Taking care of your anger

When you say something unkind, when you do something in retaliation, your anger increases. You make the other person suffer, and they try hard to say or do something back to make you suffer, and get relief from their suffering. That is how conflict escalates. Just like our organs, our anger is part of us. When we are angry, we have to go back to ourselves and take good care of our anger. We cannot say, ‘Go away, anger, I don’t want you.’ When you have a  stomachache, you don’t say, ‘I don’t want you stomach, go away.’ No, you take care of it. In the same way, we have to embrace and take good care of our anger. - Thich Nhat Hanh

The one thing that continues to make life unbearable after you've escaped the nightmare of an abusive relationship is the tricks your own mind plays.  We become conditioned by our environment to react in certain ways, and in an abusive relationship our mind is in siege mode. This is what your abuser intended, it makes us easier to control. We find ourselves doubting our own thoughts, double thinking gut feelings and being so confused we can't make decisions, we feel sick to the stomach when we have to interact with our abuser.  Worst of all, we feel a deep sense of rage at the injustice done to us.  This rage can be self-destructive and we need to learn how to deal with and subdue it.  These are techniques that have worked for me.

NLP: Neuro-Linguistic Programming.  Guided meditation and relaxation music.  Great for taking you out of yourself and forcing you to stop doing things for others for half an hour.  NLP works on a subconscious level so even if you find it silly and feel cynical about the process as I did, the affirmations still implant positive thoughts about yourself into your subcsonsconscious, helping stop 'automatic thoughts'.  My fave is Bob Griswold of Effective Learning Systems "Conquering Fears and Anxiety".

Stopping automatic thoughts:  what you get when you see an email in your inbox from your abuser, or when you know you've got to see them soon.  Mine go something like: "Oh no, what does he say I've done wrong now?  Maybe I did do something wrong, what was it?  Maybe I didn't _____(insert personal fear here)". Physiological response follows (increased heart rate, sweating, nausea).  Stopping automatic thoughts is key to reducing your anxiety and anger.  You can distract yourself until the cows come home, but examining automatic thoughts and combating them with logic and humour work best for me: "What do I care what he says about me?  I know he lies to get what he wants and he's no prize pig.  Hell, I've been assessed by Child Protection as a good parent, thanks to his meddling.  I know I'm a good parent, my kids love me and are happy. Yeah, I rock. I totally rock!  He's just trying to manipulate me."  More often than not, once you reread what was said, or calm yourself before you do, you will find that it's a lot easier to ignore any insults your abuser might say or imply.  You might also find that you are projecting your own fears about yourself into the words.

Stopping projection:  Part of the reason we become imbroiled in unresolved conflict is projection on both sides!  Yes, me too!  We all tend to judge others by our own experiences, how we would think in their shoes helps us predict what might happen next .  This is a useful evolutionary tool, but doesn't help us when dealing with abusers.  Projecting our fears or problems we have onto others lead us to beleive: 1.  that others are as capable of good/reasonableness as we are, 2. that others are as incapable of evil as we are.  Projection is like mind reading, not a realistic assessment of the other person's motives.  Best bet is you can't read another's mind, especially an abusive person, so don't try.  It is a source of automatic thoughts.

Debreifing:  Find a person to talk to after a traumatic emotional event.  A close friend or a counsellor.  A journal is also a good place for your more crazy thoughts.  I wrote one for six months after breaking up with my abuser. Reading it years later, I can see how angry and confused I was, still thinking that the relationship could be saved and that I had done something wrong. It shows you how much progress you have made in coping and lets you safely express and examine those thoughts that might fuel your resentment and anger if you repress them.

Reading: I am a big fan of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and especially Rational-Emotive Behaviour Therapy. Both you can try without needing a counsellor.  REBT's icon is Albert Ellis, and I recommend reading his "A Guide to Rational Living".  Timeless advice to help you examine your irrational thoughts that trigger anxiety. Another great read is Martin Seligman's ongoing experiment in happiness "Authentic Happiness" http://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/Default.aspx

If you are of a more spiritual or philosophical bent, try Thich Nhat Hahn's writing's on anger: "Anger: Wisdom for cooling the flames" http://www.amazon.com/Anger-Cooling-Thich-Nhat-Hanh/dp/1573229377  He also writes about happiness from a Buddhist perspective, but more practical and worldly than some spiritual writings.

Remmber that, no matter what your abuser says or does to try to control you or destroy you, you are the one with integrity. In the end, you have to expect nothing but the worst from them.  The anxiety comes from expecting them to be reasonable, fair and genuine. That's not going to happen. It's hard to accept, but it's the bottom line. Take all threats and promises with several grains of salt!

You'll survive, you've got integrity and honesty, something an abuser can never understand or have. You can grow as a person by surviving adversity. While your abuser will keep repeating the same pattern of relationship disaster and abuse, we survivors have a chance to recognize and move beyond our problems.

Feelings you don't acknowledge can control you. Learning to cope with feelings of anger and resolve them lead to greater peace within yourself and the world in general.  Finally I'll leave you with the sage words of Thich Nhat Hanh:

When we embrace anger and take good care of our anger, we obtain relief. We can look deeply into it and gain many insights. One of the first insights may be that the seed of anger in us has grown too big, and is the main cause of our misery. As we begin to see this reality, we realize that the other person, whom our anger is directed at, is only a secondary cause. The other person is not the real cause of our anger.

(If you are still in doubt as to whether you were the victim of abuse I suggest you look at the Duluth Model and bear in mind that not all abuse need involved physical violence.)

The Violence Connection

One of the most dangerous things that can happen to a child is to kill or torture an animal and get away with it. - Anthropologist Margaret Mead

The link between animal cruelty and interpersonal violence is now well recognised.  Perpetrators of domestic violence often harm or threaten pets as a means of control.  Many murderers and serial killers have childhood records of animal cruelty.

Violent acts are reinforced, since the murderers either are able to express rage without experiencing negative consequences or are impervious to any prohibitions against these actions. Second, impulsive and erratic behavior discourages friendships, increasing isolation...there is no challenge to the offenders' beliefs that they are entitled to act the way they do" (Ressler in Scott 2000). Torturing animals and setting fires will eventually escalate to crimes against fellow human beings, if the pattern is not somehow broken. Torturing animals is a disturbing red flag. Animals are often seen as "practice" for killing humans. Ed Kemper buried the family cat alive, dug it up, and cut off its head. Dahmer was notorious for his animal cruelty, cutting off dogs heads and placing them on a stick behind his house. (Scott 2000)

The evidence linking animal abuse perpetrated as a child and serial killers is compelling. FBI and Scotland Yard recognize that violence towards animals is one of five key indicators of a person who will commit violent acts against people.

Animal abusers often suffer from low self-esteem, a history of family abuse, frustration and an inability to manage anger. Childhood cruelty may provide a child with a sense of power and mastery over animals. Typical factors are revenge, retaliation, intimidation, deviant arousal or peer pressure. In one American study, 118 out of 135 criminals, including robbers and rapists, admitted that when they were children, they had burned, hanged and stabbed domestic animals. 78% of 63 people charged with animal cruelty had also been charged with violence or threats of violence against people (Jim McIsaac, Winnipeg Police Services, 1999).

However, there is less correlation of animal abuse with mass murders like Martin Bryant who slayed 35 people at Port Arthur in Tasmania in 1999, or the many college killings of recent years in the US. Mass murders are often the product of a series of events seeming to conspire against the perpetrator, against which he has felt powerless, culminatng in an explosion of retribution. Psychiatrist Professor Paul Mullen identifies the 'mass murderer' as "typically young, male and isolated, and usually has experienced some loss of face or humiliation" (Mullen 1997). However, in the Western world , he said, multiple killings usually occurred within domestic situations, typically where a depressed or morbidly jealous male killed his partner and children, then committed suicide.

Serial killers act not in anger, but with forethought and often plan their crimes over a sustained period. They are emotionally dulled, and often perceive others as less-than-human so not deserving compassion - which in any case they are often unable to give not having learnt it as children. They are frequently unrepentant about their crimes. Indeed their prime motivation seems to be possession of and complete power over the victim. Mike DeBardeleben, a sadist who is spending the balance of his days in prison for crimes as various as counterfeiting and rape-abduction, possession meant a live victim, suffering under his control. DeBardeleben wrote in his private journal: "There is no greater power over another person than that of inflicting pain on her, to force her to undergo suffering without her being able to defend herself. The pleasure in the constant domination over another person is the very essence of the sadistic drive."

While the actions of serial killers are extreme, violence tends to run on a continuum and percursor events that make violence an accepted way of acting contribute to further violent acts. Witnessing, being a victim of and then perpetrating violence tend to follow if the cycle is not broken. Domestic violence is often treated as a separate issue from animal cruelty, despite the recognised connections. Many women cite fear for their pets (as well as their children) as a barrier to escaping a violent relationship. In one survey in Wisconsin as many as 88% of women fleeing a violent situation to a women's shelter said their partner had inflicted violence on thier pets and often these acts were carried out in front of the children.

The Humane Society U.S. and the RSPCA in Australia both now recognise the need to recognise childhood cruelty to animals as a precursor to human violence later in life. [5] Stopping childhood violence towards animals is now seen as a way to prevent domestic violence in adulthood. So too many animal welfare agencies offer pet care programs or pet-friendly accomodation for women seeking to leave an abusive situation.

Humane Society US | RSPCA Australia | RSPCA UK

National Institute of Mental Health: Children and Violence

Parenting style and happiness

When you have children you can expect everyone you know (and a lot of people you don't!) to have opinions about how you should raise them. Parenting styles can be predictive of the kind of person your child grows up to be, so it is important to think about what you are doing and where you might have learned your 'natural' parenting skills. It is important to remember that neither nature nor nurture are entirely repsonsible for your behaviour, and it is possible to change course when you recognise where you'd rather be as a parent.

The three most recognised parenting styles have been classified by developmental psychologists as 'authoritarian', 'permissive' and 'democratic'. Other classification systems use 'authoritative', 'authoritarian', 'indulgent' and 'neglectful'. While neither system is set in stone and ther is considerable overlap, both rely on indentifying characteristics of parent-child interaction which include: levels of affection, methods of discipline and control, expectations and communication styles.

'Authoritarian' parenting is very much parent-directed and involves the expectation that rules will be obeyed. It is characterised as less affectionate than other parenting styles and parental communcation style is directive. The child may grown up with a very distinct idea of their place in the world, but with little sense that they have any control over their lives. John Bowlby's attachement theory would describe such children as either avoidant or anxiously attached, as they may have experienced non-existent or inconsistent affection and thus not been able to rely on their parents in times of need. Authoritarian parenting may in extreme result in abusive behaviour when physical discipline is the mode of control. The ends result may be an obedient child on the surface, but fear and deception of the parent will occur.

'Permissive' parenting is the opposite. It is very much child-directed (or Indulgent) or when dysfunctional is neglectful. Paradoxically, this style of child-rearing can also result in a child that has no sense of control over thier life because no guidelines for successful social intergration have been supplied, or have been inconsistent. Similarly, it may result in insecure attachment styles. Permissive parenting can be regarded as abusive when it results in neglect of the child's safety and growth needs. The child may grow up with little self-control and as a result, be unhappy. When the parent has also been neglectful, the child may also have low self-esteem.

'Democratic' parenting is above all resepectful of the needs of the child. children can have a say in their lives when it is appropriate, but parents must lead when safety or lack of experience is an issue. It is characterised by affectionate relationships and provides a secure base from which a child can explore the world. This style of parenting gives a child more sense of control over their own lives. Under Bowlby's nomenclature, the child is securely attached. Democratic parenting lead to children with good self-esteem who are capable and respectful of others.

What's your parenting style?
http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/quizzes/l/bl_prnt_style.htm
http://www.drphil.com/articles/article/154

What is Indigenous Psychology?

From Terra Nullius to recent trends towards self-determination and land rights, Australia's indigenous people have been variously declared non-existent, treated as animals and savages, dispossessed of their homelands, deprived of their language and culture, forced to become Christians and separated from their loved ones. Even in more enlightened times today, it is assumed that indigenous peoples need supervision and 'intervention' and that they lack the skills to look after themselves. These practices, and the inherent racism that underlies them, have had far-reaching and continuing psychological effects which must be recognised to understand the pressures that shape their lives today. But so too is the concept of resilience, and this provides a way out of the mire of past iniquities. Although history is not destiny, it is important to realise how it shapes the world of indigenous Australians today.

The period of initial contact from 1788 onwards was marked by the assumed superiority of the invaders cultural and economic needs. Land conflicts developed quickly between indigenous people and squatters. Many atrocities occurred in this period where attempts were made to not only eradicate indigenous culture, but the people themselves. Colonisers assumed the inferiority of the 'savages' and saw fit to kill them with guns, poisoning waterholes or by purposely giving them diseases. Christian missionaries sought to replace indigenous beliefs and culture with their own, and 'protectors' were established to take over where indigenous parents were thought to be incompetent. Children were placed in missions where they were trained to be servants to white colonists or otherwise incorporated into the western economic system. Colonial society, from the start, assumed that indigenous people must be controlled and did not attempt reparations for stealing their land wholesale.

The psychological impact of early colonisation must have been devastating. Indigenous people were treated as worthless. Everything they believed, their entire society was devalued and destroyed by the invaders. They were pushed around and treated as slaves without rights. Centuries of traditional beliefs and lifestyles were ended upon contact with white people. The immediate effect would have been disorienting. A grieving process for their way of life resulted in angry retaliation in some places where indigenous people attacked settlers. At the same time, some sympathetic settlers like Tom Petrie in South East Queensland, sought to hide and protect indigenous rebels from the police retaliation. However, the indigenous people were on the whole not war-like and lacked the firepower of the invaders.


By the 1930s most indigenous Australians had been relegated to missions and reserves ostensibly for their own 'protection', although there were some isolated peoples in Western Australia who did not make contact with white people until the late 1960s. Protectionism had been very effective in freeing up indigenous land for the needs of the colonisers. Dispossessed of land and culture, separated from family, it is not surprising that rebellions did not continue. The protectionist era saw the native population, rather callously, as a 'dying race' (Ranzjin 2010: 80) that should be protected until the inevitable occurred. The 'half-caste' children were seen as a 'problem' that could be resolved by absorbing them into white society. This was achieved by the harshest of means: stealing them from their parents through kidnapping, force or threat under the protection of law. The theft of children for assimilation into white society continued for 150 years, from early colonisation to the late 1960s. The “Bringing Them Home” report of 1997 estimated about 100,000 children of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage had be removed from their families, although the true numbers may be greater due to destruction of records. The majority, 80%, were girls. One of the few voices against this policy in 1915, Parliamentarian P. McGarry, called the legislation “state slavery” and decried “the absolute despoiling of the black people of this country of their progeny after we have taken their lands” (Ranzjin 2010: 98). Queensland was the last state to abandon state assumption of guardianship of aboriginal children in 1965.

Christian doctrine taught indigenous children quite a different worldview than previous generations held and this facilitated the move, in the 1940s, to Assimilationist policies as it broke down cultural unity between past and future generations. The goal was to make indigenous people part of mainstream white society by teaching them to “adopt the values, the beliefs and the lifestyles of the dominant Anglo-Celtic segment of Australian society” (Ranzjin 2010: 82). The children were seen to be the best hope for this social engineering project to be achieved. However, the project was failing in the late sixties, because despite one hundred and fifty years of colonisation, many indigenous people retained a link to their cultural past and resisted the brainwashing of their children into a culture that despised them. Racism was both overtly expressed and inherent in the failure of institutions to serve the best interests of indigenous people who were being gaoled, dying young and generally impoverished in greater numbers than white people.

During the 1960s and onwards has seen the emergence of a political resistance to the policies the oppress indigenous Australians. Three high profile landmark events occurred in this period that are iconic acts of resistance: the Freedom Rides (1965) the aboriginal stockmen's strike at Wave Hill (1966) and the establishment of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy in Canberra (1970). However, indigenous dissenters was also establishing a movement for political reform in alliances with non-indigenous groups including unionists, legal professionals and environmentalists. Popular support for the rights of indigenous people was shored up by the 1969 referendum that granted them the right to vote as full citizens. Although aboriginal political entities has existed since the 1920 establishment of the Australian Aborigines League, after the Whitlam era (1972) many new bodies sprung up to facilitate increased justice for indigenous Australians. In justices were exposed by investigations including the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (1987) and The Stolen Generations Report (1997). Legal instruments dealing with land rights resulted from important court outcomes including the Mabo decision (which granted the first legal land rights to the people of Murray Island while refuting Terra Nullius) and the Wik decision (which extinguished claims to land rights on privately held land, but that leasehold land and native title could co-exist). The ownership of their traditional lands has been an important step in increasing the self-confidence of indigenous Australians by affirming their attachment to country and giving them the means to survive economically and culturally. The extent to which mainstream Australia supports the rights of indigenous people as equals and wishes to make amends for the past is integral to their well being and perhaps symbolised by the weight given to the Sorry Day marches and the apology given to the Stolen Generation by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in 2009. However, by many real standards, indigenous people remain severely disadvantaged, and the trends in shorter life-expectancy are testimony to that.

In 2007 the Australian government instituted the Northern Territory National Emergency Response, or 'intervention', ostensibly in response to allegations of child abuse in indigenous remote communities in The Little Children are Sacred Report (2007) commissioned by the NT government. However, the legal changes that accompanied the intervention (including the suspension of anti-discrimination laws, a halt to land rights claims and stringent welfare controls) have been criticised as unrelated to any alleged problems and described by some welfare organisations as a land grab, blatantly racist and a “violation of Australia's international obligations” under United Nations agreements. Social justice group Stop The Intervention says, “the intervention has created chaos, increased poverty and racism for Aboriginal communities living in "proscribed areas"” and that “Not one person has been prosecuted for child sex abuse since the intervention was rolled out, clearly revealing what a farce this excuse was” (2010). An investigation into the intervention by the United Nations (UN) in August 2010 found that racism was entrenched in Australian society.

It is my thesis that Aboriginal Australia underwent a rape of the soul so profound that the blight continues in the minds of most blacks today. It is this psychological blight, more than anything else, that causes the conditions that we see on the reserves and missions. And it is repeated down the generations. (Kevin Gilbert, 1977 in Living Black, cited in Purdie etal 2010: 65)

The psychological implications of the displacement, separation and downright violence that is part of indigenous history since colonisation is far reaching. Attachment to the land and to significant others has been severely disrupted by the dispossession enacted by colonisation and beyond.

Because of the greater numbers of girls taken from their parents under assimilationist laws, a great number of indigenous mothers were thus affected. The implications for their capacity to form close personal relationships is likely to have been influenced by this circumstance and subsequently their parenting of the next generation. Those girls were further abused by the impoverished conditions in which they lived including inadequate diet, cruelty, sexual abuse, denying of their Aboriginality and their family names, labour exploitation and being told that “their parents did not want them” (Ranzjen 2010: 100).

In 2010 the Australian Indigenous Psychological Association released a report Working Together which outlines the many ways in which indigenous Australians are disadvantaged by their history and current situation and proposes action to correct disadvantage at a psychological level:

the decimation of Aboriginal populations, destruction of Aboriginal culture and significant disempowerment and marginalisation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples following the British colonisation of Australia has resulted in what is widely regarded as widespread, devastating effects on the physical and mental health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. (Purdie etal 2010: 39)

It is easy to form a very negative picture of the prospects for indigenous Australians based on the ill treatment they have and continue to receive in our society. However, there is a strong resistance movement running through all periods of Australian history from the early tribesmen who fought back against colonisation with spears to the modern day activists and social justice workers who continue to fight for the rights of indigenous Australians and measures to improve their wellbeing. Resilience has emerged as a measure of the protective capacity of connection to community to mitigate risk factors.

The importance of support for resilience factors was highlighted in the Living on the Edge report as a recommendation to more community controlled health services, as well as enhancing the social cohesion and cultural practices in communities. Interestingly, the 2004-2005 national indigenous health survey found that

Despite multiple levels of disadvantage, the majority (71%) of Indigenous respondents reported being a ‘happy person’ all of most of the time, with 56 per cent reporting they felt calm and peaceful all or most of the time, and 55 per cent feeling full of life all or most of the time during the previous month...Respondents in remote areas were more likely to report that they felt calm and peaceful, were a happy person, felt full of life and had lots of energy all or most of the time when compared to those in major cities.

The recognition of indigenous resilience is integral to the overall wellbeing of indigenous Australians. One realm in which indigenous people excel and are recognised by the entire community is in sports. There are many national prizes established to foster indigenous excellence such as The Deadlys in the arts or the Dardi business awards. Indigenous run media have done a great deal to foster connectedness between diverse indigenous populations and advocate for indigenous rights. The National Indigenous Times and the Koori Mail, television programmes like Living Black and Message Stick and the many indigenous radio stations and shows such as the National Indigenous Radio Service and 4AAA in Brisbane are some examples. However, as the Papa women's statement points out “programs created by the community for our community” foster the ownership and control of indigenous community, and by essence are small scale and localised. Examples of successful community controlled endeavours are numerous.

One such example is the success of the The Aboriginal Mental Health Workforce Program which in 2010 received an award for their endeavours to increase the number of indigenous people working in mental health. The aim is to make mental health services more accessible to indigenous people. Area co-ordinator Len Kanowski said the program was born out of a recognition that, “A lot of Aboriginal people weren’t accessing mental health services because of a lot of fear and mistrust of mental health services and a lot of people didn’t see the services as culturally appropriate” (Cox 2010).

Resilience can be reinforced and maximised when thinking about the whole-of-life cycle, in particular the developmental problems that difficult circumstances can cause. The Working Together report identifies multiple places where action can be taken to maximise psychological resilience from pregnancy and childhood health and nutrition education for parents, responsive health care, though school programmes that reinforce successes and develop life skills, community support for stable and secure housing, though to employment support and community support for parenting, positive socialisation and “meaningful participation in society”

You can read the Working Together report here:

http://www.ichr.uwa.edu.au/files/user5/Working_Together_book_web_0.pdf

Futher reading:

Ranzijn, R. etal. 2010. Psychology and Indigenous Australians: Foundations of Cultural Competence. Palgrave Macmillan: South Yarra

Manipulation 101: spot it when it happens to you

There's nothing harder for an honest person to deal with than emotional manipulation. It's just not expected, as we all tend to think other people think and feel in same ways we do. However, when you find yourself doing things for someone else that you really didn't want to, and don't remember agreeing to do, you have been manipulated!

We may label people who manipulate us as 'passive aggressive' because they are never direct about what they want, but they are far from passive. Manipulating people with niceness, service, or guilt are simply their ways of getting what they want without ever directly asking for it. They are aggressively seeking what they want, covertly. They tend to target the more caring and sensitive people, because they are more prone to blaming themselves and capitulating to please others.

No one explains it better than Dr George Simon's book "In Sheep's Clothing" who identifies ways to spot covert-aggressive behaviour from the common tactics they use:

"Denial – This is when the aggressor refuses to admit that they've done something harmful or hurtful when they clearly have. It's a way they lie (to themselves as well as to others) about their aggressive intentions. This "Who... Me?" tactic is a way of "playing innocent," and invites the victim to feel unjustified in confronting the aggressor about the inappropriateness of a behavior. It's also the way the aggressor gives him/herself permission to keep right on doing what they want to do. This denial is not the same kind of denial that a person who has just lost a loved one and can't quite bear to accept the pain and reality of the loss engages in. That type of denial really is mostly a "defense" against unbearable hurt and anxiety. Rather, this type of denial is not primarily a "defense" but a maneuver the aggressor uses to get others to back off, back down or maybe even feel guilty themselves for insinuating he's doing something wrong.

Selective Inattention – This tactic is similar to and sometimes mistaken for denial It's when the aggressor "plays dumb," or acts oblivious. When engaging in this tactic, the aggressor actively ignores the warnings, pleas or wishes of others, and in general, refuses to pay attention to everything and anything that might distract them from pursuing their own agenda. Often, the aggressor knows full well what you want from him when he starts to exhibit this "I don't want to hear it!" behavior. By using this tactic, the aggressor actively resists submitting himself to the tasks of paying attention to or refraining from the behavior you want him to change.

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

Diversion – A moving target is hard to hit. When we try to pin a manipulator down or try to keep a discussion focused on a single issue or behavior we don't like, he's expert at knowing how to change the subject, dodge the issue or in some way throw us a curve. Manipulators use distraction and diversion techniques to keep the focus off their behavior, move us off-track, and keep themselves free to promote their self-serving hidden agendas.

Lying – It's often hard to tell when a person is lying at the time he's doing it. Fortunately, there are times when the truth will out because circumstances don't bear out somebody's story. But there are also times when you don't know you've been deceived until it's too late. One way to minimize the chances that someone will put one over on you is to remember that because aggressive personalities of all types will generally stop at nothing to get what they want, you can expect them to lie and cheat. Another thing to remember is that manipulators – covert-aggressive personalities that they are – are prone to lie in subtle, covert ways. Courts are well aware of the many ways that people lie, as they require that court oaths charge that testifiers tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Manipulators often lie by withholding a significant amount of the truth from you or by distorting the truth. They are adept at being vague when you ask them direct questions. This is an especially slick way of lying' omission. Keep this in mind when dealing with a suspected wolf in sheep's clothing. Always seek and obtain specific, confirmable information.

Covert Intimidation – Aggressors frequently threaten their victims to keep them anxious, apprehensive and in a one-down position. Covert-aggressives intimidate their victims by making veiled (subtle, indirect or implied) threats. Guilt-tripping and shaming are two of the covert-aggressive's favourite weapons. Both are special intimidation tactics.

Guilt-tripping – One thing that aggressive personalities know well is that other types of persons have very different consciences than they do. Manipulators are often skilled at using what they know to be the greater conscientiousness of their victims as a means of keeping them in a self-doubting, anxious, and submissive position. The more conscientious the potential victim, the more effective guilt is as a weapon. Aggressive personalities of all types use guilt-tripping so frequently and effectively as a manipulative tactic, that I believe it illustrates how fundamentally different in character they are compared to other (especially neurotic) personalities. All a manipulator has to do is suggest to the conscientious person that they don't care enough, are too selfish, etc., and that person immediately starts to feel bad. On the contrary, a conscientious person might try until they're blue in the face to get a manipulator (or any other aggressive personality) to feel badly about a hurtful behavior, acknowledge responsibility, or admit wrongdoing, to absolutely no avail.

Shaming – This is the technique of using subtle sarcasm and put-downs as a means of increasing fear and self-doubt in others. Covert-aggressives use this tactic to make others feel inadequate or unworthy, and therefore, defer to them. It's an effective way to foster a continued sense of personal inadequacy in the weaker party, thereby allowing an aggressor to maintain a position of dominance.

Playing the Victim Role – This tactic involves portraying oneself as an innocent victim of circumstances or someone else's behavior in order to gain sympathy, evoke compassion and thereby get something from another. One thing that covert-aggressive personalities count on is the fact that less calloused and less hostile personalities usually can't stand to see anyone suffering. Therefore, the tactic is simple. Convince your victim you're suffering in some way, and they'll try to relieve your distress.

Vilifying the Victim – This tactic is frequently used in conjunction with the tactic of playing the victim role. The aggressor uses this tactic to make it appear he is only responding (i.e. defending himself against) aggression on the part of the victim. It enables the aggressor to better put the victim on the defensive.

Playing the Servant Role – Covert-aggressives use this tactic to cloak their self-serving agendas in the guise of service to a more noble cause. It's a common tactic but difficult to recognize. By pretending to be working hard on someone else's behalf, covert-aggressives conceal their own ambition, desire for power, and quest for a position of dominance over others.

Seduction – Covert-aggressive personalities are adept at charming, praising, flattering or overtly supporting others in order to get them to lower their defenses and surrender their trust and loyalty. Covert-aggressives are also particularly aware that people who are to some extent emotionally needy and dependent (and that includes most people who aren't character-disordered) want approval, reassurance, and a sense of being valued and needed more than anything. Appearing to be attentive to these needs can be a manipulator's ticket to incredible power over others.

Projecting the blame (blaming others) – Aggressive personalities are always looking for a way to shift the blame for their aggressive behavior. Covert-aggressives are not only skilled at finding scapegoats, they're expert at doing so in subtle, hard to detect ways.

Minimization – This tactic is a unique kind of denial coupled with rationalization. When using this maneuver, the aggressor is attempting to assert that his abusive behavior isn't really as harmful or irresponsible as someone else may be claiming. It's the aggressor's attempt to make a molehill out of a mountain."

Extracted from: http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing11.html

am i "in your face"?

Setting aside my grave reservations about the more air-fairy aspects of psychology (blame Freud I say), when things go wrong in your brain, some really fascinating things can occur. The nature of these unusual things make one rethink the nature of our everyday experience of being human. However, even the workaday functioning brain can make us do some peculiar things, like the deep aversion we have to violations of our personal space.

A few years ago I avidly read The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat by neurologist Oliver Sacks. In each chapter Sacks recounts individuals who have had physical abnormalities or damage to their brains and hence develop existential problems that, while thought provoking to the rest of us, must surely have been distressing to them. For instance the woman who loses he sense of where she is in the world (proprioception) and becomes unable to walk down the street without watching what her feet are doing ; or the man who, through alcohol abuse (Korsakoff's syndrome), loses all long term memory and truly lives 'in the moment'; and the title character who loses the ability to attach words to the objects they represent (aphasia). Sacks id perhaps most well known for the tale of his clinical experience with long-term coma patients popularised in the academy award winning movie Awakenings. The distress of their existential crises, waking up suddenly after 40 years of unconsciousness, was so great that some of them elected to return to unconsciousness.

Peculiar differences in perception often draw the attention of psychological researchers. Recently researchers studying the concept of personal space and the strong aversion we have to strangers violating it, discovered an individual who didn't seem to have one. While the rest of us are scrambling for that empty seat in the bus, leaving at least 67cms between us and others if we can, this individual came far too lose for comfort at 34cm. The researchers (Kennedy etal) came to locate this particular sense of our need for personal space in the amygdala, the ancient and emotional centre of the brain. The woman standing too close turned out to have damage to that part of her brain. While this made her seem friendly, it also caused her to commit many social faux pas

However, the size of an individuals personal space is also cultural. Americans like a lot, the Japanese much less, perhaps indictive of the environmental conditions they find themselves living in.

Personal space is such a fascinating phenomenon to researchers that it has it's own field, proxemics. Proxemics says that personal space goes beyond physical distance to include loud voices, ringing mobiles, eye contact, touching in conversation, even choice of position in a room, elevator or public transport vehicle: anywhere large numbers of people must come together. So important is our need for this unique space that public spaces ae designed with it in mind. Personal space issues have even been linked to road rage. (ref)

Why do people lie?

Well, the simple answer to that is obviously because it gets them what they want, whether that be something positive, like a job they aren't qualified for, or negative, like avoiding censure for something they did wrong. Lying can boost the self-esteem of those who think a lie makes them look good in the eyes of others, and frequent liars are typically concerned with face.

People become liars often for self-protection as children as Leon Seltzer explains well here: communication-the-universal-phobia All of us do it, but some people are more susceptible to the face-saving need for lying than others. Researcher Bella DePaulo has some bad news for us: the less frequent deep betrayals of trust... occur between people in intimate relationships. "You save your really big lies," she says, "for the person that you're closest to." the-truth-about-lying

Lying is not always for malicious reasons, but it is the malicious reasons that interest me most. I can understand lying to protect someone's feelings, like when you tell your Gran that you love the floral shirt she gave you for your birthday. But when a person decides to lie when they know that lie will cause another person harm, how do they protect themselves from the negative personal esteem that must come from such actions? Do they feel guilty? Most importantly, what can we do to protect ourselves from malicious lies intended to deceive us or hurt for the personal benefit of the liar? Is there a twitch or something that makes them instantly identifiable?

There is a 'type' of person more prone to lying: "In a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, DePaulo and Deborah A. Kashy, Ph.D., of Texas A&M University, report that frequent liars tend to be manipulative and Machiavellian, not to mention overly concerned with the impression they make on others." the-truth-about-lying Despite this, liars are still notoriously difficult to spot. Contrary to folk wisdom, liars come in all shapes and sizes and may have different tics or behaviours when they lie, or even none! The most consummate liars are adept at controlling any unnaturalness that might give away their deception. Like the character Jim Carey plays in the Liar, Liar movie, good liars can deceive us with a smile and we suspect nothing. The worst or most successful liars are the sociopaths who don't feel any guilt so wont display the nervousness we would expect from a less-seasoned deceiver.

However, good liars may commonly give themselves away by their smug self-satisfaction at having got away with a lie: the post-lie smirk. So recognised is the post-lie smirk, that the voting public made much of the smirk of prospective Liberal party boss Peter Costello that may have crowned his failure to win the party leadership. According to a system developed by Paul Erkman wikipedia.org - Paul_Ekman, smirking is a sign of contempt for the gullibility of the person who has just been duped, just as a curled lip can indicate disgust for the person one is deceiving. Useful things to know when identifying malicious liars, but no guarantees.

However, many people do feel bad about deceiving others, which makes it a little easier for the rest of us. Some of the things liars do that give them away include raising the pitch of their voices, fidgeting, wringing hands, scratching, blinking, looking down. Some gestures may even be individual-specific, something that only a close friend or relative could notice. I once had a partner who would rub his hands like Lady Macbeth trying to rid her hands of blood when he was lying to me. Unfortunately I only realised this was the sign of his lying after I found out he was cheating on me! One should use caution when trying to identify liars by gestures, because there can be other reasons unrelated to a perceived lie, such as nervousness, fear or distraction by another thought process that can give one the impression of untruthfulness.

Malicious lying is basically a problem of maturity. People who continue to use other people by lying to them for their own personal gain lack the emotional maturity to understand or care about the hurt they cause those they deceive. As the adages says, "What a web we weave.." and "The truth can set you free" you do yourself psychological harm when you harbour secrets by omission or outright lying, you damage your internal sense of integrity and set back the development of responsibility for your actions that marks a mature adult human being. Honesty is not easy and does involve the risk of emotional hurt through rejection. But continued dishonesty creates a schism between the person we are and the person we appear to be to others which spells doom to authentic and close relationships with others.

By the same token, there's no doubt that those who lie can become rich and successful in a capitalist society and such is part of the nature of competition. The conman cannot succeed without an unrepentant, indeed Machvellian, talent for deceiving others. For those that value personal money or power over interpersonal relationships, lying will always be a tool that the more guileless of us need to be aware of and protect ourselves from.