Manipulation

Introduction

The world is full of people who want to sell us something.
They use ancient tricks that have worked for has 2,000 years.

This is a thought guide, not an academic research paper.

Sometimes the boundaries between manipulations are fluid, and the separation is not always perfectly clear.
It can also happen that people manipulate by accident, or that one over-interprets things.

I sometimes use neologisms or terms in the headings that are not technically correct or are defined differently in academic research.

The truth, as always, is hidden somewhere in the middle.

Divide and Conquer

You split a group into two (or more) camps that fight each other. While they are distracted, the manipulator does whatever they want.
- "When two quarrel, the third benefits."

The Distraction War:
A conflict happens somewhere in the world. You support Party A, others support Party B. While you are beating each other's heads in, you forget what is happening in your own country
(rents are rising, wages are stagnating, infrastructure is crumbling, etc.).

The External Enemy:
"All foreigners are criminals." (Creating a blanket scapegoat to distract from structural problems).

The Gender War:
"Not all men, but always men."
"All women just want money."
"The other gender has it better."
etc.
The genders are polarized against each other, instead of fighting together for true equality and understanding.
("Red Pill", radical/(Nazi-)feminism)

The Generational Conflict:
"Boomers are to blame for climate change."
"The young are too lazy."
(Splitting people by generation).

The Effect:
This creates a deep division because an entire group is deliberately attacked or stigmatized. People fight each other instead of questioning the actual system together.

Blame-Shifting (Scapegoating)

In a complex structure or situation, one looks for a single person or group to distract oneself.
Or the manipulator blames someone else to absolve themselves of their own responsibility.

Instead of analyzing the true causes (which are often complicated and uncomfortable), one points the finger at a simple scapegoat. This gives people the feeling of having an explanation and creates a common enemy image.

The Gender War:
"The man / the woman is to blame for the current situation."
"The man is to blame because of the patriarchy."
"The woman is to blame because she ate from the forbidden apple" (Original sin, Bible, religion, Adam and Eve).
(Instead of talking about structural inequality, an entire gender is made responsible).

The Political Scapegoat:
"Politician X is to blame for the economic crisis."

Collective Guilt:
"The German is to blame because the Germans started the 1st and 2nd World Wars."
(An entire people or individuals are made responsible for historical acts in which they personally did not participate).

Associations & Origin:
"The Russian is to blame because he comes from Russia."
(A single person is made responsible for the politics or actions of an entire country and its government, solely based on their origin).

The Effect:
People feel relieved because they now have someone "guilty". They no longer have to think or deal with uncomfortable truths. Instead, they fight the scapegoat while the actual problems remain unsolved.

The Psychological Consequences of False Blame:
If someone takes the blame even though they are innocent or have nothing to do with it, their psyche is heavily burdened.
The person affected begins to question their own existence, feels deep guilt, and can consequently fall into depression in the long term.
Self-confidence is systematically dismantled.
As a result, one becomes a broken person.

Always ask:
"Is it really that simple? Or are there reasons that are more complex?"

It is very similar to:
Divide and Conquer

Censorship

You are only shown one side of the truth, the other remains hidden. You think you see the whole picture, but you only see what they want to show you.
It is argued that the other side spreads extremism, disinformation, or hate. Therefore, one must "protect" oneself from this information.

But watch out:
Not everything the other side says is automatically wrong. And not everything your own side presents is automatically right.

What you must do:
- Research for yourself
- Listen to both sides
- Form your own opinion

Pseudoscience

Buzzwords or "intelligent" words, statistics, and quotes from scientists are used to appear academic and intellectual.
BUT:
It is not described how the statistics were collected, how many participants were involved, or how the experiment even took place. Sometimes the sources are not even cited (correctly). Criticism of one's own research is simply swept under the rug.

- "Science proves that ..."
- "The expert has proven that ..."
But the experiments are not explained.

The Effect:
People blindly believe the statement and the "expert" without seeing real proof or understanding the methodology. They trust the facade of science, not science itself.

Science should not be an authority, but a method:
1. Read and check statistics, experiments, and sources
2. Understand the conclusions
3. Read criticism
4. Form your own opinion

Distraction
A scandal, an extreme event, or a "war" is deliberately created to distract from an even worse or more unpleasant topic.

Distraction War:
A war or conflict is pushed to the forefront by the media, while unpleasant decisions are made in one's own country.

Media Distraction:
A scandal involving politicians happens. Suddenly, the media reports on something else, and thus the actual topic is lost.

The Legislative Trick:
A highly unpopular or drastic law is passed. However, the law is so complex and has so much text that it is not clear. As a result, even worse regulations get lost in the fine print.

The Effect:
Public anger and attention are directed at the new event, while the actual, harmful law slips through in the shadows.

However, it is sometimes pure coincidence, but often an ice-cold tactic.

Normalization
When things are constantly repeated or shown, they become normalized. They are no longer questioned and are viewed as the "average" or "natural".
As a result, one might know that something is "bad" or wrong, but dismisses it with "It is what it is" or "That's just how it's always been".

Examples:
- "Men are strong, women are weak."
- "You have to protect women" (but men are ignored).
- "Don't hit a woman" / "Real men don't hit women." (Why is this gender-specific? Is a woman allowed to hit a man? It should be self-evident that you don't hit anyone).
- "Boys will be boys."

The Effect:
Many people no longer see the problem at all because they know nothing else.
And if you do emphasize and question it, it is precisely the person pointing out the problem who gets attacked.

Stoking Fear (Fearmongering)
Statistics and numbers are presented in an extremely distorted way or exaggerated massively to create panic. Sometimes, direct lies are told.
One talks obsessively about only *one* threatening thing and completely ignores all other contexts, backgrounds, or reassuring facts.

The Effect:
Fear makes people irrational. Those who are afraid turn off their critical thinking and seek protection. Often, they then blindly follow the one who promises to banish the alleged danger, which is usually the manipulator themselves.

Appeal to Authority
An expert is asked, but the expert is either from a company, pursues an ideology, or has a distorted worldview. As a result, people believe the expert, even though they do not see the sources, statistics, and experiments, and trust blindly.

Advertising:
An entrepreneur creates skin products and presents positive feedback from an expert who is paid by the same company.

Religion:
Something is written in the "holy" book, and therefore it must be obeyed. Anyone who questions it commits blasphemy.

Always the Opposite (Blind Anti-Mainstream)
You always do the opposite of what the media or the mainstream says.
You lull yourself into the illusion of being particularly critical or "awake".
In reality, however, you become just as blind as the masses.
If the mainstream exceptionally has legitimate, good arguments, you automatically reject them just because they come "from the mainstream".

- The other side of the sheep.

Repetition
If you repeat a lie often enough, it is believed. Unless you criticize or contradict this lie every time it appears.

Prejudgment (Misrepresenting in Advance)
The opposing side is presented in an extremely distorted or negative way from the outset. As a result, this side gets a bad reputation before a real argument has even been exchanged.
You no longer listen to the opposing side at all or automatically reject their points, regardless of whether the arguments are valid or not.
The opinion is already formed before the actual discussion begins.

The Straw Man
A distorted, exaggerated, or completely false version of the opponent's argument is built, just to destroy it easily.
In doing so, inappropriate examples are chosen, or ones that only support one's own argumentation.

False Alternatives
A few possibilities are presented, but all these options only serve the manipulator, not the population.
In truth, both paths are chosen so that only the manipulator wins in the end. The third, fair path is simply kept silent.

Cherry Picking
One intentionally addresses only the bad, false, weakest, or most extreme arguments of the opposing side.
It seems fair and as if one is seriously engaging with the other side. But one completely ignores the strong, justified points of the opposing side.
One's own camp feels confirmed ("See, their arguments are all dumb or wrong!"), while the actual, justified criticism remains hidden.
You only pick the "rotten apples" to pretend that the whole tree is bad.

Do you know other manipulation techniques?
(This is not a single article, because then I would have to search for sources and real examples that underpin my theses. But here it should just be a thought guide.)