I see what you did there and no you cannot have a discount.
February 8, 2010 6:41 PM Subscribe
What would you call this style of psychological manipulation? And what are effective ways to respond to and neutralize it? A couple longish examples of said behavior inside.
Is there a term for the type of behavior in which one person manipulates another by creating a situation that is so uncomfortable that to maintain a facade of everything being ok, the victim ends up acquiescing to... whatever the manipulator is trying to get out of them?
Sorry for the vaguely-worded description, but I've personally encountered this a number of times, and I'm interested in finding out if there's an actual term I can use to reference it and if folks have known strategies for dealing with it. I think, in particular, it is often used by men against women, as many of them bank on women's social conditioning to be pleasant and non-confrontational, but I've known it to occur in other interactions as well. A couple examples to hopefully clarify what I'm referring to:
I have a friend who worked in cellphone customer service, and often dealt with customers bringing their broken phones in for a full refund and new phone. In many cases, he would be able to diagnose exactly why the phone was broken (immersion in water, impact, etc) and explaining this to the customer, they would claim that, contrary to evidence, the phone "just stopped working." He never really knew how to handle these situations without buckling, until finally he realized that they were the ones lying (egregiously!), and he was under no obligation to smooth over the interaction by pretending that that they were telling the truth and acting as though their cover story was perfectly plausible.
More recently I saw this happen in a lab class: the lab tables sat four, and on the first day of class our instructor specifically said that seats were not assigned, and that we would be rotating throughout the semester to work in different groups. I was sat at a full table and just as class was about to start, a girl came in and approached one of the girls at my table saying, "I think you're in my seat. Could you move?" Seated Girl had already unpacked all her stuff and was ready to start taking notes, but she didn't want to make scene and she didn't want to feel like a bitch if she was sitting in someone else's seat. She was stuck with a deer-in-headlights look, but the rest of us agreed that she should probably just stay put for the class, and Standing Girl went off in a bit of a huff to another table. After class, Seated Girl admitted that she was still worried that she had done something wrong, but felt a bit better when I broke it down for her that 1) it was not anyone in particular's seat, 2) a reasonable person could see that she had already settled in the seat and would move on elsewhere, and 3) it seemed that Standing Girl had created the situation in hopes that Seated Girl would submit to the demand, simply to diffuse the extreme awkwardness.
I think this is the type of manipulation that sociopaths excel at, but I don't know that all people who use these tactics could necessarily be described as sociopaths. Hivemind, what exactly does one call this behavior? And what is the best way to give it a polite-but-resounding smack-down?
Is there a term for the type of behavior in which one person manipulates another by creating a situation that is so uncomfortable that to maintain a facade of everything being ok, the victim ends up acquiescing to... whatever the manipulator is trying to get out of them?
Sorry for the vaguely-worded description, but I've personally encountered this a number of times, and I'm interested in finding out if there's an actual term I can use to reference it and if folks have known strategies for dealing with it. I think, in particular, it is often used by men against women, as many of them bank on women's social conditioning to be pleasant and non-confrontational, but I've known it to occur in other interactions as well. A couple examples to hopefully clarify what I'm referring to:
I have a friend who worked in cellphone customer service, and often dealt with customers bringing their broken phones in for a full refund and new phone. In many cases, he would be able to diagnose exactly why the phone was broken (immersion in water, impact, etc) and explaining this to the customer, they would claim that, contrary to evidence, the phone "just stopped working." He never really knew how to handle these situations without buckling, until finally he realized that they were the ones lying (egregiously!), and he was under no obligation to smooth over the interaction by pretending that that they were telling the truth and acting as though their cover story was perfectly plausible.
More recently I saw this happen in a lab class: the lab tables sat four, and on the first day of class our instructor specifically said that seats were not assigned, and that we would be rotating throughout the semester to work in different groups. I was sat at a full table and just as class was about to start, a girl came in and approached one of the girls at my table saying, "I think you're in my seat. Could you move?" Seated Girl had already unpacked all her stuff and was ready to start taking notes, but she didn't want to make scene and she didn't want to feel like a bitch if she was sitting in someone else's seat. She was stuck with a deer-in-headlights look, but the rest of us agreed that she should probably just stay put for the class, and Standing Girl went off in a bit of a huff to another table. After class, Seated Girl admitted that she was still worried that she had done something wrong, but felt a bit better when I broke it down for her that 1) it was not anyone in particular's seat, 2) a reasonable person could see that she had already settled in the seat and would move on elsewhere, and 3) it seemed that Standing Girl had created the situation in hopes that Seated Girl would submit to the demand, simply to diffuse the extreme awkwardness.
I think this is the type of manipulation that sociopaths excel at, but I don't know that all people who use these tactics could necessarily be described as sociopaths. Hivemind, what exactly does one call this behavior? And what is the best way to give it a polite-but-resounding smack-down?
I was also going to say that they're both minor forms of "gaslighting," particularly the first one.
Here are a few tips from this other page on gaslighting:
* Don't argue with a person who is fabricating the facts. Wait for them to return to reality before engaging them in a discussion and do it on YOUR terms - not theirs.
* Don't allow yourself to be isolated from others against our own better judgment. Insist on your right to have your own friends and family.
posted by salvia at 7:08 PM on February 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
Here are a few tips from this other page on gaslighting:
* Don't argue with a person who is fabricating the facts. Wait for them to return to reality before engaging them in a discussion and do it on YOUR terms - not theirs.
* Don't allow yourself to be isolated from others against our own better judgment. Insist on your right to have your own friends and family.
posted by salvia at 7:08 PM on February 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
I have a friend who worked in cellphone customer service... he finally realized... he was under no obligation to smooth over the interaction by pretending that that they were telling the truth and acting as though their cover story was perfectly plausible.
Well no, he wasn't. Not if he didn't mind being unemployed, anyway. Good customer service definitely involves going along with whatever ridiculous story the customer is telling. (I am sure there are many examples involving all the strange, soaped-up objects that people accidentally fall onto while in the shower. Tennis rackets, for example.)
But your examples just sound like what I'd very scientifically call "bluffing", and those who are acquiescing to it are either fooled by the bluff or (more likely) not willing to spend what it takes to call the person on it. Conflict avoidance.
posted by rokusan at 7:08 PM on February 8, 2010
Well no, he wasn't. Not if he didn't mind being unemployed, anyway. Good customer service definitely involves going along with whatever ridiculous story the customer is telling. (I am sure there are many examples involving all the strange, soaped-up objects that people accidentally fall onto while in the shower. Tennis rackets, for example.)
But your examples just sound like what I'd very scientifically call "bluffing", and those who are acquiescing to it are either fooled by the bluff or (more likely) not willing to spend what it takes to call the person on it. Conflict avoidance.
posted by rokusan at 7:08 PM on February 8, 2010
I believe that gaslighting requires an ongoing effort to undermine the victim's trust of their own memory/judgment. I don't think that's in play here.
posted by rokusan at 7:09 PM on February 8, 2010
posted by rokusan at 7:09 PM on February 8, 2010
What is this called? "Rudeness".
Or more simply, "Selfishness".
(Selfishness used to be considered a bad thing.)
posted by AsYouKnow Bob at 7:13 PM on February 8, 2010
Or more simply, "Selfishness".
(Selfishness used to be considered a bad thing.)
posted by AsYouKnow Bob at 7:13 PM on February 8, 2010
Best answer: Someone once explained it to me as breaking the "Social Contract" or using the "Social Contract" to someone's advantage.
I've never googled the term, so I don't know where they came up with the term. Whenever I use it in context, however, people know exactly what I mean.
"Sitting Girl, don't worry! Standing Girl was trying to use your fear of breaking the Social Contract to get you to move seats. Bullies often use this technique, and it's highly effective until the target realizes that the bully is actually the one breaking the Social Contract with their rude request!"
posted by jbenben at 7:19 PM on February 8, 2010 [9 favorites]
I've never googled the term, so I don't know where they came up with the term. Whenever I use it in context, however, people know exactly what I mean.
"Sitting Girl, don't worry! Standing Girl was trying to use your fear of breaking the Social Contract to get you to move seats. Bullies often use this technique, and it's highly effective until the target realizes that the bully is actually the one breaking the Social Contract with their rude request!"
posted by jbenben at 7:19 PM on February 8, 2010 [9 favorites]
Apparently, I really do have a goldfish memory! Read about Social Contract theories here.
posted by jbenben at 7:22 PM on February 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by jbenben at 7:22 PM on February 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I have unfortunately had a lot of experience with people like this. Here's one time that the sort of thing you're talking about (I think) happened to me.
I was once a teenager working at a cash register. An elderly couple came in and asked me for change for a $50, which I gave. Then the man put some of the bills in his pocket and asked me if I could exchange the rest of what I had given him, for different denominations, maybe all $5s or something like that. After I did that, he changed his mind, gave back some of what was in his pocket and what I had just given him, and asked for another combination of bills.
I was momentarily confused, and then it suddenly dawned on me that he might trying to make me confused. Luckily I kept real-time records of what I had in the cash register, so I asked him for all the money back, counted out alllllll the money in the register, and then gave him $50 back.
When I started counting out all the money in the register, even though I was really apologetic about it and framed it just as me being confused, his wife got really upset. She telling me how rude to them I was, asking what was I trying to say/imply about them, etc.
I felt bad, I felt like maybe I was reading too much into it all and insulting them. Later on I found out that they had pulled this sort of thing around town before.
I think there are people who don't have any kind of conscience, and mainly operate based on what they want, and what will make them look good. The only thing that will stop them is the prospect of looking bad, or the prospect of punishment.
I think in my example, what enabled them was my wanting to help them, assuming that I was at fault, and being apologetic. And they probably picked me because I seemed like I would act that way. And I think there's a reason they picked me instead of my boss at the time, a no-nonsense guy who wouldn't have put up with any odd behavior.
I think my mistake was acting/feeling as if I was the one in the wrong. My boss would have acted as if they were in the wrong. They would have looked bad to everyone around, and there was more of a chance my boss would call the cops on them more quickly.
So ... if the targets of this behavior are willing to sink to manipulation ... I think in a more social situation, acting as if the manipulative person is in the wrong in a way that makes them look bad is what would work.
posted by Ashley801 at 7:31 PM on February 8, 2010
I was once a teenager working at a cash register. An elderly couple came in and asked me for change for a $50, which I gave. Then the man put some of the bills in his pocket and asked me if I could exchange the rest of what I had given him, for different denominations, maybe all $5s or something like that. After I did that, he changed his mind, gave back some of what was in his pocket and what I had just given him, and asked for another combination of bills.
I was momentarily confused, and then it suddenly dawned on me that he might trying to make me confused. Luckily I kept real-time records of what I had in the cash register, so I asked him for all the money back, counted out alllllll the money in the register, and then gave him $50 back.
When I started counting out all the money in the register, even though I was really apologetic about it and framed it just as me being confused, his wife got really upset. She telling me how rude to them I was, asking what was I trying to say/imply about them, etc.
I felt bad, I felt like maybe I was reading too much into it all and insulting them. Later on I found out that they had pulled this sort of thing around town before.
I think there are people who don't have any kind of conscience, and mainly operate based on what they want, and what will make them look good. The only thing that will stop them is the prospect of looking bad, or the prospect of punishment.
I think in my example, what enabled them was my wanting to help them, assuming that I was at fault, and being apologetic. And they probably picked me because I seemed like I would act that way. And I think there's a reason they picked me instead of my boss at the time, a no-nonsense guy who wouldn't have put up with any odd behavior.
I think my mistake was acting/feeling as if I was the one in the wrong. My boss would have acted as if they were in the wrong. They would have looked bad to everyone around, and there was more of a chance my boss would call the cops on them more quickly.
So ... if the targets of this behavior are willing to sink to manipulation ... I think in a more social situation, acting as if the manipulative person is in the wrong in a way that makes them look bad is what would work.
posted by Ashley801 at 7:31 PM on February 8, 2010
Bulldozing?
I just stood in a college library and watched a student wearing earphones try to check out a book. The librarian explained that that book was non-circulating. "Huh?" the student asked. She clearly thought that if she stood there long enough holding up the line while pretending she either couldn't hear or didn't understand what the problem was, she would get to take the book out. It didn't work, but sadly the basic approach will work in lots of cases. People will give you what you want to make you go away. This is especially true where customer service is involved. People will go along with all kinds of crap to avoid complaints.
I agree that "playing dumb" and "intimidation" are often factors.
posted by BibiRose at 8:05 PM on February 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
I just stood in a college library and watched a student wearing earphones try to check out a book. The librarian explained that that book was non-circulating. "Huh?" the student asked. She clearly thought that if she stood there long enough holding up the line while pretending she either couldn't hear or didn't understand what the problem was, she would get to take the book out. It didn't work, but sadly the basic approach will work in lots of cases. People will give you what you want to make you go away. This is especially true where customer service is involved. People will go along with all kinds of crap to avoid complaints.
I agree that "playing dumb" and "intimidation" are often factors.
posted by BibiRose at 8:05 PM on February 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
A lot of social contract-type manipulation occurs when people come door-to-door to sell you something. If I had $5 for every time someone knocked on my door to say "Hi! The neighbors are trying to help me win a contest, would you----" "Does this involve me buying something?" "Uhhhh, yeah" "Not interested! (*close door quickly and urgently*)". I sort of feel like an asshole but door-to-door people are necessarily manipulative. The "Not interested! " combined with the suddenly closed door seems to work well for me.
When I'm really in a nice mood they get "Sorry, not interested!"
Oh, and this reminds me of one time I was in a grocery store, and a woman walks up to me, kind of... slowly and with intent, and asks me quite bluntly if I'm a Christian. I'm thinking "here it comes, she's going to ask for money, right here in the middle of the grocery store?!". I responded with a commanding "NO!" and she was nonplussed, mumbled something to me that sounded not-overtly-derogatory but that conveyed through intonation and tone of voice that she thought I was going to hell. I really don't think she expected that kind of response. I think I definitely avoided some manipulation there.
posted by marble at 8:18 PM on February 8, 2010
When I'm really in a nice mood they get "Sorry, not interested!"
Oh, and this reminds me of one time I was in a grocery store, and a woman walks up to me, kind of... slowly and with intent, and asks me quite bluntly if I'm a Christian. I'm thinking "here it comes, she's going to ask for money, right here in the middle of the grocery store?!". I responded with a commanding "NO!" and she was nonplussed, mumbled something to me that sounded not-overtly-derogatory but that conveyed through intonation and tone of voice that she thought I was going to hell. I really don't think she expected that kind of response. I think I definitely avoided some manipulation there.
posted by marble at 8:18 PM on February 8, 2010
Yeah, I'd call it a form of bullying too.
I don't think you can give a polite "smackdown". You can politely refuse to comply and let the offender embarrass themselves by making a scene, just as you did with Standing Girl. The offender's MO relies on your not wanting them to create a scene. In my experience, the normal bully will storm off if you keep your cool and stick to your guns -- it's the ones who are suddenly as nice as pie that you have to watch.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 8:38 PM on February 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
I don't think you can give a polite "smackdown". You can politely refuse to comply and let the offender embarrass themselves by making a scene, just as you did with Standing Girl. The offender's MO relies on your not wanting them to create a scene. In my experience, the normal bully will storm off if you keep your cool and stick to your guns -- it's the ones who are suddenly as nice as pie that you have to watch.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 8:38 PM on February 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
Well the two situations are pretty different IMO.
The first I would classify as straight-up "lying." The guy bringing back is actually in a position of weakness- he's going up against a huge corporation that he has little to no power against. A new phone is a tiny drop in the bucket to the company, but maybe a big expense to him. He's willing to try this obvious lie because he has almost nothing to lose, and he stands a pretty decent chance of success- because of the "customer is always right" mentality, plus the fact that the easiest way for the individual employee to deal with it is to just give in. He may also feel he is justified: "their stupid cheap phone broke when I dropped it, I deserve a new one."
The second is between peers, and the girl wanting the seat doesn't have a lot to lose by sitting somewhere else- she just wants that seat because she wants it, or maybe to humiliate the other girl. That one fits pretty well under "bullying."
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:44 PM on February 8, 2010
The first I would classify as straight-up "lying." The guy bringing back is actually in a position of weakness- he's going up against a huge corporation that he has little to no power against. A new phone is a tiny drop in the bucket to the company, but maybe a big expense to him. He's willing to try this obvious lie because he has almost nothing to lose, and he stands a pretty decent chance of success- because of the "customer is always right" mentality, plus the fact that the easiest way for the individual employee to deal with it is to just give in. He may also feel he is justified: "their stupid cheap phone broke when I dropped it, I deserve a new one."
The second is between peers, and the girl wanting the seat doesn't have a lot to lose by sitting somewhere else- she just wants that seat because she wants it, or maybe to humiliate the other girl. That one fits pretty well under "bullying."
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:44 PM on February 8, 2010
Best answer: Actually this reminds me of a term I invented back when I had roommates: "shitting on the floor." It means doing something so obviously awful that it's too awkward for the victim to even accuse you of it.
If you don't wash the dishes when it's your turn, you're probably gonna be busted, because your roomie is going to just come up holding a dirty fork and say "dude?"
But if you shit in the middle of the living room floor, he's probably going to quietly clean it up for you. Why? Because it's just too awkward to accuse someone of shitting on the floor.
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:52 PM on February 8, 2010 [4 favorites]
If you don't wash the dishes when it's your turn, you're probably gonna be busted, because your roomie is going to just come up holding a dirty fork and say "dude?"
But if you shit in the middle of the living room floor, he's probably going to quietly clean it up for you. Why? Because it's just too awkward to accuse someone of shitting on the floor.
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:52 PM on February 8, 2010 [4 favorites]
Yeah, I had something similar happen the other day. No big deal, just the way people are. I was sitting on the ferry and two seats down there was another person, so there were two free seats inbetween us. A young couple came up and stood around,looking at the two seats uncomfortably. The girl looked at me and said something like "We'd like to sit down." There were obviously two spare seats free. What she was saying was that she wanted ME to move down so they didn't have to sit between the two of us. I had a few things out that I would have had to pack up to make room and I really didn't see why I should have to anyway, so I indicated at the two spare seats and said "There you are." She looked at me a bit put out that I didn't shift on command and called her bluff on the 'social contract'. So that's my advice - call their bluff. When it becomes obvious you won't just give in to make life easier, the issue will go away. It's all petty but true. People can be annoying.
posted by Jubey at 9:58 PM on February 8, 2010 [5 favorites]
posted by Jubey at 9:58 PM on February 8, 2010 [5 favorites]
Bluffing?
posted by hermitosis at 10:13 PM on February 8, 2010
posted by hermitosis at 10:13 PM on February 8, 2010
Best answer: I recommend the excellent book Coping with Difficult People by Robert M. Bramson. He outlines several difficult personality types & how to deal with them.
There is a lot of psychological research in this area. Much of it was for a long time focused on how could ordinary citizens turn into monsters under the right conditions.
The Asch Conformity Experiment shows that people will change their opinion on something to go along with the group, despite knowing that they're wrong.
The Milgram Experiment shows that you can take ordinary citizens and have them do outrageous things as long as you allow them to abdicate responsibility to someone in a lab coat. Despite intense personal discomfort, they will follow instructions from an authority figure - even if it could potentially mean killing someone else.
The Kitty Genovese Murder, where onlookers did nothing, despite her screaming for help has lead to research that demonstrates that instead of saying "Someone call 911" you should point to a specific person and say "You, call 911" - because everyone else will wait for someone else to do it.
Professor Robert Cialdini's classic book Influence outlines a half dozen psychological principles that are used to manipulate others. He also recently put his name on the book Yes!, which features 50 scientifically proven methods for increasing the odds that people will do what you want them to do.
How do you break out of these patterns? Well the first book I linked to (Coping with Difficult People) has some ways to do it.
The Lucifer Effect, Philip Zimbardo (of Stanford Prison Experiment fame) explains that it's very difficult to separate the person from the situation. He has a fairly concise presentation of the material in this TED talk. (Actually, the book is giant & I knew much of what it would say, so I never managed to finish it - you may not want to delve into this book as a starting point for your research into social psychology).
The bottom line is, we want to conform. We want to fit in & when someone comes along presenting a version of reality that we know is false, it takes a great deal of skill & effort to reject the social reality.
You may want to look into the theory of Double Binds. Contradictory statements, also called Catch 22's, to which there is no right answer. I can't find the reference, but one of Bateson's proteges was developing theories & methods for ways to combat double binds. It's fascinating stuff.
Finally, you may want to explore the field of logical fallacies. Any number of these may be at work in these types of bald faced manipulations. Learn them. Learn how to counter them.
posted by MesoFilter at 10:36 PM on February 8, 2010 [42 favorites]
There is a lot of psychological research in this area. Much of it was for a long time focused on how could ordinary citizens turn into monsters under the right conditions.
The Asch Conformity Experiment shows that people will change their opinion on something to go along with the group, despite knowing that they're wrong.
The Milgram Experiment shows that you can take ordinary citizens and have them do outrageous things as long as you allow them to abdicate responsibility to someone in a lab coat. Despite intense personal discomfort, they will follow instructions from an authority figure - even if it could potentially mean killing someone else.
The Kitty Genovese Murder, where onlookers did nothing, despite her screaming for help has lead to research that demonstrates that instead of saying "Someone call 911" you should point to a specific person and say "You, call 911" - because everyone else will wait for someone else to do it.
Professor Robert Cialdini's classic book Influence outlines a half dozen psychological principles that are used to manipulate others. He also recently put his name on the book Yes!, which features 50 scientifically proven methods for increasing the odds that people will do what you want them to do.
How do you break out of these patterns? Well the first book I linked to (Coping with Difficult People) has some ways to do it.
The Lucifer Effect, Philip Zimbardo (of Stanford Prison Experiment fame) explains that it's very difficult to separate the person from the situation. He has a fairly concise presentation of the material in this TED talk. (Actually, the book is giant & I knew much of what it would say, so I never managed to finish it - you may not want to delve into this book as a starting point for your research into social psychology).
The bottom line is, we want to conform. We want to fit in & when someone comes along presenting a version of reality that we know is false, it takes a great deal of skill & effort to reject the social reality.
You may want to look into the theory of Double Binds. Contradictory statements, also called Catch 22's, to which there is no right answer. I can't find the reference, but one of Bateson's proteges was developing theories & methods for ways to combat double binds. It's fascinating stuff.
Finally, you may want to explore the field of logical fallacies. Any number of these may be at work in these types of bald faced manipulations. Learn them. Learn how to counter them.
posted by MesoFilter at 10:36 PM on February 8, 2010 [42 favorites]
From your description, the Standing Girl is what I would refer to as an "idiot". She stands up in front of four people and makes a ridiculous, unfair demand--let's say she gets what she wants, the girl gets up and gives her the seat. What happens next? Now she's sitting with three people--that she expects to work with!--who are now looking at each other, thinking "Wow! Psycho..."
So then she would have gained something incredibly trivial at a very high cost of permanently alienating three people. I would consider this aggressive cluelessness, not secret Evil Ninja social mastery.
In reality, giving in to her demand might be the most damaging to her, as long as you held your ground long enough for her to raise the stakes a bit. At that point, you make it clear to all observers that even though it's completely unreasonable, you'll give up the seat just spare everyone else the awkwardness. Now the trap is set: if she accepts the seat, she has ill-gotten gains and looks bad. But backing down is tantamount to admitting that she had no rightful claim on the seat to begin with, which also looks bad.
But, you'd have a truly clueless person on your hands for that to be it, and that doesn't seem consistent with the tentative faux-politeness of the request ("I think you're in my seat. Could you move?") Had she been sitting there earlier? Or have some kind of other claim on the chair? If so, she could just be extremely entitled, or be using the situation as a pretext to display dominance.
posted by AlsoMike at 11:26 PM on February 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
So then she would have gained something incredibly trivial at a very high cost of permanently alienating three people. I would consider this aggressive cluelessness, not secret Evil Ninja social mastery.
In reality, giving in to her demand might be the most damaging to her, as long as you held your ground long enough for her to raise the stakes a bit. At that point, you make it clear to all observers that even though it's completely unreasonable, you'll give up the seat just spare everyone else the awkwardness. Now the trap is set: if she accepts the seat, she has ill-gotten gains and looks bad. But backing down is tantamount to admitting that she had no rightful claim on the seat to begin with, which also looks bad.
But, you'd have a truly clueless person on your hands for that to be it, and that doesn't seem consistent with the tentative faux-politeness of the request ("I think you're in my seat. Could you move?") Had she been sitting there earlier? Or have some kind of other claim on the chair? If so, she could just be extremely entitled, or be using the situation as a pretext to display dominance.
posted by AlsoMike at 11:26 PM on February 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
McNulty did this constantly in The Wire. I humbly submit we call it "The McNulty".
posted by quadog at 12:01 AM on February 9, 2010
posted by quadog at 12:01 AM on February 9, 2010
Response by poster: jbenben - I really like the idea of breaking the social contract. I would almost say that we could call it gaming the social contract, as the victim (or whatever) is induced to do whatever it takes to maintain the equilibrium of the contract, at their expense.
Ashley801 - right on, this is pretty much what I'm talking about. Actually, this exact scenario once happened to me too while working a cash register.
drjimmy11 - "Shitting on the floor." This is epic. I might have to steal this.
Mesofilter - awesome resources, thank you! I will check these out. This in addition to pwally's Wikipedia link (not sure how that slipped past me) will give me plenty to read.
I kind of want to elaborate on my first example. As many of my job descriptions have revolved around "powerless service industry lackey," I understand the value of suspending your disbelief with a customer, and I don't want to impugn my cellphone kiosk friend by suggesting that he, upon revelation, simply became rude with his customers.
That is to say, when a remark like "It looks like it's been submerged" was met with an immediate and belligerent "You calling me a fuckin' liar??" he learned to not to fold under pressure but to reply with "Sir, I do not mean to call you a liar, but the evidence that I can see seems to contradict what you've told me. At this point, [this] and [that] are things I would be happy to do for you, but unfortunately I'm not able to give you a free phone/cash/the shirt off my back."
Thanks for all your thoughts so far and keep 'em coming if there's more to be had!
posted by hegemone at 5:02 AM on February 9, 2010
Ashley801 - right on, this is pretty much what I'm talking about. Actually, this exact scenario once happened to me too while working a cash register.
drjimmy11 - "Shitting on the floor." This is epic. I might have to steal this.
Mesofilter - awesome resources, thank you! I will check these out. This in addition to pwally's Wikipedia link (not sure how that slipped past me) will give me plenty to read.
I kind of want to elaborate on my first example. As many of my job descriptions have revolved around "powerless service industry lackey," I understand the value of suspending your disbelief with a customer, and I don't want to impugn my cellphone kiosk friend by suggesting that he, upon revelation, simply became rude with his customers.
That is to say, when a remark like "It looks like it's been submerged" was met with an immediate and belligerent "You calling me a fuckin' liar??" he learned to not to fold under pressure but to reply with "Sir, I do not mean to call you a liar, but the evidence that I can see seems to contradict what you've told me. At this point, [this] and [that] are things I would be happy to do for you, but unfortunately I'm not able to give you a free phone/cash/the shirt off my back."
Thanks for all your thoughts so far and keep 'em coming if there's more to be had!
posted by hegemone at 5:02 AM on February 9, 2010
In the first example, I'd call it "scamming". I don't think it qualifies as "social manipulation" so much as "blatant attempts at thievery". The person trying to snow your customer service friend knows they broke the phone and is simply looking to get a replacement for free. Your friend's reaction to that kind of thing would depend on company policy. Some companies hold a customer-is-always-right position and replace the phone. Other companies empower their employees to take a harder line. Your friend should talk to a supervisor and find out exactly how he's supposed to respond in those situations.
In the second example, it sounds like plain old bullying to me. Standing Girl was trying to intimidate Seated Girl into giving her the seat. It didn't work because the group supported Seated Girl, but if Seated Girl had been alone it sounds like she would have acquiesced. That's bullying.
And yeah, sociopaths are often both bullies and scammers, but of course not all bullies and scammers are sociopaths. No need to gussy up a behavior that used to just be referred to as "being an asshole".
posted by balls at 8:48 AM on February 9, 2010
In the second example, it sounds like plain old bullying to me. Standing Girl was trying to intimidate Seated Girl into giving her the seat. It didn't work because the group supported Seated Girl, but if Seated Girl had been alone it sounds like she would have acquiesced. That's bullying.
And yeah, sociopaths are often both bullies and scammers, but of course not all bullies and scammers are sociopaths. No need to gussy up a behavior that used to just be referred to as "being an asshole".
posted by balls at 8:48 AM on February 9, 2010
Milgram did an interesting experiment that is similar to to the situation you talk about with the seats and girls. He got his students to go on the subway and ask people if they would give up their seat because they would like to sit down. A New York Times article on the experiment is here.
A few interesting points about the experiment- most people who were asked to give up their seats did so. Also, the people doing the asking felt extremely uncomfortable- one reported feeling like they wanted to throw up. This does indicate that the sorts of people who violate these 'Social Norms' either know exactly what they are doing or have some sort of sociopathic disorder.
posted by Caius Marcius at 11:18 AM on February 9, 2010 [2 favorites]
A few interesting points about the experiment- most people who were asked to give up their seats did so. Also, the people doing the asking felt extremely uncomfortable- one reported feeling like they wanted to throw up. This does indicate that the sorts of people who violate these 'Social Norms' either know exactly what they are doing or have some sort of sociopathic disorder.
posted by Caius Marcius at 11:18 AM on February 9, 2010 [2 favorites]
That is to say, when a remark like "It looks like it's been submerged" was met with an immediate and belligerent "You calling me a fuckin' liar??" he learned to not to fold under pressure but to reply with "Sir, I do not mean to call you a liar, but the evidence that I can see seems to contradict what you've told me. At this point, [this] and [that] are things I would be happy to do for you, but unfortunately I'm not able to give you a free phone/cash/the shirt off my back."
Many customer service reps will use the F word (or any cursing) as a reason to stop talking to the customer immediately. My wife learned this the hard way.
I have to admit, when dealing with large faceless corporations, I have used "feigning confusion" quite a bit. However, when I do it, it is with the utmost civility and an attempt to commiserate with the "powerless service industry lackey." And if they do call me on it, usually by explaining why they can't help me, I would ask them if they can do it as a one time courtesy. This works especially well when I've been a long time customer.
I'm not sure that large faceless corporations (especially those in the health care industry, which where the vast majority of my customer service interactions take place) observe any sort of social contract. So I don't think I'm violating anything by trying to get whatever I can from them. The fact that common courtesy works much better than ranting and cursing makes it all the better.
posted by cjets at 1:56 PM on February 9, 2010
Many customer service reps will use the F word (or any cursing) as a reason to stop talking to the customer immediately. My wife learned this the hard way.
I have to admit, when dealing with large faceless corporations, I have used "feigning confusion" quite a bit. However, when I do it, it is with the utmost civility and an attempt to commiserate with the "powerless service industry lackey." And if they do call me on it, usually by explaining why they can't help me, I would ask them if they can do it as a one time courtesy. This works especially well when I've been a long time customer.
I'm not sure that large faceless corporations (especially those in the health care industry, which where the vast majority of my customer service interactions take place) observe any sort of social contract. So I don't think I'm violating anything by trying to get whatever I can from them. The fact that common courtesy works much better than ranting and cursing makes it all the better.
posted by cjets at 1:56 PM on February 9, 2010
The student of Bateson's that studied double blinds was probably Jay Haley, but I don't think he published much on the subject. The best author on double blinds is Paul Watzlawick.
-----
This type of behavior seems very similar to a salesman using silence at the end of a presentation to pressure the prospect into making the purchase. It's inducing a sense of awkwardness, or even better confusion, with one apparent way out which just so happens to align with the instigator's motives.
posted by BigSky at 6:39 PM on February 9, 2010
-----
This type of behavior seems very similar to a salesman using silence at the end of a presentation to pressure the prospect into making the purchase. It's inducing a sense of awkwardness, or even better confusion, with one apparent way out which just so happens to align with the instigator's motives.
posted by BigSky at 6:39 PM on February 9, 2010
That is to say, when a remark like "It looks like it's been submerged" was met with an immediate and belligerent "You calling me a fuckin' liar??" he learned to not to fold under pressure but to reply with "Sir, I do not mean to call you a liar, but the evidence that I can see seems to contradict what you've told me. At this point, [this] and [that] are things I would be happy to do for you, but unfortunately I'm not able to give you a free phone/cash/the shirt off my back."
The customer is being a bully, this is no different from "Give me your lunch money." At the end of the day he's threatening you with violence. He wants to put into your mind this possible scenario-
Customer: Are you calling me a fucking liar?
Employee: Yeah I am calling you a fucking liar.
C: Who the fuck do you think you are? Do you know who I am? Do you know who I am?
E: I don't give a fuck who you are.
etc. Joe Pesche in Goodfellas shoots the employees kneecaps off and gets a new phone.
Since you want to avoid escalation to violence or lose your job, you acquiesce. The situation - you as customer service rep (everything to lose - your job, etc.), and them as customer ("the customer is always right"), and with them belligerent enough to make you believe they'll keep escalating until you will lose their job or get into a fist fight - dictates a lot of how we behave.
You're performing the role of someone in customer service. They're performing the role of a belligerent customer. The actions in those situations are somewhat circumscribed.
This clip of Bill O'Reilly attacking someone whose parent died in 9/11 is brilliant. The guy really holds his own against a world-class asshole. Here's a bit about what went into it.
Games People Play is a fun, somewhat goofy read.
Indeed, it's a great book.
Of the books I recommended, the first one - Coping with Difficult People is the least theoretical & the most hands-on practical. I recommend it to someone who really does have to deal with these people.
Bulldozing?
Interestingly, Bulldozer is the name of one of the categories of Difficult People in Bramson's book.
Take the Kitty Genovese incident illustrates bystander effect which is not in evidence in the girl/seat incident. Bystanders--including you--did come to her aid.
I never said it had directly to do with what he was talking about, I was merely using it as an example of situationalism - that people are affected by situations more than by their own internal motivations. Bystanders perform the role of bystander and it's tough to break out of it into the role of someone who helps.
Take Zimbardo with a teaspoon of salt. You might learn much from criticisms of his work. His point about situational behavior is a good one but his experiments are not necessariLy good science and he was not the most ethical.
I've read at least one criticism of Zimbardo, there may be others. Even if you don't agree with Zimbardo, surely you agree with Milgram. I've also seen Quiet Rage, probably available on YouTube, and while you can doubt Zimbardo's techniques, partiality, and even his own personal involvement in the escalation of events, but it's difficult to doubt the body language of those who participated as they talk about their ordeal. If you've seen the Milgram videos too (many of which use actors because he original participants don't want their likenesses on camera), you can see the body language as they squirm, but keep going forward and inducing greater & greater electric shocks - even past the point where they think the guy might be dead.
Milgram did an interesting experiment that is similar to to the situation you talk about with the seats and girls. He got his students to go on the subway and ask people if they would give up their seat because they would like to sit down. A New York Times article on the experiment is here.
Robert Cialdini (I linked to his book above) performed a similar experiment (probably inspired by Milgram's) with a library photocopier. The short version is, if you supplied a plausible sounding reason you needed to cut in front of them on line for the photocopier, more people let you do it, but if the reason was too glib, it backfired. "Because" is a bit of a magic word.
Also worth noting is the discomfort at being asked to do this experiment. Behavior on the NYC subway is governed by certain rules, and it's real tough to break out of those rules. One of the only times I saw it happen en-masse was post 9/11 when people started talking to each other. Otherwise, just like on the highway, our behavior is governed by what's socially acceptable on the subway - and since this often involves competing for scarce resources (seats) it's often license to be an asshole, in the same way that driving turns us into assholes.
Just a thought - one way you could deal with this problem is to change the setup before the customer ever walks through the door. Bullies tend to pick their battles based on the ones they think that are easily won. If you walk around looking like a CEO, people assume you're a CEO. If you walk around in a blue polo and kakhis, people make another kind of assumption about you. Grow a ZZ Top beard and wear a leather jacket and and people treat you a bit differently (like a biker).
Experiments carried out by John T. Molloy (Dress for Success, Live for Success) bear this out. Robert Ringer also wrote an excellent book on how perception is everything in business. The title says it all (hint: "through" is a double entendre meaning both "using" and "in spite of").
posted by MesoFilter at 12:26 AM on February 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
The customer is being a bully, this is no different from "Give me your lunch money." At the end of the day he's threatening you with violence. He wants to put into your mind this possible scenario-
Customer: Are you calling me a fucking liar?
Employee: Yeah I am calling you a fucking liar.
C: Who the fuck do you think you are? Do you know who I am? Do you know who I am?
E: I don't give a fuck who you are.
etc. Joe Pesche in Goodfellas shoots the employees kneecaps off and gets a new phone.
Since you want to avoid escalation to violence or lose your job, you acquiesce. The situation - you as customer service rep (everything to lose - your job, etc.), and them as customer ("the customer is always right"), and with them belligerent enough to make you believe they'll keep escalating until you will lose their job or get into a fist fight - dictates a lot of how we behave.
You're performing the role of someone in customer service. They're performing the role of a belligerent customer. The actions in those situations are somewhat circumscribed.
This clip of Bill O'Reilly attacking someone whose parent died in 9/11 is brilliant. The guy really holds his own against a world-class asshole. Here's a bit about what went into it.
Games People Play is a fun, somewhat goofy read.
Indeed, it's a great book.
Of the books I recommended, the first one - Coping with Difficult People is the least theoretical & the most hands-on practical. I recommend it to someone who really does have to deal with these people.
Bulldozing?
Interestingly, Bulldozer is the name of one of the categories of Difficult People in Bramson's book.
Take the Kitty Genovese incident illustrates bystander effect which is not in evidence in the girl/seat incident. Bystanders--including you--did come to her aid.
I never said it had directly to do with what he was talking about, I was merely using it as an example of situationalism - that people are affected by situations more than by their own internal motivations. Bystanders perform the role of bystander and it's tough to break out of it into the role of someone who helps.
Take Zimbardo with a teaspoon of salt. You might learn much from criticisms of his work. His point about situational behavior is a good one but his experiments are not necessariLy good science and he was not the most ethical.
I've read at least one criticism of Zimbardo, there may be others. Even if you don't agree with Zimbardo, surely you agree with Milgram. I've also seen Quiet Rage, probably available on YouTube, and while you can doubt Zimbardo's techniques, partiality, and even his own personal involvement in the escalation of events, but it's difficult to doubt the body language of those who participated as they talk about their ordeal. If you've seen the Milgram videos too (many of which use actors because he original participants don't want their likenesses on camera), you can see the body language as they squirm, but keep going forward and inducing greater & greater electric shocks - even past the point where they think the guy might be dead.
Milgram did an interesting experiment that is similar to to the situation you talk about with the seats and girls. He got his students to go on the subway and ask people if they would give up their seat because they would like to sit down. A New York Times article on the experiment is here.
Robert Cialdini (I linked to his book above) performed a similar experiment (probably inspired by Milgram's) with a library photocopier. The short version is, if you supplied a plausible sounding reason you needed to cut in front of them on line for the photocopier, more people let you do it, but if the reason was too glib, it backfired. "Because" is a bit of a magic word.
Also worth noting is the discomfort at being asked to do this experiment. Behavior on the NYC subway is governed by certain rules, and it's real tough to break out of those rules. One of the only times I saw it happen en-masse was post 9/11 when people started talking to each other. Otherwise, just like on the highway, our behavior is governed by what's socially acceptable on the subway - and since this often involves competing for scarce resources (seats) it's often license to be an asshole, in the same way that driving turns us into assholes.
Just a thought - one way you could deal with this problem is to change the setup before the customer ever walks through the door. Bullies tend to pick their battles based on the ones they think that are easily won. If you walk around looking like a CEO, people assume you're a CEO. If you walk around in a blue polo and kakhis, people make another kind of assumption about you. Grow a ZZ Top beard and wear a leather jacket and and people treat you a bit differently (like a biker).
Experiments carried out by John T. Molloy (Dress for Success, Live for Success) bear this out. Robert Ringer also wrote an excellent book on how perception is everything in business. The title says it all (hint: "through" is a double entendre meaning both "using" and "in spite of").
posted by MesoFilter at 12:26 AM on February 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
I noticed this kind of conversational bullying all the time in the televised debates leading up to the election in November of 2008. I had a bit of a breakthrough personally when I learned that you can shrug off the dominant position that your debate partner's is trying to assert just by denying/refuting/questioning the premise s/he's arguing from.
For example, Candidate A might aggressively say to Candidate B:
"Your proposed changes to the federal budget include cuts in defense spending and an increase in federal spending on the sciences. Why do you want to take taxpayers' money away from our hard-working American soldiers and give it to people who study fruit flies?"
Candidate B can succeed in responding to this question only if s/he can remain calm and refuse to answer the question as stated. Instead, s/he has to reject the premise ("this candidate is taking the soldiers' money and giving it to the insects") as currently posed and propose another one in its place; Candidate B can go about this in a number of ways. There's a decent article here that addresses "refuting the premise" with an illustration about rattlesnake eggs.
posted by AngerBoy at 9:49 PM on February 10, 2010
For example, Candidate A might aggressively say to Candidate B:
"Your proposed changes to the federal budget include cuts in defense spending and an increase in federal spending on the sciences. Why do you want to take taxpayers' money away from our hard-working American soldiers and give it to people who study fruit flies?"
Candidate B can succeed in responding to this question only if s/he can remain calm and refuse to answer the question as stated. Instead, s/he has to reject the premise ("this candidate is taking the soldiers' money and giving it to the insects") as currently posed and propose another one in its place; Candidate B can go about this in a number of ways. There's a decent article here that addresses "refuting the premise" with an illustration about rattlesnake eggs.
posted by AngerBoy at 9:49 PM on February 10, 2010
« Older Applying for citizienship and getting married to a... | How do we make Joey a more socialized, better... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by pwally at 6:48 PM on February 8, 2010 [1 favorite]