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.

Grief helps us move on. But grieving a "narcissist" presents specific challenges. Get it wrong, and we're stuck for too long. But get it right, and we can recover faster.

Elisabeth Kubler-Ross identified 5 stages of grief:

1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

David Kessler suggests a 6th: Meaning.

In this episode, I share some thoughts you may find helpful.

Ever notice how narcissists (and others) use tone to mock someone they want us to disagree with? Sometimes it's baby voice: "And they said "You're unweasonable." Hahaha!".

Why? It subtly signals to us that we shouldn't pay attention to what they are about to say. We can safely dismiss whatever the words are, because the person is being unreasonable, AS DEMONSTRATED by the tone used to convey what we claim was said. BUT... that baby tone is certainly an exaggeration designed to make us believe something and mock the person.

Until we realise how tone is used, we'll be vulnerable to it being used against us.

And what about "tone policing"? I.e. "I agree with what you say but I don't like how you said it?" Well... that depends if we discuss both independently, or whether tone is used as a pretext to AVOID discussing substance.

I share some thoughts on this to help make you LESS vulnerable to toxic people and their manipulation techniques. And maybe help you avoid using them, if you do so without realising it.

Life during and after toxic relationships can feel like hell. And sometimes we find helpful ideas that help us get our life back together. I try to share those, and a major source of those ideas has been Scott Adams, the Dilbert creator, who also wrote some exceptional books to help people avoid bad ideas and have (as a consequence) better and happier lives. His birthday is June 8 (today) and he is very sick, it might be his last birthday. So I have a HUGE favour to ask you, listeners:

When relevant, take the helpful ideas you find in this podcast and share them with people who need to hear them. You know how sometimes (maybe) I'll share something and it clicks, or something makes more sense? Some of what I share I borrowed from Scott and adapted to toxic relationships and narcissism (not everything, but many things).

You too can pass on those ideas so they outlive Scott, myself, and eventually you. Not only will that continue to help making the world a better place, not only is that maybe the best way to be grateful to all the giants whose shoulders we stand on (Scott is one of my giants), but also you will feel the joy of having helped reduce the darkness in someone's life. As we already paid the price of toxic relationships, we might as well make the most of the benefits. Helping others is one of the highlights of my life now.

And please share a thought for Scott. Without him, my work would be nowhere near as good, my life would be less enjoyable. I feel like I'm losing one of my closest friends, one of the highlights of my life so far. So it's time for me to step up and do more than I have recently. It feels lonely, and scary, and really sad.

But if this podcast episode inspires even one of you to pass on some ideas I share, that would mean the world to me (no need to quote me, just share the idea).

As always, thanks for listening.

And Happy Birthday Scott! I'm grateful beyond words for all you've done, you're truly an inspiration - and I will do more than I've done recently.

Shame makes us look away, and that makes us MUCH more vulnerable to narcissists. But it's possible to recognise when we're feeling shame and STOP our coping mechanisms to REDUCE our vulnerability.

I recently looked into shame and recognised some patterns I was not aware of, as well as coping mechanisms, and even dissociation. This explained some things I had experienced over the years. As this was awful, perhaps sharing my thoughts will make it less awful for you?

In this podcast, I run though some ideas and anecdotes, as well as share a few tips. If you'd like more on this topic, let me know.

Just as shame makes us look away, for some reason I'd been procrastinating from recording this episode. I hope you found this helpful.

I saw a post on social media about 8 mistakes to avoid when dealing with toxic people and... I disagree with nearly all of it. In this episode, I run you through the "advice", explain what I disagree with, and why - and provide my alternative suggestions.

I hope you find this helpful and it helps you figure out what to do and, more important, what NOT to do.