Psychopaths in Sheep's Clothing
An Excerpt from the book: In Sheep's Clothing
By George K. Simon
Two Basic Types of Aggression
There are two basic types of aggression: overt-aggression and covert-aggression. When you're determined to have something and
you're open, direct and obvious in your manner of fighting, your behavior is best
labeled overtly aggressive. When you're out to "win," dominate or control,
but are subtle, underhanded or deceptive enough to hide your true intentions, your
behavior is most appropriately labeled covertly aggressive. Now, avoiding
any overt display of aggression while simultaneously intimidating others into
giving you what you want is a powerfully manipulative maneuver. That's why
covert-aggression is most often the vehicle for interpersonal manipulation.
Acts of Covert-Aggression vs. Covert-Aggressive Personalities
Most of us have engaged in some sort of covertly aggressive behavior from time
to time. Periodically trying to manipulate a person or a situation doesn't make
someone a covert-aggressive personality. Personality can be defined by the way a
person habitually perceives, relates to and interacts with others and the
world at large.
The tactics of deceit, manipulation and control are a steady diet for
covert-aggressive personality. It's the way they prefer to deal with others and
to get the things they want in life.
The Process of Victimization
For a long time, I wondered why manipulation victims have a hard time seeing
what really goes on in manipulative interactions. At first, I was tempted to fault
them. But I've learned that they get hoodwinked for some very good reasons:
- A manipulator's aggression is not obvious. Our gut may tell us that they're fighting
for something, struggling to overcome us, gain power, or have their way, and we find
ourselves unconsciously on the defensive. But because we can't point to clear, objective
evidence they're aggressing against us, we can't readily validate our feelings.
- The tactics manipulators use can make it seem like they're hurting, caring,
defending, ..., almost anything but fighting. These tactics are hard to recognize as
merely clever ploys. They always make just enough sense to make a person doubt their gut
hunch that they're being taken advantage of or abused. Besides, the tactics not only
make it hard for you to consciously and objectively tell that a manipulator is fighting,
but they also simultaneously keep you or consciously on the defensive. These features
make them highly effective psychological weapons to which anyone can be vulnerable. It's
hard to think clearly when someone has you emotionally on the run.
- All of us have weaknesses and insecurities that a clever manipulator might
exploit. Sometimes, we're aware of these weaknesses and how someone might use
them to take advantage of us. For example, I hear parents say things like: "Yeah,
I know I have a big guilt button." – But at the time their manipulative
child is busily pushing that button, they can easily forget what's really going
on. Besides, sometimes we're unaware of our biggest vulnerabilities. Manipulators
often know us better than we know ourselves. They know what buttons to push, when
and how hard. Our lack of self-knowledge sets us up to be exploited.
- What our gut tells us a manipulator is like, challenges everything we've
been taught to believe about human nature. We've been inundated with a psychology
that has us seeing everybody, at least to some degree, as afraid, insecure or
"hung-up." So, while our gut tells us we're dealing with a ruthless conniver, our
head tells us they must be really frightened or wounded "underneath." What's more,
most of us generally hate to think of ourselves as callous and insensitive people.
We hesitate to make harsh or seemingly negative judgments about others. We want to
give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they don't really harbor the
malevolent intentions we suspect. We're more apt to doubt and blame ourselves for
daring to believe what our gut tells us about our manipulator's character.
Recognizing Aggressive Agendas
Accepting how fundamental it is for people to fight for the things they want and
becoming more aware of the subtle, underhanded ways people can and do fight in their
daily endeavors and relationships can be very consciousness expanding. Learning to
recognize an aggressive move when somebody makes one and learning how to handle
oneself in any of life's many battles, has turned out to be the most empowering
experience for the manipulation victims with whom I've worked. It's how they
eventually freed themselves from their manipulator's dominance and control and
gained a much needed boost to their own sense of self esteem. Recognizing the
inherent aggression in manipulative behavior and becoming more aware of the slick,
surreptitious ways that manipulative people prefer to aggress against us is
extremely important. Not recognizing and accurately labeling their subtly aggressive
moves causes most people to misinterpret the behavior of manipulators and,
therefore, fail to respond to them in an appropriate fashion. Recognizing when and
how manipulators are fighting with covertly aggressive tactics is essential.
Defense Mechanisms and Offensive Tactics
Almost everyone is familiar with the term defense mechanism. Defense
mechanisms are the "automatic" (i.e. unconscious) mental behaviors all of us employ to
protect or defend ourselves from the "threat" of some emotional pain. More specifically, ego
defense mechanisms are mental behaviors we use to "defend" our self-images from
"invitations" to feel ashamed or guilty about something. There are many different kinds of
ego defenses and the more traditional (psychodynamic) theories of personality have always
tended to distinguish the various personality types, at least in part, by the types of ego
defenses they prefer to use. One of the problems with psychodynamic approaches to
understanding human behavior is that they tend to depict people as most always afraid of
something and defending or protecting themselves in some way; even when they're in the act
of aggressing. Covert-aggressive personalities (indeed all aggressive personalities) use a
variety of mental behaviors and interpersonal maneuvers to help ensure they get what they
want. Some of these behaviors have been traditionally thought of as defense mechanisms.
While, from a certain perspective we might say someone engaging in these behaviors is
defending their ego from any sense of shame or guilt, it's important to realize that at
the time the aggressor is exhibiting these behaviors, he is not primarily defending (i.e.
attempting to prevent some internally painful event from occurring), but rather fighting
to maintain position, gain power and to remove any obstacles (both internal and external)
in the way of getting what he wants. Seeing the aggressor as on the defensive in any
sense is a set-up for victimization. Recognizing that they're primarily on the offensive,
mentally prepares a person for the decisive action they need to take in order to avoid
being run over. Therefore, I think it's best to conceptualize many of the mental
behaviors (no matter how "automatic" or "unconscious" they may appear) we often think of
as defense mechanisms, as offensive power tactics, because aggressive personalities
employ them primarily to manipulate, control and achieve dominance over others. Rather
than trying to prevent something emotionally painful or dreadful from happening, anyone
using these tactics is primarily trying to ensure that something they want to happen does
indeed happen. Using the vignettes presented in the previous chapters for illustration,
let's take a look at the principal tactics covert-aggressive personalities use to ensure
they get their way and maintain a position of power over their victims:
Denial – This is when the aggressor refuses to admit that
they've done something harmful or hurtful when they clearly have. It's a way they
lie (to themselves as well as to others) about their aggressive intentions. This
"Who... Me?" tactic is a way of "playing innocent," and invites the victim to feel
unjustified in confronting the aggressor about the inappropriateness of a behavior.
It's also the way the aggressor gives him/herself permission to keep right on doing
what they want to do. This denial is not the same kind of denial that a person who
has just lost a loved one and can't quite bear to accept the pain and reality of
the loss engages in. That type of denial really is mostly a "defense" against
unbearable hurt and anxiety. Rather, this type of denial is not primarily a
"defense" but a maneuver the aggressor uses to get others to back off, back down or
maybe even feel guilty themselves for insinuating he's doing something wrong.
In the story of James the minister, James' denial of his ruthless ambition is massive.
He denied he was hurting and neglecting his family. He especially denied he was
aggressively pursuing any personal agenda. On the contrary, he cast himself as the humble
servant to a honorable cause. He managed to convince several people (and maybe even
himself) of the nobility and purity of his intentions. But underneath it all, James knew
he was being dishonest: This fact is borne out in his reaction to the threat of not
getting a seat on the Elders' Council if his marital problems worsened. When James learned
he might not get what he was so aggressively pursuing after all, he had an interesting
"conversion" experience. All of a sudden, he decided he could put aside the Lord's bidding
for a weekend and he might really need to devote more time to his marriage and family.
James' eyes weren't opened by the pastor's words. He always kept his awareness high about
what might hinder or advance his cause. He knew if he didn't tend to his marriage he might
lose what he really wanted. So, he chose (at least temporarily) to alter course.
In the story of Joe and Mary, Mary confronted Joe several times about what she
felt was insensitivity and ruthlessness on his part in his treatment of Lisa. Joe
denied his aggressiveness. He also successfully convinced Mary that what she felt in
her gut was his aggressiveness was really conscientiousness, loyalty, and passionate
fatherly concern. Joe wanted a daughter who got all A's. Mary stood in the way. Joe's
denial was the tactic he used to remove Mary as an obstacle to what he wanted.
Selective Inattention – This tactic is similar to and
sometimes mistaken for denial It's when the aggressor "plays dumb," or acts
oblivious. When engaging in this tactic, the aggressor actively ignores the
warnings, pleas or wishes of others, and in general, refuses to pay attention to
everything and anything that might distract them from pursuing their own agenda.
Often, the aggressor knows full well what you want from him when he starts to
exhibit this "I don't want to hear it!" behavior. By using this tactic, the
aggressor actively resists submitting himself to the tasks of paying attention to
or refraining from the behavior you want him to change. In the story of Jenny and
Amanda, Jenny tried to tell Amanda she was losing privileges because she was
behaving irresponsibly. But Amanda wouldn't listen. Her teachers tried to tell
her what she needed to do to improve her grade: but she didn't listen to them
either. Actively listening to and heeding the suggestions of someone else are,
among other things, acts of submission. And, as you may remember from the story,
Amanda is not a girl who submits easily. Determined to let nothing stand in her
way and convinced she could eventually "win" most of her power struggles with
authority figures through manipulation, Amanda closed her ears. She didn't see
any need to listen. From her point of view, she would only have lost some power
and control if she submitted herself to the guidance and direction offered by
those whom she views as less powerful, clever and capable as herself.
Rationalization – A rationalization is the excuse an aggressor
tries to offer for engaging in an inappropriate or harmful behavior. It can be an effective
tactic, especially when the explanation or justification the aggressor offers makes just
enough sense that any reasonably conscientious person is likely to fall for it. It's a
powerful tactic because it not only serves to remove any internal resistance the aggressor
might have about doing what he wants to do (quieting any qualms of conscience he might have)
but also to keep others off his back. If the aggressor can convince you he's justified in
whatever he's doing, then he's freer to pursue his goals without interference.
In the story of little Lisa, Mary felt uneasy about the relentlessness with which Joe
pursued his quest to make his daughter an obedient, all-A student once again. And, she was
aware of Lisa's expressed desire to pursue counseling as a means of addressing and perhaps
solving some of her problems. Although Mary felt uneasy about Joe's forcefulness and sensed
the impact on her daughter, she allowed herself to become persuaded by his rationalizations
that any concerned parent ought to know his daughter better than some relatively
dispassionate outsider and that he was only doing his duty by doing as much as he possibly
could to "help" his "little girl." When a manipulator really wants to make headway with their
rationalizations they'll be sure their excuses are combined with other effective tactics. For
example, when Joe was "selling" Mary on the justification for shoving his agenda down
everyone's throat he was also sending out subtle invitations for her to feel ashamed (shaming
her for not being as "concerned" a parent as he was) as well as making her feel guilty
(guilt-tripping her) for not being as conscientious as he was pretending to be.
Diversion – A moving target is hard to hit. When we try
to pin a manipulator down or try to keep a discussion focused on a single issue
or behavior we don't like, he's expert at knowing how to change the subject,
dodge the issue or in some way throw us a curve. Manipulators use distraction and
diversion techniques to keep the focus off their behavior, move us off-track, and
keep themselves free to promote their self-serving hidden agendas.
Rather than respond directly to the issue being addressed, Amanda diverted
attention to her teacher's and classmates' treatment of her. Jenny allowed Amanda
to steer her off track. She never got a straight answer to the question.
Another example of a diversion tactic can be found in the story of Don and Al. Al
changed the subject when Don asked him if he had any plans to replace him. He focused on
whether he was unhappy or not with Don's sales performance – as if that's what Don
had asked him about in the first place. He never gave Don a straight answer to a straight
question (manipulators are notorious for this). He told him what he thought would make
Don feel less anxious and would steer him away from pursuing the matter any further. Al
left feeling like he'd gotten an answer but all he really got was the "runaround."
Early in the current school year, I found it necessary to address my son's
irresponsibility about doing his homework by making a rule that he bring his books
home every night. One time I asked: "Did you bring your books home today?" His
response was: "Guess what, Dad. Instead of tomorrow, we're not going to have our test
– until Friday." My question was simple and direct. His answer was deliberately
evasive and diversionary. He knew that if he answered the question directly and
honestly, he would have received a consequence for failing to bring his books home. By
using diversion (and also offering a rationalization) he was already fighting with me
to avoid that consequence. Whenever someone is not responding directly to an issue,
you can safely assume that for some reason, they're trying to give you the slip.
Lying – It's often hard to tell when a person is lying at the
time he's doing it. Fortunately, there are times when the truth will out because
circumstances don't bear out somebody's story. But there are also times when you don't
know you've been deceived until it's too late. One way to minimize the chances that
someone will put one over on you is to remember that because aggressive personalities of
all types will generally stop at nothing to get what they want, you can expect them to
lie and cheat. Another thing to remember is that manipulators – covert-aggressive
personalities that they are – are prone to lie in subtle, covert ways. Courts are
well aware of the many ways that people lie, as they require that court oaths charge that
testifiers tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Manipulators
often lie by withholding a significant amount of the truth from you or by distorting the
truth. They are adept at being vague when you ask them direct questions. This is an
especially slick way of lying' omission. Keep this in mind when dealing with a suspected
wolf in sheep's clothing. Always seek and obtain specific, confirmable information.
Covert Intimidation – Aggressors frequently threaten
their victims to keep them anxious, apprehensive and in a one-down position.
Covert-aggressives intimidate their victims by making veiled (subtle, indirect or
implied) threats. Guilt-tripping and shaming are two of the
covert-aggressive's favourite weapons. Both are special intimidation tactics.
Guilt-tripping – One thing that aggressive personalities know
well is that other types of persons have very different consciences than they do.
Manipulators are often skilled at using what they know to be the greater
conscientiousness of their victims as a means of keeping them in a self-doubting,
anxious, and submissive position. The more conscientious the potential victim, the more
effective guilt is as a weapon. Aggressive personalities of all types use guilt-tripping
so frequently and effectively as a manipulative tactic, that I believe it illustrates how
fundamentally different in character they are compared to other (especially neurotic)
personalities. All a manipulator has to do is suggest to the conscientious person that
they don't care enough, are too selfish, etc., and that person immediately starts to feel
bad. On the contrary, a conscientious person might try until they're blue in the face to
get a manipulator (or any other aggressive personality) to feel badly about a hurtful
behavior, acknowledge responsibility, or admit wrongdoing, to absolutely no avail.
Shaming – This is the technique of using subtle sarcasm and
put-downs as a means of increasing fear and self-doubt in others. Covert-aggressives
use this tactic to make others feel inadequate or unworthy, and therefore, defer to
them. It's an effective way to foster a continued sense of personal inadequacy in the
weaker party, thereby allowing an aggressor to maintain a position of dominance.
When Joe loudly proclaimed any "good" parent would do just as he was doing to
help Lisa, he subtly implied Mary would be a "bad" parent if she didn't attempt to
do the same. He "invited" her to feel ashamed of herself. The tactic was effective.
Mary eventually felt ashamed for taking a position that made it appear she didn't
care enough about her own daughter. Even more doubtful of her worth as a person and
a parent, Mary deferred to Joe, thus enabling him to rein a position of dominance
over her. Covert-aggressives are expert at using shaming tactics in the most subtle
ways. Sometimes it can just be in the glances they give or the tone of voice they
use. Using rhetorical comments, subtle sarcasm and other techniques, they can invite
you to feel ashamed of yourself for even daring to challenge them. Joe tried to
shame Mary when I considered accepting the educational assessment performed by
Lisa's school. He said something like: "I'm not sure what kind of doctor you are or
just what kind of credentials you have, but I'm sure you'd agree that a youngster's
grades wouldn't slip as much as Lisa's for no reason. You couldn't be entirely
certain she didn't have a learning disability unless you did some testing, could
you?' With those words, he "invited" Mary to feel ashamed of herself for not at
least considering doing just as he asked. If Mary didn't have a suspicion about what
he was up to, she might have accepted this invitation without a second thought.
Playing the Victim Role – This tactic involves portraying oneself
as an innocent victim of circumstances or someone else's behavior in order to gain sympathy,
evoke compassion and thereby get something from another. One thing that covert-aggressive
personalities count on is the fact that less calloused and less hostile personalities
usually can't stand to see anyone suffering. Therefore, the tactic is simple. Convince your
victim you're suffering in some way, and they'll try to relieve your distress.
In the story of Amanda and Jenny, Amanda was good at playing the victim role too. She had
her mother believing that she (Amanda) was the victim of extremely unfair treatment and the
target of unwarranted hostility. I remember Jenny telling me: "Sometimes I think Amanda's
wrong when she says her teacher hates her and I hate her. But what if that's what she really
believes? Can I afford to be so firm with her if she believes in her heart that I hate her?"
I remember telling Jenny: "Whether Amanda has come to believe her own distortions is almost
irrelevant. She manipulates you because you believe that she believes it and allow that
supposed belief to serve as an excuse for her undisciplined aggression."
Vilifying the Victim – This tactic is frequently used in
conjunction with the tactic of playing the victim role. The aggressor uses this tactic to
make it appear he is only responding (i.e. defending himself against) aggression on the part
of the victim. It enables the aggressor to better put the victim on the defensive.
Returning again to the story of Jenny and Amanda, when Amanda accuses her mother
of "hating" her and "always saying mean things" to her, she not only invites Jenny
to feel the "bully," but simultaneously succeeds in "bullying" Jenny into backing
off. More than any other, the tactic of vilifying the victim is a powerful means of
putting someone unconsciously on the defensive while simultaneously masking the
aggressive intent and behavior of the person using the tactic.
Playing the Servant Role – Covert-aggressives use this tactic to
cloak their self-serving agendas in the guise of service to a more noble cause. It's a common
tactic but difficult to recognize. By pretending to be working hard on someone else's behalf,
covert-aggressives conceal their own ambition, desire for power, and quest for a position of
dominance over others. In the story of James (the minister) and Sean, James appeared to many
to be the tireless servant. He attended more activities than he needed to attend and did so
eagerly. But if devoted service to those who needed him was his aim, how does one explain the
degree to which James habitually neglected his family? As an aggressive personality, James
submits himself to no one. The only master he serves is his own ambition. Not only was
playing the servant role an effective tactic for James, but also it's the cornerstone upon
which corrupt ministerial empires of all types are built. A good example comes to mind in the
recent true story of a well-known tele-evangelist who locked himself up in a room in a
purported display of "obedience" and "service" to God. He even portrayed himself' a willing
sacrificial lamb who was prepared to be "taken by God" if he didn't do the Almighty's bidding
and raise eight million dollars. He claimed he was a humble servant, merely heeding the
Lord's will. He was really fighting to save his substantial material empire.
Another recent scandal involving a tele-evangelist resulted in his church's
governance body censuring him for one year. But he told his congregation he couldn't
stop his ministry because he had to be faithful to the Lord's will (God supposedly
talked to him and told him not to quit). This minister was clearly being defiant of his
church's established authority. Yet, he presented himself as a person being humbly
submissive to the "highest" authority. One hallmark characteristic of covert-aggressive
personalities is loudly professing subservience while fighting for dominance.
Seduction – Covert-aggressive personalities are adept at
charming, praising, flattering or overtly supporting others in order to get them to lower
their defenses and surrender their trust and loyalty. Covert-aggressives are also
particularly aware that people who are to some extent emotionally needy and dependent (and
that includes most people who aren't character-disordered) want approval, reassurance, and
a sense of being valued and needed more than anything. Appearing to be attentive to these
needs can be a manipulator's ticket to incredible power over others. Shady "gurus" like Jim
Jones and David Koresh seemed to have refined this tactic to an art. In the story of Al and
Don, Al is the consummate seducer. He melts any resistance you might have to giving him
your loyalty and confidence. He does this by giving you what he knows you need most. He
knows you want to feel valued and important. So, he often tells you that you are. You don't
find out how unimportant you really are to him until you turn out to be in his way.
Projecting the blame (blaming others) – Aggressive
personalities are always looking for a way to shift the blame for their
aggressive behavior. Covert-aggressives are not only skilled at finding
scapegoats, they're expert at doing so in subtle, hard to detect ways.
Minimization – This tactic is a unique kind of denial coupled
with rationalization. When using this maneuver, the aggressor is attempting to assert
that his abusive behavior isn't really as harmful or irresponsible as someone else may
be claiming. It's the aggressor's attempt to make a molehill out of a mountain.
I've presented the principal tactics that covert-aggressives use to manipulate and
control others. They are not always easy to recognize. Although all aggressive personalities
tend to use these tactics, covert-aggressives generally use them slickly, subtly and
adeptly. Anyone dealing with a covertly aggressive person will need to heighten gut-level
sensitivity to the use of these tactics if they're to avoid being taken in by them.