Controllers: 8 characteristics that give them away

Some people camouflage their tendency to control others by using all kinds of tricks.

Much of the human personality is defined by the way we relate to others. Controllers, in particular, express one of the most problematic facets of their behavior through attitudes that limit the freedom of others.

In this article we will see what are the fundamental aspects that characterize controlling personsThe most important aspect of this style of behavior is the way in which the person is able to control others, as well as different ways of recognizing the different variants of this style of behavior.

Typical traits of controlling people

Each person is unique, and of course, to understand the logic behind an individual's behavior, it is necessary to pay attention to him or her rather than starting from prejudices and generalities. However, a good starting point is to observe whether their behavioral style corresponds to certain categories described in psychology.

In the case of people with a tendency to want to control others, it is especially important to pay attention to these signals, since the well-being of another person may be affected by the lack of resources to protect oneself from the first one.

1. They handle mental frames well.

When we communicate, we not only utter words: we also make the conversation revolve around a mental framework in which what we say and what the other person says in response make sense.

For example, if we talk about "the children of Spain" we express a mental framework by which a country is a practically human entity, with some interests and a defined way of being, while if we talk about "the Spaniards", we only refer to a group of inhabitants of a region.

Controlling people know that they need to hide their need to hide their true motivations when dealing with a certain when it comes to treating those they want to subjugate in a certain way, and that is why they use language to create a moral alibi for themselves. For example, in couple relationships it is very common for these people to talk about the emotional bond that unites them with their lover as if it were a relationship in which one protects the other.

2. They act as if they know the essence of the person being controlled.

Controlling people tend to base the justification for their behavior on a supposed ability to "see" the essence of people. a supposed ability to "see" the essence of people and decide what is best for them. and decide what is best for them. Of course, this is not expressed literally, but it comes through in what they say.

For example, they talk about the practically innate and immutable weaknesses of the other person in order to try to "compensate" for those limitations by controlling that aspect of their life, while at the same time doing their best to make the boundaries of that supposed area of life very fuzzy.

3. They act with paternalism

In controlling people who try to hide the way in which they exercise their power over others, it is common for them to resort to a paternalistic tone.

This can be done by being conciliatory (for example, by offering to make a decision for the other person) or more directly domineering (e.g., they criticize the other's "lack of personality" or own criteria in an attempt to make the person who has been criticized submit to decisions imposed on him/her from outside).

4. They seek to socially isolate the other person

The more social contacts the dominated person has, the more likely it is that he/she will get rid of this toxic relationship. For this reason, controlling persons try to make their victim have no contacts, no friendships or, in the most extreme cases, no meetings, in the most extreme cases, without frequent meetings with the family..

This is very noticeable in couple relationships, an area in which it is very likely that controlling people try to exert the control they desire by taking advantage of the intimacy conferred by this type of relational ties.

5. They do not seek to cooperate, they seek unconditional support.

Normally, controlling people prepare the ground for manipulating others not at the moment when it is very important for them to have their unconditional support, but much earlier, in situations of minor importance.

Thus, for example, at the slightest sign of sympathy for someone with whom the controlling person is even slightly at odds, it is easy for them to show indignation or frustration. The message is clear: it is the controlling person who defines the limits of empathy and sympathy (let alone friendship). (let alone friendship) that the other, the submissive, can have.

In this way, when the other person's full support is needed, it will be practically guaranteed, since not providing the required help would break with the history of unconditional support in unimportant situations, and cognitive dissonance would appear.

6. They believe they have the right to meddle in everything.

For controlling people, the right to be left alone can be called into question if they find a suitable excuse to do so. It is not always because they want to be controlling the other person 24 hours a day; sometimes, it is simply because they do not take the other person's needs into account.

7. They talk about a "common good" to make decisions for the other person.

It is very common for controlling people to act as if it were totally normal to anticipate the other person's decisions and make them themselves for the other person. The excuse may be "not to waste time", "to do what is right for everyone", etc.

8. They apply criteria of extreme perfectionism to others.

Finally, it is common for controlling individuals to feel frustrated if others behave in a way that departs from their idealeven when others have never shown themselves to agree with those standards of perfection.

This can lead to many discussions or, on the contrary, to the idea that the normal thing to do is to submit to their criteria, given that they behave as if they have the authority to establish the boundary between what is right and what is wrong.

Bibliographical references:

• Anderson, C.A.; Bushman, B.J. (2002). Human Aggression. Annual Review of Psychology. 53: 27 - 51.
• Flett, G. L.; Hewitt, P.L. (2002). Perfectionism. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Hodson, G. M.; Hogg, S. M.; MacInnis, C. C. (2009). "The role of "dark personalities" (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), Big Five personality factors, and ideology in explaining prejudice". Journal of Research in Personality. 43 (4): 686-690.