one of these phrases, an effective counter-attack is to \u201cname it and tame it\u201d. Just tell them, \u201cYour killer phrases won\u2019t work on me, pal!\u201d The same applies to all the manipulative tricks in this book: if you can name them, you can tame them. Trick 2: Nauseating Repetition You can use this second trick if your antagonist turns out to be more persistent than you anticipated. \u201cAd nauseam\u201d (\u201cto the point of sickness\u201d) is the term used to describe arguments that carry on to a point when every participant has had enough. You can just repeat your stance until they give up:","You: \u201cI\u2019m not in the mood to talk about it!\u201d Them: \u201cBut it\u2019s important. We should talk about it.\u201d You: \u201cNot now. I\u2019m not in the mood!\u201d Them: \u201cSo when do you want to talk about it?\u201d You: \u201cWhenever, just not now. Not in the mood!\u201d The awkward thing for your opponent is that there\u2019s no way of getting around this repetition. And even if they are a smarty-pants who points out that you\u2019re just repeating yourself, you can use another trick dating back to the Romans, called the \u201ctu quoque\u201d (\u201cyou too\u201d), which we\u2019ll look at later. If they exclaim, \u201cYou\u2019re repeating yourself!\u201d you can fire back, \u201cSo are you!\u201d From there, the conversation has nowhere to go. Trick 3: Invincible Ignorance You can use this trick when someone presents you with good, convincing arguments that are absolutely plausible and founded in fact \u2013 but you counter with something like \u201cI still don\u2019t believe it,\u201d \u201cWhatever \u2013 I\u2019m still not convinced,\u201d or \u201cThat still doesn\u2019t prove anything.\u201d We know very well that their arguments are good, sound ones. We just don\u2019t admit it. And what can the other person do? They can\u2019t shake approval out of us. Nor can they know that we\u2019re actually convinced. Mean? Of course! Effective? Very! Trick 4: Relativism","Einstein proved that in physics, everything is relative. And we can utilize this worldview in disagreeable conversations \u2013 to put a swift end to them. You will have heard the following plenty of times before: \u201cYou\u2019re entitled to your opinion. I\u2019m entitled to my opinion. That\u2019s all there is to it.\u201d This seemingly straightforward statement conceals a deeper philosophical view: that opinions and values cannot be compared with one another in absolute terms \u2013 and that everyone has different priorities for different reasons. This is also known as \u201cvalue relativism\u201d. (In philosophical terms, value relativism and moral relativism have their weaknesses. For one thing, they regard themselves as absolutes, thus contradicting their own ideology. For another, moral relativism disregards the fact that some moral stances are simply weaker than others.28) Employing relativism is especially effective because 99.9 percent of people can\u2019t defend an absolutist value system off the cuff. So they quickly bow to relativism. Which is handy for us \u2013 so we should keep this trick up our sleeve at all times. Trick 5: My Personal Favorite To round off our Top 10 Skills, here is my absolute favorite trick for blocking awkward questions and shutting down further discussion. Strictly speaking, this trick is another thought-terminating clich\u00e9 \u2013 but it\u2019s so specific and simple that it deserves its own little segment. So, what\u2019s the trick? I say just five letters: \u201c\u2019Strue!\u201d Or in plain English: \u201cIt\u2019s true!\u201d","Very few people will carry on challenging you if you tell them that that\u2019s just the way it is. If I say, \u201c\u2019Strue!\u201d it puts an end to the argument 99.9 percent of the time. In argumentation theory, \u201c\u2019Strue!\u201d is a \u201cpetitio principii\u201d (also known as \u201cbegging the question\u201d). In other words, it is a classic circular argument. I posit something unproven as a fact, and don\u2019t offer any further information, but simply reinforce (through repetition) what I said before. So my argument is going in circles. The only question is why this extremely easy technique works so well. The section on killer phrases has already given us the answer. OceanofPDF.com","THE THREE BOXES OF DIRTY COMMUNICATION TRICKS OceanofPDF.com","Dirty communication tricks can be divided into three categories. Which is entirely natural. Because every time someone speaks, there are three elements playing a vital role: first, the brain, which processes the information; second, the wording of the information; and third, the actual content of what is said. These three parameters \u2013 brain, wording, and content \u2013 determine how the information is received. And the good news for manipulators is that each of these three parameters can be manipulated. The Three Types of Dirty Tricks 1. Cognitive Biases (manipulated perception) (p. 69) 2. Verbal Tricks (manipulated wording) (p. 129) 3. Bogus Arguments (manipulated reasoning) (p. 163) The brain can be manipulated through cognitive biases. These are misapprehensions caused by flawed perceptions, thoughts and judgments. One of them \u2013 the halo effect \u2013 has already been mentioned in our Top 10 Skills. But there are dozens more, and in the next section I will introduce you to the most captivating and universally applicable techniques out there. Skillful wording of what you say can also help you manipulate people. One example from our Top 10 Skills is the section on repetition. There are many more verbal tricks like this that you can deploy \u2013 and the second box of tricks contains the most effective ones of all. And finally, we can also manipulate the content of what we have to say, through spurious explanations or bogus","arguments. A few examples have already cropped up in our Top 10 Skills, including the authority and majority tricks. Open the third box of tricks and you\u2019ll discover the most effective bogus arguments for everyday use. OceanofPDF.com","I. First Box of Tricks: Cognitive Biases Brain: an apparatus with which we think that we think. Ambrose Bierce The term \u201ccognitive\u201d (from Latin cognoscere, meaning \u201clearn, perceive, get to know\u201d) encompasses everything to do with our minds. Cognitive \u201cbiases\u201d are systemic deviations from accurate perception, memory and thought \u2013 a type of human reprocessing of information and understanding. Simply put, they are glitches in our brain software. And they can be \u201chacked into\u201d like weak spots in a computer system. Our brains are our pride and joy. They are the very reason why our species modestly calls itself \u201chomo sapiens\u201d (\u201cwise, intelligent, prudent person\u201d). Our brainpower is unparalleled. But is it faultless? Not even close! Even if you\u2019ve never heard of cognitive biases, you will have encountered common misperceptions and misconceptions in everyday life. A typical, straightforward example is that after drinking alcohol, we think we are funnier and more attractive than we do when we\u2019re sober. Misperceptions are exactly what magicians take advantage","of when they pull off a trick by momentarily diverting their audience\u2019s attention elsewhere. But there are countless other more subtle cognitive biases that pass us by in everyday life, without us even acknowledging their existence. And crafty types can use them to get into other people\u2019s heads and manipulate them in a certain direction. The reason why manipulating the brain is so effective is because most people don\u2019t have the first idea about cognitive biases. And even the few who have heard of them think that other people can be influenced by them, but their own thoughts and perceptions are free of such faults. As a result, you can use cognitive biases to manipulate anyone. You just need to find the technique that your victim is most vulnerable to \u2013 and they will behave exactly as you wish. So let\u2019s get started, and learn how to push the right buttons! OceanofPDF.com","1. Superiority Bias All pleasure and mirth consist in this: that we surround ourselves with people in comparison with whom we can think highly of ourselves. Thomas Hobbes The above-average effect, also known as \u201csuperiority bias\u201d or the \u201cDunning-Kruger effect\u201d,29 states that many people consider themselves to be better than the majority. And this assumption is more common than you might think. Sociological surveys have found that most respondents consider themselves to be better than average drivers. Most men describe themselves as better than average in bed. Most lawyers consider their own successes particularly remarkable. Most stockbrokers see themselves as uncommonly successful. Most teachers think they are exceptional \u2013 the list goes on. At first, I was skeptical of this. Most people seem pretty modest \u2013 and usually pretty average. So, in my workshops, I started asking participants to perform an honest self- appraisal. I told them to rate themselves on a scale of 1 to 10 for empathy. 5 was average; 1 meant they were incapable of empathy; 10 meant they were the most compassionate person in the world.","Nobody gave themselves 10. I expected that. But nobody gave themselves a score under 6. The average was 8! I could hardly believe it. Nothing but highly empathetic people wherever I looked. I repeated the experiment in nine more workshops. The result was more or less the same each time. This made me curious. I began conducting similar surveys in each of my courses. As it turns out, my clients are \u2013 by their own description \u2013 all above average in communication, persuasiveness, quick-wittedness, negotiating, arguing, and so on. But before I point the finger too much at other people, it\u2019s only fair to tell you about my own superiority bias, which reared its head in 2008, when I ran my first (and last) marathon. I had played badminton my whole life, won many tournaments, trained regularly \u2013 and felt in very good shape. When my girlfriend at the time suggested running a marathon together, I agreed without a moment\u2019s thought. I started training four weeks in advance \u2013 because my goal was just to get over the finish line. I didn\u2019t care about my time. And I had no doubt I\u2019d make it \u2013 because I was so sporty. Or so I thought. Of course, it didn\u2019t go as I expected. At 30 kilometers, I had to sit down for 15 minutes. By 37 kilometers I\u2019d slowed to a snail\u2019s pace. Over five hours after setting off, I slumped over the line, utterly exhausted \u2013 having been overtaken by 23,597 other runners. It hurt. And not just physically. The truth is that most people are mired in incompetence. Most of us can do one or two things better than average, because we have studied and trained in them for a long","time. And we identify ourselves with those things, disregarding what we can\u2019t do. As in my case. The above-average effect is at its most potent when it comes to intelligence. Most people think they are smarter than average. And this isn\u2019t a recent phenomenon. Great philosophers through the ages have noted people\u2019s tendency to overestimate their own intellect. Ren\u00e9 Descartes witheringly remarked, \u201cCommon sense is the most widely shared commodity in the world, for every man is convinced that he is well supplied with it.\u201d30 La Rouchefoucauld put it slightly differently: \u201cEveryone complains of his memory; no-one complains of his judgment.\u201d31 I see it time and time again: it makes no difference what formal qualifications people have, or how old they are \u2013 they are always extremely generous in appraisals of their own intelligence. Self-Serving Bias Another cognitive bias related to the above-average effect is self-serving bias. This states that people tend to give themselves credit for their successes \u2013 while attributing their failures to external circumstances. A classic example from my old job: if a lawyer wins a case, it\u2019s because of their skill and strategic nous in court. If the same lawyer is defeated, it was all because of the judge, or the solicitors who didn\u2019t pull their weight, or the witnesses whose testimony wasn\u2019t good enough. But they themselves didn\u2019t put a foot wrong! This cognitive bias is very common. And I haven\u2019t always been immune to it: if I was awarded Top Speaker at a","debating tournament, it was naturally thanks to my stellar rhetorical skills. And if I lost in the final, it was because the jury misunderstood me. Only with time did I learn not to go after the judges. Managerial staff do a similar thing: if their company is doing well, it\u2019s all thanks to their excellent strategic decisions \u2013 and if they are in the red, it\u2019s the fault of their unmotivated employees who haven\u2019t implemented their decisions properly. Job applicants suffer from the same effect: if they get the job, it\u2019s their brilliant CV that did it; if they don\u2019t, it\u2019s because of the \u201cdumb questions\u201d they were asked at interview. If you\u2019re honest with yourself, I reckon you\u2019ll find plenty of examples from your own life when you have fallen victim to self-serving bias. But why do we let our brains manipulate us like this? Do the above-average effect and self-serving bias make any sense in evolutionary terms? Arguably, these mechanisms are useful because they prevent us doubting ourselves after a setback \u2013 which would inhibit our development. Instead, they allow us to maintain our feeling of self-worth \u2013 turning us into happier, more motivated people who can keep looking forward. Happier people generally have healthier minds and a longer life expectancy. How Can You Use the Above-Average Effect to Manipulate People? Naturally, we can use these insights to manipulate people into doing our bidding. The above-average effect gives rise","to two key phenomena: 1. Increased susceptibility to compliments. If people believe they are better than average \u2013 that they really are something special \u2013 then they will become more susceptible to compliments. Every flattering comment serves as further confirmation of their exceptionality, elevating them to an even higher plane. Imagine that you have a colleague who thinks they\u2019re especially good with words. A good manipulator will marvel at their supposed eloquence, so that they can dump their presentation at the next meeting on their loquacious colleague, telling them, \u201cThere\u2019s no way I can present it as well as you could \u2013 please do it instead of me!\u201d 2. Conversely, if someone doesn\u2019t believe their own hype, they will find your compliments a little disconcerting. People with a more realistic self-image will instantly realize when someone\u2019s trying to suck up to them. The compliment will still be gratefully received \u2013 as we now know \u2013 but will be put into perspective by a smaller ego. The good news for manipulators is that there are very few \u201cordinary\u201d people out there. Most people are convinced that they are something special. 3. Increased susceptibility to mistakes. Feelings of superiority lead people to underestimate their situation, become overconfident, and make mistakes. It\u2019s the same as in sports: if the favorite underestimates their opponent and doesn\u2019t give their all, they are more likely to get beaten. So let them feel superior. It works the same way in everyday life \u2013 in the office, for instance. If someone reckons they\u2019ve performed better than their colleagues all year and assumes they\u2019ll get a raise, but hasn\u2019t kept meticulous"]