From one day to the next, a whole group of people goes weird. But no one says anything. Are we just imagining things? Maybe we did something wrong? So how can we decode this? In this case, a listener is experiencing this in a work environment.

A few things stand out: how can we tell if we're the problem? Usually, being worried we might be is a rather safe indication we are not.

Then, if we can't think of an event that triggered it, it reduces the likelihood there was such an event.

If people are weird around us, we can sometimes identify who is uncomfortable at being gossiped to, and simply ask if they'd let us know if something got weird.

And remember that this could be a form of mobbing, which might require to involve HR, or management.

Consider options to discuss, but also options to leave in case it is unhealthy and there is little or no support.

As always, exercise your judgement and adapt to your situation.

Hope this is helpful and let me know if you have other questions where my take could be useful in providing elements to decode situations.

Learn how to use emotions to detect toxic signals in a relationship, symptoms of unhealthy relationships, and noticing when something is off. As well as reducing the risk a relationship becomes toxic. Dr Paul Ekman recently passed away and his work on emotions was ground breaking. We can use emotions to decode things happening around us that our rational brains don't see. But with emotions, we can learn the signals.

In this episode, I run through the 7 universal emotions, how to use them to decode toxic situations, and why none of them are "negative", even though 5 are unpleasant.

Toxic relationships are draining. And managing our energy is crucial in order to get our lives back. I share some thoughts and tips around this, while taking you for a walk - and hoping the noise is not detracting from the content. (If it is, please let me know and I won't record outside again).

In short: get out and move! The body needs movement and toxic people feel like they're pulling on the hand break. And there are other things you can do to get your life back on track, I share some suggestions and how you can find what works for you!

After we trusted too easily, too much the wrong person, what do we do? Shutting down and no longer trusting anyone is safe. But... It leads to a very lonely life, and might be a bit of an overreaction, at least in the long term. So what can we do? And how to do it?

A client asked me this question, I gave her a long answer, and thought it might be helpful for some listeners.

I noticed a series of strange signals before things get really weird - but I reacted calmly: I was prepared, this time. I'd started speaking with a woman at the hotel gym. I noticed some weird comments. Each, taken individually, didn't mean much, but together should have alerted me.

I was going to have dinner and she tagged along. During the dinner, she attempted to switch on Drama Mode and play victim. But instead of apologise or reassure her, I debunked her claims, calmly.

Here are the signals I picked up on, and some thoughts around such (bizarre) interactions.

Some might remind you of situations you've been in. Maybe you can imagine if you would have reacted like me, or differently, and you'll see different options.

I hope you find this helpful (and possibly entertaining).

A friend was upset: he's fallen out with an ex colleague, whom I happen to know. He was worried because of a former "colleague" who was smearing him. I happen to know the guy, and found him weird.

In this episode I share part of our conversation. This is relevant for anyone having to deal with a smear campaign.

Narcissists HATE people talking. Why? Because they can't control what is said. They don't know what is said. That creates uncertainty and reduces their power.

And yes, they will happily talk behind others' backs. Create falsehoods, narratives. But when people speak, they will realise conflicting narratives and might get suspicious.

Look for a few things:

1. who wants to be the central node of communication in a group

2. who gets upset when people speak

3. who speaks behind other's backs

If someone gossips, they'll gossip about you too.

If they betray your secrets once, they'll do it again.

As long as people don't talk to each other, they probably will be unaware of this.

One of the most helpful tools in systemic therapy is identifying primary and secondary goals. Otherwise we get hypnotised by words.

I say I want to run a marathon but I smoke, eat pizza and don't even wear running shoes? Maybe I'm not a hypocrite, but maybe my primary goal is to do nothing whilst claiming I want to do sport, so I can feel better about myself.

That's with an individual.

But introduce another person in a relationship. They say they want a loving relationship but they start conflict at the worst possible moments? Maybe that's because it's the easiest way to extract energy from you. And if they didn't say that they want a loving relationship, you'd leave?

One of the first things narcissists do to make people take sides, such as after a break up, is Reputation Destruction. They will not only gossip, but also lie. Fabricate events. Mix truths and lies. And remove context. They play the "first mover advantage". Provided they can place an idea in someone's head, even with flimsy proof, the person becomes hypnotised.

And we are ALL vulnerable to this. So what can we do?

I take the example of Charlie Kirk's assassination and the coverage to share the most effective method I have found. I really hesitated to share this because I am certain that "more than 0% of my listeners" will have been brainwashed. But I share it because this method is the most effective way to deprogram ourselves. Or simply check whether or not our ideas actually are our own, and whether they make sense.

Why? We've seen two opposing narratives. A "not so small" number of people (about 10%...) have been celebrating someone's assassination, and even calling for more assassinations.

And many people have uncomfortably watched that, perhaps even justifying the celebration.

Many other people have watched in horror, not only the murder, but perhaps even more the celebrations. And their claim is that the victim, Charlie Kirk, was mischaracterised.

So, which take is the most accurate?

In this episode, I share a few tips to CHECK whether your beliefs match what you find in reality. Regardless of your current beliefs.

The first is to STOP taking whatever your position for granted. Your take might be accurate, but if you don't CHECK, you'll not know - and you'll be an easy target for manipulation.

When you check, ADD context. Regardless of if you agree or disagree with what was said, observe if the version you were told was accurate actually matches what you observed.

If so, maybe it is. Keep checking a few other statements.

If not, you were deceived. So check some more statements.

And then ask yourself, even if the worst accusations were true, what is the appropriate response to someone being assassinated in front of their family?

I'm a firm believer in dialogue with everyone. One of my heroes is Daryl Davis, the jazz musician who befriends Klu Klux Klan members. And happens to be black. I have no idea how he does it, but I aspire to be like him.

People who gloat over Charlie Kirks assassination would also assassinate me. And you, if you dared speak to people you disagree with.

Another hero is Peter Boghossian, who gets people who disagree to speak, and share ideas. Trying to understand each other better.

One reason I do this work is to help good and decent people (I'm sure the VAST majority of my listeners) stop wasting time on bad faith people, so we can instead engage with good faith people. Do you know who panics about this? Narcissists and psychopaths!

They do NOT want people who disagree to speak. Because it removes their power. We emancipate ourselves. We realise we actually have lots in common. Same values, but in a different order. And we don't have to agree on the order, but we can talk. And one thing I've noticed is: if I offer respect to people I disagree with, they're more likely to listen to me, and I'm more likely to help them see my point of view. Provided I'm willing to see theirs.

Charlie Kirk's primary value was his willingness to engage respectfully with other humans, no matter how much they disagreed, and talk.

That someone assassinated him, that people were encouraged to do so, and that people celebrated: now is the time to consider: what do we stand FOR and what do we stand AGAINST.

Whilst I do NOT advocate for wasting time trying to debate with narcissists and bad faith people, walking away is not the same as physically attacking someone, painting a target on someone's back, lying about someone and gloating about murder.

Observe who is trying to make people hate each other. Don't let them manipulate you.

I hope you find this method helpful.

How can we tell if criticism is legitimate? Let's take a comment left on this podcast to see how we can test criticism to take onboard anything worthwhile, and avoid low level thinking / toxicity masquerading as legitimate criticism.

In short:

- consider "if this is true, what else would have to be true"

- are those things true, or not?

- what is the person actually saying?

- are they attacking a person, or ideas?

- does it display the symptoms of cognitive dissonance?

In a recent episode, I described how one person hijacked a meeting of expats, turned it into a "let's crap on Sweden" event, how some people played along, others were really uncomfortable - and how she bragged about blackmailing people.

But according to one listener, I "just didn't like that she worked with immigrants".

Hm, maybe. Or maybe not.

Let's break down the logic in that criticism to discern whether:

a. it's fair

b. the person finds the behaviour I described is not toxic, but healthy (?!) and it's impossible for lawyers to be toxic.

Given my appreciation of other lawyers who are not blackmailers, my gut feeling is b. But just to be sure, let's check.

This episode is not about an ill-thought snarky comment, but rather how we can take "what appears to be legitimate criticism", and scrutinise it using logic and method. So we can identify bad faith actors and fuzzy thinking.