in sheep's clothing

I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that I had ordered the book In Sheep's Clothing: Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People, which is written by a clinical psychologist named Dr. George Simon. Since I completed class a few days ago I decided to spend some of the time I would have spent on homework reading this book instead. It is not a long read, so I was able to complete it within a relatively short period of time.

I will start by saying that the book really does not address normal people who have a tendency to manipulate. The book is more focused on people who are habitually manipulative in all aspects of their lives. I do know people whom this describes, but I don't really know many of them. At least I have not been able to identify many of them.

The author's thesis is essentially that psychology as a field does more harm than good in addressing issues with manipulative people because traditional psychology takes the perspective that everyone with problems is a neurotic. A neurotic, at least from a psychological perspective, is someone who has an overactive sense of shame and guilt. Simon asserts that truly manipulative people are polar opposites from neurotics, and have little or no guilt.

According to Simon, all people fall on a continuum between the extreme neurotic (overactive conscience) and the extreme character-disordered (without conscience). Simon states that almost all chronic manipulators are on the extreme character-disordered side of the continuum.

The structure of the book after Simon has established his thesis is straightforward. He provides examples of people (mostly who he has had as patients) who have been manipulated by others close to them. He then outlines the tactics that manipulative people use and provides guidance for how to deal with people who do manipulate.

My goal with the book was to assist in identifying if someone is trying to manipulate me. I think it assists in that regard only in as much as it is a truly manipulative person who is doing the manipulating. The real benefit I got out of the book, though, was the understanding that there is a class of people who really have little to no conscience. That is something that I simply have a hard time grasping. Understanding this, though, will help me not look for deeper meaning in someone's actions where there is none.

One question that was continually going through my head while I was reading this book was whether someone with a very weak conscience could truly ever be saved. How can someone who thinks so highly of himself or herself truly submit to God unless he or she is somehow browbeaten into it? It's not impossible, but only God could cause it to happen. It's probably also none of my business.

i could have had a

I have always liked V8. I never really cared for it as a drink to have with a meal because it doesn't quench thirst, but it has enough substance to qualify as a light snack. Since I like it, it is offered to me on frequent occasions that call for a less viscous drink. In those situations I feel an obligation to have a reason why I don't want the V8, but it is hard to put into words. I think it is appropriate that it is made by Campbell's because it is more of a soup in my mind than it is a drink.

When I was eleven or twelve I remember getting large bottle of V8 at the grocery store one time as a treat. I was pretty excited until I took the first sip later at home. It tasted horrible. That is when I was introduced to low sodium V8. I understand the health benefits of limiting the sodium content, but I don't know why anyone would buy low sodium V8 in the same way that I don't understand why anyone would buy a veggie burger. The best part has been substituted out.

We get free pop and juice at our office, and I noticed a while ago that the last time the V8 was replenished it was done so with the low sodium stuff. As a result I have only drank it when I felt like going through the process of mixing some salt into it. The reason I noticed that the juice was low sodium was that I watch for that now. I don't think everyone watches for whether it is low sodium like I do.

I was talking to someone else in the office a few days ago when he brought up the topic. "Did you know our V8 is low sodium?" he asked, "I didn't and I almost vomited when I took my first sip."

Since I am aware of at least two instances where the low sodium V8 was mistaken for the regular, I have to think that this is not an uncommon occurrence. Do most of the people who purchase the low sodium version do so on purpose or on accident? The packaging between the two might look a bit different, but I don't think the cans are different enough. Maybe the entire can could be a different color, kind of like the difference between a diet and regular can of Coke. If the company hasn't done this in the time since I was twelve, though, it probably doesn't have reason to do so now.

the end of law

Tomorrow is the final for the summer course that I am taking, and the last class that I will attend for the year. Needless to say, I am ecstatic and relieved. This will be my biggest break from class since I started the program, and my current plan is to have mostly easier semesters after this point.

The class that I am completing is Business Law. This is not the first Business Law class that I have ever taken, but one thing this class has done that my previous class of the same topic did not do is force me to contemplate how subjective the law system really is. This subjectivity makes most court decisions completely unpredictable, and thus actual trials typically best to be avoided.

I have also come to the conclusion that law and religious studies are probably two of the most intertwined disciplines around. Both require an interpretation of old rules and principles to determine a person's level of guilt. Both are concerned with the condition of man (or a specific man or woman). Finally, in the end most people pick their lawyer and their place of worship in the same deeply researched manner—from a phone book or now the Internet.

There is one final thing that lawyers and the clergy have in common. If the stories that I have heard are correct, they both walk into bars a lot. You'll have to fill in your own punchline here.

personal finances

I haven't really taken the time to put together a well thought-out post this weekend, but I have some random thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head about personal finances. This has been on my mind because our church is doing a finance class on Wednesday nights, but I haven't been able to attend it due to my schedule at KU. I'll probably start going after this week.

I think about ninety-five percent of personal financial issues are relatively easy to understand, and the problems that most people have comprehending them are due to a lack of interest (no pun intended) or due to intimidation more than anything else. I've been told that rich people are smart, lucky, and old. I think "moderately observant" could replace "smart" in that list rather well. How hard is it to understand that you should spend less than you make or that compound interest can work exponentially for or against you? We're not talking about rocket science here.

Think investments are difficult? Just invest in ETFs indexed to a broad market (like the S&P 500) or a broad-based international ETF (like BRICs, which invest in Brazil, Russia, India, and China) and forget about it. Really, you are generally better off doing this than trying to pick winners in the market, even if you know what you're doing, anyway. All you need to understand is what an ETF is, and that you shouldn't waste effort trying to time the market.

The one thing that I find annoying about finances is the wide array of completely arbitrary rules. Many lenders have found ways of squeezing extra money out of borrowers through mechanisms that few people really understand. Apparently one that was mentioned at the last Wednesday night class is a Rule of 78s loan, which is a type of loan that allows the lender to charge the same interest from the borrower regardless as to whether extra principle has already been paid. There is very little reason why consumer finance rules should be this complex.

Going along this same train of thought, I came across this SNL skit online recently. It does describe pretty well why a lot of people are in dire straights, though I have already noted that it would be unfair to classify everyone with debt problems this way.



* In the interest of proper disclosure, Golden and I currently own shares of two ETFs. One is based on the S&P 500 (SPY:AMEX) and one invests specifically in companies based in Taiwan (EWT:NYSE). I wouldn't recommend investing in one specific country as I have done, though, unless you are very confident in what you are doing.

after you

Someone I work with stopped by my office the other day for a random conversation. He pointed out that he had been thinking about one of those things that is relatively inconsequential, but that it was something that might qualify as the main topic for a sitcom. His topic was actually something that I have considered as a blog post in the past, so it will be my topic today.

The topic was the gray area regarding when you are obligated to hold the door for someone else. How far does someone need to be from the door before holding it open is not necessary? How close does someone have to be before it isn't awkward waiting for them to get to the door? Unfortunately, with the different speeds that people walk, the range seems to change based on whomever happens to be behind me when I am going through a door. I actually frequently adjust the speed that I walk to the door to my office building in the morning so as to avoid those gray areas.

The guy I was talking with noted that when he holds a door open he usually expects thanks. I don't, but that's probably a personality thing more than anything. I generally hold the door for social reasons and so I'm not responsible for the door slamming into someone's face. It really isn't for incredibly altruistic purposes. If someone thanks you in that situation it is more obligatory anyway, so it doesn't mean much.

I generally like to use the elevator as well in the morning. I will take the stairs, though, if going toward the elevator will lead to another gray area decision. I don't like to have to figure out if I should hold the elevator door for someone else, or to have someone else make the decision about me. Something about awkward elevator situations makes me feel like I am that creepy guy that a lot people aren't comfortable riding with in the elevator. I don't want to be that creepy guy and I don't want to be the jerk who doesn't hold the elevator open for others, either. That's okay, though. I could use the exercise.

top down

A few days ago I noticed a car in front of the office that I hadn't seen before. I haven't seen it since, either. It was a VW Beetle convertible with the top down. That's not something you see every day; well, unless you know someone who owns one of them or have one yourself or...

When I was a kid I used to think that convertibles were cool and I wished that our family would get one. I think that was because I hadn't had the chance to ride in one and so it seemed exotic. I might have also developed these opinions about convertibles while riding in cars without air conditioning in the summer. Today, I far prefer a regular car, so long as it is air conditioned.

When I park my car at the store or the office or wherever I always lock the car door. Why invite thieves? That seems like an exercise in futility when I see convertibles with their tops down, though. Why would anyone pass up a sporty car that they don't even need to break into to take a joy ride in a Taurus? Why do people who obviously have cool cars tempt fate by literally inviting the kleptos of the world to take notice?

Even ignoring the threat of burglary, leaving the top down leaves the interior of the car vulnerable to everything from a freak thunderstorm to an ill-intentioned loogie. You couldn't store anything of any value or that could easily blow away in the car. You also would think that the upholstery wouldn't hold up to the punishing UV rays from the sun after a while.

Since I don't really have any desire to own a convertible, I have to wonder what the target market is. Do as many people want them as I have always assumed? Do people want them for their main car, or do most people who want a convertible prefer the roadsters that are designed to be a secondary car? Would you choose a convertible over a regular car if given the choice and if cost wasn't a factor?

Photo from stock.xchng

manipulative

I have a need to help people. I think this is largely genetic because my dad is the same way. I think a lot of it also comes from the fact that I have been in many situations in the past where others' assistance made a huge difference for me, so I feel some responsibility to be there for people in similar situations. In short, it probably is not because I am a great person, but rather just a combination of nature and nurture creating an inner need.

One situation to illustrate this occurred earlier this week. I knew that one specific person in my class needed a textbook and I happened to know one person who had an old textbook. I had a need to attempt to set up a deal. I put the two of them in contact. While I don't know if a deal went through, it would have bothered me not to do so.

This may seem like a good thing, but there is a dark side to this tendency. If I am not careful, I can be manipulated. To keep from being manipulated, you have to be able to identify it when people are manipulating you. I can sometimes do this, but it is definitely not something at which I excel. Combine this with my desire to assist others and I am an easy mark. My only defense is that I am sometimes in too lazy a mood to be properly manipulated into doing something.

I want to get to the point where I am not easy to manipulate, but I don't see a real good plan. I don't think I could be good at identifying attempts to manipulate unless I think like the people who manipulate, and that is something that I don't want to do. I also don't want to assume that any time certain people (or certain types of people) are nice to me that they are trying to get something out of me. Maybe I should, though.

My question is, how do you recognize if someone is attempting to manipulate you? How do you handle it? How should I?

Updated (6/15/08):

I feel that I should note that I don't actually interact with too many manipulative people. At least I don't think that I do. The biggest problem I have is that I doubt I would be able to identify people who were manipulating me even under the condition that I did know many manipulative people.

I ordered the book In Sheep's Clothing today to see if that can provide me with better insight. Of all of the books that I investigated, this appears to be the one that is the most focused on the information that I am seeking.

a state named sue

In my Business Law class last night the professor for the class pointed out that Kansas is one of the least litigious states in the Union. This should not be too surprising since this is the Midwest, and there is a higher percentage of passive personalities in the Midwest than elsewhere in the country. The initial class reaction, with us being business students, was that this is a good thing. He, being an attorney, felt that this was more indicative of an unwillingness to stand up for individual rights.

I am generally in the camp that believes that a world with fewer lawsuits is a good thing. Too few lawsuits just feels more ideal than too many. In a less litigious state you don't have to worry as much about getting sued for things that are not completely in your control and I would assume that is part of why a lot of goods and services cost less in the Midwest than on the coasts.

Even from my perspective, though, I can see the advantages of a more litigious society. It gives people and businesses something to think about before they do something reckless. You wouldn't have to be as concerned about being wronged by someone else if that person is genuinely concerned about the implications of such actions.

So, what is your opinion? Is it better to have a society devoid of litigation or with too much litigation? Is it better to live in a world where defendants rule or plaintiffs rule? You be the judge.

everyone's a critic

The first time Golden and I did anything with AchtungBB and Portland Wah Wah, we saw the movie The Pledge. I almost hesitate in mentioning this because AchtungBB is probably wondering if he will ever live down picking that movie. I'd say the movie was like watching paint dry, but I can imagine enjoying watching paint dry.

The reason AchtungBB recommended that we see the movie, though, was a relatively good one. It was well-liked by whomever reviewed it in the Kansas City Star, so it couldn't be too bad. Everyone agreed on that until we saw the movie. From then on, BB got a little defensive about his pick. That part of the night was entertaining.

This situation illustrates the fact that I do not generally trust movie reviewers. Very frequently they will en masse decide that some truly stupid movie is brilliant, and that intelligent people should be able to decipher this. They will also often in large numbers find that some truly enjoyable movie is stupid. I used to think that this was because the reviewers knew something I didn't. I now think it comes from a combination of the reviewer's elitism and the fact that the reviewer is really looking for something different than I am in a movie.

Now, when I read reviews my main concern is to determine how much of what the reviewer is looking for matches what I am looking for. For example, if a reviewer gushes about Oscar-worthy acting and a heartrending story I am not interested. If that same reviewer trashes a movie for too many explosions and unreasonably dry humor, I'll camp out in front of the theater to see that movie opening night.

I am noticing a similar trend in Blockbuster reviews. When I am trying to get a sense about what a movie will be like, I like to look at the user reviews on the Blockbuster website. Frustratingly, some are little more than, "You have to see this movie," or, "Don't watch this one if you value your sanity." All I want to know is why the reviewer liked or didn't like the movie. Without providing this information the reviewer is simply assuming that I have the same exact taste, which is a major assumption.

Just so everyone knows. If you want to convince me to watch a movie, it's relatively simple. Convince me that the things I look for in a movie are there. You probably won't convince me by telling me that you loved the movie. If the movie is unpredictable, psychologically enthralling, full of CGI and pyrotechnics, or involves a plot to end the human race, it's a good bet I'll enjoy it. Otherwise, it's a gamble.

shortbus church

"At that time Jesus said, 'I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.'"- Matthew 11:25-26 (NIV)

It is no secret that Evangelicals have a reputation, deserved or not, for having less than average intelligence. This has always annoyed me for obvious reasons as I have bounced between the opinion that the stereotype is often deserved and the opinion that making such a generalization is horribly offensive. I started trying to arrange my thoughts on this earlier in the week after I was directed to a CNN article about a sociologist who is trying to get rid of the stereotype.

Any time a stereotype is used it is a great disservice to the people who belong to the group who don't fall under that generalization, and it shows the laziness or stupidity of the person using the stereotype. Even though pretty much all of my audience is Christian, I have to acknowledge that. It isn't worth me focusing too closely on the uses of the stereotype, though, if the people who are doing the generalizing aren't reading this in the first place.

The Evangelical church is naturally structured in a way that encourages a bumpkin stereotype. There is an ingrained resistance to the free flow of ideas because so much church doctrine is already established in most denominations on even extra-biblical issues. Church evangelism typically targets the down and out, who themselves are stereotyped as having below average intelligence, and that evangelism is often stronger in style than in substance. Finally, the Evangelical church sometimes gets tied up in political issues in ways that encourage the stereotype. I think these are all generally bad, and I plan to post on some of these in more depth in the future. Whether I have solutions for these situations remains to be seen, though.

I am not sure whether Evangelical stereotypes will melt away some day, or at least become a faux pas. It used to be acceptable for people to voice their negative opinions about other races, but that is not the case any more, as many public examples over the last few years have shown us. I do not really foresee this cultural shift in purely religious stereotypes occurring any time in the near future, though. I'm not completely certain that the Evangelical church wants its very own Al Sharpton to enforce religiously tolerant perspectives anyway.

While being written off as stupid, or at least a little slow, is not particularly enjoyable, is not always a bad thing. Humility can be something to be proud of as well, if that is not an oxymoron. Jesus appeared to think intellect was of minor importance given the passage in the opening of this post. Maybe I have taken the wrong angle on this all along.

no longer younger

Michael Scott: "I, um, thought about getting a tattoo on my back as well at one point. I was thinking about getting Back to the Future. Back, because it's on my back; and future because I'm the kind of guy who likes to look ahead, into the future. I just think a tattoo should mean something, you know? And it's my second favorite movie."
Woman: "I've never heard of that movie."
Michael Scott: "Back to the Future? Oh! Wow! Well you should take a film education course."
Woman: "How old are you?"
Michael Scott: "Forty—I—I'm in my forties"
Woman: "Wow... that's so cool. Well, I'm going to go back to my group now. Thanks for the drink."

I am careful about talking too much about getting older on this site because I doubt I will get too much sympathy. Believe it or not, I also don't usually want to make other people feel old. Some may doubt this because I do tease some friends about their age. My estimation is that about 90% of the people who read this site are older than I am, so I do need to be cognizant of my relative youth.

A few things have caused me to think about age recently. First, I watched the above referenced episode of The Office. Michael ends up flirting with a woman about half his age, and it painfully shows. I could relate more to Michael than to the woman with whom he was speaking. That was an eye opener.

Second, Golden told me this past weekend about a conversation about movies she had with her hair stylist. They were talking about movies and Golden had mentioned that she liked the original Indiana Jones movies, but the stylist didn't really respond to that with too much interest. Golden told me that her stylist may not have been old enough to remember the movies. I started to mention that this was impossible because the last one came out in 1989 when I realized that this was nineteen years ago.

Third, I have been thinking about the fact that I am no longer the youngest person or even almost the youngest person in my office. My first few jobs out of school I was far and away the youngest in my group or office. In one job, it was noteworthy when someone was hired who was younger than me, but since he had skipped college he was the exception. Even in my current job I was the youngest person in the office when I started. Now, even some people who have a reasonable amount of seniority are years younger than I am. It sunk in that I will no longer be the young guy around the office not long ago when a couple of the guys admitted that they didn't know who Pete Rose was.

Not by a long shot am I starting to feel old yet. I won't for years. I am starting to feel like I am no longer the resident spring chicken wherever I go, though. It's a transition that I still need to get used to.

breakable

In the opening scenes of the movie Unbreakable Bruce Willis' character realizes as an adult that he has never been sick a day in his life. While it is entirely unrealistic even in a comic book world that someone could be an adult before noticing that they don't get common illnesses or injuries, the concept has stuck with me. Some people just don't get sick nearly as often as others.

I developed flu-like symptoms last Friday night and, though I have started to get past them, some of the symptoms are still lingering. This is uncommon for me, though. I haven't been genuinely sick, meaning sick enough to miss work, more than a handful of times in the past five years. At least two of the times I was "sick" it was not an illness, per se, but related to the gall bladder problems I was having. This time around I didn't even miss work because the time when I felt the sickest occurred over the weekend.

While I certainly have been known to get sick, and allergies in particular get me worse than the average person, I don't think that I get sick nearly as frequently as is typical. I could be wrong. I could just be more willing to go to work when I am feeling questionable, so I just notice that other people take more sick days. I know that some take sick days when they are not sick. I think I have accounted for this, though. It seems to me that others in my life, like Golden, are sick more frequently than I am.

So as I cough and wheeze and try to get past this last bug, I have to be happy that I am as healthy as I am. If you don't have your health, you don't have anything.