Just like "boundaries", the word "manipulation" is liberally used in online spaces, particularly those that are already contaminated by the dime-store counterpart of healthy mental health practices- the Mental Wellness Influencer sphere and all of its dendritic manifestations. It has become an incantation to use against others that, in current discourse, requires little or no backing explanation. In fact, when pressed, many who use the word seem to be incapable of explaining why  something is manipulative, or even what manipulation actually is  by definition. This highlights the very precarious position in which the current state of discourse and critical thinking finds itself.

Consider this, if you will, a shorthand guide-book into what manipulation is, and how you may be able to identify a manipulative tactic, and why they are such. It is not an exhaustive compendium, but hopefully it will be a useful one nevertheless.

The Nature Of Manipulation

The base objective reality is that all communication is manipulation at its core. People communicate for a myriad of reasons to accomplish a vast number of goals in an endless variety of ways. To articulate for the purpose of achieving something, particularly if it is to persuade, is to manipulate. All human beings are capable of manipulative behavior. When a baby cries, it is a manipulation of the parent to care for them.

As children, we are often manipulative as we discover our impact on our environment and seek to influence others around us while being primarily helpless. Babies as young as 15 months old already know their parents will pick them up if they cry.

In a 2018 article published in Psychology & Clinical Psychiatry, Olga V Kozachek (Associate Professor of Pedagogy, Early Childhood Education, Volgograd State Pedagogical University, Russia) recounts a 2010 encounter in which professionals identified 160 common manipulative tactics in preschool-aged children.

('The age and the psychological conditions of the manipulative behavior of preschool children,' referencing 'Kozachek OV. Psychological manipulation of pre-school age children in the family and preschool. Pre-school education in the XXI century: materials Intern. Scientific and practical. Volgograd; 2010:170−173.’ )

I quote, at times editing for linguistic clarity (English not being Dr. Kozachek's native language), "during … 2009-2018 … professionals directly related to the education of preschool children" were invited "to discuss the current state of the problem of children's manipulations." The study "involved 188 teachers, music educators, and instructors in physical education in preschools across Volgograd and the surrounding region" in Russia.

"According to their reflections and examples from personal experience, teachers could list more than 160 tricks children use" in daily interactions. Among the most popular methods were the assertions of a contagion by which to judge others, "lies, hysteria, using other people's weaknesses, flattery, insincere promises, references to their own, sometimes feigned, weaknesses, and manipulations of affection." Common themes framing these strategies were "the use of someone else's authority, a set up pitting people against each other, and deliberately creating a sense of [imposed or artificial] guilt."

These are academically published descriptions from professional educators of observed preschool dynamics in Volgograd, Russia, from 2009 to 2018.

As we grow and our understanding of the world and its social dynamics becomes more sophisticated, we will ideally adapt to other, less coercive strategies. That being said, an attempt to move a third party will always remain the core of social interaction: we share common interests in the hopes of forming meaningful bonds; we communicate causes to move others to join our fight; we express our needs and wants in the hope that they will be met, just as others hope that theirs will be met by disclosing them to us.

This is all well and good, necessary even. However, that abstract and scientific linguistic perspective might obscure what I will be presenting: when this manipulation is coercive via an ulterior motivation and its reliance on dishonest representations of reality. To differentiate healthy, appropriate interactions from these types of manipulation, we can identify them as persuasion.

It is the manipulation, not persuasion, to which I and countless mental health influencers, podcasters, and YouTubers  refer to when discussing manipulation, though you will notice that very few of them touch upon the subject beyond saying 'this person is manipulative' or 'their actions are manipulative' without explicitly saying why this is so.

At its most basic definition, manipulation is influencing a third party to do something they might not want to do of their own volition, usually for the benefit of the manipulator. Manipulation often occurs through indirect and subtle methods but can also be self-evident and forceful.

The salient difference between persuasion and manipulation is that the mechanics of persuasion are not covert or coercive. Persuasion allows individuals the freedom to accept or reject our influence. It often consists of an argument directly appealing to the individual's beliefs, religion, motivations, reason, or behavior without subterfuge.

Conversely, manipulation seeks to target an emotional core, an irreplaceable value, or seek to obscure reality to indirectly bypass our critical thinking and informed judgment or place us in extremely unfair situations.

Manipulation is always coercive.

In The Narcissist's Playbook, psychotherapist Dana Morningstar states that in terms of close relationships: "Manipulation is a slow and steady imbalance of power. This imbalance is created when one person leverages the emotions of fear, obligation, or guilt against another with the ultimate goal of getting their way."

In the realm of social interactions, George K. Simon, author of In Sheep's Clothing: Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People, identifies five common vulnerabilities that are targeted by manipulative tactics in interpersonal relationships:

1. Naïveté or immaturity: Someone's lack of experience or unwillingness to believe people can be deceitful and manipulative.
2. Over-conscientiousness: Someone's tendency to be overly self-critical, excessively willing to give others the benefit of the doubt, and habitually quick to shoulder blame.
3. Low self-esteem: Individuals who grapple with self-doubt, a lack of confidence, and low assertiveness are described as having low self-esteem. They frequently question their right to pursue their legitimate desires and needs. This often supervenes a pathological eagerness to yield when confronted by an aggressive personality.
4. Over-intellectualization: People who believe that others are hurtful only when there's a legitimate or understandable reason will tend to be convinced that a simple reveal of the motivations and understanding them will create lasting change. This intellectual exercise ignores the reality that one can never truly know someone's motivations. People are often irrational, and cause and effect may not apply.
5. Emotional dependency: Those with submissive or dependent personalities are more vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation, as their emotional reliance on others leaves them wide open. They lack a self-defined and controlled regulatory center and rely on someone else to provide stability. Unfortunately, that need doesn't automatically translate into a trustworthy caretaker.

A manipulator "attempts to control or exploits others because this is how they navigate life," writes Morningstar, and to accomplish this, the individual "continually creates chaos." She makes a point to observe that manipulators may do so consciously or unconsciously, and the root of their anti-social behavior may be discovered deep in childhood trauma or in an open emotional wound. There's a likely chance that the person being manipulated will never truly know the origin of the manipulator's behavior, as manipulators often misrepresent the reasons behind their course of action.

Malignant narcissists, as well as emotionally immature persons, often resort to manipulative tactics, but it is crucial to steer clear of the generalization that every manipulative individual is a malignant narcissist. Even if the same caution and decoupling techniques must be used to break away from their manipulative behavior, they don't directly correlate to the existence of a non-diagnostic subtype only mentioned in alternative models of personality disorders.

To assume as much is to employ stereotypes, which only reduce the real complexities of humans to unrealistic mechanical systems. These eliminate essential contexts in the process and only afford the user a false sense of safety with knowledge that seems complete due to its superficial objectivity. Such blindspots only become further exploited by truly clever manipulators who will foster a righteous sense of us versus them, branding those individuals as justifiable targets to their communities.

According to Morningstar, manipulators often coercively influence others for the following reasons: to advance an agenda, to get and maintain power over others, to feel in control, and to feed their egos. Each of these reasons comes with carry-on psychological patterns of thought and behavior:

1. To advance an agenda: The manipulator wants a particular outcome, such as accepting an ordinarily taboo behavior or eliminating a perceived threat. To do so, manipulators often disguise their motives to get their way. They usually present a front of being benevolent, interested in others, honest, and caring for the sole purpose of earning others' confidence and trust in their cause. Their actions will center a concern for their target or the target's interests, which may be external to the situation, making them a valuable ally in achieving the greater good.
2. To get and maintain power over others: Manipulators operate under a zero-sum fallacy, where any empowered individual translates to the manipulator's power being diminished. Self-assertiveness and attempts to exercise your agency are perceived as taking power away from the manipulator, tagging you as an enemy who needs to be retaliated against and brought back under control.
3. To feel in control: Due to an unsteady sense of self or chronic paranoia, manipulators constantly need to exert control over their emotions—and everyone else's. What better way to maintain safety and reduce the ever-present fearful paranoia of someone figuring it all out than to have no one feel like something's wrong? They have an intense, pathological need to always be right, and their egos become deeply unsettled and go into a tailspin when they are proven wrong, faced with disagreement, or challenged.
4. To feed their egos: Manipulators are deeply insecure, though they may not always see themselves this way. Their dishonesty creates a social environment that is extremely fragile, enslaving them to the maintenance of others' false beliefs. This creates a need to feel superior as a form of self-soothing comfort or validation. To be as exceptional as they feel, they undermine the sanity of others and spread chaos, sometimes even boasting about their ability to lay traps for people and maneuver them toward self-indulgent outcomes. To satisfy this ideal self, which can never be satiated because it's false, they work to ensure that they are desired, adored, acclaimed, or, failing that, feared.

When a manipulator sets course to coercively influence a third party, they resort to several well-observed techniques. The works of Simon, Morningstar, D M Buss, M Gomes, D S Higgins, K Lauterbach, and Maggie Holland were consulted to compile the list for this section. Ordered by sophistication, manipulation often happens via:

1. Denial

These are outright denials of wrongdoing. It usually remains unaccompanied by supporting facts or observations; if they are present, they are indirect, vague, distracting, or loosely connected. This is the D in the acronym DARVO.

2. Shifting Blame

The person at fault deflects blame onto the other party, portraying them as guilty or responsible for the perpetrator's actions. This is the R, for reversal, in the DARVO acronym.

3. Isolation

Manipulation is most effective when the target lacks someone nearby who can ground them or alert them that what they're experiencing is, in fact, problematic. The manipulator will seek to isolate the target from family, close friends, etc, making themselves the center of their world.

4. Vilification

This tactic effectively puts the victim on the defensive while masking the manipulator's aggressive intent. When the victim defends themselves or their position, the manipulator counters by falsely accusing them of being the abuser. This is the last whole element of DARVO: Reverse Victim and Offender.

5. Threats of Self-Harm

The manipulator leverages their well-being as a weapon, making others feel responsible for their safety or emotional stability. This tactic can create a powerful sense of urgency and emotional turmoil, often forcing the target to comply with the manipulator's demands to avoid perceived harm or responsibility for the outcome.

6. Passive Aggression

Aggression is forcing a situation to go your way. Passive aggression is trying to get things to go your way without looking like you're doing anything, hence it's passivity.

The most straightforward way to do this is to imply something without explicitly stating it. This behavior forces the target to be constantly vigilant, guessing, and trying to anticipate or adapt to the manipulator's moods and responses. It's most apparent when the manipulator says things they clearly don't mean to emphasize what's not being said.

But what's the payoff? Because the manipulator never explicitly says what remains unsaid, they more easily shirk responsibility for their implicit demands or the act of coercion.

7. Guilt-Tripping

This one's relatively straightforward and easily recognizable, but that quality doesn't make it any easier to defend yourself against it. Very few of us want anyone to significantly suffer, and if we think we might be the cause, we'll do whatever we can to stop it. However, such a strong reaction is ripe for abuse, and manipulators will often use guilt to control and influence others.

8. Shaming

No one likes being ashamed, particularly if it's something they weren't ashamed of before, and it catches them off guard. There's always the fear of being shunned, ostracized, not measuring up, or suffering other destructive consequences. It comes naturally to many of us to do whatever we can to decrease the negative focus on us. In line with this, manipulators use put-downs to create fear, self-doubt, and a sense of unworthiness, shaming victims into submission and fostering feelings of inadequacy.

9. Lying, By Commission or Omission

These are subtle deceptions made by manufacturing a narrative or omitting a substantial portion of the truth. Claiming, for example, that someone gave you a sarcastic and harsh reply to something you said while omitting an entire section of the conversation that would reveal the larger context: the remark resulted from prolonged provocation. Because it's sarcastic and appears malevolent when lacking this context, its exclusive purpose is to unfairly paint the subject negatively.

This performance omits parts of the evidence that makes the manipulator look bad. When the manipulator doesn't reference the original facts, and others are discouraged from finding them out, this technique will go unnoticed and lie outside immediate awareness, making it highly effective. No one thinks something might be wrong if they aren't aware of why.

10. Bandwagon Effect or Threatened Ostracism

The manipulator pressures the victim into compliance by suggesting, truthfully or not, that many others have already done something or think in a particular manner. Thus, the victim should too.

This doesn't always manifest negatively to the target, as it may be a way to simulate acceptance in the victim's mind of what they've always been too afraid to do. The danger lies in the artificiality of that acceptance because reality will fail to meet inaccurate expectations.

11. Playing The Victim

The manipulator pretends to be a victim of circumstances or someone else's actions to evoke pity, sympathy, or compassion to manipulate others into giving them what they want or to excuse otherwise unacceptable behavior. The most significant sign that it's a play is that the manipulator is only a victim per their invention; it usually isn't readily noticeable until they announce a novel framing of such. Compassionate and conscientious individuals who struggle to see others suffer are especially vulnerable to this tactic, making it an effective tool for gaining support and cooperation.

12. Spinning or Rationalization

A rationalization is an explanation manipulators give to justify their inappropriate behavior. It's meant to evoke sympathy, sound reasonable, or otherwise appeal to others' biases. The least sophisticated and most frequent form is one of excuse. Something about them, or the circumstances, created a lack of choice.

One recent variation in some circles is an invocation of trauma responses or triggers, effectively displacing the responsibility for actions towards a psychological mechanism rather than the individual's own willful choices. However, more sophisticated forms will repackage the victim's objections into broader, more acceptable language. This strips the target of legitimate considerations involving their comfort or interests.

13. Love-Bombing, Instant Intimacy, or the Intimacy Rush

With love-bombing, the manipulator will shower the target with excessive attention, compliments, and affection. This is usually done inappropriately early in a relationship, often to quickly gain control and trust at the expense of detail or the truth. It can also manifest in an established relationship to regain lost trust or minimize a violation. These eventually lead to devaluation and emotional abuse when it can't be sustained because it's not meant to be sustained.

14. Seduction

Complimenting love-bombing, the manipulator employs charm, compliments, flattery, or overt support to lower other's defenses and secure their trust and loyalty. When someone is presented with a remarkably high interest in things regularly overlooked by others, it can be very exciting, even intoxicating. We don't want to believe it isn't true because of the painful disappointment that would incur.

Seduction is characterized by special, and oftentimes unique, appeal. For example, the manipulator may assist the target with something seemingly ignored by others to gain trust and access without raising many suspicions.

15. Poisoning the Well

An unfavorable portrayal of a target is strategically presented to an audience in advance, aiming to discredit or ridicule any of the target's upcoming statements and avoid any scrutiny that those might invite. Whatever might be judged negatively is a weapon that cuts down the target's reputation, even if it's not true, or worse, founded in irrational bigotry, stereotypes, faulty thinking, stigma, or other unfair prejudices.

Most people aren't aware of their biases, especially if they originate in protection and fear. The presumed justifications nullify their ugly nature. Layer on the need to not be wrong or immoral so much that they're blind to any consequence of their actions that would illustrate such, and you get an impenetrable but pliable darkness.

16. Brandishing Anger

The manipulator intentionally displays intense anger, instilling uncertainty in someone's mind to influence their actions or decisions, often as a response to a decision. Someone else's anger is scary to most people, especially when directed at them. It's an immediate sign of trouble that must be rectified or defended against. The tendency, then, is to prevent the anger from being expressed, especially among individuals who've suffered previously angry abuse.

The anger may be unexpected, a total surprise for maximum uncertainty. Or it may be threatened as an intimidating unknown. However, this anger is frequently feigned as a calculated tool to gain leverage or force compliance. It's not actually present, but it's impossible to tell at that moment. It may as well be real.

Anger brandishment often works not because it's explosive—but because it makes the other person anxious enough to avoid escalation, even if it means sacrificing their needs or voice.

The room is immediately heavy. The teenager is shocked and confused. There is an absence of yelling—but a shouting match hangs pregnant in the air. The parent used implied anger to control the child's choices through fear, not open discussion.

17. Pantomimes of Virtue

For the purpose of this article I have avoided the term 'virtue signaling' here because it's become muddied after countless misapplications.  'Virtue Signaling', as might be explained by Ryan Holiday at The Daily Stoic,  the public support of something that you deem good and moral to rally others to your cause, is not a tactic of manipulation. Virtue Pantomime, however, is different. It isn't simply expressing support for something good or moral.  It consists of an outward display of moral righteousness or alignment with socially praised values, but it's a hollow pantomime to counterfeit approval, trust, or influence.

The manipulator often emphasizes their "goodness" not as a genuine expression of belief but as a strategic move to mask ulterior motives, deflect criticism, or pressure others into compliance by implying they lack similar virtues if they disagree, or fail to comply with their demands.

The manipulator not only emphasizes their own moral stance but also implicitly claims authority by suggesting that their way of acting is the correct or necessary course of action. They set themselves up as someone who has “learned the hard way,” making their opinion seem more experienced or valid, and subtly pressures others to follow their lead if they want to see change.

18. Diversion

This manipulation tactic has two variations. One involves intentionally diverting the conversation, steering it toward a different topic to center it as the focal point, especially during an argument. Whataboutism is a classic example:

The other involves redirecting the target's, or the larger situation's observers', attention away from anything that poses a danger to the manipulator. Prime substitutional candidates include, but not exclusively, a common enemy, gripe, cause, or a more egregious offense by someone else, even one outside of the problem. Distraction, any distraction, is the goal so the manipulator can keep others from examining things too closely or inferring inconvenient conclusions.

19.  Encouraging Self-Doubt

People are generally unsure of themselves in complex situations or unfamiliar environments. Add social anxiety or the goal of doing something different, and one has a constant fear that they'll be seen as out of place, rejected, or even do something inappropriate.

The manipulator will endeavor to take advantage of any opportunity or invent opportunities to plant these seeds of doubt and insecurity in someone else's mind. The goal is to make them question their own discernment or judgment without any intervention, doing the manipulator's work for them.

This occurs frequently, both personally and on many dimensional surfaces of greater society, and each is as treacherous as the manipulator's aims.

20. Feigning Innocence

This tactic is aimed at the manipulator but affects the target. Manipulators will actively downplay any harm caused through various means, as this list outlines. A popular one is a feigning of innocence, where they contend that everything was unintentional or a result of ignorance, emphasized with pretenses of surprise or, if unbelievable, indignation.

This tactic causes the victim to question their conclusions and, at times, their sanity by adding subtle hints to undermine the target's judgment. It also offers outsiders reasonable motivations to discount the target's grievance. How can you hold someone accountable for something they didn't mean or know about?

Victims of manipulators may show signs of this strategy. The difference between these and the manipulator's lies relies on factual observations of ignorance. The manipulator may keep the target in the dark, only to reveal something they would've wanted to know later. Unfortunately, most likely at the hands of the manipulator, it was always apparent to everyone else. This makes the victim's claims of ignorance pale compared to the manipulator's stated 'good intentions.'

21. Projection

The manipulator shifts their uncomfortable thoughts or actions onto another to ease their own discomfort. The exceedingly insecure will do this pathologically because they cannot confront the shame they might feel.

At first, the mechanics of projection can seem nonsensical, but there is an emotive logic. Emotional projection uses the target as a neutral psychological canvas to work through issues without suffering the negative consequences of ownership. Instead, they are inflicted upon the disposable canvas.

Projection can be fairly compelling, making it highly chaotic, causing confusion, and forcing the target to question their recollection of events. An example of projection can involve one partner blaming the other for their own flaws, such as disorganization or messiness. Projecting insecurities can also manifest as accusing a partner of flirting with others. The person may feel guilty for being attracted to someone else, thus turning to emotional projection to protect their psyche while still attempting to work through the issue internally.

This is a doomed endeavor; unfortunately, even when attempted in good faith, it never works. The original issues remain unresolved because the consequences weren't experienced, and the manipulator repeats the process, at best unaware of its maladaptiveness.

22. Invalidation

Validation can be tricky and complicated to pin down as it looks different to different people, relationships, and circumstances. However, its core is simple.

Validation and invalidation rest on a common perception of implicit proto-approval, not agreeance, predicated on an external recognition of existence. It's not an endorsement of something but an acknowledgment that something 'can' or does exist despite no one 'allowing' things to exist. It's psychological and a purely social construct. It's most observable in cultural power dynamics over what is considered 'normal' and thus appropriate.

Validation is recognizing that someone has thoughts and feelings to be considered, while invalidation dismisses them as unworthy of consideration. A sign of validation is when someone feels heard, and a sign of invalidation is when someone feels ignored or like they don't exist.

Invalidation isn't always intentional, but manipulative invalidation is. It consists of denying or discounting a person's concerns, many times through erosion of justification and a war of attrition. Implications that the target is being 'too sensitive,' acting 'crazy,' and being 'unreasonable' are typical go-tos. There is a constant downplaying of the person's emotional importance compared to everyone else, even if it remains unsaid and done through sarcasm. These are the manipulator's favorite insults because they plant insecurities built to seek revalidation, but it is a reassurance only the manipulator's approval seems to deliver.

23. Double Standards

The manipulator will apply different rules or expectations to others or themselves in similar situations. Ironically, this is often done to undermine someone's argument, position, or credibility by highlighting perceived inconsistencies in their behavior or standards despite permitting the same thing themselves. It fits snugly within the projection and punishment framework regarding their insecurities when they do the same things. This often makes it subconsciously relatable to their supporters.

Confronting double standards can be exceptionally challenging. It's near-impossible for an objective standard of fairness to cut through group alliances.

This is because they immediately create a power imbalance, as the accuser has already committed the same offense. And yet, it doesn't seem to matter. But it should matter! A sense of injustice is aroused in the target, who may respond indignantly, or inversely, they may resentfully rise to the one-sided standard. Woefully, either path tends to weaken the target's perceived position within the conflict because it sows doubt and ridicule from anyone who's already judged the target through the eyes of the manipulator.

The manipulator's supporter, possibly remembering what the manipulator has done, is convinced by the target's reaction to believe the manipulator possesses greater wisdom or power, having been justified or remaining unchallenged. This confirmation bias reinforces the manipulator's superiority over the maligned target's scrambling.

24. Shifting Context

This one's a doozy. It's complicated, nuanced, and hard to fully portray faithfully  due to its overwhelming and disorganized nature. The manipulator creates an ever-shifting contextual chaos to make the situation so fluid and voluble that no correct or beneficial action is available to the target. This is generally intended to wear down the target's defenses and make them more prone to remain quiet and compliant because they cannot predict what context will come next.

In this exchange, Partner B shifts the context of the conversation from Partner A's genuine unease about an impending emotional distance to an artificial crisis concerning Partner A's supposed lack of support. By constantly moving the focus, Partner A is put on the defensive and never gets to address their original concern.

Sometimes, this seemingly topsy-turvy atmosphere is unintentional. The suspected manipulator may be surrounded by a cloud of confusion because they are unaware of subconscious mechanisms at work and act out of habit, or worse, out of pure unmitigated instability and uncontrollably erratic behaviors.

25. Feigning Confusion

This is another façade that manipulators will quickly adopt, even nonsensically. Who can prove it's not accurate? They'll pretend to be confused or unaware of what the victim is talking about. This tactic aims to confuse the victim, causing them to question the accuracy of their own perceptions or over-explain out of obligation or frustration.

It also influences others observing the exchange, if present, to doubt the victim's credibility and motivations. Additionally, it provides immediate cover for the manipulator when the tides start to turn against them. They were confused and required understanding and pity, not explanation or beratement.

But how can one detect fraudulent confusion? Its self-evidence directly correlates to its unbelievability or convenience. The more outrageous or convenient the inability to understand, the more likely it is feigned.

If the target uses the same terms as the manipulator in the same context, and yet their question remains incomprehensible, at what point can it be concluded that the manipulator simply can't read? It's just too unbelievable.

Suppose the manipulator employed adequate comprehension until a contradiction painted them into a corner. Suddenly, they don't know how to do anything because everything is overwhelming and confusing. In that case, it's a safe bet it's a performance.

Conversely, if they can't understand you, but when you point out you used the exact words they did, what else could it mean, they suddenly have an appropriate answer. You clearly weren't the source of confusion.

A subset of this tactic is pretending to be confused about someone’s clearly-stated motivation, actions or statements, upon which the manipulator is often a quick to comment. This allows the manipulator the ability to impose their own context upon the situation as a subtle strawman argument, recontextualizing the target’s original intent into something that is suitable for the manipulator’s messaging.

26. Leveraging Obligations

The manipulator disguises the pressure to act to their needs as an expression of care or duty to fulfill, often alluding to some service or favor rendered in the past, regardless of their current bad behavior.

This is obvious in more intimate relationships, eventually appearing as unspoken threats of endless rehash if the partner doesn't comply. It's also clear when there is a power imbalance and the alleged benefactor controls your, or the endeavor's, future.

But it's harder to spot in other, less binding relationships. It's especially tough when the obligation relates to an abstraction, such as an unspoken and thus undefined social contract, rather than a particular person. This variation is commonly in the inverse, which centers  the idea that the target owes everyone the benefit of everything, including doubt, even if none of it is afforded to the target. In these cases, the target is usually told that they  must always be "the better person," granting a perverse grace to their abusers.

27. Intentional Vagueness

Vagueness is the most insidious strategy employed by manipulators because it allows them to hide behind many acceptable defenses. People are often vague for good reasons: privacy, protection, politeness (particularly around embarrassing topics), and more sophisticated purposes like informing others of important information without further instigating unnecessary attention or conflict. The takeaway is that vagueness doesn't directly translate to manipulation, and that's a problem when dealing with manipulators who have an audience.

Vagueness serves its purpose as a manipulation tactic by intentionally keeping information unclear and ambiguous. This enables the manipulator to control the narrative, evade accountability, and craft statements that could apply to multiple individuals, particularly if they are known for volatile interactions.

When confronted, they can deny targeting anyone specifically, maintaining control over the situation and reinforcing their power, while delivering their message in such a way that an inner group can easily identify the individuals singled out—even if it is difficult to do so from the outside.

This is most apparent when targets repeatedly face this situation:

If they highlight what the manipulator says as relating to them, they are chastised for their self-importance and are always wrong. But if they abstain, others less confident in interpreting the situation inquire if what the manipulator said is about the target. The more often this happens, the more obvious the manipulation. A consistent run over a decade could indicate a profound pathology.

Vagueness can also repackage things under a broader and more persuasive umbrella. A contentious text chat becomes screaming at someone. A sarcastic remark becomes an indication of zero empathy. A serious violation becomes a misunderstanding and is thus excusable.

28. Gaslighting

The term gaslighting, or being gaslit, I guess, has become a favorite and popular refrain among many. However, as with all terms appropriated for a trend, broadening its scope to situations where it doesn't apply has frustrated those who wish to use it appropriately. When gaslighting's scope is too broad, it becomes a signifier for a defensive emotion detached from its original meaning despite, unfortunately, not shedding that meaning when employed.

Gaslighting is an opaque denial of reality. It attempts to undermine the target's sanity by insisting that events that happened never happened or that events that never happened did. It's executed to avoid the consequences of what did happen or to intentionally break down the confidence of another in their own perceptions and reasoning. They are to be replaced by the manipulator's.

However, suppose someone states a perspective that puts you on the defensive, even if it's simply a different interpretation of the objective facts. In that case, it's convenient and attractively self-serving to accuse them of gaslighting, even if they are being accurate.

In reality, the opposition isn't "validating," or essentially agreeing wholeheartedly, with everything you think or feel. Observers, especially moral supporters, struggle to distinguish this when they aren't privy to the original context. When everyone's only concerned with your perspective, it stands to reason the opposition must be manipulating the past or the situation, so gaslighting fits the bill. Unfortunately, gaslighting carries the connotative weight of abuse and evokes memories of malicious intent in many, bypassing necessary critical observation.

In today's climate of convenient therapy terms that mean what you need them to mean, as put out by your favorite TikTok therapist, it's no wonder this term and concept is responsible for some of the most complex and sophisticated DARVO deployments. It's easily packaged into one malleable word, an accusation that doesn't require explanation. It instantly creates an unexamined and frequently unnecessary topology of conflict that balloons into lengthy and complex theses without anyone realizing that's what's happening.

29. Intimidation

Intimidation is the intentional cultivation of fear surrounding the manipulator through bravado, unsaid but understood ramifications of their responses, and plain threats. This strategy is exceptionally straightforward, and almost everyone can recognize it even when they don't immediately realize it's happening. And yet, it's also one of the most complex. What is the difference between intimidation and intimidating?

Unfair false flags occur if we drop context. Suppose someone can easily overwhelm just because they feel like it. In that case, it follows that worse will occur when they are motivated. This is intimidating, but that impression may exist naturally, not intentionally. Otherwise, we could consider the consequences of attacking a Navy Seal as opposed to a child, and end up identifying the Seal's strength as abuse by virtue of existing.

Intimidation is intentional, and because of that, it takes the form of threats. It's a purposeful but surreptitious flex to demonstrate concealed strength that would go unchallenged. It's a nod that something terrible will happen if the manipulator doesn't get his way. It's a veiled threat, like "it's a shame if something happens to your shiny new car," or a more direct one, "… or else I'll be forced to eliminate the problem."

They can be general, "I'm capable of incarcerating someone just because I don't like them," or specific, "I look forward to ruining your life." They can even be hinting insinuations, reinforced by it being a reaction or attached to a demand. All threats are usually exaggerated, but they never appear as such because of the unknown possibilities.

Intimidation is qualified by a threat of action whose sole purpose is to silence, oppress, and force others to do what the manipulator wants at the point of a metaphorical or literal gun. It cannot be nullified by stating that a threat of action isn't a threat. Consenting under duress isn't consent, but violation, and intimidation is instrumental in the initiation of violence requiring submission.

Even in opposition, a declaration of future action isn't automatically a threat. Likewise, strength without danger isn't intimidation; it's just intimidating and thus requires no special supervision.

30. Triangulation or Pot Stirring

Manipulators position themselves at the center of this dramatic game, playing two or more people, or sides, against each other by spreading lies, half-truths, or gossip. This tactic leads to division and conflict between the parties being manipulated, often resulting in fighting and discord that the manipulator can exploit for personal gain or power.

Triangulation may seem innocuous, but it can be devastating. Minor misunderstandings or lack of communication can result in decades-long estrangements over nothing, leaving the parties in tatters with regret.

Triangulation always risks getting out of hand. On every front, in the heart of the situation or from the outside, seemingly insignificant pot stirring can materialize into a highly charged and incendiary controversy constantly on the verge of erupting into scandal. But this would be considered a success!

The manipulator wishes for this to be the default irrevocable state. It will never fully recover; the damage is done, and the truth is replaced. Who will double-check or reify any of their beliefs when there isn't any benefit to doing so, only trouble? Why follow up on terrible claims from horrible haters when they only aim to destroy their now mythic and rallied-around foe, the great manipulator?

In online spaces, manipulators also have a tendency to employ alternate identities, impersonate others or to post under different usernames in order to create the illusion of, or increase the impression of, an escalation in two parts of a conflict.

Not An Exhaustive List

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it is a comprehensive listing of the most common manipulation tactics. It is important to understand in what context a claim to manipulative behavior is made.

Unfortunately, like gaslighting and narcissist, accusations of manipulation have recently gained an increased social momentum that makes them attractive. Countless talking heads on unvetted platforms like YouTube or TikTok are constantly handing out listicle-like soundbites illustrating simple tricks to defend your peace of mind against the black arts.

Those with personality disorders or other conditions resulting in even a semblance of anti-social behavior are branded malignant villainous narcissists who wish to use and abuse you in a sick covert game of sexual gratification.

It's a Satanic panic, sometimes even involving frightening imagery and hellish moral battles against an unknown nebulous cabal. In the reverse, they invoke power beyond dreams of avarice, teasing us with rebelliously sexy secrets of the 'masters in dark psychology.'

In that terminally online culture that seeps into our everyday consciousness now, who wants to be seen as manipulative? And who would throw around those accusations knowing their weight?

However, when a situation or a dialogue meets multiples of these criteria remarkably efficiently, especially when they are one-sided, it's more reasonable to conclude that the term is an honest observation rather than an unfounded and biased accusation meant to hurt by Occam's Razor alone. Sometimes, the observation requires expression.

Claims of manipulation are best supported by the standards of discourse, in which a claim is made and then supported by backing arguments of why the claim was made, pointing to concrete actions taken and words spoken.

But why make the observation? Telling someone they are manipulative isn't foolish or unnecessary, even if the individual is highly manipulative. It tells the manipulator that you are aware of what they are doing and indicates this awareness to others. This helpfully informs others, like a warning call, that they should be wary. It creates a concrete situation that provides an appropriate motivation for the guilty to stop what they're doing. Whether they do this is another matter.  As mentioned above, we are all capable of manipulation and of being manipulated at times- the important question is whether a person's default strategies for conflict resolution and interpersonal dynamics center around manipulation, at which point there is a concrete case for considering them manipulative. 

- M. Merryjest/A. Wolfstein