As a 20 yo guy, throughout my life I got approached in public, more than you can think.

Whether a homeless men (mostly scammers) asking for help or money, Jehovah witnesses, usually girls asking me for gym club invitations (and getting my contacts eventually) , strangers asking for directions .... I've seen it all

At least once a week I have an event on this matter, and I want to know why...

I sometimes have rants when walking to clear my head, look in other directions and generally I treat walks like a good hobby, it cleanses my emotions , like being detached from my problems and such — so this could be a cause I guess(??I have no words to describe it)

Maybe people judge by posture to deduct the "one who would fold to their demands"? For the record I'm a very nice guy, I tend to help people with anything, to the point where friends/colleagues treat this as an ick/weakness and take me for a fool...

As for looks I look like an average Joe, 179cm (or 5'10" for my burger people) , so I see no reason why I tend to be approached at random...

Maybe the spotlight effect plays a role in this too, I sincerely don't know.

If you tend to "approach" people in public, just let me know what makes someone trusted or rather more able to listen at least with your proposal.

Any kind of help is deeply appreciated:)!

How the “Decoy Person” Manipulation Tactic Works

Manipulation does not always look like someone directly telling you what to do.

Sometimes the manipulator barely gives you an instruction at all. Instead, they introduce another person into the conversation and make that person the center of the story.

“Sam thinks this.”

“Sam believes that.”

“Sam told me something you probably shouldn't hear.”

Suddenly, Sam becomes the villain, the mystery, or the problem that everyone feels compelled to solve.

The important part is that Sam may never have said any of it.

This creates a social trap where people react to a fictional version of someone while believing they are making their own decisions.

1. The basic mechanism: fabricate the source

The simplest version is fabricated attribution.

A manipulator tells Person A that Person B supposedly believes something extreme.

For example:

>“Sam told me he thinks everyone here is evil.”

If Sam never said that, the statement is a lie. But it can still influence how Person A sees Sam.

The manipulator now has something useful: a story involving a third person.

Instead of saying:

>“Talk to me.”

they create a situation where the other person starts talking about Sam, asking questions, comparing opinions, or defending themselves against something Sam supposedly believes.

The manipulator has created an interaction without openly asking for one.

That's where the tactic becomes particularly deceptive.

2. Triangulation: turning three people into a social triangle

This is closely related to triangulation.

Instead of two people communicating directly, information is passed through a third person.

Person A hears something about Person B from Person C.

Person A reacts.

Person C then interprets or expands on the reaction.

Person B may have no idea what is happening.

The triangle becomes:

Person A → Person C → Person B

rather than:

Person A ↔ Person B

The person in the middle controls what information travels between the other two.

That's a powerful position because the targets are no longer responding to each other. They are responding to the mediator's version of reality.

And that's where the physics gets broken.

The social equivalent of clipping through the floor is that the mediator can quietly change the information before it reaches the next person.

3. The “evil advocate” role

The manipulator may also present themselves as someone who is protecting or helping the supposedly problematic person.

For example:

>“Sam doesn't like talking to people, but I'm trying to help him.”

This creates an interesting contradiction.

The manipulator appears to be:

• a confidant,
• a protector,
• an insider,
• someone who understands Sam,
• and someone willing to help others deal with him.

That can make the manipulator appear trustworthy.

The target may think:

>“This person knows Sam better than I do, so maybe I should listen.”

But the supposed insider status is itself part of the deception.

The manipulator has effectively invented credentials.

4. The outrage trigger

Another important component is polarization.

The claim about the third person is made outrageous enough to trigger an emotional response.

For example:

>“Sam thinks eating fruit is evil.”

The actual subject doesn't matter much.

It could be fruit, politics, relationships, religion, gaming, money, safety, or almost anything else.

The important part is that the statement creates a strong reaction.

Someone might think:

>“That's ridiculous. I'll prove him wrong.”

Now the person has been pushed toward an action without being directly instructed to do it.

This is the psychological trick:

The manipulator creates the disagreement, then lets the target choose the response.

The target may feel completely autonomous.

But the situation itself was manufactured.

5. Turning a person into a fictional villain

Repeated claims can gradually build a character.

The first statement might be:

>“Sam thinks fruit is evil.”

Later:

>“Sam is paranoid.”

Then:

>“Sam doesn't trust anyone.”

Then:

>“Sam thinks everyone is against him.”

Eventually, people may have a completely different image of Sam.

They aren't reacting to Sam anymore.

They're reacting to a fictional character assembled from stories.

This is similar to how tabloids can construct public personalities. A person becomes a collection of shocking claims, rumors, and carefully selected anecdotes.

The more stories people hear, the more believable the character can become.

And because each story appears to come from an “insider,” the information can feel unusually credible.

6. The secrecy component

The tactic becomes even stronger when the manipulator asks people not to speak directly to the supposed source.

For example:

>“Don't tell Sam I told you. He would get upset.”

This creates an information firewall.

The target cannot easily verify the claim.

If they confront Sam, the manipulator can potentially explain the contradiction away:

>“He doesn't want you to know.”

Now the absence of evidence becomes part of the story.

This is a major warning sign.

Healthy communication normally becomes more transparent when an important accusation is made.

Manipulation often demands the opposite:

“Keep this between us.”

7. Manufactured intimacy

The manipulator may also share supposedly private information.

That creates the feeling of trust.

Someone might think:

>“Why would they tell me something this personal unless they really trusted me?”

But confidential information can be used as social currency.

The information creates an artificial bond:

“You and I know something that everyone else doesn't.”

That feeling can make the target more willing to accept the rest of the story.

It's basically a social DLC nobody asked to install.

The target thinks they're receiving privileged access.

They may actually be receiving fabricated information designed to influence them.

8. Using the same decoy to approach someone romantically

The same structure can be used in relationships.

For example, someone wants to approach a person but doesn't know how to start a conversation.

Instead of approaching directly, they introduce Sam:

>“Sam thinks you like him.”

If Sam never said that, the statement is fabricated.

But it creates an immediate emotional reaction.

The target might become curious, angry, confused, amused, or defensive.

The manipulator now has an opening.

They can then position themselves as the person who understands the situation:

>“I was just trying to help.”

This creates a particularly ugly form of manipulation because the supposed problem and the supposed solution come from the same person.

The manipulator creates the conflict and then presents themselves as the person capable of resolving it.

9. Why the tactic can work

Several psychological effects can reinforce this behavior.

Authority

People tend to give additional weight to information that supposedly comes from an insider.

Emotional arousal

Outrage, fear, curiosity, and disgust can make people react before checking facts.

Social proof

If several people appear to believe the same story, the target may assume the story must be true.

Confirmation bias

Once someone forms an opinion about Sam, later information may be interpreted in a way that supports that opinion.

Information asymmetry

The manipulator knows the story is fabricated.

Everyone else does not.

That gives the manipulator an enormous informational advantage.

10. The biggest vulnerability: nobody checks the source

The entire structure depends on one simple failure:

People don't ask the person being discussed.

If someone says:

>“Sam told me you are dangerous.”

The natural response should be:

>“Did Sam actually say that? Can I ask him?”

That single question can destroy the entire setup.

This is why manipulators may discourage direct communication.

Once the target and the supposed source start talking directly, the fabricated story becomes much harder to maintain.

11. How to recognize the pattern

There are several warning signs.

Be cautious when someone repeatedly:

• claims to speak for another person;
• shares dramatic private information about that person;
• insists the information must remain secret;
• discourages you from contacting the supposed source;
• describes the same person as unusually evil, unstable, dangerous, or irrational;
• provides information that conveniently makes the storyteller look helpful;
• encourages you to “prove” the third person's beliefs wrong;
• creates conflicts that they then offer to resolve;
• repeatedly positions themselves as the only person who understands everyone involved.

One sign alone does not prove manipulation.

Several appearing together should make you slow down.

12. How to protect yourself

The best defense is boring.

And boring is good.

Verify important claims directly

If somebody supposedly said something important about you, ask them.

Don't build a major decision around second-hand information.

Separate facts from interpretation

Ask:

>“What exactly did they say?”

Then ask:

>“Did you personally hear them say it?”

Those are very different questions.

Don't let outrage make the decision

If a story makes you immediately want to prove someone wrong, stop.

That's often the moment when emotional manipulation is most effective.

Don't reward secrecy

If the information is supposedly important but you're forbidden from checking it, treat that as a warning rather than evidence of its importance.

Watch the messenger

Ask what the person telling you gains from the story.

That doesn't automatically mean they're lying.

But incentives matter.

Talk to the person being discussed

Direct communication is the natural counter to triangulation.

It removes the middleman.

13. The “villain magnet” effect

The most interesting part of this manipulation pattern is that the third person can become a social magnet.

People begin talking about Sam.

They defend themselves against Sam.

They try to help Sam.

They try to prove Sam wrong.

They become curious about Sam.

And all the while, the manipulator remains in the center of the network.

Sam becomes the fictional antagonist.

The manipulator becomes the narrator.

That's why the tactic can resemble a tabloid.

The story doesn't need to be true.

It only needs to be interesting enough to keep people reacting.

14. Where the analogy to a man-in-the-middle breaks down

There is a useful computer-security analogy here, but it should not be taken literally.

A man-in-the-middle attack involves an attacker intercepting communication between two parties and potentially modifying it.

The social version is similar because information passes through an intermediary.

But human relationships are much messier.

The better terms are:

• triangulation
• social engineering
• fabricated attribution
• rumor manipulation
• information control
• polarization
• manufactured conflict

The important common feature is control over information flow.

15. Why intelligence has little to do with it

One part of this idea deserves correction.

It is tempting to think these tactics only work on people with low intelligence or people who are mentally unstable.

That's not accurate.

Intelligent, educated, emotionally stable people can also be manipulated.

Nobody is immune to misinformation when the information arrives through someone they trust, during an emotional moment, with enough supporting context to make the story appear credible.

The better defense isn't having a high IQ.

It's having good verification habits.

Conclusion

The core manipulation is simple:

Invent what Person B supposedly believes, tell Person A, trigger an emotional reaction, discourage direct verification, and then position yourself as the person who can explain or solve the resulting conflict.

The third person becomes the decoy.

The outrage creates movement.

The secrecy prevents verification.

And the manipulator controls the information flowing between everyone involved.

The safest response is equally simple:

Slow down. Ask what was actually said. Check the source. Talk directly to the person involved.

Because if someone keeps telling you what another person supposedly thinks while making sure you never speak to that person yourself, you've probably encountered something more suspicious than ordinary gossip.

The social hitbox is probably broken.