FBI mind attack: the super psychological tactics of the US federal police

Chapter 18 Mysterious, unfathomable——FBI's bluff psychological tactics (5)
5. Constantly repeat, emphasize, and fight back unreasonable requests and behaviors

It can be said that in daily life, people will inevitably encounter unreasonable requests and behaviors from others.In this regard, the FBI recommends that people take the following methods and resolutely reject them:
(1) No tolerance for excessive behavior
Psychologists from the FBI believe that people's interpersonal circle in social life is getting bigger and bigger, and when the circle becomes bigger, the number of people they interact with will naturally increase, and in this way, they will encounter various people and things.Colleagues who like to make small reports in the workplace, petty and suspicious supervisors, false love words in love, arrogant and unreasonable people in life... Sometimes, if you choose to compromise and make concessions, things may become brighter and the conflicts can be resolved. It can also end up with the reputation of "broad-hearted".But more often than not, compromise is actually more like a kind of connivance, which will make the opponent's arrogance even more arrogant.If you always think of "calm things up", then you may become a "soft persimmon" in life and work, and you will be easily suppressed and bullied by others.So at times like this, the best way to resolve conflicts should be - fight back resolutely and never tolerate.

In people's daily life, especially in the workplace, they may have to face various unexpected situations, such as insults from colleagues or superiors, intentional physical violations, frequent harassment, etc.When faced with such excesses, many people would rather choose to let things go, and blindly back down in order to keep their jobs or not destroy the relationship with colleagues.But in the Harvard Business Review in 2004, Stanford University professor Robert Sutton put forward a completely opposite view, that is: "Kill them! Those jerks in the workplace." This has become a breakthrough in the modern workplace. sex point of view.

There used to be such a website that conducted a survey on "What would you do if you met a villain in the workplace?" According to the results of the survey, 24.78% of people chose to "endure in silence", while 23.78% People chose "directly clarify the facts to the boss", and the two votes were so close, which fully shows that these two methods are the main solutions for people in the workplace to deal with villain problems.In addition, 14.06% of the respondents believe that such villainous behavior should be counterattacked, and absolutely cannot tolerate and tolerate such things that damage their own interests and reputation; 13.66% of the people believe that with their own strength It may not be very safe to deal with villains. We should gather other people and use the power of the group to fight against villains. Only in this way can we completely eliminate the insidious behavior of villains and create a safe, pure and benign competitive atmosphere and working environment; about 12.14 % of people adhere to the doctrine of the mean, and think that villains are called villains because they always hide in the dark and are not easy to be caught by others, so they are difficult to deal with. The villain cares about everything; 0.92% of the people said that due to the pressure of the environment, they may also fall into the ranks of the villain.From the above surveys, we can see that the new-generation work principle of "killing the jerks in the workplace" proposed by Robert Sutton has been recognized and accepted by more and more people, and they are ready to put it into action at any time.

In fact, this principle is not only applicable in the workplace, but can also be applied in daily life.For example, people engaged in the service industry can use this method to deal with unreasonable customers and explicitly refuse to serve them.A vice president of US Airways once saw a passenger swearing at his employees for no reason, and also brought physical threats and collisions, so he went up to the customer and said, you can fly with other airlines, so that all Everyone is happy.The vice president then took the passenger to another airline and bought him a ticket of equal value.This is a way to resolutely fight back, which not only protects its own employees, but also combats the arrogance of unreasonable passengers.

Human beings live in groups, and living in society is inseparable from getting along with others, and people have various personalities and tempers, so they should be prepared to deal with "messy" people.Sometimes, assertively safeguarding one's own interests is indeed a very good act of self-protection. It can win the respect of others for oneself, and it can also combat unhealthy trends and help form a good environment.

The FBI explained that people will be influenced by the psychology of seeking advantages and avoiding disadvantages when they engage in certain selective behaviors. A similar motivation and ideology.When faced with the excessive behavior of others, your retreat will not make them feel scruples, but may encourage their courage to do evil and make them more arrogant.Therefore, you must resolutely fight back against the excessive behavior of others, and never back down, so that those who are used to bullying others and misbehaving can look at you with admiration, even full of awe.

(2) Use the excuse of provocation to fight back

In the process of investigating the case, the FBI will encounter all kinds of criminal suspects who are difficult to deal with. Most of these people are troublemakers who like to make trouble and provoke troubles. They often speak rudely to FBI investigators or use physical movements threatened.When dealing with these people, the FBI investigators usually use the excuse of the other party's provocation to counterattack and make the other party completely quiet and obedient.

The same is true in our lives. We often encounter "hedgehogs" who are enemies, speak inappropriately, or behave aggressively, or when you are happy and proud of your academic progress, or when you work hard and want to make a breakthrough. Sometimes, under the influence of jealousy, classmates, colleagues, and bosses may suddenly snipe. A few provocative words or a sour tone will make you feel uncomfortable for a long time, depressed, and difficult to concentrate on study and work.In the face of those gossip and vicious attacks, many people may seem helpless and have to swallow their anger in silence. Is this really the best way to deal with the problem?In fact, "use the spear of the son to attack the shield of the son", borrowing the excuse of others to provoke you, and fighting back, can make the other party feel bored and embarrassed, so as to resolve the current embarrassment.

A person who speaks exaggeratedly and reveals disrespect or even insult to others is a person who likes to make trouble and provoke.The best way to deal with this kind of person is to catch a certain item in their words in the conversation with them, and then fight back tit for tat.In this way, not only can you maintain your own dignity, but you can also take advantage of the opportunity to attack the other party’s strong jealousy and evil desires, smash other people’s bad words towards you, dampen their self-confidence, suppress their arrogance, and let them do it again next time. When you want to speak rudely to you, you should think more about it and retreat.

From a psychological point of view, usually provocative and trouble-making people do not pay attention to social etiquette and self-image shaping in interpersonal communication, and most of them are selfish and evil, and cannot correctly understand and evaluate themselves.In the heart of this kind of person, it is either self-destructive or attacking others.Remember, you must not tolerate and condone the behavior of such people, but you should take advantage of the situation to fight back and protect your own interests and rights.

(3) Repeated emphasis, firm rejection
During the trial of the case, the FBI discovered such a psychological phenomenon. The more stimulation it gives, the stronger it is, and the longer it takes, the more it can arouse the extreme impatience and resistance of the other party. This phenomenon is called psychological stimulation. "Ultra-Limit Phenomenon" onEspecially when the prisoner is under the unfavorable situation of being under the pressure of interrogation, this extreme impatience will be infinitely magnified, making it difficult for the prisoner to resist the interrogation of the investigators.For example, the FBI once used such an interrogation mode to interrogate a murder suspect.

Investigators asked the suspect: "What's your name?"

The suspect replied: "You have found the wrong person, I don't know anything."

"Did you use a revolver?" the investigator asked.

The suspect replied: "As I said, you have found the wrong person. I really don't know anything."

The investigator then asked, "What's your name?"

The suspect replied: "..."

The suspect did not answer his question, and the investigators did not pursue it, and then asked: "Did you use a revolver?"

The suspect said: "No, no, I said I don't know."

The investigator asked again: "What's your name?"

suspects……

Investigator: "Did you use a revolver?"

……

After more than three hours of this cycle, the suspect finally broke down, admitted that the killing tool he used was a revolver, and then confessed the hiding places of other criminal evidence.

This case is a typical example of extreme psychological control in the FBI's investigation process. Using the other party's psychological "over-limit effect" makes the other party lose patience and resilience in confrontation, and finally makes the other party give up the determination to resist tenaciously and admit his own. offense.

This "over-limit effect" seems cruel and inhumane when used in the trial process of a case, but when it is used in real-life interpersonal communication, it can well reject unreasonable requests from others.

In real life, we may often encounter some people who will not give up until they achieve their goals. At this time, most of them find it difficult to refuse the other party's request, so that their goals can be achieved again and again.At this time, if you have no other better way to refuse, you can use this method.That is to say, when you don't have too many or too good reasons to reject the other party's request, or if all the excuses you have listed don't work at all, you can use this method at this time-constantly respond to the other party's request. Repeat the same reason.In this way, it will be easier to reject the unreasonable demands of the other party.

This is the use of the "over-limit effect" in psychology.People have to accept a lot of information, tasks and stimuli in their life and work, but there is a capacity for this ability to accept. When the received information exceeds this capacity, people will feel disgusted psychologically. Acting in accordance with information and instructions will backfire and produce strong impatience.In most cases, the use of this over-limit effect is to repeat a certain sentence, or give a certain order, which makes the other party feel strongly, and then do things in the opposite way to the instruction, or have no choice but to follow the instruction. act.In other words, when we want to reject someone's unreasonable request, we can skillfully use this psychological effect to make the other party quit.

This method of constant repetition is very simple. You don't need to get angry with the other party, and you don't need to raise your voice. You just need to repeat the same reason in a firm tone, and you don't even need to say a word of explanation.The basis of using this method is to make the other party feel that your position is firm, and the number of reasons is not many, but they are true, sufficient, and powerful. Then, when the other party hears more of your same reasons, the psychological "over-limit effect" "When the mechanism starts to activate, it will withdraw the request and leave automatically.

Huld and McLaren were roommates in college and often went out to eat, drink and play together.But after graduation, the two of them joined two different software development companies, and the number of contacts between them decreased significantly.One day, Hulder suddenly invited McLaren out for dinner. After drinking for three rounds, Hulder told McLaren his real purpose: It turned out that Hulder had encountered a bottleneck in his work, so he wanted to borrow some confidential data from McLaren. and software programs as reference materials to help you through this difficult time.

After hearing this, McLaren would naturally not agree to this unreasonable request, so he clearly refused and began to explain his reasons.

"The company's confidential documents can only be seen by a small number of people, and I have no access to them, so I can't bring them out for you."

"Although I have participated in the discussion of materials, I have not directly participated in the development, and I have no materials in my hand."

"Our company's system is very strict. If this kind of data theft is discovered, my job will not be guaranteed."

……

The party ended badly.

Although McLaren Rowe listed various reasons, Huld still refused to give up, and once again invited McLaren out to dinner, and once again made that excessive request.

This time McLaren did not give Hulder a list of reasons. He said to Hulder: "I said last time that I have no access to confidential documents."

"You can figure it out," Huld said. "You work in a company and you always know someone who has access to confidential documents."

McLaren said: "Those are management people, I can't ask them for documents and data, so I really don't have access."

Hulder pleaded: "Help find a way."

McLaren: "I can't think of it. The company's system is strict and guarded. I can't get access to confidential documents. I definitely don't have the opportunity to get in touch."

Huld: "..."

McLaren: "Those are company secrets, I really don't have access to them, not at all."

……

Therefore, McLaren insisted on this excuse to the end, and finally rejected Hulder's unreasonable request.

From this point of view, when you want to reject something, listing out the reasons, the more the better, is not necessarily a good way to make you try again and again.In other words, it is easier for the other party to give up their original persistence by repeating the same reason repeatedly than racking their brains to search for many reasons.

(End of this chapter)