> Do you feel that you’re being swayed into agreeing to something that runs counter to your own best interests? I felt swayed into thinking the article could r

> Do you feel that you’re being swayed into agreeing to something that runs counter to your own best interests? I felt swayed into thinking the article could really reach the heights of that last heading. ;-) Where's the part about neutralizing them? I was totally looking forward to neutralizing a machiavellian. More seriously...if you're being swayed, you most likely need outside help and buy-in to do anything about it. It's absolutely one thing to be able to say "aha! It's a manipulator" and quite another thing to maneuver things to where they need to be. IMO this is one reason why this machiavellian-manipulator thought model is attractive but ultimately leaks a lot of leverage: There are usually other thought models that work better than sitting there with a "how to deal with a manipulator, wow they are really good at this so what could I even do" question on your hands. The best answers work better with a lot of specific detail about those involved than with abstract theory. A good simple tip though, IMO: Turn the question around when somebody's manipulating you: "You want me to...call the boss and tell them what now? Well...uh...hmmm" Some of the machiavellian industry's best machiavellians out there working in the field really don't like to feel their sentences are being examined. They are counting on others to roll with whatever they're given, rather than slow down the processing speed. If they then increase the pressure on you, tell them it feels too personal and you want group buy-in. If they dial down the pressure on you, they want you to not interfere, so your next move should likely be a calculated interf...wait a minute, now I'm training manipulators... (I admit I don't like that "manipulate" verb either...everybody manipulates at different times; it's a natural part of being human)