psychological warfare?

[Smartie]

I find that simply the best way to beat an opponent in any way (shape, or form-there, I said it) is to really get under his or her skin, to find out just by watching their eye movements or facial expressions what their next move will be. The problem is that no one person is the same, no personality is an exact duplicate, and I was wondering if anyone knew how you could figure out who someone you've just met really is, not down to the very last detail but in a very basic way so as not to...stereotype them the wrong way.

[jasonxxx102]

Well the best way to make an enemy lose is to put them in the constant fear for there lives the wont want to fight it will make them want to run

[SWM]

I find that simply the best way to beat an opponent in any way (shape, or form-there, I said it) is to really get under his or her skin, to find out just by watching their eye movements or facial expressions what their next move will be. The problem is that no one person is the same, no personality is an exact duplicate, and I was wondering if anyone knew how you could figure out who someone you've just met really is, not down to the very last detail but in a very basic way so as not to...stereotype them the wrong way.

If you want to figure somebody out you have to really focus yous attention on that person. Watch them move, what characteristics does thier behaviour have. listen to them talking, what do they say with words, is their common themes in thier communication,the tone and quality of thier voice will give clues to thier emotional state.

When observing in this way you need to look for impressions of how the person experiences the world and how they think, feel and behave due to that experience.

[mad]

Well, if you try to disregard drawing large conclusions from small stimuli, you can easily come up with a low-profile understanding of someone. If someone has a sheepish look on their face you could conclude they are a bit shy or nervous but you may never geuss they have been murdering prostitutes.

[STaR]

Yes there is a very useful technique that is fairly widely known that I have used for the past 15 years when it was first taught to me. This was the subject of a training course I attended.

Take a piece of paper and draw a 3 x 3 grid described below.

Imagine a grid with the vertical axis measuring emotionality, i.e. non-emotional at the top and very emotional at the bottom. The horizontal axis is a measure of assertiveness, i.e. only asks questions on the left and only gives commands on the right.

Now assess yourself and place a dot on the grid that represents you. Be honest. If you are the cool headed non-emotional type, and highly analytical (always asking why?) then you would be top left. If on the other hand you are the non-emotional type and very assertive all the time (never asks but makes decisions rapidly) then you would be top right. Hitler might be top right, and Billy Graham would be bottom right (emotional but assertive).

The left side tends to be analytical (the askers), the right tends to be the leaders (the tellers). The top tends to be the intellectuals (cerebral), and the bottom tend to be the inspirational (emotive). Every square has its strengths and weaknesses.

Assessing yourself accurately is vital since how you react with others and how they react with you is entirely relative to your characteristics. Now try placing dots on the chart for people you know fairly well. With very little practice you should be able to tell whether someone tends to dominate you in a conversation, (they would be to your right), or you dominate them, (they would be to your left). Or how their emotionality appears to you.

Once you have assessed someone and placed them on the grid then you have starting point for understanding them and how to communicate with them. If two people are far apart on the grid then that will be an obstacle to effective communication. To overcome this one or both of the parties much approach the position of the other. If they are very assertive and you aren’t then you should attempt to move towards their assertiveness. But moving out of your natural square for any length of time is exhausting and you can only maintain it for a short time. The people you will feel most comfortable with are those in the same square as yourself. Think of effective communication with others outside your square as being tied to a piece of elastic, you can stretch it for a while and then it has to snap back after a while.

Note also that two people might see a third person quite differently. If A is left, B is middle, and C is right, then you can see how A and C will both perceive B in an opposite light. The most effective communication is between two people, if you are in a group then the dynamics of the interactions will make effective communication more difficult.

With practice you’ll soon recognize the person who never listens and always insists on talking about themselves (they are right of you), or the very quiet shy person who rarely speaks to you and then it is only to ask a question, they are very left of you. But remember to someone else those people might appear very different.

Enough for now. You get the idea I hope. This technique has helped me enormously over the years. I hold a mental picture of the grid in my mind and use it to assess people constantly especially those I have only just met.