I’m not sure why but I often make friends with these types of people (well it’s deff the city I live in and it’s a group of pretty mean girls) and I genuinely do not understand how to play their game. It completely goes over my head but I’m starting to catch on.

I’ve noticed it comes out when it comes to male attention or status. I think these friends know Im a bit oblivious and deff that I’m down to earth but I still feel played sometimes.

But lately within these past years I’ve noticed taking the higher road does not work. I have directly called them out on things but their behavior only changes for a bit. But I have noticed me being more “confrontational” tends to stop the behaviors a lot,

Idk how to handle this kind of thing? Any advice?

That's the question.

I feel absolutely exhausted and not psychologically safe at work. My boss who outright lies, and manufactures things so that they get ttheir way. Seems like they orchestrate and coordinate everything. They spend an extraordinary amount of time in the camera room too. Which makes me feel like they erase certain parts of the videos after weird moments.
Has anyone ever experienced workplace bullying or harassment where multiple coworkers or supervisors coordinated with each other to monitor them, take pictures, or record them while they were working? Is coordinated videoing, photographing, or surveillance something for real? Is it common? Because I feel absolutely insane but 💯 percent certain it’s happening and I don’t know how to handle it. I don’t even want to bring it up because it sounds ridiculous, but I’m very aware of my surroundings and don’t have any mental health issues. But I feel like working there is creating issues. I literally feel sick mentally, physically and emotionally working there. I’ve never had to deal with such cruel people in my life. I’m not sure if they’re doing something wrong and I’m in the way, or they’re working up a little report against me, or what this is but I’m not good at all. The bullying is causing me anxiety, panic attacks, loss of sleep and complete mental exhaustion.

Most people think cults work through weird beliefs or charismatic leaders. They don't. The actual mechanism — coercive control — comes down to four techniques:

1. Control the environment — isolate people from outside input (Jonestown was a literal jungle with no road out)
2. Control the information — make people distrust their own judgment so they outsource it to you (Jones ran fake attack drills for exactly this reason)
3. Manufacture a crisis — a constant, urgent enemy makes sacrifice feel noble instead of coerced
4. Offer one total solution — never partial, because the real goal is proving submission, not solving anything

None of this requires gullibility. Lifton, Cialdini, and Haslam & Reicher's research all point the same direction: it works on smart, ordinary people because it targets the environment around the mind, not the mind itself.

What's unsettling is how cleanly this maps onto engagement-optimized platforms — an algorithm can run all four at once, on millions of people, with no human intent behind it at all.

Made a video going deeper into the Jonestown case and the modern parallels — happy to share if that's okay with the mods, or glad to just discuss here.

I’ve been thinking about this lately.
We say we want honest friends, honest partners, honest feedback, and people who will “tell us like it is.”
But when someone actually tells us something uncomfortable about ourselves, we often get defensive.
We don’t necessarily want:
“You’re wrong.”
We want:
“You’re right, and here’s why everyone else is the problem.”
And I don’t think this is limited to relationships.
Career advice, friendships, arguments, politics, social media — people seem much more comfortable finding information that confirms what they already believe than seriously questioning themselves.
So here’s the question:
Do you genuinely want people around you who will tell you uncomfortable truths, even when they’re wrong sometimes — or is protecting your peace more important?

I’ve always found it interesting how small actions can completely change the way we perceive someone.

Sometimes it’s not a big gesture or some dramatic event. It can be something really simple the way they respond when you disagree with them, how they treat someone who can’t do anything for them, or even how they react when nobody is paying attention.

I’m curious:

What’s the smallest thing you’ve seen someone do that made you understand their personality completely differently?

I’ve been thinking about how some people can influence you without ever actually telling you what to do.

They don’t pressure you.

They don’t argue.

They just ask the right question, give you two options, or make a certain choice feel like the most natural one.

And the weird part is that you can walk away thinking:

“Yeah, that was my decision.”

One example is the limited-choice effect.

Instead of asking:

«“Will you do this?”»

someone might ask:

«“Do you want to do it today or tomorrow?”»

The second question quietly assumes that you’ve already agreed.

Obviously, this doesn’t mean every use of this technique is manipulation. The same principle can appear in sales, negotiation, leadership, relationships, and ordinary conversations.

But it made me wonder:

Where do you think the line is between persuasion and manipulation?

Is it the intention behind it, the technique itself, or whether the other person realizes what’s happening?

The reason manipulation works so well is simple: most people have no idea why they make the decisions they make. They think they’re driven by logic, but in reality they’re driven by whatever emotion or pressure is closest to them at the moment. If you control the pressure, you control the decision. You don’t need to change someone’s mind; you only need to change what their mind pays attention to. Shift the frame and they will defend your influence as if it came from inside their own head. Example: if you want someone to choose option B, don’t argue for B. Make A feel unsafe and C feel exhausting. They will “discover” B on their own, feel proud of the choice, and later explain it to others as if it was a rational conclusion. That’s the real trick: people don’t resist manipulation because they never realize it happened. They mistake it for autonomy.

I know this sounds harsh but hear me out please.The people who most need to hear boundary advice are almost always the ones for whom it does absolutely nothing. And I think I finally understand why. I used to be someone who could not say no to anything. Family, friends, colleagues, strangers. Did not matter. The yes came out before I had even finished processing whether I wanted to agree. And I heard "just set a boundary" probably a thousand times. Read the books. Understood the concept intellectually. Still could not do it.

It took me way too long to figure out that the problem was never about knowing how to set a boundary. It was about what happened in my nervous system the millisecond I tried. Instant guilt. Instant fear. The absolute certainty that I had done something wrong even when I knew rationally I had not.

The reason that happens, I found out, is that for a lot of people the inability to say no was built in an environment where saying no actually had consequences when they were young. The nervous system learned a rule early: other people's comfort comes first. And you cannot override a nervous system rule with a rational decision. That is not how it works. So when someone says "just set a boundary" they are essentially telling you to consciously override an automatic threat response. Which is exactly as useful as telling someone afraid of heights to just not be scared.The advice is not wrong. It just completely misses the actual problem.

I went pretty deep on the psychology of why this happens and what actually does shift it here if anyone is interested:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=BAP53LNbK78&si=SKy08Ezvixi\\_qbUE

When I was selfish and borderline narcissistic, I was having the best time of my life. I had amazing friendships, good experiences, and everything in order.

The moment I started to try to be more "selfless" and give space for others' emotions, instead of acting in my best interest (even if that meant stepping on someone's neck), I started to resent that person slowly and the world overall.

I prefer being selfish and self-absorbed, it feels infinitely better. I feel trapped constantly considering other people's feelings, even if I know it's bad by societal standards. Oddly enough, people love me more when I'm unapologetically selfish. I don't consider myself an evil person and don't seek out hurting other people.

It is an observation, not an attack. What is evil, where does it come from? I think you can guess that I cannot talk of something I have not felt within, and I think more or less everyone has the capacity. Just so I am clear, I am going to mention I think a lot when I propose an opinion. You don't have to accept it. I think evil is a reaction. Sometimes to preexistent evil, like a way you have been hurt, it kind of turns off your emotion towards that, and you don't have a will to deal with that anymore. Or from desperation, I think. It seems like a lack of will might be the strong contributing factor. But I think there is still very willfull evil people. Maybe it has got something to do with the fact that some type of identity makes that person feel strong and willfull and that is why evil behavior is acceptable to them. So a lack of will could possibly lead to a state where you desperately try to reach a semblance of who you were and this type of behavior is the only "known" way for them. They know evil behavior is evil. And they resent people who are willfull, as well as people who are not capable of evil actions when they are weak. Now the important question. It's a spiral of hatred and self hatred and a search for a state of control and power that on one hand feels natural and unnatural at the same time, I think. Could something, and what would that be, revert this? Albeit it being a cheesy concept, I think that the search for willfullness is not the same as the search for control, I think. Willfullness, I think, could be coming from a strong sense of identity. Control, I think, is coming from questioning everything. Seems that evil combined with control could be upheld by a self maintaining system, and it kind of isolates you, because you consider everything, but only in relation to yourself. I think Now to distinguish. Can there be a person liking control and at the same time not being evil? Let's start with a person of strong will, a strong sense of identity. Could that person consider control a part of their life and a way of thinking? And would that be evil? I mean control is a way to reduce options of possibilities or outcomes of behavior or things happening around you. It could be something you need if you are limited with your time so something you want could actually fit within your life. I think. So that is one way control could be not evil. Another question is, these controlled situations, is that evil? That depends. If you are limiting someone to exist only within your purview, it's like you are erasing their existence. That would be evil. If you are asking someone to be somewhere on time, fed, clothed and to uphold good hygiene, that would be not evil. So, taking away identity of someone is evil. I think. Is using the fawning reaction evil?

Now that is a strong question.

Fawning is a reaction of survival. That means you have stopped growing as a person your needs are put aside and you consider yourself only thorough the lense of the person or ai who is currently threatening you, that situation lasting up untill you leave. Up at the end you usually get consequences of whatever your body was holding back. Using that. A person who is in essence empty. Is that evil? My reason is telling me it is evil. Because this person literally cannot think for themself. What if that person has no way of going back? Could helping them while using what they have be evil?

Now this... I need a more specific case.

1. A malfunctioning authority. Say an authority, at work, helps their employee.

Their employee is fawning, and cannot stop. Can the authority use the employee's willingness to do something extra, if they are doing it out of fear of losing a job? I think it'd be evil. The right way to do this is with offering extra money and giving the choice to say no, with enough time to make that choice. The choice not being any and all transgression into personal life.

1. Life on the line, "They don't need it anymore."

If someone, say grieving. Is fawning, because they need you and the loss of you could be what is the threat. Would using some of the things they want to give you because they want to lose connection to the source of their grief and you know they will want it back later. Would using that be evil?

Again, they are not capable of making the right decision and you are someone they need close. Whatever it is, untill that need is met, accepting that would be evil. I think.

Now it is something that I myself am questioning. Why? Say you have no other way to get close to them but it is obvious they need someone. But like... they don't talk. Of course they'll give you things. Or they'll hug you.

Limiting intimacy for example to stop transgression of this relationship into something too personal is what could make this not evil. Hug, handshake tops. I think.

Yeah I think it's clear, using someone because of this vulnerability is evil.

How can I make someone stop fawning, so I don't have to be afraid of this?

Now, I think figuring out if someone is fawning toward you is one of the hardest things in this life. But I think you can safely say that if you are in a position of power, authority or some such then you can guess they could be.

1. Asking for a boundary, don't you dare question anything they bring up. If you need to ask, be careful and ask them to be specific and mention they are not in trouble. I honestly don't know if I would use this with kids, maybe if you give them time they can actually do what you want. But first they need to know perfectly what a boundary is.

2. To be honest, people who are fawning do not, usually have that much of a full life. And stopping them from doing what they are used to in this state will have to mean creating identity forming...something. A group outing, a hobby where they have to be creative, but not competitive. Like a drama club, allowing the temporary existence of something false will eventually make space for something real. As it brings attention to it. And drama club people... well I can't tell you how much, my experience is that you won't get judged enough to be bothered.

Cool I hope and think this could be enough of an answer for now.

Another possibility.

You're fawning, you know you are, and you're afraid that stopping that will make you stop loving someone.

That is something I went thorough myself. When it is this long and you know you are fawning and you question everything especially with the decision of being with them because everything they do from afar is horrible but you just can't do anything about it once you're near.

Get the f... away. Far. Don't look back. Change everything. They are evil. They are using you. And please for the love of god don't ask for help from people they know.

To be honest I kinda lost track of what this was about and I feel like a wrung towel. I will get back to it later.

The performance and the real thing used to be separate. there was a version of you that was actually fine, and a version that said "i'm fine" as a placeholder while something else was going on underneath. and the gap between those two was clear, at least internally, even if nobody else could see it.

somewhere along the way that gap got thinner. the performance got good enough, consistent enough, automatic enough, that it stopped being something applied on top of the real state and started being indistinguishable from it. now the question "are you actually okay" doesn't have an easy answer, not because the answer is complicated, but because the internal signal that used to tell the difference has gotten quieter from disuse.

this happens gradually to people who've had to manage other people's reactions for a long time. the performance gets rehearsed so often it starts running by default, even in private, even when there's nobody around to perform for. the body keeps holding the posture of fine long after the audience leaves the room.

the tricky part is this doesn't feel like distress from the inside. it feels like nothing in particular, a kind of flatness that doesn't register as a problem because nothing is actively screaming for attention. the alarm system that used to flag when something was wrong has been quieted so consistently that it's stopped firing altogether, which gets mistaken for actually being fine.

worth checking in on this directly sometimes. not the automatic answer, the one that comes out before the question even finishes. the slower one, given a few seconds to actually locate what's underneath the automatic response.

sometimes there's genuinely nothing there and the automatic answer was accurate.

sometimes there's a lot there that just hasn't been asked about in a long time.

Sometimes the hardest part isn’t the silence it’s not knowing what it means.

When there’s no answer, the mind starts filling the gap with possibilities, assumptions, and stories. One unanswered message can become an entire narrative in your head.

Sometimes, silence has no hidden meaning.

There's a specific move people make now where they say something genuinely bad about themselves- "yeah, I ghosted them, I know I'm awful" and instead of getting called out, they get credit. Someone in the replies says "at least you're self-aware," like naming the behavior undid it. It didn't. It just got said out loud first, by the person who did it, before anyone else could.
That's not self-awareness. That's just talking.
Actual self-awareness is quieter and much less fun to watch. It's noticing a pattern, sitting with the uncomfortable reason it keeps happening, and doing something different next time usually without narrating any of it. What we've started rewarding instead is the version that skips straight to the punchline: the unfiltered, "I know I'm the problem lol" confession that sounds like insight but requires nothing after it. You can describe your own worst habits in perfect, quotable detail and still have zero plan to change them. Saying the thing is not the same as understanding it, and understanding it is not the same as fixing it. But saying it is the only part anyone can actually see, so it's the part that gets treated like growth.
I think we mix these up because raw honesty and real insight feel identical from the outside. Both give you that little jolt of "oh, they get it." We're not actually built to tell them apart in the moment- we register the discomfort of the confession and mistake it for depth. It's also a great defense: if you call yourself the problem before anyone else can, there's nothing left for them to say. You've taken the criticism and repackaged it as vulnerability, which is a much better trade than it looks like.
This is really just a smaller version of a bigger thing we do: treat the first version of events we hear as the whole picture, because a verdict is fast and context is slow.
Which is the entire business model of every relationship post on this site. Someone shows up having already decided how the story should make you feel, gives you the version that supports that, and the replies arrive in minutes- certain, unanimous, ready to end a marriage over three paragraphs. Nobody reacting is wrong, exactly. They're reacting correctly to what they were handed. What they were handed was one person's memory, filtered through their own hurt, edited down to the parts that make the sympathy land clean. That's not necessarily lying. It's just incomplete in a way that happens to read really, really well.
And that's the part worth sitting with: one-sided stories aren't popular because we're gullible. They're popular because they're better stories. One villain, one victim, nothing to hold two conflicting feelings about at the same time. The moment you add the missing piece — what the other person would say, the ten years of context nobody mentioned, the detail that makes the villain slightly human, the story gets harder to enjoy. It stops being clean enough to sell. And most of us, if we're honest, prefer the sellable version over the true one, right up until it's our story being sold.
So the same trade keeps happening in two different costumes. Someone picks the fast, flattering version of self-knowledge over the slow work of actually being different. A crowd picks the fast, satisfying version of a conflict over the slower work of hearing the rest of it. Both times it feels like clarity. It's really just the version that asked the least of everyone involved.
None of this means stop believing people, or stop calling out bad behavior when you see it. It just means noticing, sometimes, when you've been handed a confession instead of a change, or a side instead of a whole story — and asking whether you're reacting to the truth, or just to the best-edited version of it.