Minimization: Trivializing Behavior as a Manipulation Tactic
When he uses the tactic of minimization, the disturbed character is attempting to convince someone else that the wrongful thing he did wasn’t really as bad or as harmful as he knows it was and as he knows the other person thinks it was.
This article is the second in a series of posts on the “tactics” disturbed characters use to resist accountability, manage the impressions others have of them, and hoodwink and manipulate others.
A prior series of posts dealt with some of the most essential differences between individuals best described as “neurotic” as opposed to individuals best described as disturbed in character. (See “Neurosis vs. Character Disorder: Levels of Awareness”.). Neurotics and disordered characters also differ from one another in how they typically react to problem behaviors. When neurotics do something they think might negatively impact another, they tend to “catastrophize” the situation or become overly concerned with the damage they might have done. Conversely, disturbed characters are overly prone to minimizing the seriousness of their misconduct and trivializing the damage they cause in their relationships and to the general social order.
Minimization is a close cousin to the tactic of denial, which is also often misinterpreted as a defense mechanism and which I wrote about extensively in a prior post (See “Understanding Denial as a Defense Mechanism”.). When he uses the tactic of minimization, the disturbed character is attempting to convince someone else that the wrongful thing he did wasn’t really as bad or as harmful as he knows it was and as he knows the other person thinks it was. He might admit part of what he did was wrong, and usually not the most serious part. By using the tactic, he tries to manipulate others into thinking he’s not such bad a person (impression management) and continues his active war against submission to a principle of social behavior.
As is true when other tactics are used, when the disordered character minimizes the nature and seriousness of his conduct, you know for sure that he is likely to engage in the same or similar behaviors again. As long as he continues to minimize, he won’t take seriously the problems he needs to correct. It isn’t that he doesn’t recognize the seriousness of the issues. If he didn’t think others regarded the issue as serious, he wouldn’t feel the need to trivialize it. But refusing to accept the principle at hand and to accept the need to change his stance indicate he’s sure to repeat his misconduct.
I remember one of the first times I witnessed the effectiveness of the minimization tactic. A couple had come to my office for counseling, and the woman’s main complaint was that she was becoming increasingly fearful of what appeared to be her husband’s escalating level of aggressiveness. She complained that during an argument, he shoved her, and because he’d never done that before it concerned her. His comment: “Yeh, I might have touched her and pushed her a little bit, but you could hardly call it a ’shove’ and there’s no way she can claim I hurt her or meant to hurt her. She’s making me out to be a monster, and I’m not. Besides, she pushed me to the brink!” This man’s statement combined several effective tactics from minimizing and trivializing the event (”touched her and pushed her a little bit”) to denial of malevolent intent (”no way she can claim I meant to hurt her”), vilifying the victim (”She’s making me out to be a monster”) and externalizing the blame (”She pushed me to the brink!”) among others. Before long, the woman was back-peddling and feeling bad for even bringing up the issue. It became all too clear that people use these tactics for a lot of reasons, but the biggest reason of all is that they generally work!
In my work with this couple, it also became clear how traditional notions about human behavior — especially paradigms designed to understand neurosis — are inadequate and sometimes even destructive when it comes to understanding the modus operandi of the disturbed character. Having been a veteran of traditional therapy, the woman in this case commented many times that she knew she was “making him [her husband] defensive” and she that didn’t want to make him feel badly about himself but didn’t know how else to address the issue. Clearly, she perceived him to be in a “defensive” posture when he was in fact on the offensive. What was even more disconcerting was the look of resignation on her face as she herself assumed the submissive position after his barrage of tactics succeeded in their intent. It’s still amazing to me today how many folks (including therapists) can’t distinguish an offense from a defense. (See “An Offense is Not a Defense”.)
Upcoming posts will examine some of the other more common tactics disturbed characters use to resist accountability, take advantage of and manipulate others, and manage the impressions others form and keep of them.
Other articles by Dr George Simon, PhD
This article was last reviewed by Dr Greg Mulhauser, Managing Editor on Monday, 23rd February 2009. You can leave a reply below.
The URL of this page is:
http://counsellingresource.com/features/2009/02/23/minimization-manipulation-tactic/
24th February 2009
Oh brother am I familiar with this one. And it certainly does work. My father used to minimize his brutal verbal and physical attacks to the point of laughing at me for getting so upset over such a “trivial argument”. I always ended up feeling foolish, too sensitive and crazy. Thank you so much for these great articles, they are so helpful!
26th February 2009
I’m in this position. Had a row with my partner today about something I’d done, which he then went on to use as justification for his possessiveness. He’d accused me of staring at someone else (I hadn’t), his response was “can you blame me the way you’re acting?” My “acting” had been me being angry and uptight as my mother is dying, and it was a rare time I’d taken it out on him.
The minimization can really make you feel like you’re going nuts, I end up questioning myself and thinking “is it me, am I mad”. Think it’s better to leave sooner rather than later before you lose sense of reality, I’d always say that to anyone now (one day I’ll learn that myself!).
2nd March 2009
One of the worst impacts minimization has on adult life is that when parents minimize children’s problems they grow to accept big issues as “normal issues” they have to put up with.
2nd March 2009
You said it!
15th April 2009
It’s one thing for an adult to deal with a person who minimizes and manipulates through various methods, but quite another for a child to learn to deal with a parent who operates this way. It’s taken me several years of therapy to recognize what was going on in my marriage relative to the abusive behaviors of my husband. Was the problem with me, I wondered? So, my struggle is to go through the separation/divorce process – difficult enough on its own – but the real challenge is to empathize (so they know they aren’t nuts) with the children in their problems with their father, but also support them in having some kind of healthy relationship with their father. Is that possible?
2nd March 2009
Great comments, all. I so much appreciate the feedback. I use every bit of feedback to further refine my work. Thanks.
21st March 2009
Hello Dr. Simon,
Thank you so much for writing In Sheep’s Clothing. It’s a book that I keep turning back to whenever I’m trying to help others learn how manipulation works. And now that you’re continuing your work on the web, that’s even better.
If I may be so bold to make a recommendation (since you are seeking feedback), I think you could add Catastrophizing to your official list of manipulation tactics. As you know, it’s the opposite of Minimization and can be thought of as “making a mountain out of a molehill.â€
You mention how it pertains to neurotics’ interpretation of their own behavior, but I’ve seen this tactic used effectively to manipulate others both on a personal level and on the world stage. For example, in the run-up to the Iraq war, Americans were manipulated, in part, into supporting the idea of going to war with Iraq through statements like these:
“America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.â€
- George W. Bush, October 7, 2002
“The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.â€
- Condoleezza Rice, September 8, 2002
Moreover, Vice President Dick Cheney created an entire policy doctrine based upon Catastrophizing called the “1% Doctrine” or the “Cheney Doctrine”:
“Under the Cheney Doctrine, Mr. Suskind writes, ‘a one percent chance of catastrophe must be treated ‘as a certainty,’ where firm evidence, of either intent or capability, is too high a threshold; where the doctrine is, in essence, prevention based on suspicion.’”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/timestopics/cheney-books.html
Catastrophizing works by presenting the world or a situation in stark, black and white terms so the manipulator gets what he/she wants from the victim. Only the most distorted or extreme possible outcomes are presented in order to effectively limit and distort the victim’s perception of reasonable options. Outcomes contrary to the manipulator’s agenda are exaggerated to foment fear and dissuade the victim from their consideration.
Thanks again,
- Tom
21st March 2009
Thank you for your comment, Tom. You are absolutely correct in your observation. I tend to differentiate the tactic of “exaggeration” from the mental anguish catastrophizing of the neurotic. I will be mentioning the exaggeration tactic in an upcoming post.
Again, thanks for your endorsement of my work and for your comments.
20th May 2009
[...] Minimizing and trivializing — yet another abuse tactic. [...]
31st May 2009
I recently realized that my marriage was not just physically abusive but emotionally abusive too. Your article perfectly fit the situations I faced to an extent wherein I would feel crazy and all the more apologetic and guilty. I moved out because of the peculiar problem of him not just hitting me, but also his hitting himself. I thought it was denial but its manipulation.
Thanks for sharing this article
G3