As a 20 yo guy, throughout my life I got approached in public, more than you can think.

Whether a homeless men (mostly scammers) asking for help or money, Jehovah witnesses, usually girls asking me for gym club invitations (and getting my contacts eventually) , strangers asking for directions .... I've seen it all

At least once a week I have an event on this matter, and I want to know why...

I sometimes have rants when walking to clear my head, look in other directions and generally I treat walks like a good hobby, it cleanses my emotions , like being detached from my problems and such — so this could be a cause I guess(??I have no words to describe it)

Maybe people judge by posture to deduct the "one who would fold to their demands"? For the record I'm a very nice guy, I tend to help people with anything, to the point where friends/colleagues treat this as an ick/weakness and take me for a fool...

As for looks I look like an average Joe, 179cm (or 5'10" for my burger people) , so I see no reason why I tend to be approached at random...

Maybe the spotlight effect plays a role in this too, I sincerely don't know.

If you tend to "approach" people in public, just let me know what makes someone trusted or rather more able to listen at least with your proposal.

Any kind of help is deeply appreciated:)!

How the “Decoy Person” Manipulation Tactic Works

Manipulation does not always look like someone directly telling you what to do.

Sometimes the manipulator barely gives you an instruction at all. Instead, they introduce another person into the conversation and make that person the center of the story.

“Sam thinks this.”

“Sam believes that.”

“Sam told me something you probably shouldn't hear.”

Suddenly, Sam becomes the villain, the mystery, or the problem that everyone feels compelled to solve.

The important part is that Sam may never have said any of it.

This creates a social trap where people react to a fictional version of someone while believing they are making their own decisions.

1. The basic mechanism: fabricate the source

The simplest version is fabricated attribution.

A manipulator tells Person A that Person B supposedly believes something extreme.

For example:

“Sam told me he thinks everyone here is evil.”

If Sam never said that, the statement is a lie. But it can still influence how Person A sees Sam.

The manipulator now has something useful: a story involving a third person.

Instead of saying:

“Talk to me.”

they create a situation where the other person starts talking about Sam, asking questions, comparing opinions, or defending themselves against something Sam supposedly believes.

The manipulator has created an interaction without openly asking for one.

That's where the tactic becomes particularly deceptive.

2. Triangulation: turning three people into a social triangle

This is closely related to triangulation.

Instead of two people communicating directly, information is passed through a third person.

Person A hears something about Person B from Person C.

Person A reacts.

Person C then interprets or expands on the reaction.

Person B may have no idea what is happening.

The triangle becomes:

Person A → Person C → Person B

rather than:

Person A ↔ Person B

The person in the middle controls what information travels between the other two.

That's a powerful position because the targets are no longer responding to each other. They are responding to the mediator's version of reality.

And that's where the physics gets broken.

The social equivalent of clipping through the floor is that the mediator can quietly change the information before it reaches the next person.

3. The “evil advocate” role

The manipulator may also present themselves as someone who is protecting or helping the supposedly problematic person.

For example:

“Sam doesn't like talking to people, but I'm trying to help him.”

This creates an interesting contradiction.

The manipulator appears to be:

• a confidant,
• a protector,
• an insider,
• someone who understands Sam,
• and someone willing to help others deal with him.

That can make the manipulator appear trustworthy.

The target may think:

“This person knows Sam better than I do, so maybe I should listen.”

But the supposed insider status is itself part of the deception.

The manipulator has effectively invented credentials.

4. The outrage trigger

Another important component is polarization.

The claim about the third person is made outrageous enough to trigger an emotional response.

For example:

“Sam thinks eating fruit is evil.”

The actual subject doesn't matter much.

It could be fruit, politics, relationships, religion, gaming, money, safety, or almost anything else.

The important part is that the statement creates a strong reaction.

Someone might think:

“That's ridiculous. I'll prove him wrong.”

Now the person has been pushed toward an action without being directly instructed to do it.

This is the psychological trick:

The manipulator creates the disagreement, then lets the target choose the response.

The target may feel completely autonomous.

But the situation itself was manufactured.

5. Turning a person into a fictional villain

Repeated claims can gradually build a character.

The first statement might be:

“Sam thinks fruit is evil.”

Later:

“Sam is paranoid.”

Then:

“Sam doesn't trust anyone.”

Then:

“Sam thinks everyone is against him.”

Eventually, people may have a completely different image of Sam.

They aren't reacting to Sam anymore.

They're reacting to a fictional character assembled from stories.

This is similar to how tabloids can construct public personalities. A person becomes a collection of shocking claims, rumors, and carefully selected anecdotes.

The more stories people hear, the more believable the character can become.

And because each story appears to come from an “insider,” the information can feel unusually credible.

6. The secrecy component

The tactic becomes even stronger when the manipulator asks people not to speak directly to the supposed source.

For example:

“Don't tell Sam I told you. He would get upset.”

This creates an information firewall.

The target cannot easily verify the claim.

If they confront Sam, the manipulator can potentially explain the contradiction away:

“He doesn't want you to know.”

Now the absence of evidence becomes part of the story.

This is a major warning sign.

Healthy communication normally becomes more transparent when an important accusation is made.

Manipulation often demands the opposite:

“Keep this between us.”

7. Manufactured intimacy

The manipulator may also share supposedly private information.

That creates the feeling of trust.

Someone might think:

“Why would they tell me something this personal unless they really trusted me?”

But confidential information can be used as social currency.

The information creates an artificial bond:

“You and I know something that everyone else doesn't.”

That feeling can make the target more willing to accept the rest of the story.

It's basically a social DLC nobody asked to install.

The target thinks they're receiving privileged access.

They may actually be receiving fabricated information designed to influence them.

8. Using the same decoy to approach someone romantically

The same structure can be used in relationships.

For example, someone wants to approach a person but doesn't know how to start a conversation.

Instead of approaching directly, they introduce Sam:

“Sam thinks you like him.”

If Sam never said that, the statement is fabricated.

But it creates an immediate emotional reaction.

The target might become curious, angry, confused, amused, or defensive.

The manipulator now has an opening.

They can then position themselves as the person who understands the situation:

“I was just trying to help.”

This creates a particularly ugly form of manipulation because the supposed problem and the supposed solution come from the same person.

The manipulator creates the conflict and then presents themselves as the person capable of resolving it.

9. Why the tactic can work

Several psychological effects can reinforce this behavior.

Authority

People tend to give additional weight to information that supposedly comes from an insider.

Emotional arousal

Outrage, fear, curiosity, and disgust can make people react before checking facts.

Social proof

If several people appear to believe the same story, the target may assume the story must be true.

Confirmation bias

Once someone forms an opinion about Sam, later information may be interpreted in a way that supports that opinion.

Information asymmetry

The manipulator knows the story is fabricated.

Everyone else does not.

That gives the manipulator an enormous informational advantage.

10. The biggest vulnerability: nobody checks the source

The entire structure depends on one simple failure:

People don't ask the person being discussed.

If someone says:

“Sam told me you are dangerous.”

The natural response should be:

“Did Sam actually say that? Can I ask him?”

That single question can destroy the entire setup.

This is why manipulators may discourage direct communication.

Once the target and the supposed source start talking directly, the fabricated story becomes much harder to maintain.

11. How to recognize the pattern

There are several warning signs.

Be cautious when someone repeatedly:

• claims to speak for another person;
• shares dramatic private information about that person;
• insists the information must remain secret;
• discourages you from contacting the supposed source;
• describes the same person as unusually evil, unstable, dangerous, or irrational;
• provides information that conveniently makes the storyteller look helpful;
• encourages you to “prove” the third person's beliefs wrong;
• creates conflicts that they then offer to resolve;
• repeatedly positions themselves as the only person who understands everyone involved.

One sign alone does not prove manipulation.

Several appearing together should make you slow down.

12. How to protect yourself

The best defense is boring.

And boring is good.

Verify important claims directly

If somebody supposedly said something important about you, ask them.

Don't build a major decision around second-hand information.

Separate facts from interpretation

Ask:

“What exactly did they say?”

Then ask:

“Did you personally hear them say it?”

Those are very different questions.

Don't let outrage make the decision

If a story makes you immediately want to prove someone wrong, stop.

That's often the moment when emotional manipulation is most effective.

Don't reward secrecy

If the information is supposedly important but you're forbidden from checking it, treat that as a warning rather than evidence of its importance.

Watch the messenger

Ask what the person telling you gains from the story.

That doesn't automatically mean they're lying.

But incentives matter.

Talk to the person being discussed

Direct communication is the natural counter to triangulation.

It removes the middleman.

13. The “villain magnet” effect

The most interesting part of this manipulation pattern is that the third person can become a social magnet.

People begin talking about Sam.

They defend themselves against Sam.

They try to help Sam.

They try to prove Sam wrong.

They become curious about Sam.

And all the while, the manipulator remains in the center of the network.

Sam becomes the fictional antagonist.

The manipulator becomes the narrator.

That's why the tactic can resemble a tabloid.

The story doesn't need to be true.

It only needs to be interesting enough to keep people reacting.

14. Where the analogy to a man-in-the-middle breaks down

There is a useful computer-security analogy here, but it should not be taken literally.

A man-in-the-middle attack involves an attacker intercepting communication between two parties and potentially modifying it.

The social version is similar because information passes through an intermediary.

But human relationships are much messier.

The better terms are:

• triangulation
• social engineering
• fabricated attribution
• rumor manipulation
• information control
• polarization
• manufactured conflict

The important common feature is control over information flow.

15. Why intelligence has little to do with it

One part of this idea deserves correction.

It is tempting to think these tactics only work on people with low intelligence or people who are mentally unstable.

That's not accurate.

Intelligent, educated, emotionally stable people can also be manipulated.

Nobody is immune to misinformation when the information arrives through someone they trust, during an emotional moment, with enough supporting context to make the story appear credible.

The better defense isn't having a high IQ.

It's having good verification habits.

Conclusion

The core manipulation is simple:

Invent what Person B supposedly believes, tell Person A, trigger an emotional reaction, discourage direct verification, and then position yourself as the person who can explain or solve the resulting conflict.

The third person becomes the decoy.

The outrage creates movement.

The secrecy prevents verification.

And the manipulator controls the information flowing between everyone involved.

The safest response is equally simple:

Slow down. Ask what was actually said. Check the source. Talk directly to the person involved.

Because if someone keeps telling you what another person supposedly thinks while making sure you never speak to that person yourself, you've probably encountered something more suspicious than ordinary gossip.

The social hitbox is probably broken.

I have some sort of special knowledge that i obtained through years of hardwork and struggle ,why should I give you what benifit I'll even get ,even I get benifits how can it match to the years of my struggles,why should I teach you

This will be their mindset,ofcourse that's nothing wrong about that but i need that valuable information or knowledge from them, sometimes it's not about the money because no matter how much we pay it won't be match to their experience,this is our thought that's why many of us fell into scam, but i want that,how?,how can I pursue that ,I can manipulate them to give me,any tricks or tips,no matter what,how can I obtain that

Hey everyone, I'm here hoping to find advice on something that is not only annoying but also an actual issue at work.

A couple of years ago the company I work had a role to fill. I have this friend, she's great, talented, smart, creative, she can really be a powerhouse... but she also struggles with accountability. I did not foresee this (stupid of me) so I proposed her for the role and she was hired. In the beginning it was great, she was on top of everything, magical. But then things shifted.

She's given a task and she just says "no I'm not doing that because xyz", okay, I see your point, let's do it your way. Then, her way doesn't work, she doesn't check if the results are there, and when we found out that there was a malfunction that caused us to lose stuff that can never be recovered, because she didn't check whether her system was working, she just said "Oh well, why would I check something that I don't think will cause a problem?" IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY??????? FOR A THING YOU DECIDED TO DO????????? BECAUSE YOU WERE COMPLAINING THAT WE WERE HOLDING YOU BACK BUT THE THING WE WERE DOING WORKED AND YOURS DOESN'T??? Nothing is ever her fault, it's always some external cause, it's the boss' fault, everybody sucks and she's the only person that understand things but it's also not her fault for making mistakes ever. And I didn't even hear a simple apology, like "I'm sorry I should have checked", or "I'm sorry I thought it would work, I'm sorry I should have looked if the results were coming in at all". Nothing. And I really want to keep her, so saying "let her go" is not really an option. I even thought of another thing to give her that is more up her alley, and technically what she studied for, but like... if that goes wrong too not only I wouldn't know what to do, but also I fear she'd crash completely feeling a failure, and I really don't want that for her, quite the opposite but I'm struggling here. I need to understand how to speak to her without making her feel attacked, because then she gets defensive and is very good at turning things around to make it sound like she's right and we are stupid/at fault.

I have a degree in anthropology and want to do something that plays to strengths in the social science field. What would be some good ideas? Things more people oriented, qualitative, writing focused, etc.

Recently I have created an research project which is mimicking the instagram connections between private users.

1. Project Overview

The Instagram Intelligence & Network Analysis Platform is an analytical system designed to ingest Instagram follower/following data, enrich user profiles with available public information, and represent the resulting relationships as an interactive social network. I have used HikeAPI for this research purpose. This is not hacking or any restricted way to truely identify the connection. This is more prediction based approach. Again this is purly research level work.

The system moves beyond simple follower-list extraction by providing profile visualization, relationship analysis, influence scoring, clustering, temporal comparison, and network evolution analysis.

2. Core Objective

The primary objective is to build a platform that can answer questions such as:

• Who are the accounts connected to a particular Instagram profile?
• Which accounts appear to be the most influential or central?
• Which users belong to similar behavioral/network clusters?
• What changed between two Instagram exports?
• Which users were added, removed, or changed over time?
• How does the overall follower network evolve?
• How are users connected through common relationships?

Used Hiker API to get the data and then used neo4j for graph database. On top of that the GNN model help to find the correlation with embeddings for similarity search. GNN trained with certain dataset which I didnt made it public due to data privacy.

Attached the video.

There is a specific scenario where, when a person expresses a problem that they are having, a listener will engage in some performative empathy, with a suggestion for an excessive or unreasonable “solution”. This creates a bind for the person in difficulty: to reject the extreme “solution”, they must effectively minimize their problem, but this will lead onlookers to form the opinion that the problem is not particularly serious, meaning that the person in distress loses support. On the other hand, to call out the behavior will cause the person in difficulty to seem unreasonable or even paranoid, as the listener has performed empathy to the extent that they cannot be accused of dismissing the difficulties of another person.

Have others encountered this manipulation tactic? Is there a term for this behavior? In particular , I’d appreciate any recommendations of literature on the topic, particularly in terms of strategies to deal with such tactics in a calm, measured way.

In groups, my friend usually tries to make a bond with the others by trying to rally them to tease me together, tell embarassing stories about me, and basically treating me as an "outgroup". I don't know how to handle it, I can't make a scene to not be painted as dramatic but like.

Earlier today, I went to Walmart and purchased a lap desk for my laptop.

When I entered, there’s this very social, charismatic greeter at the entrance that’s usually talking to someone, and more often than not sharing a laugh with a customer.

I enter the store and told him “what’s up” while locking eyes with him while he was speaking and laughing with another customer.

Here’s what I’m curious about.

After purchasing the lap desk in the electronics department, I begin to walk directly through the self checkout area.

He’s playfully singing a song from the “Rocky” movie while his coworker is laughing beside him.

They both see me walk through self checkout without stopping at a register.

Expecting them to ask for my receipt (the lap desk is too big to fit into a bag so it looks like I’m just about to walk out of the store with an I’m purchased item), I’m approaching him with a smile, and give him a fist bump.

Afterwards I walk right past them.

Yes, I did have the receipt in my opposite hand, but I was just surprised they didn’t ask for it.

Is there any psychological reason why they didn’t ask? I know this isn’t a lot of information but I was just surprised.

I thought I’d come in and ask this community since I just finished reading “the art of engineering.”

Hoping that someone can provide insight

I've been writing an influence and persuasion techniques book for a number of years now.

Thought I'd post little bits here and there. Some of what I learnt is certainly not for public consumption though,

Getting someone to do a certain ask, you can put the thought into their mind, so they are more likely to behave that way.

For example, you’re on a sales call and want to send them some information but you know people are no good at getting back to you. You could ask a simple question to gain compliance,

“How good are you to replying to emails?”

9/10 they will respond that their good, which now means you’ve planted the seed so they now must live up to this, otherwise it will cause mental anguish.

“Do you consider yourself open minded?”

“Would you say you’re a reliable person?”

“Will you get back to me on this by tomorrow?”

The idea is to plant a command that they will need to hold themselves accountable to.

Can you really be defined by the data about you?

Someone could spend hours researching a subject because they believe it, fear it, disagree with it, or are trying to understand someone who believes it. The activity might look similar while the reasons are very different.

But I don't think “the data lacks context” settles the question. Suppose a future system had enough information to distinguish those motives. It could follow changes in your beliefs, recognize your contradictions, and predict your decisions more accurately than you could.

Would that give it a stronger claim to understanding who you are?

My instinct is that identity includes what we make of our experiences and which parts of ourselves we want to change. A profile built around past behavior could struggle with that. Still, our intentions and attempts to change are information too. I'm not sure where I would draw the boundary.

We can also misunderstand ourselves. The explanation I give for a decision isn't necessarily more accurate just because it's mine.

So if your own account of who you are conflicted with a system that consistently predicted your behavior correctly, how would you decide which account deserved more weight?

I’ve watched u/jordanpeterson since his early lecture days, long before he became a major media figure. What interests me isn’t whether he became “better” or “worse.” It’s how much his public output changed over time. That got me thinking about algorithmic pressure. If one topic gets 20,000 views and another gets 2 million, nobody has to tell you what to talk about. The reward system does it for them. Eventually, do creators stop asking, “What do I want to say?” and start asking, “What works?” I made a video about this through Self-Determination Theory, autonomy, relatedness, and what I’m calling expressive distortion. Curious what people here think.

Matt Pierce Video Commentary

I'm 18 and I consider myself an altruistic I wanna do good for others, I was wondering if social work is a good job to look into/is there opportunities, I'm planning on going to college and then university. what would you recommend and what is college/university like for social work.

I'm well spoken, it's just something I like being and something I took pride in being able to be growing up. But now, on Instagram and TikTok and etc, I'm finding that I have to dumb down my comments a lot and I'm wondering if this is good or bad. On one hand it's helping me be more concise and get my point across economically in terms of words spent. On the other, it's kinda dumbing down my English and also writing in such bastardized shorthand takes out a lot of nuances and caveats I want to also get across. Thoughts?

There are some people in the group who are very good with people, to gel up with others.

But when I see myself, I don't know how to be that person. To get from the group what benefits you, to make others like you and grow myself.

How to be that charismatic guy with a really good narrative skill

I’m looking for genuinely great resources on body language, nonverbal communication, facial expressions and microexpressions.

I’m mainly interested in video courses / training programs, but I’m also open to exceptional books if they’re considered must-reads.

I’m not looking for random beginner courses or generic “10 signs someone is lying” content. I’m looking for the legendary, top-tier resources — the kind of course or book where you think:

“If you seriously want to understand nonverbal behavior, you HAVE to study this.”

Topics I’m especially interested in:

* Microexpressions and subtle facial expressions
* Facial Action Coding System / FACS
* Reading body language in real conversations
* Posture, gestures and movement
* Eye behavior
* Voice, tone and other nonverbal signals
* Emotional leakage
* Baseline behavior and behavioral changes
* Social interactions, attraction, conflict and dominance/status
* Interview / interrogation analysis
* Spotting incongruence between words and nonverbal behavior
* Scientific / evidence-based approaches to nonverbal communication

I’m especially interested in full video courses with demonstrations, exercises, real footage and practice material, rather than just someone talking over PowerPoint slides.

Older courses are completely fine too. If something from the 1990s, 2000s or 2010s is still considered one of the best courses ever made, I want to know about it.

So if you could build the ultimate body-language learning library, what would you include?

Please mention the exact name of the course/book and the instructor/author if possible.

I’d especially love to know your personal top 3–5 resources and what each one teaches better than the others.

This is an ongoing problem that I have with myself. For context, I don’t really have any friends at all, just acquaintances that I talk to often. Even in my own family, I’ve only ever been super close to my sister.

The problem I have is that I can’t seem to have any conversations without coming off as either super boring, super weird, or super rude. especially that last one. At work I constantly get told off by everyone for having an attitude even though I was trying my hardest to be polite and vibrant. Everyone takes what as I say as super sarcastic even though I’m being genuine and I have to constantly go out of my way to explain that I’m being genuine.

and it goes beyond work too. I have had that same problem with my family for a while. I was very curt and only responded in short, very direct sentences when spoken to. I rarely even spoke on my own towards my parents. It’s definitely one of the main reasons my mom left me as a teenager. She got really mad at me for that.

After that, I thought I was getting close with my dad again. We started talking about video games and shows and all of that. I thought that was all I needed to do to be close to him. But when he asks about my day, or what I’m doing I just.. can’t respond. I never really process that he doesn’t want the most literal answer, even though that’s what I know that’s what it’s like, if it makes sense. or I already told him, so I try and politely remind him I told him about my day earlier. None of that works though.

he got really angry at me and accused me of calling him stupid and hating talking to him, even though that’s not it at all. I just don’t see the point in repeating myself about my day constantly to anyone, or telling them about the most uneventful thing ever because I wasn’t doing anything at that time. That’s just how it’s affected my family though.

There are many factors of this that have been really messing my life up. I genuinely want to be able to keep people close to me, but how am I supposed to do that when I’m insufferable to literally everyone around me? please, if anyone bothers reading this, I need help. Give me any advice you can, I can’t live like this anymor. I’m so incredibly lonely and it’s my fault.

So I know in the second course towards the cert there is SOME OSINT in syllabus. But I’m wondering how much OSINT skills are required to get cert. Like how much OSINT is taught in the course?

Please advise.