Mintaka연합원로원銀河大戰聯合元老院Three KingsThree SistersAlnitakAlnilamandMintakaRigelSaiph

A toxic leader is a person who has responsibility over a group of people or an organization, and who abuses the leader–follower relationship by leaving the group or organization in a worse condition than when they first found them. The phrase was coined by Marcia Whicker in 1996 and is linked with a number of dysfunctional leadership styles.^[1] ^[1] Their leadership style is both self-destructive and ultimately corporately harmful as they subvert and destroy organizational structures.^[2]
In his book, "Petty tyranny in organizations," Blake Ashforth discussed potentially destructive sides of leadership and identified what he referred to as petty tyrants, i.e.leaders who exercise a tyrannical style of management, resulting in a climate of fear in the workplace.^[3]

A freak is someone with something strikingly unusual about their appearance or behaviour. This usage dates from the "freak scene" of the 1960s and 1970s, most famously championed by Frank Zappa, leader of the rock band the Mothers of Invention. The term originally referred to the physically deformed, or having extraordinary diseases and conditions, such as sideshow performers.

Brainwashing (also known as mind control, menticide, coercive persuasion, thought control, thought reform, and re-education) is the concept that the human mind can be altered or controlled by certain psychological techniques. Brainwashing is said to reduce its subject’s ability to think critically or independently,^[1] to allow the introduction of new, unwanted thoughts and ideas into the subject’s mind,^[2] as well as to change his or her attitudes, values, and beliefs.^[3]^[4]
The concept of brainwashing was originally developed in the 1950s to explain how the Chinese government appeared to make people cooperate with them. Advocates of the concept also looked at Nazi Germany, at some criminal cases in the United States, and at the actions of human traffickers. It was later applied by Margaret Singer, Philip Zimbardo, and some others in the anti-cult movement to explain conversions to some new religious movements and other groups. This resulted in scientific and legal debate^[5] with Eileen Barker, James Richardson, and other scholars, as well as legal experts, rejecting at least the popular understanding of brainwashing.^[6]
The concept of brainwashing is sometimes involved in legal cases, especially regarding child custody; and is also a theme in science fiction and in criticism of modern political and corporate culture. Although the term appears in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) of the American Psychiatric Association^[7] brainwashing is not accepted as scientific fact^[8] and has been characterized as pseudo-scientific.^[9]

Hypnosis is a human condition involving focused attention, reduced peripheral awareness, and an enhanced capacity to respond to suggestion. The term may also refer to an art, skill, or act of inducing hypnosis.^[1]
There are competing theories explaining hypnosis and related phenomena. Altered state theories see hypnosis as an altered state of mind or trance, marked by a level of awareness different from the ordinary state of consciousness.^[2]^[3] In contrast, nonstate theories see hypnosis as, variously, a type of placebo effect^[4]^[5], a redefinition of an interaction with a therapist^[6] or form of imaginative role enactment.^[7]^[8]^[9]
During hypnosis, a person is said to have heightened focus and concentration.^[10] Hypnotised subjects are said to show an increased response to suggestions.^[11] Hypnosis usually begins with a hypnotic induction involving a series of preliminary instructions and suggestion. The use of hypnotism for therapeutic purposes is referred to as "hypnotherapy", while its use as a form of entertainment for an audience is known as "stage hypnosis". Stage hypnosis is often performed by mentalists practicing the art form of mentalism.
The use of hypnosis as a form of therapy to retrieve and integrate early trauma is controversial. Research indicates that hypnotizing an individual may actually aid the formation of false-memories.^[12]
Isolation (physical, social or emotional) is often used to facilitate power and control over someone for an abusive purpose. This applies in many contexts such as workplace bullying,^[1]^[2] elder abuse,^[3]^[4] domestic abuse,^[5]^[6] child abuse,^[7]^[8]^[9] and cults.^[10]^[11]
Isolation reduces the opportunity of the abused to be rescued or escape from the abuse. It also helps disorientate the abused and makes the abused more dependent on the abuser. The degree of power and control over the abused is contingent upon the degree of his or her physical or emotional isolation.^[12]^[13]
An important element of psychological control is the isolation of the victim from the outside world.^[14] Isolation includes controlling a person's social activity: who they see, who they talk to, where they go and any other method to limit their access to others. It may also include limiting what material is read.^[15] It can include insisting on knowing where they are and requiring permission for medical care. The abuser exhibits hypersensitive and reactive jealousy.^[14]
Isolation can be aided by:

economic abuse thus limiting the victim's actions as they may then lack the necessary resources to resist or escape from the abuse^[16]
smearing or discrediting the abused amongst his or her community so the abused does not get help or support from others^[17]^[18]
divide and conquer^[19]
gaslighting and mind control.^[20]

Economic abuse is a form of abuse when one intimate partner has control over the other partner's access to economic resources,^[1] which diminishes the victim's capacity to support themselves and forces them to depend on the perpetrator financially.^[1]^[2]^[3]
It is related to, or also known as, financial abuse, which is the illegal or unauthorized use of a person’s property, money, pension book or other valuables (including changing the person's will to name the abuser as heir), often fraudulently obtaining power of attorney, followed by deprivation of money or other property, or by eviction from own home. Financial abuse applies to both elder abuse and domestic violence.^[4]
A key distinction between economic abuse and financial abuse is that economic abuse also includes the control of someone's present or future earning potential by preventing them from obtaining a job or education.

Role in domestic violence[edit]

Economic abuse in a domestic situation may involve:

Preventing a cohabitant from resource acquisition, such as restricting their ability to find employment, maintain or advance their careers, and acquire assets.
Preventing the victim from obtaining education.
Spend victim's money without their consent and creating debt, or completely spend victim's savings to limit available resources.
Exploiting economic resources of the victim.^[1]^[2]^[3]

In its extreme (and usual) form, this involves putting the victim on a strict "allowance", withholding money at will and forcing the victim to beg for the money until the abuser gives the victim some money. It is common for the victim to receive less and less money as the abuse continues. This also includes (but is not limited to) preventing the victim from finishing education or obtaining employment, or intentionally squandering or misusing communal resources.^[5]

Controlling mechanism[edit]

Economic abuse is often used as a controlling mechanism as part of a larger pattern of domestic abuse, which may include verbal, emotional, physical and sexual abuse. Physical abuse may include threats or attempts to kill the cohabitant. By restricting the victim's access to economic resources, the offender has limited recourses to exit the abusive or violent relationship.^[6]
The following are ways that abusers may use economic abuse with other forms of domestic violence:

Using physical force, or threat of violence, to get money.
Providing money for sexual activity.
Controlling access to a telephone, vehicle or ability to go shopping; other forms of isolation.
Threatening to evict the cohabitants from the house without financial support.
Exploiting the victim's economic disadvantage.
Destroying or taking resources from the cohabitants.
Blaming the victim for an inability to manage money; or instigating other forms of economic abuse, such as destruction of property.^[6]

Victimization occurs across all socio-economic levels, and when victims are asked why they stay in abusive relationships, "lack of income" is a common response.^[7]

Job-related impacts[edit]

There are several ways that abusers may impact a victim's economic resources. As mentioned earlier, the abuser may prevent the victim from working or make it very difficult to maintain a job. They may likewise impede their ability to obtain an education. Frequent phone calls, surprise visits and other harassing activities interfere with the cohabitant's work performance. In case of a cohabitant being homosexual, bisexual, transgender, or questioning of their sexuality (LGBTQ), the abuser may threaten to "out them" with their employer.^[7]
The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence in the United States reports that:

25–50% of victims of abuse from a partner have lost their job due to domestic violence.
35–56% of victims of domestic violence are harassed at work by their partners.^[7]

Impact of lack of economic resources[edit]

By denying the victim access to money, such as forbidding the victim from maintaining a bank account, he or she is totally financially dependent upon the abuser for shelter, food, clothing and other necessities. In some cases the abuser may withhold those necessities, also including medicine and personal hygiene products. They may also greatly limit their ability to leave the abusive situation by refusing to pay court-ordered spousal or child support.^[7]
Abusers may also force their victims to obtain credit and then through negligent activities ruin their credit rating and ability to get credit.^[7]

Managing economic abuse[edit]

There are several ways to manage economic abuse: ensure one has safe access to important personal and financial records, ensure one's research activities are not traceable and, if they believe that they are going to leave the cohabitation, they should prepare ahead of time.^[7]

Role in elder abuse[edit]

The elderly are sometimes victims of financial abuse from people within their family:

Money or property is used without their permission or taken from them.
Their signature is forged for financial transactions.
Coerced or influence to sign over deeds, wills or power of attorney.
Deceived into believing that money is exchanged for the promise of lifelong care.^[8]

Family members engaged in financial abuse of the elderly may include spouses, children, or grandchildren. They may engage in the activity because they feel justified, for instance, they are taking what they might later inherit or have a sense of "entitlement" due to a negative personal relationship with the older person. Or they may take money or property to prevent other family members from getting the money or for fear that their inheritance may be lost due to cost of treating illnesses. Sometimes, family members take money or property from their elders because of gambling or other financial problems or substance abuse.^[8]
It is estimated that there may be 5 million elderly citizens of the United States subject to financial abuse each year.^[7]

Laws[edit]

United States[edit]

The Survivors’ Empowerment and Economic Security Act was introduced by the 110th United States Congress to the Senate (S. 1136) and House of Representatives (H.R. 2395) to allow for greater economic freedom for domestic violence victims by providing short-term emergency benefits where needed, guaranteeing employment leave and unemployment compensation, and prohibit insurance restriction or job discrimination to domestic violence victims.^[7]

Human trafficking is the trade of humans for the purpose of forced labour, sexual slavery, or commercial sexual exploitation for the trafficker or others.^[1]^[2] This may encompass providing a spouse in the context of forced marriage,^[3]^[4]^[5] or the extraction of organs or tissues,^[6]^[7] including for surrogacy and ova removal.^[8] Human trafficking can occur within a country or trans-nationally. Human trafficking is a crime against the person because of the violation of the victim's rights of movement through coercion and because of their commercial exploitation.^[9] Human trafficking is the trade in people, especially women and children, and does not necessarily involve the movement of the person from one place to another.^{[citation needed]}
According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), forced labour alone (one component of human trafficking) generates an estimated $150 billion in profits per annum as of 2014.^[10] In 2012, the ILO estimated that 21 million victims are trapped in modern-day slavery. Of these, 14.2 million (68%) were exploited for labour, 4.5 million (22%) were sexually exploited, and 2.2 million (10%) were exploited in state-imposed forced labour.^[11] The International Labour Organization has reported that child workers, minorities, and irregular migrants are at considerable risk of more extreme forms of exploitation. Statistics shows that over half of the world’s 215 million young workers are observed to be in hazardous sectors, including forced sex work and forced street begging.^[12] Ethnic minorities and highly marginalized groups of people are highly estimated to work in some of the most exploitative and damaging sectors, such as leather tanning, mining, and stone quarry work.^[13]
Human trafficking is thought to be one of the fastest-growing activities of trans-national criminal organizations.^[14]
Human trafficking is condemned as a violation of human rights by international conventions. In addition, human trafficking is subject to a directive in the European Union.^[15] According to a report by the U.S. State Department, Belarus, Iran, Russia, and Turkmenistan remain among the worst countries when it comes to providing protection against human trafficking and forced labour.^[16]^{[clarification needed]}

A protection racket is a scheme whereby a group provides protection to businesses or other groups through violence outside the sanction of the law—in other words, a racket that sells security, traditionally physical security but now also computer security. Through the credible threat of violence, the racketeers deter people from swindling, robbing, injuring, sabotaging or otherwise harming their clients. Protection rackets tend to appear in markets where the police and judiciary cannot be counted on to provide legal protection, either because of incompetence (as in weak or failed states) or illegality (black markets).
Protection rackets are indistinguishable in practice from extortion rackets, and distinguishable from private security, by some degree of implied threat that the racketeers themselves may attack the business if it fails to pay for their protection. A distinction is possible between a "pure" extortion racket, in which the racketeers might only agree not to attack a business, and a broader protection racket offering some real private security in addition to such extortion; the criminals might agree to defend a business from any attack by either themselves or third parties (other criminal gangs). However, this distinction is moot in reality as extortion racketeers may have to defend their clients against rival gangs to maintain their profits. By corollary, criminal gangs may have to maintain control of territories (turfs), as local businesses may collapse if forced to pay for protection from too many rackets, which then hurts all parties involved.
Certain scholars, such as Diego Gambetta, classify criminal organizations engaged in protection racketeering as "mafia", as the racket is popular with both the Sicilian Mafia and Italian-American Mafia.

Extortion (also called shakedown, outwrestling and exaction) is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from an individual or institution, through coercion. It is sometimes euphemistically referred to as a "protection racket" since the racketeers often phrase their demands as payment for "protection" from (real or hypothetical) threats from unspecified other parties; though often, and almost always, such "protection" is simply abstinence of harm from the same party, and such is implied in the "protection" offer. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense, and making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the demanding and obtaining of something through force,^[1] but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.^[2]
The term extortion is often used metaphorically to refer to usury or to price-gouging, though neither is legally considered extortion. It is also often used loosely to refer to everyday situations where one person feels indebted against their will, to another, in order to receive an essential service or avoid legal consequences. Neither extortion nor blackmail requires a threat of a criminal act, such as violence, merely a threat used to elicit actions, money, or property from the object of the extortion. Such threats include the filing of reports (true or not) of criminal behavior to the police, revelation of damaging facts (such as pictures of the object of the extortion in a compromising position), etc.
In law, the word extortion can refer to political corruption, such as selling one's office or influence peddling, but in general vocabulary the word usually first brings to mind blackmail or protection rackets. The logical connection between the corruption sense of the word and the other senses is that to demand bribes in one's official capacity is blackmail or racketeering in essence (that is, "you need access to this resource, the government restricts access to it through my office, and I will charge you unfairly and unlawfully for such access").

Abusive power and control (also controlling behavior, coercive control and sharp power) is the way that an abusive person gains and maintains power and control over another person, as a victim, in order to subject that person to psychological, physical, sexual, or financial abuse. The motivations of the abuser are varied, such as personal gain, personal gratification, psychological projection, devaluation, envy or just for the sake of it as the abuser may simply enjoy exercising power and control.
Controlling abusers use tactics to exert power and control over their victims. The tactics themselves are psychologically and sometimes physically abusive. Control may be helped through economic abuse thus limiting the victim's actions as they may then lack the necessary resources to resist the abuse.^[1] The goal of the abuser is to control and intimidate the victim or to influence them to feel that they do not have an equal voice in the relationship.^[2]
Manipulators and abusers control their victims with a range of tactics, including positive reinforcement (such as praise, superficial charm, flattery, ingratiation, love bombing, smiling, gifts, attention), negative reinforcement, intermittent or partial reinforcement, psychological punishment (such as nagging, silent treatment, swearing, threats, intimidation, emotional blackmail, guilt trips, inattention) and traumatic tactics (such as verbal abuse or explosive anger).^[3]
The vulnerabilities of the victim are exploited with those who are particularly vulnerable being most often selected as targets.^[3]^[4]^[5] Traumatic bonding can occur between the abuser and victim as the result of ongoing cycles of abuse in which the intermittent reinforcement of reward and punishment creates powerful emotional bonds that are resistant to change and a climate of fear.^[6] An attempt may be made to normalise, legitimise, rationalise, deny, or minimise the abusive behaviour, or blame the victim for it.^[7]^[8]^[9]
Isolation, gaslighting, mind games, lying, disinformation, propaganda, destabilisation, brainwashing and divide and rule are other strategies that are often used. The victim may be plied with alcohol or drugs or deprived of sleep to help disorientate them.^[10]^[11]
Certain personality types feel particularly compelled to control other people.

Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the behavior or perception of others through indirect, deceptive, or underhanded tactics.^[1] By advancing the interests of the manipulator, often at another's expense, such methods could be considered exploitative and devious.
Social influence is not necessarily negative. For example, people such as friends, family and doctors, can try to persuade to change clearly unhelpful habits and behaviors. Social influence is generally perceived to be harmless when it respects the right of the influenced to accept or reject it, and is not unduly coercive. Depending on the context and motivations, social influence may constitute underhanded manipulation.

Requirements for successful manipulation[edit]

According to psychology author George K. Simon, successful psychological manipulation primarily involves the manipulator:^[2]

Concealing aggressive intentions and behaviors and being affable.
Knowing the psychological vulnerabilities of the victim to determine which tactics are likely to be the most effective.
Having a sufficient level of ruthlessness to have no qualms about causing harm to the victim if necessary.

Consequently, the manipulation is likely to be accomplished through covert aggressive means. ^[2]

How manipulators control their victims[edit]

According to Braiker[edit]

Harriet B. Braiker (2004) identified the following ways that manipulators control their victims:^[3]

Positive reinforcement: includes praise, superficial charm, superficial sympathy (crocodile tears), excessive apologizing, money, approval, gifts, attention, facial expressions such as a forced laugh or smile, and public recognition.
Negative reinforcement: involves removing one from a negative situation as a reward, e.g. "You won't have to do your homework if you allow me to do this to you."
Intermittent or partial reinforcement: Partial or intermittent negative reinforcement can create an effective climate of fear and doubt. Partial or intermittent positive reinforcement can encourage the victim to persist - for example in most forms of gambling, the gambler is likely to win now and again but still lose money overall.
Punishment: includes nagging, yelling, the silent treatment, intimidation, threats, swearing, emotional blackmail, the guilt trip, sulking, crying, and playing the victim.
Traumatic one-trial learning: using verbal abuse, explosive anger, or other intimidating behavior to establish dominance or superiority; even one incident of such behavior can condition or train victims to avoid upsetting, confronting or contradicting the manipulator.

According to Simon[edit]

Simon identified the following manipulative techniques:^[2]

Lying (by commission) : It is hard to tell if somebody is lying at the time they do it, although often the truth may be apparent later when it is too late. One way to minimize the chances of being lied to is to understand that some personality types (particularly psychopaths) are experts at the art of lying and cheating, doing it frequently, and often in subtle ways.
Lying by omission: This is a very subtle form of lying by withholding a significant amount of the truth. This technique is also used in propaganda.
Denial: Manipulator refuses to admit that they have done something wrong.
Rationalization: An excuse made by the manipulator for inappropriate behavior. Rationalization is closely related to spin.
Minimization: This is a type of denial coupled with rationalization. The manipulator asserts that their behavior is not as harmful or irresponsible as someone else was suggesting, for example, saying that a taunt or insult was only a joke.
Selective inattention or selective attention: Manipulator refuses to pay attention to anything that may distract from their agenda, saying things like "I don't want to hear it".
Diversion: Manipulator not giving a straight answer to a straight question and instead being diversionary, steering the conversation onto another topic.
Evasion: Similar to diversion but giving irrelevant, rambling, vague responses, weasel words.
Covert intimidation: Manipulator throwing the victim onto the defensive by using veiled (subtle, indirect or implied) threats.
Guilt trip: A special kind of intimidation tactic. A manipulator suggests to the conscientious victim that they do not care enough, are too selfish or have it easy. This usually results in the victim feeling bad, keeping them in a self-doubting, anxious and submissive position.
Shaming: Manipulator uses sarcasm and put-downs to increase fear and self-doubt in the victim. Manipulators use this tactic to make others feel unworthy and therefore defer to them. Shaming tactics can be very subtle such as a fierce look or glance, unpleasant tone of voice, rhetorical comments, subtle sarcasm. Manipulators can make one feel ashamed for even daring to challenge them. It is an effective way to foster a sense of inadequacy in the victim.
Vilifying the victim: More than any other, this tactic is a powerful means of putting the victim on the defensive while simultaneously masking the aggressive intent of the manipulator, while the manipulator falsely accuses the victim as being an abuser in response when the victim stands up for or defends themselves or their position.
Playing the victim role: Manipulator portrays themself as a victim of circumstance or of someone else's behavior in order to gain pity, sympathy or evoke compassion and thereby get something from another. Caring and conscientious people cannot stand to see anyone suffering and the manipulator often finds it easy to play on sympathy to get cooperation.
Playing the servant role: Cloaking a self-serving agenda in guise of a service to a more noble cause, for example saying they are acting in a certain way to be "obedient" to or in "service" to an authority figure or "just doing their job".
Seduction: Manipulator uses charm, praise, flattery or overtly supporting others in order to get them to lower their defenses and give their trust and loyalty to the manipulator. They will also offer help with the intent to gain trust and access to an unsuspecting victim they have charmed.
Projecting the blame (blaming others): Manipulator scapegoats in often subtle, hard-to-detect ways. Often, the manipulator will project their own thinking onto the victim, making the victim look like they have done something wrong. Manipulators will also claim that the victim is the one who is at fault for believing lies that they were conned into believing, as if the victim forced the manipulator to be deceitful. All blame, except for the part that is used by the manipulator to accept false guilt, is done in order to make the victim feel guilty about making healthy choices, correct thinking and good behaviors. It is frequently used as a means of psychological and emotional manipulation and control. Manipulators lie about lying, only to re-manipulate the original, less believable story into a "more acceptable" truth that the victim will believe. Projecting lies as being the truth is another common method of control and manipulation. Manipulators love to falsely accuse the victim as "deserving to be treated that way." They often claim that the victim is crazy and/or abusive, especially when there is evidence against the manipulator. (See Feigning, below.)
Feigning innocence: Manipulator tries to suggest that any harm done was unintentional or that they did not do something that they were accused of. Manipulator may put on a look of surprise or indignation. This tactic makes the victim question their own judgment and possibly their own sanity.
Feigning confusion: Manipulator tries to play dumb by pretending they do not know what the victim is talking about or is confused about an important issue brought to their attention. The manipulator intentionally confuses the victim in order for the victim to doubt their own accuracy of perception, often pointing out key elements that the manipulator intentionally included in case there is room for doubt. Sometimes manipulators will have used cohorts in advance to help back up their story.
Brandishing anger: Manipulator uses anger to brandish sufficient emotional intensity and rage to shock the victim into submission. The manipulator is not actually angry, they just put on an act. They just want what they want and get "angry" when denied. Controlled anger is often used as a manipulation tactic to avoid confrontation, avoid telling the truth or to further hide intent. There are often threats used by the manipulator of going to police, or falsely reporting abuses that the manipulator intentionally contrived to scare or intimidate the victim into submission. Blackmail and other threats of exposure are other forms of controlled anger and manipulation, especially when the victim refuses initial requests or suggestions by the manipulator. Anger is also used as a defense so the manipulator can avoid telling truths at inconvenient times or circumstances. Anger is often used as a tool or defense to ward off inquiries or suspicion. The victim becomes more focused on the anger instead of the manipulation tactic.
Bandwagon effect: Manipulator comforts the victim into submission by claiming (whether true or false) that many people already have done something, and the victim should as well. These include phrases such as "Many people like you ..." or "Everyone does this anyways." Such manipulation can be seen in peer pressure situations, often occurring in scenarios where the manipulator attempts to influence the victim into trying drugs or other substances.

Vulnerabilities exploited by manipulators[edit]

According to Braiker's self-help book,^[3] manipulators exploit the following vulnerabilities (buttons) that may exist in victims:

the "disease to please"
addiction to earning the approval and acceptance of others
Emotophobia (fear of negative emotion; i.e. a fear of expressing anger, frustration or disapproval)
lack of assertiveness and ability to say no
blurry sense of identity (with soft personal boundaries)
low self-reliance
external locus of control

According to Simon,^[2] manipulators exploit the following vulnerabilities that may exist in victims:

naïveté - victim finds it too hard to accept the idea that some people are cunning, devious and ruthless or is "in denial" if they are being victimized.
over-conscientiousness - victim is too willing to give manipulator the benefit of the doubt and see their side of things in which they blame the victim.
low self-confidence - victim is self-doubting, lacking in confidence and assertiveness, likely to go on the defensive too easily.
over-intellectualization - victim tries too hard to understand and believes the manipulator has some understandable reason to be hurtful.
emotional dependency - victim has a submissive or dependent personality. The more emotionally dependent the victim is, the more vulnerable they are to being exploited and manipulated.

Manipulators generally take the time to scope out the characteristics and vulnerabilities of their victims.
Kantor advises in his book The Psychopathology of Everyday Life: How Antisocial Personality Disorder Affects All of Us^[4] that vulnerability to psychopathic manipulators involves being too:

dependent - dependent people need to be loved and are therefore gullible and liable to say yes to something to which they should say no.
immature - has impaired judgment and so tends to believe exaggerated advertising claims.
naïve - cannot believe there are dishonest people in the world, or takes it for granted that if there are any, they will not be allowed to prey on others.
impressionable - overly seduced by charmers. For example, they might vote for the seemingly charming politician who kisses babies.
trusting - people who are honest often assume that everyone else is honest. They are more likely to commit themselves to people they hardly know without checking credentials, etc., and less likely to question so-called experts.
Carelessness not giving sufficient amount of thought or attention on harm or errors.
lonely - lonely people may accept any offer of human contact. A psychopathic stranger may offer human companionship for a price.
narcissistic - narcissists are prone to falling for unmerited flattery.
impulsive - make snap decisions about, for example, what to buy or whom to marry without consulting others.
altruistic - the opposite of psychopathic: too honest, too fair, too empathetic.
frugal - cannot say no to a bargain even if they know the reason it is so cheap.
materialistic - easy prey for loan sharks or get-rich-quick schemes.
greedy - the greedy and dishonest may fall prey to a psychopath who can easily entice them to act in an immoral way.
masochistic - lack self-respect and so unconsciously let psychopaths take advantage of them. They think they deserve it out of a sense of guilt.
the elderly - the elderly can become fatigued and less capable of multi-tasking. When hearing a sales pitch they are less likely to consider that it could be a con. They are prone to giving money to someone with a hard-luck story. See elder abuse.

Motivations of manipulators[edit]

Manipulators can have various possible motivations, including but not limited to:^[3]

the need to advance their own purposes and personal gain at virtually any cost to others
a strong need to attain feelings of power and superiority in relationships with others
a want and need to feel in control
a desire to gain a feeling of power over others in order to raise their perception of self-esteem
boredom, or growing tired of their surroundings, seeing it as a game more than hurting others
covert agenda, criminal or otherwise, including financial manipulation (often seen when the elderly or unsuspecting, unprotected wealthy are intentionally targeted for the sole purpose of obtaining a victim's financial assets)
not identifying with underlying emotions, commitment phobia, and subsequent rationalization (offender does not manipulate consciously, but rather tries to convince themselves of the invalidity of their own emotions)

Psychopathy[edit]

Being manipulative is in Factor 1 of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL).^[5]

In the workplace[edit]

The workplace psychopath may often rapidly shift between emotions – used to manipulate people or cause high anxiety.^[6]
The authors of the book Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work describe a five phase model of how a typical workplace psychopath climbs to and maintains power. In phase three (manipulation) - the psychopath will create a scenario of "psychopathic fiction" where positive information about themselves and negative disinformation about others will be created, where your role as a part of a network of pawns or patrons will be utilised and you will be groomed into accepting the psychopath's agenda.^[7]
Corporate jargon, variously known as corporate speak, corporate lingo, business speak, business jargon, management speak, workplace jargon, or commercialese, is the jargon often used in large corporations, bureaucracies, and similar workplaces.[1][2] The use of corporate jargon, also known as "corporatese", is criticised for its lack of clarity as well as for its tedium, making meaning and intention opaque and understanding difficult.
Sophism In modern usage sophist and sophistry are redefined and used disparagingly. A sophism is a specious argument for displaying ingenuity in reasoning or for deceiving someone. A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments.
Impression Management (unethical). In business, "managing impressions" normally "involves someone trying to control the image that a significant stakeholder has of them". The ethics of impression management has been hotly debated on whether we should see it as an effective self-revelation or as cynical manipulation.

Antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders[edit]

According to Kernberg, antisocial, borderline, and narcissistic personality disorders are all organized at a borderline level of personality organization,^[8] and the three share some common characterological deficits and overlapping personality traits, with deceitfulness and exceptional manipulative abilities being the most common traits among antisocial and narcissism. Borderline is emphasized by unintentional and dysfunctional manipulation, but stigma towards borderlines being deceitful still wrongfully persists.^[9] Antisocials, borderlines, and narcissists are often pathological liars.^[8] Other shared traits may include pathological narcissism,^[8] consistent irresponsibility, machiavellianism, lack of empathy,^[10] cruelty, meanness, impulsivity, proneness to self-harm and addictions,^[11] interpersonal exploitation, hostility, anger and rage, vanity, emotional instability, rejection sensitivity, perfectionism, and the use of primitive defence mechanisms that are pathological and narcissistic. Common narcissistic defences include splitting, denial, projection, projective identification, primitive idealization and devaluation, distortion (including exaggeration, minimization and lies), and omnipotence.^[12]
Psychologist Marsha M. Linehan has stated that people with borderline personality disorder often exhibit behaviors which are not truly manipulative, but are erroneously interpreted as such.^[13] According to her, these behaviors often appear as unthinking manifestations of intense pain, and are often not deliberate as to be considered truly manipulative. In the DSM-V, manipulation was removed as a defining characteristic of borderline personality disorder.^[9]
Manipulative behavior is intrinsic to narcissists, who use manipulation to obtain power and narcissistic supply. Those with antisocial personalities will manipulate for material items, power, revenge, and a wide variety of other reasons.^[14]

Histrionic personality disorder[edit]

People with histrionic personality disorder are usually high-functioning, both socially and professionally. They usually have good social skills, despite tending to use them to manipulate others into making them the center of attention.^[15]

Machiavellianism[edit]

Machiavellianism is a term that some social and personality psychologists use to describe a person's tendency to be unemotional, and therefore able to detach themselves from conventional morality and hence to deceive and manipulate others. In the 1960s, Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis developed a test for measuring a person's level of Machiavellianism (sometimes referred to as the Machiavelli test).^[16]

편취 騙取

defraudation, swindle, 편취하다 obtain by fraud, defraud ((a person)) of (a thing), cheat ((a person)) out of (a thing)

금전을 편취하다

swindle 《a person》 out of money

2개 뜻 더보기 : swindle 《a person》 out of money

재산을 편취하다

defraud 《a person》 of his property

돈을 편취하다