How to recognize and neutralize negative people in your life

Group behavior

Group behavior refers to the ways in which people behave in the context of a large or small group. People join them for various reasons: most often because they satisfy some of their needs. Group membership can provide essential companionship, survival, and security.

Psychologists have long known that individual behavior and decision-making can be influenced by the presence of other people. There are both positive and negative consequences. For example, group influence can be useful in the context of work or political activity. However, this influence also has negative sides.

Silence

Whenever you don't express your thoughts or opinions, don't respond to an insult, you cease to matter to people, they begin to look past you. Don't hesitate to speak the truth.

To achieve anything, you need to realize that sometimes conflict is inevitable. Learn to be brave and stand up for your own opinion, it is your right. If you constantly hide your views for fear of rejection, no one will ever know your true preferences. Don't compromise. Just indicate what you think is true.

"Groupiness"

A behavioral trait that researchers have called “groupness” means that some individuals will consistently exhibit “group” behavior in different social situations. Moreover, their thoughts and actions will depend on their environment. At the same time, other people will not be influenced by the group.

Second life of food: don’t rush to throw away banana skins and stale bread

Segur-le-Chateau: a 10th-century fortress is rightfully considered the most beautiful corner of France

At first sight: the love story of a Spanish football star and a Hungarian dancer

“It's not about ideals or anything else,” says economist and lead researcher Rachel Canton of Duke University. — Rather, the whole point is whether a person generally likes being in a group. Some individuals are "group-oriented": they often join political parties, for example. And if you put these people in any arbitrary situation, they will act more biased than someone who has the same political views but is not a party member.”

Personal influence and resistance to other people's influence

The problem of individual psychological influence is especially relevant now, when people’s relationships, even in a business setting, are no longer so formally regulated. Each person becomes a target of influence from many other people who previously did not have the opportunity to influence anyone due to their lack of appropriate status and authority. On the other hand, the possibilities of not only influencing, but also resisting the influence of others have expanded, so the success of influence has become much more dependent on the individual psychological capabilities of those who influence and those who are influenced.

As the experience of practical work, and above all group psychological training, shows, for many people it becomes a habitually hopeless torment to find psychologically correct ways of influencing other people - be it their own children, parents, subordinates, bosses, business partners, etc. It is characteristic that For most, the pressing problem is not so much how to influence other people, but how to resist their influence. Subjectively, much greater psychological suffering is caused by a feeling of hopelessness in one’s own attempts to overcome the influence of others or to distance oneself from it in a psychologically justified way. One's own inability to influence other people is experienced much less acutely. In other words, it seems to most people that they know the methods of influence sufficiently for them, but the methods of resisting the influence of others are clearly not sufficient.

Meanwhile, methods of influence, consciously or unconsciously used by participants in group training, are also not always justified from a moral and ethical point of view, psychologically error-free and effective. The difficulties are further aggravated by the fact that these three characteristics are relatively independent of each other and can occur in different combinations. Influence can be “unjust” from a moral and ethical point of view, but at the same time, very skillful and instantly effective, such as manipulation. On the other hand, it may be “righteous”, but it is completely illiterate, from a psychological point of view, constructed and ineffective.

At the same time, the psychological “literacy” of building influence and its effectiveness are by no means always on the same pole. This is explained, firstly, by the fact that the criteria for the effectiveness of influence themselves are controversial. For example, very often the concept of momentary effectiveness of influence does not coincide with the concept of its psychological constructiveness, that is, its effectiveness in the long term. Secondly, psychological literacy only means that psychological rules are followed. However, a well-written text is not yet a work of art; in order for the influence to produce the required effect, it must be simply literate, but skillful, virtuosic, and artistic.

Let's take things one by one. What is psychological influence?

Psychological influence is an intentional or unintentional impact on the mental state of other people, their feelings, thoughts and actions, for which exclusively psychological means are used: verbal, non-verbal, paralinguistic. For example, the threat of inflicting corporal punishment is a psychological means, but the direct infliction of it is not, it is already a physical impact. Psychological influence is characterized by “two-way traffic” - the object of influence always has the opportunity to respond to it by psychological means, i.e. protect yourself from influence or exert it yourself.

Goals of psychological influence

In order to better understand the mechanisms of influence on other people, I propose to understand the purposes for which we use it.

1. If we ask the initiator of influence why he influences other people, most likely we will receive the answer “for their own good.” You can believe in this, you can convince yourself of this very well, but in fact, by exerting a psychological influence on other people, we are pursuing our own selfish goals, we want to make life easier for ourselves.

2. The desire to establish one’s own importance. Searching for the true meaning of our existence is a long and tedious task, and by exerting psychological influence on people and noting that they succumb to it, we receive confirmation that our existence has meaning.

3. The desire to save our own efforts pushes us to convince people that we are right. This manifests itself as resistance to the new, and, indeed, often convincing someone is easier than giving yourself the trouble to reconsider your own point of view, hear someone else’s opinion and assimilate it.

These were the targets of intentional influence, but there is also unintentional influence. Some people tend to exert a psychological influence on others simply by the very fact of their existence or presence in the room; other people begin to be affected by his charm, his ability to unconsciously infect others with his condition or encourage them to imitate. This is an unintended influence.

All these questions need clarification. Let's consider them in a sequence that reflects the logic of people's practical interest in this subject.

The concept of psychological influence.

• Types of influence and resistance to influence.
• The true goals of influence.
• The concept of psychologically constructive influence.
• “Technical” means of influencing and countering influence.

1. The concept of psychological influence
Let's consider some basic concepts.

Psychological influence is the influence on the mental state, feelings, thoughts and actions of other people using exclusively psychological means: verbal, paralinguistic or non-verbal. Referring to the possibility of social sanctions or physical means should also be considered psychological means, at least until such threats are put into action. The threat of dismissal or beatings are psychological means, the fact of dismissal or beatings is no longer there, these are social and physical influences. They undoubtedly have a psychological effect, but they themselves are not psychological means.

A characteristic feature of psychological influence is that the partner who is influenced has the opportunity to respond to it using psychological means. In other words, he is given the right to answer and the time for this answer.

In real life, it is difficult to estimate how likely it is that a threat can be carried out and how quickly this can happen. Therefore, many types of influence of people on each other are mixed, combining psychological, social, and sometimes physical means. However, such methods of influencing and countering them should be considered in the context of social confrontation, social struggle or physical self-defense.

Psychological influence is the prerogative of more civilized human relations. Here the interaction takes on the character of psychological contact between two mental worlds. Any external means are too rough for its delicate tissue.

So, psychological influence is the influence on the state, thoughts, feelings and actions of another person using exclusively psychological means, giving him the right and time to respond to this influence.

Resistance to other people's influence is resistance to the influence of another person using psychological means.

The initiator of influence is the partner who is the first to attempt influence by any of the known (or unknown) methods.

The recipient of influence is the partner to whom the first attempt of influence is addressed. In further interaction, the initiative can pass from one partner to another in attempts at mutual influence, but each time the one who first started a series of interactions will be called the initiator, and the one who first experienced his influence will be the addressee.

2. Types of influence and resistance to influence

In table Table 1 provides definitions of various types of influence; Table. 2 – different types of resistance to influence. When compiling the tables, the works of domestic and foreign authors were used (Dotsenko E. L., 1996; Jones E. E., 1964; Steiner S. M, 1974).

Table 1. Types of psychological influence

The above classification meets not so much the requirements of logical correspondence as the phenomenology of the experience of influence on both sides. The experience of destructive criticism is qualitatively different from the experience that arises in the process of persuasion. Anyone can easily remember this difference in quality. The subject of destructive criticism is the recipient of the influence, the subject of persuasion is something more abstract, removed from him, and therefore not so painfully perceived. Even if a person is convinced that he has made a mistake, the subject of discussion is that mistake, not the person who made it. The difference between persuasion and destructive criticism is thus at issue.

On the other hand, in form, destructive criticism is often indistinguishable from the formulas of suggestion: “You are an irresponsible person. Everything you touch turns to nothing.” However, the initiator of the influence has as its conscious goal “improving” the behavior of the recipient of the influence (and the unconscious goal is liberation from frustration and anger, a manifestation of force or revenge). He does not at all have in mind the consolidation and strengthening of those models of behavior that are described by the formulas he uses. It is characteristic that the consolidation of negative behavior patterns is one of the most destructive and paradoxical effects of destructive criticism. It is also known that in the formulas of suggestion and auto-training, preference is persistently given to positive formulations rather than the negation of negative ones (for example, the formula “I am calm” is preferable to the formula “I am not worried”).

Thus, the difference between destructive criticism and suggestion is that criticism formulates what should not be done and what one should not be, and suggestion formulates what one should do and what one should be. We see that destructive criticism and suggestion also differ in the subject of discussion.

Other types of influence are similarly differentiated. They all deal with different subjects.

Table 2. Types of psychological resistance to influence

As can be seen from table. 1 and 2, the number of identified types of influence and resistance to influence is not the same. In addition, types of influence and resistance to influence with the same numbers do not in all cases form a suitable pair. Each type of influence can be opposed by different types of opposition, and the same type of opposition can be used in relation to different types of influence.

3. True goals of influence

When we convince another person of something or instill an idea in him, what are we really trying to achieve? For example, what do we achieve by convincing the director of the company that candidate A should be hired, not B? What are we really striving for when we instill in a child that he should be independent? What goal do we pursue when we encourage students or subordinates to take our example or copy our behavior? The traditional answer to these questions is expressed by two well-known everyday formulas: “this is being done for the benefit of the cause” and “this is being done for the benefit of these people.” But is it? Is the purpose of our influence really to benefit the cause or benefit other people?

With a certain habit of self-analysis, each person can admit that in many cases he tried to convince other people of something or persuade them to a certain line of behavior because it suited his own interests, including material ones.

But there are still cases when the initiator of influence sincerely believes that his goal is to serve the interests of the cause or other people. However, as the famous saying goes, “no one is good enough to teach others.” All human rightness is relative, and people can differ in their views on what is good for a cause, for themselves or for other people. From this point of view, any influence is unjust, since by the very attempt of influence we aim at what is above us - the plan of someone else's soul unknown to us and, in fact, the priorities of various human affairs completely unknown to us. Who can judge which matter is more and which is less important for a given person, for a given enterprise, for society, for the comprehension of universal truth? Only with a certain degree of convention can we assume that marketing research is more important than production, accounting calculations are more important than receiving visitors, reading a book is more important than playing football, etc. In fact, the judgment about priorities is based on the economic concept we have adopted or on our personal value system. But every concept and value system is conditional. However, instead of experiencing this convention and devoting ourselves to searching for something closer to the truth, we strive to convince, inspire, declare something conventional as a role model, etc.

The explanation, apparently, is that the craving for absolute truth in real life is much less inherent in us than the inescapable desire to establish ourselves in the fact of our own existence and in the significance of this existence. The ability to influence others is an undeniable sign that you exist and that this existence matters. By convincing, inspiring, causing the desire to imitate ourselves, we help ourselves to become confident that we exist and that this existence matters. It is obvious that from this point of view, any such influence is selfish, and - for this reason alone - unrighteous. It is dictated by considerations of one’s own benefit, and not “benefit for the cause,” “benefit for others,” or, in general, “the highest benefit.”

In the struggle to gain a sense of self-worth, a person strives to gain attention from others, power over them, and the possibility of revenge for the harm they previously caused him (Dreikurs R., 1947). Attention, power, and vengeance were originally described by Rudolf Dreikurs as the goals of children's "misbehavior." In fact, we are talking about their attempts to influence adults, carried out in immature, aggressive and unacceptable forms for these adults. As adults themselves, many former children still need confirmation of their personal importance, but now they know how to seek attention, power and revenge through means that are more acceptable to other people. For example, a person could defend a proposal, putting forward more and more new arguments, only in order to keep the attention of others for as long as possible. On the other hand, he may not agree; someone else's proof just because it gives him a sense of power. Coercion can satisfy the need for revenge.

People who are able to concentrate on the objective side of the matter and completely distract themselves from establishing their own significance are the exception rather than the rule. Apparently, the reason for this is that in early childhood, any action of the child receives evaluation from adults, while initially the child only needs a description of the action itself. According to Gestalt therapists, for example, a young child needs those around him to recognize the fact of his existence and his actions. However, very quickly the child begins to understand that he will receive recognition of the facts of his existence only simultaneously with their assessment. Having mastered this, in the future he begins to focus on assessments, on the recognition of social significance (Perls F., Hefferline RE, Goldman P., 1951).

Another human need that determines attempts to influence others or resist their influence is the desire to save one’s own efforts, which is outwardly expressed as resistance to the new. It is energetically much easier to defend your own point of view than to give yourself the trouble to listen to someone else’s opinion and assimilate it. Resistance to the new is associated with the last of the four goals of “bad behavior” described by R. Dreikurs - recognizing oneself as incompetent and therefore entitled to be left alone. If refusal to try to do anything or generally react in any way to external influences can be attributed to children’s immature forms of demonstrating inadequacy, then insisting on one’s opinion, on the advantages of one’s own way of thinking, actions, life are rather “adult” ways of covering up (but in fact - a demonstration) of their inadequacy in the face of the pressure of the new.

So, the true purpose of “selfless” influence is to confirm the significance of one’s own existence. However, there are unintended types of influence that, at first glance, refute this statement. It is typical for some people, for example, to influence others by the mere fact of their presence. Their word is significant, no matter what they say, their gaze humbles or inspires, their laughter and enthusiasm are contagious, you involuntarily want to imitate their behavior, and call their goals your own. This is the effect of a charismatic or charming personality. In the Explanatory Dictionary of S. I. Ozhegov, charm is defined as charm, an attractive force. The “mechanism” of this ability to attract people to oneself is still unknown and awaits its researchers.

Another person's action may be different. His word may even seem too heavy, and his very presence can suppress, deprive him of strength, plunge him into the viscous infinity of boredom or the unsteady quagmire of anxiety. Facts like these prove that unintended influence can be a feature of human existence. Man spreads influence, just as some physical objects spread heat or emit radiance. Unintended influence is one of the manifestations of life.

If intentional influence is done for some reason, for something, then unintentional influence acts for some reason. The first has a purpose, and the second has only a reason.

In a similar way, there is a distinction between voluntary and involuntary attention or voluntary and involuntary memory. Essentially, any influence is a tension of our ability, which can manifest itself completely spontaneously, without any effort on our part. This is the ability of psychological radiation, the ability to create an individual unique field around oneself with a peculiar distribution of forces of attraction and repulsion, warming: cooling, relief and aggravation, calming and tension, the field can electrify or freeze others, give energy or lull, induce a feeling of bliss in their soul an irresistible urge to leave immediately.

People certainly differ in their natural gift for unintentionally (involuntary) influencing others. The psychological radiation of some people is so strong that it suppresses the weak radiation of others

The gift of influence seems to be, to a certain extent, associated in our minds not only with the psychological, but also with the anthropometric characteristics of a person. First of all, this is its physical size. What does the expression “impressive size” mean: a head, an arm or even a leg. What do they suggest? One might assume that this is respect mixed with fear. This fear of being destroyed or overwhelmed by someone else who is bigger and stronger than us appears to be biologically based. We are all born small, helpless, and then it takes a long time to learn to use our strengths. Throughout the entire period of development, the child experiences the feeling that he is inferior in some way to both his parents and the world as a whole. Due to the immaturity of his organs, his uncertainty and independence, due to his need to rely on stronger natures and due to the often painful feeling of subordination to other people, a feeling of inadequacy develops in the child, which then reveals itself throughout his life” (Adler A., 1924, p. 13).

In this we find a possible explanation for the fact that people feel much more acutely and painfully about their inability to resist the influence of others than about their inability to exert their own influence. The fear of dissolving in the rays of others, of losing the sense of one’s own significance, of the individuality and originality of one’s own existence, of losing one’s “I” – this is the main drama of human interaction. People with stronger personal radiation are simply better protected from this drama and are not even always aware of it, since it is rather the drama of other people - those who are close to them and experience their radiation. In cases where their unintended but inevitable influence is pointed out to them, they usually do not know what to do about it. Let’s illustrate this with a statement from one of the training participants: “Yes, maybe my field is too hard. But it's me. What can I do about it? Just stop being, die, and then the action of my field will stop. But if you don't want me to die, bear with me. What else can be done here?

Apparently, it is necessary to recognize that every act of influence, regardless of the degree of its awareness and intentionality, realizes a person’s conscious or unconscious desire to affirm the fact of his existence and the significance of this existence. If we directly recognize this, there is no need for a moral and ethical assessment of influence, determining its “righteousness” or “unrighteousness.” We influence because we defend our interests, and not because the absolute truth was revealed to us and we felt the right to decide for others.

Every person has the right to influence others, but everyone also has the right to reject the influence of others. This also applies to those who seem to us to be lower in terms of mental, moral or professional development. Every person can and will try to influence us in one way or another, because this is one of the ways they express their own needs, and everyone is given an equal right to express their needs and assert them. Thus, any influence is unrighteous, in the sense that it is dictated not by the highest considerations of God's providence, but by one's own needs. On the other hand, any influence is legitimate, because every person has the right to express his needs. It is only important to recognize that mutual influence is the mutual expression of one’s needs, and in this struggle everyone is equally right

To this it could be objected that the needs of some people are undeveloped or base, while the needs of others are developed and elevated, so the former may be less right than the latter. The influence of the former would need to be limited, and the influence of the latter should be strengthened. However, who in each specific case will determine the degree of development of needs and the preponderance of rightness?

Apparently, the problem of influence from a moral and ethical plane of consideration should be transferred to a psychological one. From a psychological point of view, it would be legitimate to talk not about who has the right to influence and who does not (everyone has the right), but about how constructive certain methods of mutual influence are, i.e. about how useful they are and creative for its participants.

4. The concept of psychologically constructive influence

In our opinion, a psychologically constructive influence must meet three criteria:

• it does not destroy the personalities of the people participating in it and their relationships,
• it is psychologically correct (competent, error-free);
• it satisfies the needs of both parties.

Psychologically constructive resistance to influence must also meet these three criteria. In reality, influence and resistance to influence are two sides of a single interaction process, so it is more correct to talk about mutual psychological influence.

A psychologically correct (competent, error-free) attempt to influence would be one in which:

• the psychological characteristics of the partner and the current situation are taken into account,
• “correct” psychological methods of influence are used.

In order for an influence to be considered psychologically constructive, all three of the above criteria must be met. For example, it is obvious that a destructive influence on another person can also be psychologically unmistakable. Therefore, the concepts of psychological constructiveness and psychological correctness (infallibility) are intersecting, but not coinciding.

If the influence exerted meets the criteria of psychological constructiveness, its recipient has two options:

• to be influenced;
• constructively resist it using correct psychological means.

Traditionally, behavior described by the formula “to be influenced” is considered in our domestic culture a sign of weakness and immaturity of the individual. It is more common to say “yielded to bad influence” than “yielded to good influence.” They “succumb” to bad influence, but “exert” good influence. Meanwhile, the experience of the author of this article in interviewing applicants for the positions of managers and directors of multinational companies shows that one of the most important abilities of a leader in modern Western business culture is considered to be his flexibility, the ability to be influenced and change his behavior and his assessments. Many questions from Western interviewers are aimed at identifying precisely this ability: “In what cases is it difficult to convince you?” or “How might your decision be influenced by a subordinate?”

The ability to yield to constructive influence is a sign of the predominance of task orientation over the immediate desire to confirm one’s own importance. Ultimately, completing a task successfully will do more to validate your own worth than remaining stubborn in an argument.

If our partner’s arguments convince us, we simply agree with him without resorting to counter-argumentation methods; if his goals and requests, as well as the level of competence he has demonstrated, satisfy us, we do not interfere with his self-promotion, but simply hire him. Likewise, we may agree to be infected by someone else's enthusiasm or voluntarily begin to imitate a high-class professional.

And on the contrary, if the influence exerted does not correspond to the norms of psychological constructivity, then only one way will be legitimate - to resist it in psychologically constructive ways. Refusal to resist would mean that the addressee agrees to have his personality suffered more or less serious damage; counteraction using psychologically unconstructive methods will undoubtedly cause damage to the addressee and/or initiator of the influence and/or their relationships.

(c) E. V. Sidorenko

REFERENCES Dermanova I. B., Sidorenko E. V. Psychological workshop Interpersonal relationships. Methodological recommendations for correspondence students. St. Petersburg, 1996. DotsenkoE. L. Psychology of manipulation M., 1996. Sidorenko E.V. Experiences in reorientation training St. Petersburg, 1995. AdlerA. The practice and theory of Individual Psychology. London, 1924.

The essence of the experiment

In an experiment involving 141 people, participants were surveyed about their political affiliation, which identified them as self-proclaimed Democrats or Republicans. They also took part in a survey that asked several seemingly neutral questions about their attitudes toward works of art. Subjects were asked to choose favorites from among similar-looking paintings or different lines of poetry.

After these exercises, participants took tests during which they were assigned to groups, either based on their political affiliation or into more neutral categories based on their choice of particular paintings. Participants were then asked to complete an income distribution exercise. They were required to indicate what amounts should be received by members of the other group or their own.

A girl writer asked to renovate an old carriage house. What happened

Make your meetings with loved ones regular: 3 steps to mental health

The sideboard has been collecting dust in the garage since the 90s: I decided to transform it (photo of the result)

results

The researchers expected to find bias in the distribution of these incomes based on political views. But they also found something else. “We compared Democrats to Republicans and found that party members actually showed more in-group bias. On average, they chose higher income for their party members. At the same time, they showed more prejudice against individuals from other groups. Therefore, identification with a group is not necessarily the driving force behind in-group prejudice. The analysis identified a set of subjects who tended to engage in grouping while others did not,” Canton said.

BREATHE DEEPER

Toxic people most often know your pain points very well, and they know how to very quickly (with one phrase) throw you off balance, so that later it will be easier to manipulate you. You can emerge victorious in the fight against them only in one case: if you manage to keep your head cool.

If you feel that you are overwhelmed by emotions and that you are losing control over the situation and the development of the dialogue, do not rush into battle with your sword at the ready - stop and take a deep breath. Once again.

You can continue the conversation only when you feel that your self-control, your sober mind and self-defense are back with you, otherwise you simply allow yourself to be drawn into someone else’s game.

People who are influenced by the group

According to the data obtained, people are divided into two types. The former's actions are influenced by being in a group setting, and in this case they are more likely to show bias towards others outside their group. In contrast, individuals of the second type do not show this kind of tendency. Rather, they act the same way at all times, whether they are in a group or not. The team also found that they made faster decisions. “This may be due to the fact that they do not take the time to analyze their group.”

How to get rid of negative people

Step 1: Define your goals

First, figure out what problems you have, and then make a plan to solve them. Ask yourself if you are satisfied with everything in yourself and in life. Think about what is stopping you from achieving your goals. Decide what your goals are and how badly you want to achieve them. Are you able to radically change your habits, environment, lifestyle for the sake of them? Determine which people around you hinder you and which push you forward.

Step 2: Find Pests

Negative people make you feel bad. They reduce your energy and leave you feeling empty and frustrated. After communicating with them, you feel a loss of strength, irritation, and resentment.

Such people always discourage you from taking action. They are sympathetically interested in you and your intentions, but never offer help, but only dissuade you from making changes. “You won’t succeed”, “It’s too dangerous”, “We have to wait”, “You’re already late” - these and similar words are always at the ready.

Negative people can be different and sometimes they can turn out to be nice. But if you still see a toxic charge in a person, then it is better to stay away from him.

Step 3: Let Them Go

Just start. You yourself can effectively and painlessly remove negative people from your environment. Avoid them. Don't pick up the phone. Unfriend them on social networks.

Avoid explanations. At least the truthful ones. Otherwise, this may turn into a showdown, which will give another reason to drink your blood. Negative people can conduct master classes in sorting out relationships, so it’s better not to mess with them. Just let them out of your life.

Step 4: Don't Feel Guilty

There is only one life, so you shouldn’t ruin it just because you are afraid of ruining the mood of another person. You have to be your own best friend. If you don't take responsibility for your life and well-being, no one will do it for you.

If you decide to remove a person from your life, most likely you have tried all the ways to change him before. If no wise words help, then you have no other choice but to get rid of such a person. You don't have to hang out with the same people your whole life. Whatever the reason, people grow and change. And the relationship between them can develop or fade.

Don't forget that the negative influence of negative people cannot be underestimated. It is able to cross out all your life plans and deprive even the strongest person of strength.

Have you ever had to radically change your environment?

Results

Of course, much more research is needed to confirm or refute these results. After all, this is a fairly small study, and scientists recognize the need to conduct experiments of this kind with participants in other settings. Perhaps further testing will help determine what exactly pushes people to this or that type of thinking.

“There is something that causes people to be sensitive to these group divisions and act on them,” explains one of the team members, psychologist Scott Huettel. “We haven't tested all the possible ways people differentiate themselves. But this is a compelling first step.”

Found a violation? Report content

TAKE A PAUSE

Don't immediately rush to respond to annoying messages or demanding letters, or feel guilty that you don't leave an important meeting or meeting just to answer calls from such a person.

Sometimes a pause and response is the best antidote, and while you are minding your own business, your energy vampire will find a way to deal with his neurosis without your participation.

Just remember that you are not obligated to adjust your life to the desires and whims of such a person, no matter how important he may be, and you are not obligated to be at his services 24/7 either.