Four Narcissistic Conversational Tactics to Confuse & Control - How to Spot Them and How to Defuse Them

Table of Contents

• Introduction

• Word Salad

• Gaslighting

• Whataboutism

• The Victim Flip

• Final Thoughts

• Free Download of Small Brand Tactics With Outsized …

Introduction

I must start this article with a confession: the headline of this article is pure click bait. If I were in high school my English teachers would have a conniption. You see it is a lie. This article is actually about tactics commonly abused by narcissists in conversations, often the tactics themselves are used by all sorts of communicators in many different contexts. Tactics or patterns themselves aren’t usually narcissistic, it’s how they’re applied.

No behaviour without context is inherently narcissistic. And like Zeno’s paradox, and obscenity, we know it when see it but damned if we can define the point at which it occurs. The general guideline is that if behaviours are used repetitively and strategically to evade accountability, protect ego, or control narrative and perception and this is done at the cost of another persons clarity, autonomy, or emotional balance - then the behaviour is being utilized in a narcissistic way.

The goal of this article is to help you recognize these behaviours or patterns, provide some thoughts on distinguishing whether they are malicious or helpful and tell you how to defuse or respond to them.

If you suspect someone is using these techniques you need to identify the technique. Then you need to determine if it is being used in a healthy or abusive way. And finally you need to defuse them.

1. Identify the conversational tactics narcissists use to confuse and control.

2. Distinguish them from healthy, assertive communication.

3. Defuse the tactics in real time.

Word Salad

“If you can’t convince, confuse.” - Sales manager for a major insurance company.

Word salad is when someone uses pseudo-reasoning, often emotionally charged, which creates the illusion of depth or value while distorting and distracting from the key point(s). It’s distraction by word splatter.

Ideas may be incoherent, illogical and/or disorganized. The speaker will often go on tangents, use self referential definitions and circular logic. It’s confusion masked by fluency that makes it hard to follow the logical progression of ideas so the brain just presumes as long as there is a degree of smoothness and a predictable pace it must be okay. It often involves blending unrelated or just irrelevant topics, shifting definitions and dense vocabulary without a clear logical structure.

Some people naturally process ideas out loud in non-linear ways especially during creative thinking, high emotion, or cognitive overload. Neurodivergent speakers may appear disorganized without intending to manipulate. The key distinction is: are they trying to clarify or confuse?

When is it abusive?

It’s abusive when used to derail, overwhelm, or bury the original issue under an avalanche of verbosity.

How you can defuse it: Interrupt gently but firmly. “There’s a lot being said — let’s pause and go back to the original point.” Ask for one, single, clear answer or claim at a time. The key here is you want to slow them down and narrow the focus of the conversation to what is relevant. You can also ask someone to pause as there’s too much information and summarize what they’re about to tell you in 2 or 3 sentences before going back to the explanation.

Gaslighting

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that targets the victims sense of reality. Someone insists upon an obvious lie being true. They deny something they clearly said or did or that you witnessed so as to make you question your memory, perception, or emotional response. Gaslighting is when you try to convince someone, falsely, that their accurate perceptions were incorrect.

When it’s not abusive: Gaslighting is almost always abusive. However, what isn’t abusive that can be mistaken for gaslighting is when two people genuinely remember things differently and one tries to convince the other of their point of view. Memory is increibly fallible and we all interpret, store and recreate things differently. One simple test is how the potential gaslighter reacts to challenges of their position, do they slow down and compare notes or do they double down, react in an emotionally aggressive way and try to place or shift blame?

Abusive use: It’s used to avoid accountability, rewrite history, and gain control. It makes the other person feel confused, guilty, or mentally unwell.

Defuse: If you’re dealing with someone who has a habitual pattern of gaslighting start writing things down, document little things that may come up and using the documentation to make your points. his is more useful in a professional setting but applies ever. The bottom line is if someone in your life does this distance yourself, put up whatever barriers you can and document, document, document.

Whataboutism

Whataboutism is when you bring up a specific issue or behaviour the other person deflects by bringing up an unrelated, irrelevant or non-equivalent point. It is actually a distraction tactic meant to shift the focus of attention from the wrong doing or flaws in the persons argument to something else. This is an incredibly powerful weapon because there doesn’t have to be any truth, justification or equivalency for most people to accept it.

The brain desperately wants things to be predictable, symmetrical and balanced. Symmetry and balance equals predictability which the brain equates with safety. So when someone responds to A with, ‘What about B?’ We generally presume that A & B have some sort of equivalency and if they don’t we will automatically reduce the magnitude of the larger one.

Claim: "Russia is suppressing free speech and imprisoning journalists."
Whataboutism: "What about how the U.S. treated Edward Snowden?"

When it’s not abusive: Whataboutism isn’t abusive if it raises relevant counterexamples or exposes the hypocrisy or logical inconsistencies within a position. For this to be true however the counter-example must be qualitatively and quantitatively similar to the position or accusation one is arguing.

Abusive use: It's used as a smoke bomb to changes the subject, create false equivalencies, and forces you to defend yourself instead of resolving the issue you raised.

What about Biden’s mental health?
What about Hunter Biden? Etc. etc.

There is no functional, practical or rational equivalency between comparing the mental health of a man in his 70’s who talks slowly and a man who thinks injecting bleach is a good idea and spews delusional nonsense about well, almost everything. There is no comparison between the obvious graft of the Trumps and Hunter Biden profiting from his name and the people he knows. Only an absolute idiot, if they considered the totality of the facts, would think these were reasonable or balanced responses. Yet….

Defusal Technique: Don't chase the bait. Tell them they are separate issues which can be discussed independently. If they insist on forcing a false equivalency highlight the discrepancy -
Say: “That’s a separate issue we can talk about later. Right now, let’s stick to the topic at hand.” Hold the focus. If necessary, write the original issue down and return to it repeatedly.

The Victim Flip

A person or group is criticized, challenged, or held accountable and instead of engaging with the issue they immediately claim to be the ones under attack. They frame themselves as the true victims, often claiming cruelty, unfairness or persecution by the other party. In the political sphere example of this childishness include the persecuted Christian or persecuted white man narratives in the US. Freedom convoy martyr’s and parents to irresponsible to vaccinate their children our Canadian examples of this phenomena.

What victim flipping does is it hijacks the emotional and moral frame of a situation and invalidates the original concern, and by extension any criticism of the narcissistic party. By casting themselves as the wounded party, they invalidate the original concern and recast the conversation around their own grievance.

The presence of emotion doesn’t define the tactic — the pattern of behavior does. People can feel defensive, upset, or even hurt when challenged. That alone is not manipulation. What matters is whether they stay engaged with the substance of the issue. If they remain willing to discuss the concern, respond to its merits, and avoid centering the conversation on their own emotional state, the victim flip isn’t in play. It becomes abusive only when those feelings are used — deliberately or habitually — to deflect, silence, or reverse accountability.

When is it not abusive: The presence of emotion doesn’t define the tactic, the pattern of behaviour does. People can feel defensive, upset, or even hurt when challenged. That is not uncommon and expected in many situations. What matters is whether they stay engaged with the substance of the issue or if they try to reframe the conversation as being about their newly raised issue. If they remain willing to discuss the concern, respond to its merits, and avoid centering the conversation on their own emotional state and/or perceived persecution they are acting in good faith.

Abusive use: This manoeuvre derails scrutiny and silences dissent. It shifts the burden onto the accuser who must now defend their tone, timing and/or motives while the actual issue of substance disappears or shrinks in implied importance. In public settings, it can be used to rally supporters by painting any criticism, however deserved or not, as unjust aggression.

Defuse: Refuse the reframing. "Your response is noted but it doesn’t address the issue that was raised, and that still stands." Keep redirecting back to the original point and document when it is repeatedly avoided or emotionally redirected. Most importantly don’t let the narcissist avoid scrutiny, keep coming back to the issue until it is addressed.

Final Thoughts

These patterns are used to deceive everywhere from individual relationships to national policy. They represent the very worst of human cognition and should be challenged wherever they are encountered. Wishing you good mental health.

Free Download of Small Brand Tactics With Outsized Impact from Masters of Marketing

For those of you interested in marketing please click on, visit and consider subscribing to our advertiser, Masters in Marketing:

Small Budget, Big Impact: Outsmart Your Larger Competitors

Being outspent doesn't mean being outmarketed. Our latest resource showcases 15 small businesses that leveraged creativity instead of cash to achieve remarkable marketing wins against much larger competitors.

• Proven techniques for standing out in crowded markets without massive budgets

• Tactical approaches that turn resource constraints into competitive advantages

• Real-world examples of small teams creating outsized market impact

Ready to level the playing field? Download now to discover the exact frameworks these brands used to compete and win.

Download now for free here.