Pushing the "Stupid" Button

A familiar phrase referring to a method for leading others to lose composure, perspective, or self-control is "pushing someone's buttons." It's a metaphor, of course, because we don't actually have buttons to push. But many believe that by saying or doing certain things, they can cause others to react inappropriately against their will. The button-pushers can take over total control.

It's a nutty idea, widely accepted.

People are not automatons. We sometimes react without thinking, but we always have the option of maintaining composure, perspective, and self-control, if only we can keep the more sophisticated parts of our brains engaged. It can be difficult. It requires discipline, practice, and preparation.

Fortunately, preparation can be simple. We need only learn to recognize the tactics people use. Let's focus on the "Stupid" button. Some people know how to lead others into making themselves feel stupid. Here are some popular tactics.

Intentional ambiguity

Making intentionally ambiguous statements, while conveying expectations that anyone with common sense can understand them, can be a trap for those who accept the expectations, but cannot decipher the statements. They feel compelled to ask questions, but they fear appearing confused or ignorant.

Forward references

We can create similar responses using We sometimes react without
thinking, but we always have
the option of maintaining
composure, perspective,
and self-controlreferences to people, places, situations, or concepts in a familiar, shorthand manner, even though they have not yet been introduced into the conversation.

Changing terminology to create confusion

Most people and things have multiple names. Switching among these synonyms creates confusion. For example, referring to a client repeatedly as Woodward, and then suddenly by the less-well-known nickname "Frodo," can create such confusion that some might ask who "Frodo" is, revealing the limits of the questioner's familiarity with the client.

Undershooting explanations

When asked to explain a previous statement, the button-pusher can provide a fundamental, long-winded, condescending tale that implies, in the excess of its detail, that the inquirer must be some sort of dolt to ask such a basic question.

Overshooting explanations

In the opposite of undershooting, button-pushers offer explanations so sophisticated that only the most inside of the insiders could understand them. This compels questioners to ask follow-up questions, revealing their limited understanding of the explanations.

Belittling questioners

When questioners ask clarifying questions in response to the tactics above, some button-pushers offer belittling responses, with varying degrees of subtlety. Examples: "Oh, I thought you knew about the X deal;" "Pardon me, I thought you were better informed on that;" "I'm not sure I can elaborate for you. I'll have to verify that I can read you in;" "I would have expected you to have done your homework on that for yourself;" or, "See me afterwards. I don't want to waste everyone else's time." If belittling would be too obvious, some button-pushers try ignoring questions or providing inadequate responses.

If you've seen other tactics, do pass them to me, and I'll add them to the catalog.  Top    Next Issue

Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Conflict Management:

The Uses of Empathy

Even though empathy skills are somewhat undervalued in the workplace context, we do use them, for good and for ill. What is empathy? How is it relevant at work?

Masked Messages

Sometimes what we say to each other isn't what we really mean. We mask the messages, or we form them into what are usually positive structures, to make them appear to be something less malicious than they are. Here are some examples of masked messages.

Letting Go of the Status Quo: the Debate

Before we can change, we must want to change, or at least accept that we must change. And somewhere in there, we must let go of some part of what is now in place — the status quo. In organizations, the decision to let go involves debate.

Meta-Debate at Work

Workplace discussions sometimes take the form of informal debate, in which parties who initially have different perspectives try to arrive at a shared perspective. Meta-debate is one way things can go wrong.

Conversation Irritants: I

Conversations at work can be frustrating even when everyone tries to be polite, clear, and unambiguous. But some people actually try to be nasty, unclear, and ambiguous. Here's Part I of a small collection of their techniques.

See also Conflict Management and Devious Political Tactics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming October 5: Downscoping Under Pressure: I

When projects overrun their budgets and/or schedules, we sometimes "downscope" to save time and money. The tactic can succeed — and fail. Three common anti-patterns involve politics, the sunk cost effect, and cognitive biases that distort estimates. Available here and by RSS on October 5.

And on October 12: Downscoping Under Pressure: II

We sometimes "downscope" projects to bring them back on budget and schedule when they're headed for overruns. Downscoping doesn't always work. Cognitive biases like the sunk cost effect and confirmation bias can distort decisions about how to downscope. Available here and by RSS on October 12.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendbTtLLSVlUPPCNkAner@ChacthFxWKdRwnLylOCDoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info