I have just finished reading a book called "In Sheep's Clothing: Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People" and I learned something very important from it: apart from traumatized people there are also covert-aggressive people who at the first sight may appear very similar to the former! Covert here means that their aggression is not obvious but rather disguised as care, altruism, being hurt, and so on. Those people have perfected manipulation. The book doesn't use the term CPTSD but to me it seems that what looks like a CPTSD coping strategy (I'm including here narcissistic coping strategies too) can be a deliberate effort. There's no emotional flashback involved. When those people display abusive behaviour they know exactly what they're doing - and they believe it's fine since for them life is a game that they have to win. They believe the goal justifies the means. They have conscience so they're not psychopaths, but this conscience is severly limited and underdeveloped, and they're employing manipulation techniques on themselves to tune it out.
Here are the three most important differences between a person with CPTSD and a covertly aggressive person, according to what I understood from the book:
  • No persistent anxiety. When a person with CPTSD behaves in a disordered way it is because they are escaping anxiety. The aggressive person behaves so as they see a possible gain. The covert-aggressive people on contrary to the traumatized people are not anxious. They actually feel good about who they are and enjoy it. They don't seek therapy.
  • Different usage of denial. The covert-aggressive people don't use denial internally to escape overwhelming emotions as there're no such. They use denial externally to escape responsibility: they know that the more blatantly they deny what they're accused of, the more chance they have of confusing the opponent and make him doubt their sanity, and eventually getting away with what they did. Sometimes they too lie to themselves as it makes the rest easier (e.g. tuning out their conscience). One major difference is that when a denial is confronted for someone who was avoiding emotions, a big emotional release follows. For manipulative people their logical next step is to classify the disclosed fact as not a big deal anyway and move on to denying whatever there can still be be denied. They tend to minimize the relevance and impact of their wrongdoings when proven them.
  • Selective attention. When someone looks like they just won't hear you no matter how hard you try to get your message across it may be that they're not listening deliberately. Because they don't want to be distracted from their agenda. In kids this may look like ADHD. The author proposes a method of selective speaking for treating such children when he only speaks when the child is listening and ignores the child completely when they stop listening. He expresses respect when they start listening to what they didn't listen before, to reinforce the desired behaviour.
The book also lists manipulation techniques that they use (along with examples):
  • rationalisation of indended action spoken aloud to the surrounding to avoid future resistance and tune out the conscience
  • diversion aka changing the subject - when the question is uncomfortable or there's an accusation; also responding to another question than the one that was asked
  • evasion - telling only selected facts that can change the meaning even by 180 degrees
  • hidden threatening, guilt tripping, shaming - and here make no mistake, this can be very subtle. Some people (like me) can be so sensitive to guilt that an almost neutral sentence will make them conclude sth bad about themselves. And here what I think can be pinpointed is not the almost neutral sentence, but the fact that the manipulator knows exactly when to use it. So I think that it's not about the content that identifies the manipulator but the timing and overal fit into his agenda. Think of the following if something that someone said made you feel guilty or ashamed: "Would this person have any gain by me backing off now?", "Was their good feeling about themselves threatened that they need to push someone down to feel better?", "Were they just proven wrong about something?". Sometimes it feels like it is just my weird reaction and no one could possibly predict I would react in this way - don't underestimate the feel they have about people, they know exactly where your buttons are.
  • playing the victim, which can either foster people doing things for them or put others on the defense if the manipulator claims that the other person is the aggressor; and people do all kinds of mistakes when they are on the defense
  • flattering others to get power over them
  • blaming someone else for what they did, finding a scapegoat
  • claiming that they didn't harm you or were not aware, playing dumb, they don't know what you're talking about - don't get tricked they know exactly what they did and they had a reason
  • overt single display of anger (even though they're not angry), best if it's shocking - that gives them power
Somehow this book is like missing puzzle piece for me. It also gives information about how to handle those people in order to have a satisfying relation with them... but hey - why would I? Would I not rather surround myself with people I can be vulnerable with? I have spent too much part of my life dealing with problems of other people.