Crowd-sourced trust cues
The small habits people say break their trust — and the ones the thread itself called unfair
What the thread actually said breaks trust
Across all 855 captured comments the answers concentrate on a small number of behaviours: lying about things that gain nothing, gossip treated as a forecast, jokes that carry a jab, blame that never lands on the speaker, and warmth that arrives before there is any reason for it. The thread argues with itself throughout — the dog test, the changing personality and most of the appearance cues drew objections from the people replying to them — so this guide keeps the disagreement beside each pattern rather than presenting any of it as a way to judge a real person.
- Lying about things that gain nothing — the thread's top answer, and the long argument underneath it
- Gossip, and the reasoning people gave for treating it as a forecast
- Jokes that carry a jab, and the four tests commenters used to tell teasing from contempt
- Blame that never lands on the speaker, and the thread's care about not mistaking a real victim for one
- The cues the thread argued with: the dog test, the changing personality, the surface markers
- Why none of this is a way to assess a real person
The top 10 from the comments
Ranked by how many distinct source records support each answer, before any category browsing.
Gossip, and what it predicts
What the pattern means: The single busiest sub-pattern in this corpus. Commenters treat talk about absent people as a forecast rather than an offence, and the reasoning arrives almost word for word from people who have never met: whoever brings you theirs will take yours elsewhere. It is reported as landing hardest when the speaker is someone the commenter has only just met.
People who talk shit to me about others. You aren’t special. You aren’t an exception. Even if you think you’re friends—they talk shit about you.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
Been on the receiving end of my team mates grouping together to backbite about me and make demeaning remarks, unwarranted, while simultaneously being nice to my face. My manager then had the gall to frame my introversion around them as me lacking social skills. I've already started hunting for a new job. I didn't come back to the corporate environment after a one and half year sabbatical to deal with this type of nonsense.
Yep. Friend ship groups are for children. Adults who hang round in a social clique are always toxic.
Where the lying came from
In the book dopamine nation, a sign of addiction is unnecessary lies. It was quite interesting. Edited for clarification. dopamine nation written by Anna Lambke, a psychiatrist specialist in addiction. Highly recommend it to anyone. It’s not nerdy or boring at all. Or you can find her interviews on Youtube.
What the pattern means: The largest reply cluster in the corpus is not people naming the cue but people accounting for it. Commenters with C-PTSD, autism or an abusive childhood describe small lying as something learned as protection: omission to avoid a punishment, simplification to end a conversation, a name changed to strangers. Several say they stopped only through deliberate effort, and several say the habit returns under pressure.
I can confirm. I have C-PTSD and telling the truth was not safe. I’ve long since stopped that behavior, but as a child it was pretty constant to keep myself safe. Edit: spelling
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
Not giving people ammunition to use against you. Not letting people.know what's important to you so it cant be ruined, broken, taken from you or ridiculed. Not letting people know youre vulnerable if you are sick or injured. Lifetime of having to cover for your abuser in public bc it will be so much worse when youre in private. Hiding small mistakes you've made because of punishment/abuse even if you rectified the mistake. Living in a situation that everything is a blame/fault issue.
It’s really hard to explain in one example- but personally I grew up with a mom who worked 9-5 but went to the local tavern after work. I could call her there but I stayed home alone and she passed out early always. I kinda had to figure out life while my brain was developing. Layer that over seeing your mom get beat up by her bar fly boyfriends she always let move into our house, our home was broken into/windows had broken out, ransacked everything so I was scared when I was home alone… which was all the time! I became her protector, my protector, all before 3rd grade (that’s when I have real memories from so who knows before then). I still wanted to “fit in” at school and was really ashamed of my home life as I aged…so you start leading this double life almost always on guard. I’m 47 now but I’d been living in flight or flight mode my whole life until I started unpacking some of this stuff back in 2018 ish..
Surface markers people knew were unfair
Being a TikTok detective and saying the husband did it because he's a gemini
What the pattern means: Cues about appearance and habit whose own authors often flag them as unreasoned — tattoos, socks, shoes, fingernails, emoji use, insisting on the long form of a name. Several are stated as preferences rather than claims, one names the irrationality in the same sentence as the cue, and one is answered on the spot by a tattooed commenter.
I don’t know why, and I know it’s irrational, but people wearing colored contacts or people with those auto-tinting glasses.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
I don't trust grinning preachers at all. I agree that they come across as being as fake as hell.
I cuss…it was off putting to some, especially religious people.
The jab that lands
When people take small jabs at you in jest.
What the pattern means: A put-down with a joke wrapped round it, so that objecting makes you the problem. Commenters describe direction as the tell: the jab travels downward and never at someone with power over the speaker, and the same target keeps coming up. Several report the same person switching to open hostility the first time they were refused something.
The people you’re doing it to won’t necessarily know that, or won’t be in the headspace to find it funny. A putdown is a putdown, a snide comment is a snide comment, and what’s privately going on inside your head when saying it doesn’t really matter. Your love language is probably considered bullying by some of the people you use it on.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
I also dislike this. How do you know if it’s coming from a bad place or just friendly teasing?
It's different when I do it. Its my love language for when I know you well.
Eyes, smiles and the face that does not match
Certain body language and eye movements. Also excessively loud people in an otherwise calm setting.
What the pattern means: Expression and words arriving out of step: a smile that stops before the eyes, a stare that does not move, a face held too long in one position. Commenters describe reading it faster than they can explain it, and the group contains its own corrections — depression, autism and simply the shape of somebody's mouth are all raised as alternative explanations.
If they have hard eyes. It’s hard to describe, but there are hard eyes and soft eyes. Soft eyes show emotion, they take you in with compassion and dignity. Hard eyes are flat, look at some mugshots. They show no warmth or caring. Like a poker face but with the eyes. They see you and measure you instead of recognizing your humanity.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
I had an ex that was extra loud for no reason when we went out for dinner one night in a quiet restaurant. Found out they were cheating on me at the time a couple of weeks later.
Brian Cox the scientist. His non stop smile irks me. To be fair, I think its’ just the shape of his mouth. Nobody can consciously smile that long.
Lies about nothing at all
Lying about little things that dont matter.
What the pattern means: What is reported here is not the size of the lie but its pointlessness: a lie that gained the teller nothing, in front of someone who already knew the answer. Commenters treat the willingness rather than the stakes as the signal, and several say what settled it was the reaction to being checked — a joke, a condescending question — rather than the lie itself.
Lying. Any kind, even harmless ones. If you're willing to lie about dumb things that don't matter, it makes me feel like I can't trust you for important things either. Intellectually, I know this isn't really a realistic measure of someone's trustworthiness since every one lies, every day, multiple times a day, but this is how I feel.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
In the book dopamine nation, a sign of addiction is unnecessary lies. It was quite interesting. Edited for clarification. dopamine nation written by Anna Lambke, a psychiatrist specialist in addiction. Highly recommend it to anyone. It’s not nerdy or boring at all. Or you can find her interviews on Youtube.
Once in highschool this girl arrived to first period and tried to tell me that the night prior she was struck by lightning
No accountability, and the story reversed
If they don’t take accountability or if they spread unsavory rumors, then my guard is immediately up.
What the pattern means: What happens once the behaviour is raised. Commenters report the complaint denied, minimised, or turned around until the person raising it is the one at fault, and more than one names the sequence outright. A related group describes a rift the person caused and then declined to repair, and one describes being told the memory itself is wrong.
When you tell them you’re hurt by something they did and not only are you ignored, but you’re then gaslit and made out to be like you’re the one who did something wrong - to them. Blows my mind.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
Taking accountability is a big one for me. Especially when presented with facts contrary to their behavior or words. Then they continue to DARVO.
My mom taught me that if they’re talking about others then they’re talking about you too!
“I’m a good person”
“ I’m a good person “ l have a good heart”
What the pattern means: Self-issued character references: good person, empath, nice guy, easy going, expert, kindest person you will meet — the identity offered as the evidence. Commenters describe the claim landing as a substitute for anything observable, and a few point at the inverse forms, false modesty and self-deprecation, as the same move run backwards.
Uni professor, “I don’t have favorites.” She did. People tell you who they are by stating who they aren’t.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added1
A psychologist named Francesca Tighinean said “Paradoxically, the people who see themselves as the most moral or good often carry the largest repressed shadows”.
Telling a victim from a victim mentality
It's not as easy to fake genuine emotional distress as it is to verbalize it. Unfortunately, people are better actors than we give them credit for. Everyone should study narcissism. Constant victimhood is a common feature.
What the pattern means: The thread's own guardrail on the answer above, and it is unusually careful. The distinctions offered are direction — working on it versus replaying it; what is wanted — being understood rather than pitied; and timing — how early the full account arrives. Several records come from people who say they were the constant victim and did not know another way to be.
Someone who is a victim may unintentionally be negative or sometimes blurt out downer stuff or unintentionally often make you feel sorry for them. Someone who has a victim mindset often finds lots of things going wrong in their life, is often angry, will talk about how they were ripped off or hard done by often, not just now and then, will expect too much of people, will be disappointed easily. Feels safe or enjoys it when people feel sorry for them. Often victims would like people to understand them, but they are horrified by people feeling sorry for them or pity.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
I have a communal narc in my family oh my god shes exhausting. Cant cut her off yet as noone else in my family sees any of her weirdo behaviour but Im working on removing myself
I also tend to be <grievance collectors>. They have a long list of people, events, organizations or behaviours that they’re pissed about.
“Can I be honest with you?”
Ich kenne einen Menschen … der sofort und wiederholt gesagt hat … „wir sagen hier die Wahrheit“ „in unserem Haus wird nicht gelogen“ … wer so etwas so oft in zig Varianten sagen muss, da stimmt was für mich nicht.
What the pattern means: Honesty announced as a policy rather than shown as a habit. Commenters report the phrase arriving immediately before something unkind, or used to close a question down, and describe a household or family rule about truthfulness repeated often enough to draw attention to itself. The complaint is about the announcement doing the work the conduct is supposed to do.
OMG yes. I've recently (over last 2 years) encountered this phrase, "I just have to be honest" when delivering cruel words, hurtful situations, or when he feels guilty for something. That's not honesty, it's you wanting to say things to bring me down or just because you don't care how it affects me if it makes you feel better.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
Everyone who I’ve heard say that has turned out to be a huge liar lol
Good point. And to add to that, using the royal “we” by itself is fairly manipulative behavior. It subtly implies a hard constraint backed by a number of people without the speaker taking responsibility for the rule. Never thought of it before since it’s rare I hear this spoken out loud, but it’s kind of controlling automatically.
Lying about things that did not matterThe thread's top answer, and the long argument underneath it about why people do it. 71 records.
Lies about nothing at allA lie with nothing riding on it, told anyway.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Lies about nothing at all
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Lies about nothing at all
Appears when: Lies about nothing at all
What the pattern means: What is reported here is not the size of the lie but its pointlessness: a lie that gained the teller nothing, in front of someone who already knew the answer. Commenters treat the willingness rather than the stakes as the signal, and several say what settled it was the reaction to being checked — a joke, a condescending question — rather than the lie itself.
What commenters described: Lying. Any kind, even harmless ones. If you're willing to lie about dumb things that don't matter, it makes me feel like I can't trust you for important things either. Intellectually, I know this isn't really a realistic measure of someone's trustworthiness since every one lies, every day, multiple times a day, but this is how I feel.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
In the book dopamine nation, a sign of addiction is unnecessary lies. It was quite interesting. Edited for clarification. dopamine nation written by Anna Lambke, a psychiatrist specialist in addiction. Highly recommend it to anyone. It’s not nerdy or boring at all. Or you can find her interviews on Youtube.
Once in highschool this girl arrived to first period and tried to tell me that the night prior she was struck by lightning
Source-record spotlights
Lying about little things that dont matter.
Literally this but I see any type of lying as a really big deal and breaks my trust completely
There are some people who are wired to lie. It is natural to them to lie. They lie about anything. They lie when there is no need to. They lie with great ease. They know they will not keep an appointment but they make it anyway. They are smiling and their eyes are shining as they make it.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “things that dont” recurs across 3 of the 19 source records in Lies about nothing at all; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments19 preserved records · 19 of 19 source records accounted for
Archive: 19 index entries preserve 19 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Stories that grew in the tellingAccounts that kept expanding until nobody could check them.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Stories that grew in the telling
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Stories that grew in the telling
Appears when: Stories that grew in the telling
What the pattern means: A different shape from the pointless lie: an account that keeps expanding past anything anyone could verify. The records describe serial embellishment — a story enlarged in front of the person who was there, a colleague whose relatives kept dying, a partner whose qualifications turned out to be invented — and the reported effect is that nothing the person says afterwards can be taken at face value.
What commenters described: Once in highschool this girl arrived to first period and tried to tell me that the night prior she was struck by lightning
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
Had a coworker call in saying he died the night before but will be in tomorrow
Wtf were they really drunk and just completely out of their skull?
Source-record spotlights
Once in highschool this girl arrived to first period and tried to tell me that the night prior she was struck by lightning
My ex started to tell me things that she had been lying about for years. It was always years removed from the lie itself. - eg lying about her qualifications (which didn't matter to me), including to her employers Most of the time there were a million half truths and non answers. Couldn't answer a straight question to save her life. If you asked her a number between 1 and 10 you would probably get 'red' as a response.
I have a young friend constantly chopping and changing stories about her life experiences. I'm twice their age but still 'shes done more. I've learned it's a trait she adapted to fit in, but find it most challenging when the stories keep changing.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “the people who” recurs across 2 of the 13 source records in Stories that grew in the telling; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments13 preserved records · 13 of 13 source records accounted for
Archive: 13 index entries preserve 13 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Where the lying came fromCommenters describing their own small lies as something learned young, under pressure.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Where the lying came from
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Where the lying came from
Appears when: Where the lying came from
What the pattern means: The largest reply cluster in the corpus is not people naming the cue but people accounting for it. Commenters with C-PTSD, autism or an abusive childhood describe small lying as something learned as protection: omission to avoid a punishment, simplification to end a conversation, a name changed to strangers. Several say they stopped only through deliberate effort, and several say the habit returns under pressure.
What commenters described: I can confirm. I have C-PTSD and telling the truth was not safe. I’ve long since stopped that behavior, but as a child it was pretty constant to keep myself safe. Edit: spelling
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
Not giving people ammunition to use against you. Not letting people.know what's important to you so it cant be ruined, broken, taken from you or ridiculed. Not letting people know youre vulnerable if you are sick or injured. Lifetime of having to cover for your abuser in public bc it will be so much worse when youre in private. Hiding small mistakes you've made because of punishment/abuse even if you rectified the mistake. Living in a situation that everything is a blame/fault issue.
It’s really hard to explain in one example- but personally I grew up with a mom who worked 9-5 but went to the local tavern after work. I could call her there but I stayed home alone and she passed out early always. I kinda had to figure out life while my brain was developing. Layer that over seeing your mom get beat up by her bar fly boyfriends she always let move into our house, our home was broken into/windows had broken out, ransacked everything so I was scared when I was home alone… which was all the time! I became her protector, my protector, all before 3rd grade (that’s when I have real memories from so who knows before then). I still wanted to “fit in” at school and was really ashamed of my home life as I aged…so you start leading this double life almost always on guard. I’m 47 now but I’d been living in flight or flight mode my whole life until I started unpacking some of this stuff back in 2018 ish..
Source-record spotlights
In the book dopamine nation, a sign of addiction is unnecessary lies. It was quite interesting. Edited for clarification. dopamine nation written by Anna Lambke, a psychiatrist specialist in addiction. Highly recommend it to anyone. It’s not nerdy or boring at all. Or you can find her interviews on Youtube.
It's painfully easy to slip back into the habit, but I have to remind myself it is as you say, it's a survival tactic. I often want to do it most when I know I have made a mistake at work, nothing catastrophic, but my head automatically lapses into "must make up a good story to absolve myself or they'll be angry." I'm sorry you had to deal with it, esp from a parent, that's basically an inescapable position for a child and completely understandable.
Wow. I’ve literally told people I used to be a pathological liar … I had no idea CPTSD is related. Just wow.
What the counts show
Across 29 source records, the most common observable tactic structure is “Attach it to an existing routine” (2 records). This is a wording pattern, not a measured outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Observable tactic structures
Counts show source records whose wording matches the tactic structure; biological explanations remain commenter claims unless separately checked below.
Browse the original comments29 preserved records · 29 of 29 source records accounted for
Archive: 29 index entries preserve 29 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Explanation, not excuseThe thread arguing over whether a reason for the behaviour changes what it costs.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Explanation, not excuse
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Explanation, not excuse
Appears when: Explanation, not excuse
What the pattern means: The thread's own argument about whether the accounts above change anything. One side holds that a reason is not a permission and that the behaviour still costs the people around it; the other that an explanation is precisely what makes change possible. A parallel disagreement runs underneath about where hyperbole for the sake of a story ends and inventing detail begins.
What commenters described: It’s not an excuse, it’s an explanation. It’s behaviour that once the person gets treated is able to change as it can be harmful
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
Spoken by someone who almost certainly has not got a serious chronic brain injury also know as mental health problem. Yeah a broken leg is no excuse for a limp- I see your argument
Spoken by someone who almost certainly has not got a serious chronic brain injury also know as mental health problem. Yeah a broken leg is no excuse for a limp- I see your argument
Source-record spotlights
Those aren’t really lies, though. They’re just oversimplifications, which can feel like lying if you’re autistic. I guess some of them do border on outright lies, but I still think that if we expand the constraints of verbal communication a bit, in each instance you are conveying a truth about a situation. You’re just not expanding on every detail because, as you pointed out…people aren’t usually interested in all of that. It’s okay though.
Spoken by someone who almost certainly has not got a serious chronic brain injury also know as mental health problem. Yeah a broken leg is no excuse for a limp- I see your argument
I don’t think it makes it any more understandable. Mental health is a reason not an excuse, and people need to take accountability for their behaviour regardless.
What the counts show
This report keeps all 10 source records for Explanation, not excuse together and surfaces traceable examples without converting anecdotes into proof.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments10 preserved records · 10 of 10 source records accounted for
Archive: 10 index entries preserve 10 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Announcing that you can be trustedVolunteering your own trustworthiness before anyone doubted it. 28 records.
“You can trust me”, unpromptedReassurance offered before anyone asked for it.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: “You can trust me”, unprompted
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
“You can trust me”, unprompted
Appears when: “You can trust me”, unprompted
What the pattern means: The reported trigger is that the reassurance was unsolicited — nobody had raised the question until the speaker did. The records carry the same reversal in several forms: a first date repeating that you are safe, a passenger volunteering that they are not dangerous, an offer of secrecy nobody asked for. Commenters read it as a claim on trust made in place of earning it.
What commenters described: Such a red flag especially when you’ve just met them. They feel entitled to your trust despite having never done anything to earn it.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
And the other variation: Don’t worry about it. When trying to get to an agreement and my question gets answered with this line it instantly sends shivers down my back. I convinced myself that when anybody feels like saying this it’s a sign to actually start worrying.
Especially when you just met them and they talk to you like you're an old buddy. My red flags go up when that happens.
Source-record spotlights
When they say "you know you can trust me, right?"
Saying “you can trust me” without a prompt. Like, I wasn’t thinking about it before, but I am now.
Such a red flag especially when you’ve just met them. They feel entitled to your trust despite having never done anything to earn it.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “say you can trust” recurs across 2 of the 13 source records in “You can trust me”, unprompted; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments13 preserved records · 13 of 13 source records accounted for
Archive: 13 index entries preserve 13 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
“Can I be honest with you?”Honesty announced as a policy rather than shown as a habit.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: “Can I be honest with you?”
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
“Can I be honest with you?”
Appears when: “Can I be honest with you?”
What the pattern means: Honesty announced as a policy rather than shown as a habit. Commenters report the phrase arriving immediately before something unkind, or used to close a question down, and describe a household or family rule about truthfulness repeated often enough to draw attention to itself. The complaint is about the announcement doing the work the conduct is supposed to do.
What commenters described: OMG yes. I've recently (over last 2 years) encountered this phrase, "I just have to be honest" when delivering cruel words, hurtful situations, or when he feels guilty for something. That's not honesty, it's you wanting to say things to bring me down or just because you don't care how it affects me if it makes you feel better.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
Everyone who I’ve heard say that has turned out to be a huge liar lol
Good point. And to add to that, using the royal “we” by itself is fairly manipulative behavior. It subtly implies a hard constraint backed by a number of people without the speaker taking responsibility for the rule. Never thought of it before since it’s rare I hear this spoken out loud, but it’s kind of controlling automatically.
Source-record spotlights
Ich kenne einen Menschen … der sofort und wiederholt gesagt hat … „wir sagen hier die Wahrheit“ „in unserem Haus wird nicht gelogen“ … wer so etwas so oft in zig Varianten sagen muss, da stimmt was für mich nicht.
When they’re telling you a story and preface with “this is a true story”
People who keep saying stuff like, I do what I say and I say what I do…
What the counts show
Within 15 source records, 3 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments15 preserved records · 15 of 15 source records accounted for
Archive: 15 index entries preserve 15 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Advertising your own goodnessSelf-description doing the work that behaviour is supposed to do. 41 records.
“I’m a good person”A character reference issued by its own subject.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: “I’m a good person”
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
“I’m a good person”
Appears when: “I’m a good person”
What the pattern means: Self-issued character references: good person, empath, nice guy, easy going, expert, kindest person you will meet — the identity offered as the evidence. Commenters describe the claim landing as a substitute for anything observable, and a few point at the inverse forms, false modesty and self-deprecation, as the same move run backwards.
What commenters described: Uni professor, “I don’t have favorites.” She did. People tell you who they are by stating who they aren’t.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added1
A psychologist named Francesca Tighinean said “Paradoxically, the people who see themselves as the most moral or good often carry the largest repressed shadows”.
Source-record spotlights
“ I’m a good person “ l have a good heart”
People who say they're scared of being seen as a bad person. Like it's something you become labeled as in high school. Actually being a bad person should scare you more.
When they call themselves kind or decent
What the counts show
The exact phrase “people who say” recurs across 3 of the 17 source records in “I’m a good person”; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments17 preserved records · 17 of 17 source records accounted for
Archive: 17 index entries preserve 17 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Virtue on displayMorality performed at volume, in front of an audience.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Virtue on display
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Virtue on display
Appears when: Virtue on display
What the pattern means: Morality performed at volume for an audience rather than practised quietly. What commenters report is the gap between the size of the display and anything visible behind it, and they read the effort itself as the tell. One record inside the group turns it around and reads the display as insecurity and projection rather than cover for anything worse.
What commenters described: It makes me think " this person is trying so hard to trick every one into thinking they aren't a walking pile of garbage like the rest of us. I bet they're up to some horrible shit, then. Why else would they be trying to make us think they're so perfect" Every time they turn out to be massive piles of shit. Every single time. Gotta kinda love how it backfires on them. No we don't think "wow you have such a monopoly on virtue while the rest of us here beneath your feet have the monopoly of vice and bad intentions, how can we be like you, the greatest human to ever exist"
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
It makes me think " this person is trying so hard to trick every one into thinking they aren't a walking pile of garbage like the rest of us. I bet they're up to some horrible shit, then. Why else would they be trying to make us think they're so perfect" Every time they turn out to be massive piles of shit. Every single time. Gotta kinda love how it backfires on them. No we don't think "wow you have such a monopoly on virtue while the rest of us here beneath your feet have the monopoly of vice and bad intentions, how can we be like you, the greatest human to ever exist"
This is the best one, virtue signaling shows me the person doesnt have their own understanding of their character or who they even are and has no right judging others so harshly
Source-record spotlights
people who are virtue signalling. Ur not perfect, so why are u trying to make me think u are this person of an insanely high moral standard.
Righteous activism. While seemingly virtuous, it can be a red flag for passive aggression and narcissistic self-importance.
It only ever goes one way with this type of person. The more you find out who they really are the darker it gets.b
What the counts show
The exact phrase “trying to make” recurs across 2 of the 9 source records in Virtue on display; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments9 preserved records · 9 of 9 source records accounted for
Archive: 9 index entries preserve 9 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Leading with their religionFaith introduced early and used as a credential.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Leading with their religion
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Leading with their religion
Appears when: Leading with their religion
What the pattern means: Faith introduced early and used as a credential. The reported pattern is specific: the identity announced before it is relevant, or produced inside a transaction — a lease, an investment, a sale. Commenters separate this from religious practice itself; what they name is the badge being offered where a track record would go.
What commenters described: When someone instantly introduces/identifies themselves as a Christian. It has nothing to do with them actually being Christian. They are usually about to sell you something or scam you.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
Oh the ones who hold the “I am Christian” banner and wave it are the worst. I absolutely don’t trust such people out the gate.
“I’m too honest for my own good” as they tell me a lie right to my face.
Source-record spotlights
They make a big show of being "honest" and/or "Christian." If you have to tell me that you are a certain way, you probably aren't.
Telling people you’re a “Christian” without being asked.
This is my mother in law 100000%. Reposts all these Jesus/Christian posts…..is very far from acting like one. Oooofff!!!
What the counts show
Within 15 source records, 2 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments15 preserved records · 15 of 15 source records accounted for
Archive: 15 index entries preserve 15 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Jokes that carry a jabThe single most contested theme in the thread: where teasing stops and contempt starts. 58 records.
The jab that landsA put-down delivered inside a joke, with the joke as the alibi.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: The jab that lands
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The jab that lands
Appears when: The jab that lands
What the pattern means: A put-down with a joke wrapped round it, so that objecting makes you the problem. Commenters describe direction as the tell: the jab travels downward and never at someone with power over the speaker, and the same target keeps coming up. Several report the same person switching to open hostility the first time they were refused something.
What commenters described: The people you’re doing it to won’t necessarily know that, or won’t be in the headspace to find it funny. A putdown is a putdown, a snide comment is a snide comment, and what’s privately going on inside your head when saying it doesn’t really matter. Your love language is probably considered bullying by some of the people you use it on.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
I also dislike this. How do you know if it’s coming from a bad place or just friendly teasing?
It's different when I do it. Its my love language for when I know you well.
Where commenters report limits
Yes! I couldn’t believe it either. Good for you for standing up for yourself. I missed the warning signs early, I saw how she treated someone else, really terrible and I made excuses for her. But then I started noticing it with her and she started doing it to me, slowly with micro aggressions and then it kind of woke me up and I saw her doing it to her sister and others. I think it’s hard for kind people to understand someone would be that way, but those people are out there. Hopefully they’ll get better and learn how to be a better human being, but I don’t let people like that in my life anymore.
Source-record spotlights
When people take small jabs at you in jest.
when they’re being constantly sarcastic
Schroedinger’s joke: the offensive statement gets twisted into a joke
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
The exact phrase “take small jabs” recurs across 2 of the 20 source records in The jab that lands; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments20 preserved records · 20 of 20 source records accounted for
Archive: 20 index entries preserve 20 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
How commenters told teasing from contemptThe working tests people said they use to sort banter from cruelty.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: How commenters told teasing from contempt
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
How commenters told teasing from contempt
Appears when: How commenters told teasing from contempt
What the pattern means: The one sub-pattern where the corpus supplies working tests rather than complaints. Four recur: reciprocity — can they take it back; distribution — is the same person always the butt; audience — who is in the room and what the timing gains; and response — does saying so change anything, or does the person go cold.
What commenters described: Can they do it about themselves too? If yes, they're probably friendly teasing. If it hurts you, it doesn't matter the intent though tbh.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
It's definitely something that requires dialogue and both people can learn a lot from the exchange. It is also just as important for the person who doesn't like it to speak up for themselves and say why directly without shaming the perpetrator because it will help them learn about how they affect people (seriously, there are reasons they might be emotionally blind to it) and because saying "I shouldn't have to say anything, you should just know how I feel" is asking someone to mind read = also a form of emotional immaturity. Of course, it's situational too. You may prefer to only put this much effort into the relationships that truly matter and just distance from the ones that are less close.
That logoic dismisses the feelings of the intended target of the joke when in the company of others. You are the punchline in both in front of others and in private.
Source-record spotlights
Can they do it about themselves too? If yes, they're probably friendly teasing. If it hurts you, it doesn't matter the intent though tbh.
That logoic dismisses the feelings of the intended target of the joke when in the company of others. You are the punchline in both in front of others and in private.
Jokes are only funny if the audience laughs. If its just the two of you and the joke stings, guess what - you're not the audience, but the punchline.
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
The exact phrase “in front of others” recurs across 2 of the 11 source records in How commenters told teasing from contempt; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments11 preserved records · 11 of 11 source records accounted for
Archive: 11 index entries preserve 11 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The people who said they do itCommenters who recognised themselves in the complaint and said so.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: The people who said they do it
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The people who said they do it
Appears when: The people who said they do it
What the pattern means: Records where the person being described answers back. They report teasing as affection, as a shared idiom inside a relationship, or as ordinary trade-floor register, and one says its absence would be the real warning sign. They are kept beside the complaint rather than beneath it because the same behaviour is being reported from both ends of it.
What commenters described: It's different when I do it. Its my love language for when I know you well.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
When I started dating my boyfriend, we commented on how easily we fell into teasing each other as part of our shared love language. I told him that if I ever STOP teasing him, that’s a huge sign that something is wrong.
If that's your love language I dont want to see your fighting talk
Where commenters report limits
Definitely. I only pick on people I like. My dad did it to me as a kid and I hated it. Now I grew up and I am so my parents 🙈
Source-record spotlights
When I started dating my boyfriend, we commented on how easily we fell into teasing each other as part of our shared love language. I told him that if I ever STOP teasing him, that’s a huge sign that something is wrong.
Definitely. I only pick on people I like. My dad did it to me as a kid and I hated it. Now I grew up and I am so my parents 🙈
Its different when i do it, I'm jesting you
What the counts show
Within 6 source records, 0 explicitly report a benefit and 1 explicitly report a limit or failure. These are attributed experiences, not effectiveness data.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments6 preserved records · 6 of 6 source records accounted for
Archive: 6 index entries preserve 6 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Where banter is the local languagePlaces and trades where the same jab reads as affection.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Where banter is the local language
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Where banter is the local language
Appears when: Where banter is the local language
What the pattern means: Commenters from Ireland, Britain, Boston and from kitchen and workshop trades report the identical jab reading as inclusion in their setting. The qualification the group supplies itself is that a local norm does not travel: one reply calls it fun but not necessarily healthy, another says it simply is not everyone's preferred register, and one commenter describes unlearning it after moving.
What commenters described: Culturally in my country, if people take the piss out of you it’s treating you as one of the group. It can get quite full on but it is affectionate
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
Fun, but not necessarily healthy. Definitely not everyone's preferred style of humor.
I understand that. Just not my preferred style of communication and not how I was raised to communicate with others.
Source-record spotlights
Fun, but not necessarily healthy. Definitely not everyone's preferred style of humor.
I understand that. Just not my preferred style of communication and not how I was raised to communicate with others.
Right! Its not mean spirited just teasing. If i can tell someone wouldnt like it I dont joke with them that way. But if they can take it its fun going back and forth:))
What the counts show
The exact phrase “preferred style of” recurs across 2 of the 8 source records in Where banter is the local language; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments8 preserved records · 8 of 8 source records accounted for
Archive: 8 index entries preserve 8 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Passive aggression and the cryptic remarkHostility routed around the point so it cannot be answered.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Passive aggression and the cryptic remark
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Passive aggression and the cryptic remark
Appears when: Passive aggression and the cryptic remark
What the pattern means: Hostility routed so that it cannot be answered: a remark aimed near you rather than at you, a cryptic aside left unexplained, laughter where an answer was asked for, or an instruction about how to feel issued before the sentence arrives, and the rhetorical 'right?' that collects agreement before you have given it. Commenters describe the cost as the impossibility of raising any of it, and several report recognising the habit in a parent or in themselves.
What commenters described: My mother is very passive aggressive. I catch myself doing it at times too. Difficult trait to overcome but I’m trying. She also ‘shuts down’ in conflict and stonewalls you, another trait I’ve found myself doing. Never apologises either, just starts talking to you again after some time. She also doesn’t have the ability to actually look at her behaviours. She gets defensive if you criticise her. Example, she asks: was I a good mother? You respond: you were BUT.. her: is offended immediately and blames something you did for that behaviour to occur.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
My adult son does this. Then says I have taken it the wrong way. Or he's "just joking" I miss the good boy he used to be. And I don't particularly look forward to his visits. Hes a new dad and I fear for her pure, curious mind.
Me and my parents have difficulty getting on. My parents aren’t bad people, as a child I couldn’t have wished for better parents. I don’t think I’m a bad person. There comes a time when a son or daughter becomes their own person. I’m a completely different person to my parents. Different education , different sense of humour, different beliefs, different interests, different opinions, different everything. This tends to manifest itself in frustration, on both sides, that results in awkwardness , sometimes anger and an inability to communicate. For years, I always blamed them and they blamed me. I realised as I got older , their failure to understand me wasn’t their fault anymore than my failure to understand them. We talk occasionally and both sides have started to learn to politely excuse themselves once we realise we have reached an empasse. It’s taken a long time. It feels strange not being able to communicate on a human level with ones’ parents. I’m sure they feel the same regarding their son. We are civil. I dread losing them . I love them but i don’t always particularly like them. I used to get extremely upset about our relationship. I’m sure the feeling is mutual. We went no contact for many years but even that didn’t feel any better. We have , what most people might regard as an atypical relationship. My partner and closest friends have always thought it to be strange. I’m 51 now. I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s not a case of they are right and I am wrong or vice versa. We are just different people. If they weren’t my parents and I wasn’t their son , we wouldn’t have anything in common. Yes. It is sad and it still makes my heart heavy but we keep in touch and have learned to treat each other with respect and set boundaries. Sometimes it’s the only thing you can do. It’s not perfect but it’s better than no contact. They are good people, they were good parents but……. We are just completely different people. I think, the point I’m trying to make is, you can’t pick your family but nonetheless, they are still your family.
Source-record spotlights
Passive aggresive remarks, behaviour.
When they drop sarcastic and cryptic comments only in my vicinity. Even something as random like a little backstory means trouble.
Doing things that are obviously intentional and acting like "they didn't do it intentionally"
What the counts show
Within 13 source records, 4 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments13 preserved records · 13 of 13 source records accounted for
Archive: 13 index entries preserve 13 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Talking about people who are not thereGossip read as a preview: what they say about others, they will say about you. 52 records.
Gossip, and what it predictsTalk about absent people, read as a forecast about you.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Gossip, and what it predicts
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Gossip, and what it predicts
Appears when: Gossip, and what it predicts
What the pattern means: The single busiest sub-pattern in this corpus. Commenters treat talk about absent people as a forecast rather than an offence, and the reasoning arrives almost word for word from people who have never met: whoever brings you theirs will take yours elsewhere. It is reported as landing hardest when the speaker is someone the commenter has only just met.
What commenters described: People who talk shit to me about others. You aren’t special. You aren’t an exception. Even if you think you’re friends—they talk shit about you.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
Been on the receiving end of my team mates grouping together to backbite about me and make demeaning remarks, unwarranted, while simultaneously being nice to my face. My manager then had the gall to frame my introversion around them as me lacking social skills. I've already started hunting for a new job. I didn't come back to the corporate environment after a one and half year sabbatical to deal with this type of nonsense.
Yep. Friend ship groups are for children. Adults who hang round in a social clique are always toxic.
Source-record spotlights
People who talk shit to me about others. You aren’t special. You aren’t an exception. Even if you think you’re friends—they talk shit about you.
I'm all for having friend groups as an adult but I do agree with you in some cases. Every friend group I've met thats solid has some pretty serious drama underneath. It's always messy.
Talking about other people negatively. Or anyone who says their ex is crazy, cause what was your part in that?
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
The exact phrase “talk shit about” recurs across 3 of the 34 source records in Gossip, and what it predicts; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments34 preserved records · 34 of 34 source records accounted for
Archive: 34 index entries preserve 34 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Secrets that did not stay secretInformation handed over in confidence and passed straight on.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Secrets that did not stay secret
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Secrets that did not stay secret
Appears when: Secrets that did not stay secret
What the pattern means: The completed version of the pattern above: something handed over in confidence turning up somewhere else. Commenters describe this as decisive in a way ordinary gossip is not, and several say malice is beside the point — the compulsion to repeat it is the whole signal, whether or not the information mattered.
What commenters described: Regularly repeating things you or other friends say to them to other people without care for discretion. Malicious or not, actually private or not, the need or compulsion to do it indicates they aren’t trustworthy.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
Source-record spotlights
Gossiping about other people and disclosing their personal information.
Bringing up something that I told them in confidence - even if it’s something small and they only bring it up to me. If I don’t bring it up, but they do, they make me think it’s willy nilly
Someone lets other people listen in on your phone conversation without telling you.
Related evidence elsewhere in the index
What the counts show
The exact phrase “about other people” recurs across 2 of the 7 source records in Secrets that did not stay secret; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments7 preserved records · 7 of 7 source records accounted for
Archive: 7 index entries preserve 7 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Warm to the face, cutting behind the backTwo accounts of the same relationship, depending who is listening.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Warm to the face, cutting behind the back
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Warm to the face, cutting behind the back
Appears when: Warm to the face, cutting behind the back
What the pattern means: Two accounts of one relationship running at the same time. The records describe workplace groups pleasant in person and demeaning in private, a friendship circle that closed on one of its own over something a spouse said, and partners criticised the second a call ends. What commenters report as unsettling is the seamlessness of the switch rather than the criticism.
What commenters described: 1) if they talk bad about someone and then I see them act cool with that same person face to face. 2) if they tell someone's personal business to anyone that will listen.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
In chess it’s the consistently quiet, sneaky moves that win. These women play a dark game.
My friend was talking to her boyfriend on the phone. It seemed like a regular conversation from what I could tell and then when she hung up she said “asshole.” It made me sad because I was friends with both of them.
Source-record spotlights
Talking bad behind someone’s back, someone who they were very nice to when in front of them
they’re your bestfriend at work while working there. always inviting you to things outside of work etc, but if you leave the company you never hear from them again
My friend was talking to her boyfriend on the phone. It seemed like a regular conversation from what I could tell and then when she hung up she said “asshole.” It made me sad because I was friends with both of them.
What the counts show
Within 11 source records, 2 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments11 preserved records · 11 of 11 source records accounted for
Archive: 11 index entries preserve 11 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Never their faultBlame that always lands somewhere else, and the thread's own care about not mistaking a real victim for one. 44 records.
The permanent victimA grievance that never resolves and never transfers responsibility.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: The permanent victim
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The permanent victim
Appears when: The permanent victim
What the pattern means: A grievance that never resolves and never transfers. Commenters describe a running account of things done to the person, blame that always lands elsewhere, and a long list of people and institutions still owed something. The most-liked record in the group reads it as an attempt to take control of a dispute by forcing an emotional response.
What commenters described: This is a real manipulative tactic. By being the ‘victim’ they’re attempting to take back control of the issue by forcing an emotional response from you. I cut off anyone who does this with me, it’s deeply unattractive.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
This is a real manipulative tactic. By being the ‘victim’ they’re attempting to take back control of the issue by forcing an emotional response from you. I cut off anyone who does this with me, it’s deeply unattractive.
How do you distinguish between someone acting like a victim and someone who is a victim?
Source-record spotlights
Someone who is acting like a victim constantly
Being a victim absolves them of responsibility to fix the situation.
Yup, the phrase "offended by everything, ashamed of nothing" feels like it was meant for them. Grievance collectors is exactly how is describe it.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “playing the victim” recurs across 2 of the 10 source records in The permanent victim; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments10 preserved records · 10 of 10 source records accounted for
Archive: 10 index entries preserve 10 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Telling a victim from a victim mentalityThe thread's own attempt to keep real harm out of this category.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Telling a victim from a victim mentality
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Telling a victim from a victim mentality
Appears when: Telling a victim from a victim mentality
What the pattern means: The thread's own guardrail on the answer above, and it is unusually careful. The distinctions offered are direction — working on it versus replaying it; what is wanted — being understood rather than pitied; and timing — how early the full account arrives. Several records come from people who say they were the constant victim and did not know another way to be.
What commenters described: Someone who is a victim may unintentionally be negative or sometimes blurt out downer stuff or unintentionally often make you feel sorry for them. Someone who has a victim mindset often finds lots of things going wrong in their life, is often angry, will talk about how they were ripped off or hard done by often, not just now and then, will expect too much of people, will be disappointed easily. Feels safe or enjoys it when people feel sorry for them. Often victims would like people to understand them, but they are horrified by people feeling sorry for them or pity.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
I have a communal narc in my family oh my god shes exhausting. Cant cut her off yet as noone else in my family sees any of her weirdo behaviour but Im working on removing myself
I also tend to be <grievance collectors>. They have a long list of people, events, organizations or behaviours that they’re pissed about.
Where commenters report limits
It's not as easy to fake genuine emotional distress as it is to verbalize it. Unfortunately, people are better actors than we give them credit for. Everyone should study narcissism. Constant victimhood is a common feature.
Source-record spotlights
It's not as easy to fake genuine emotional distress as it is to verbalize it. Unfortunately, people are better actors than we give them credit for. Everyone should study narcissism. Constant victimhood is a common feature.
Thanks for understanding. I always see these threads and "constantly the victim" is one of the top ones. It always makes me feel bad because I am that but idk how to take responsibility for it outside of unconsciously staying longer than I should. I also think it's unfair sometimes. If I had my legs cut off, I'm not gonna be a paralympian that writes a best selling book. I'm sorry I'm not strong enough to overcome it, but I refused to be shamed for it. I'm sorry you dealt with that in therapy. It can be very damaging if you don't have the right perspective. How did you deal with it?
victimhood- truly something difficult happening and the person is taking steps to get better victim mentality- is **constant and non stop**.matter what happens, including when people set a boundary with them, when people make mistakes, when people dont like them, when they do things you dont like- they somehow convince themselves and others- that they've been hurt. dead giveaway for **covert NPD** and they are energy vampires the negativity kills you slowly even before they begin their tactics
What the counts show
The exact phrase “to take responsibility for” recurs across 2 of the 16 source records in Telling a victim from a victim mentality; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments16 preserved records · 16 of 16 source records accounted for
Archive: 16 index entries preserve 16 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
No accountability, and the story reversedThe complaint turned around until the person raising it is at fault.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: No accountability, and the story reversed
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
No accountability, and the story reversed
Appears when: No accountability, and the story reversed
What the pattern means: What happens once the behaviour is raised. Commenters report the complaint denied, minimised, or turned around until the person raising it is the one at fault, and more than one names the sequence outright. A related group describes a rift the person caused and then declined to repair, and one describes being told the memory itself is wrong.
What commenters described: When you tell them you’re hurt by something they did and not only are you ignored, but you’re then gaslit and made out to be like you’re the one who did something wrong - to them. Blows my mind.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
Taking accountability is a big one for me. Especially when presented with facts contrary to their behavior or words. Then they continue to DARVO.
My mom taught me that if they’re talking about others then they’re talking about you too!
Where commenters report limits
It's a subtle warning that could be easy to miss initially, but it's usually a coercive abuser testing the waters...
Source-record spotlights
If they don’t take accountability or if they spread unsavory rumors, then my guard is immediately up.
It's a subtle warning that could be easy to miss initially, but it's usually a coercive abuser testing the waters...
That is literally the dictionary definition of gaslighting. They’re trying to convince you that your reality isn’t true
What the counts show
Within 18 source records, 0 explicitly report a benefit and 1 explicitly report a limit or failure. These are attributed experiences, not effectiveness data.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments18 preserved records · 18 of 18 source records accounted for
Archive: 18 index entries preserve 18 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
A different person in every roomBehaviour that reorganises itself around whoever is watching. 12 records.
The personality that changes with the audienceOpinions and manner that re-form around whoever just walked in.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: The personality that changes with the audience
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The personality that changes with the audience
Appears when: The personality that changes with the audience
What the pattern means: Opinions and manner re-forming around whoever has just walked in. The group carries its own strongest objection: several commenters point out that everyone adjusts by context and that a completely static personality would be the odder thing, and relocate the cue to reversals of stated position rather than changes of register.
What commenters described: Everyone does this. You act differently around your boss than you do around your friends, and differently around your friends than you do around your mom. I guess if you’re telling your boss how much you love golf and your friend walks in and you start talking about how much you hate golf, that’s suspicious. But most of the time, it’s normal social calibration.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
Everyone does this. You act differently around your boss than you do around your friends, and differently around your friends than you do around your mom. I guess if you’re telling your boss how much you love golf and your friend walks in and you start talking about how much you hate golf, that’s suspicious. But most of the time, it’s normal social calibration.
YESS. This one is huge and I know too many people like this.
Source-record spotlights
When their personality changes depending on who's in the room.
100%. This is emotional intelligence, reading a room, and having a little charisma. If your personality is completely static in every room and every crowd, that’s more concerning in my opinion
Not little, but presenting themselves as what they think will appeal to the person/audience in front of them - and being absolutely clueless that different people are tracking this behavior.
What the counts show
Within 6 source records, 2 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments6 preserved records · 6 of 6 source records accounted for
Archive: 6 index entries preserve 6 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Deference upward, contempt downwardWarmth reserved for people who can do something for them.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Deference upward, contempt downward
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Deference upward, contempt downward
Appears when: Deference upward, contempt downward
What the pattern means: The same asymmetry as above, measured against power rather than familiarity. The two records describe warmth reserved for bosses, wealthy people and the well connected, a different manner for everyone else, and the visible effort of being seen to do it.
What commenters described: When they act totally different around people with power (bosses, rich people, well-known people, well-connected people) than they act around everyone else.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
Source-record spotlights
When they act totally different around people with power (bosses, rich people, well-known people, well-connected people) than they act around everyone else.
someone who will do anything necessary to be recognized by management. The pick me behavior is a no go for me.
What the counts show
Within 2 source records, 1 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments2 preserved records · 2 of 2 source records accounted for
Archive: 2 index entries preserve 2 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The moment the mask slippedA second of unguarded expression that did not match the rest.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: The moment the mask slipped
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The moment the mask slipped
Appears when: The moment the mask slipped
What the pattern means: A single unguarded second reported as more informative than the hours around it: an expression changing the moment someone turned away, a flicker of pleasure at bad news. Commenters describe the impression as immediate, rare, and not fading afterwards — one says it has happened to them once or twice in a lifetime.
What commenters described: While they’re talking with someone they’re smiling and seem kind but the second they turn away their entire energy and demeanor goes dark. I’ve seen it a few times and it’s chilling.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
Agreed. When you see this happen for real it is very unnerving. Only had it happen once or twice in real life and it was not good.
My mom was on home hospice and her new aide was so obsessed with my newborn and kept asking to hold her. I told her sorry but that’s not why she’s there. “Oh of course, I understand” to my face as I was bringing her upstairs. When I turned back the chilling look she gave me was absolutely terrifying. I put then baby in her crib and marched downstairs and fired her. I learned long ago to trust my instincts when I get that chilled feeling up my spine and I wanted her OUT of my home that minute. Turns out, that fucking bitch STOLE the hand knit baby clothing my dying mother had made for my newborn. She’s lucky I had too much on my plate to hunt her down at the time.
Source-record spotlights
People who look delighted then you mention something bad that happened/is happening to you.
My mom was on home hospice and her new aide was so obsessed with my newborn and kept asking to hold her. I told her sorry but that’s not why she’s there. “Oh of course, I understand” to my face as I was bringing her upstairs. When I turned back the chilling look she gave me was absolutely terrifying. I put then baby in her crib and marched downstairs and fired her. I learned long ago to trust my instincts when I get that chilled feeling up my spine and I wanted her OUT of my home that minute. Turns out, that fucking bitch STOLE the hand knit baby clothing my dying mother had made for my newborn. She’s lucky I had too much on my plate to hunt her down at the time.
Agreed. When you see this happen for real it is very unnerving. Only had it happen once or twice in real life and it was not good.
What the counts show
This report keeps all 4 source records for The moment the mask slipped together and surfaces traceable examples without converting anecdotes into proof.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments4 preserved records · 4 of 4 source records accounted for
Archive: 4 index entries preserve 4 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Too much, too fastWarmth arriving ahead of any reason for it. 71 records.
Instant intimacy and love bombingCloseness claimed long before it was earned.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Instant intimacy and love bombing
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Instant intimacy and love bombing
Appears when: Instant intimacy and love bombing
What the pattern means: Closeness claimed ahead of any basis for it: kin terms on first meeting, romance vocabulary between near-strangers, unsolicited advice from someone a week old, an institution announcing that it is a family. Commenters separate this from ordinary warmth — one fast-bonder answers the complaint directly — and locate the cue in over-familiarity rather than friendliness.
What commenters described: There is a difference between being genuine and being over familiar/too nice. I’m a pretty reserved person. I don’t think people would describe me as nice but id like to think people would describe me as genuine once they got to know me. My partner on the other hand is a genuinely loving person who looks for the good in everyone. Many times people have taken advantage of her kindness but she will never change. It’s who she is. Even though I have to pick up the pieces sometimes, I would never want her to change.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
There is a difference between being genuine and being over familiar/too nice. I’m a pretty reserved person. I don’t think people would describe me as nice but id like to think people would describe me as genuine once they got to know me. My partner on the other hand is a genuinely loving person who looks for the good in everyone. Many times people have taken advantage of her kindness but she will never change. It’s who she is. Even though I have to pick up the pieces sometimes, I would never want her to change.
I do this often. I mean I don’t go too far but I can feel comfortable real quick with people. It’s like my friendliness is contagious and I can build quick bonds since I’m not playing a character, it’s my authentic self
Source-record spotlights
Especially when you just met them and they talk to you like you're an old buddy. My red flags go up when that happens.
"We're like a family here'
when they act like they know you so well when yall just met (or are recently getting to know each other), & they give you unsolicited advice. and don’t really pay attention to what you’re actually saying
What the counts show
Within 14 source records, 1 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments14 preserved records · 14 of 14 source records accounted for
Archive: 14 index entries preserve 14 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Saying your name over and overA rapport technique used often enough to become visible.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Saying your name over and over
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Saying your name over and over
Appears when: Saying your name over and over
What the pattern means: A rapport technique used often enough to become visible as a technique. Commenters report it arriving with high enthusiasm and read the pair as scripted; one describes a colleague who used it in every sentence for a week after a communication course. Two records run the other way and treat never using a name — calling a child 'the boy' — as its own kind of distance.
What commenters described: It comes off as they just read the book, "How to make friends and not alienate people". Update your self-help books people. Everyone knows when you're using "tips" from that book and it's disingenuous and off-putting when you say my name twenty times in a conversation weirdo
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
It comes off as they just read the book, "How to make friends and not alienate people". Update your self-help books people. Everyone knows when you're using "tips" from that book and it's disingenuous and off-putting when you say my name twenty times in a conversation weirdo
MY BOSS TO A T. I swear, I know he probably means well but man, I’m not sure over ever actually met the real guy, just this weird fake persona he puts on. Gives me the creeps
Source-record spotlights
Using my name repeatedly, being overly eager and enthusiastic. Fake as fk and I want nothing to do with the person
Many years ago, I was working a production line next to a guy who’s been on a short course for business communication. He used my name in every single sentence for a week. It became oppressive, though I didn’t call him out on it. It’s something I’ve become very attuned to now obv, though it still works on me if the person is charming enough.
Over using your name when speaking to you.
What the counts show
This report keeps all 10 source records for Saying your name over and over together and surfaces traceable examples without converting anecdotes into proof.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments10 preserved records · 10 of 10 source records accounted for
Archive: 10 index entries preserve 10 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Oversharing in the first weekHeavy disclosure early, leaving you holding something you did not ask for.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Oversharing in the first week
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Oversharing in the first week
Appears when: Oversharing in the first week
What the pattern means: Heavy personal disclosure arriving before the relationship can hold it. What commenters report is the obligation it creates — you are now carrying something you did not ask for — and, in several accounts, the withdrawal that follows it. Two records come from people who say they do this and name autism or ADHD as the reason.
What commenters described: oversharing early on and then pulling back.. to me sharing personal info is a sign of trust.. to some is a way of getting attention and validation.. it's a sign of low self esteem and (mostly involuntary) manipulation cause you are now left carrying sensitive info about someone (and if you care about them it's even worse) without being 'allowed' to show your affection cause since they have pulled back they now show a way colder persona as if they don't care about you or your bond.. anytime anyone overshares early on in the relationship/friendship i got doubts of their intentions
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added1
And for me its ADHD. I've always overtalked, overshared, and been loud. But i try my best to be an honorable griend.
Source-record spotlights
Over sharing to set yourself up to over share in obligation. Coming in too fast to want trust
They start sharing really personal things very quickly.
When they share too much when you don’t know them very well
What the counts show
The exact phrase “i dont want to” recurs across 2 of the 9 source records in Oversharing in the first week; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments9 preserved records · 9 of 9 source records accounted for
Archive: 9 index entries preserve 9 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Charm that set off alarmsLikeability so frictionless that commenters treated it as data.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Charm that set off alarms
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Charm that set off alarms
Appears when: Charm that set off alarms
What the pattern means: Likeability treated as data rather than as a quality. The specific claim is about frictionlessness: someone disliked by nobody, or friendly to everyone without discrimination, or charming on first contact. Commenters describe preferring visible friction and say they have been proved right; this is also the group furthest from anything the thread could check.
What commenters described: Isn't disliked by a single person they know. I know it sounds petty but it's Impossible to be liked by literally everyone you meet, it's indicative of charm. That level of charm is always concerning to me. I've been right about this a few times. Everyone is always so surprised when their true colors come out, but I always clock it years before and of course nobody ever listens to me on it. I've learned that I can't waste my mental energy on trying to warn people who won't ever listen and I have to let the pieces land where they may fall.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
Source-record spotlights
Trying to be everyone’s friend. Nothing wrong to being friendly towards people but when someone isn’t discerning about their circle and wants everyone to like them even questionable people I don’t trust them at all. Also people who remain friends with people after they’ve unequivocally wronged one of their other friends. Absolutely not!
Charming,I do tend to be wäre first
When someone is too friendly with everyone.
What the counts show
Within 15 source records, 1 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments15 preserved records · 15 of 15 source records accounted for
Archive: 15 index entries preserve 15 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Name-dropping and borrowed statusStanding imported from other people's names.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Name-dropping and borrowed status
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Name-dropping and borrowed status
Appears when: Name-dropping and borrowed status
What the pattern means: Standing imported from other people's names, or from money, access and connections produced unprompted. Commenters describe the pause afterwards — the wait to be recognised — as the actual tell, and read the display as insecurity rather than status. One record notes the same transactional logic running in the opposite direction, from the people being climbed.
What commenters described: Name droppers - especially when they refer to someone “important” by their first name only or some random nickname to signal how close they are. I have a couple of acquaintances — one connected to local politics and one connected to the comic book industry—both name drop people literally nobody knows about and then wait for me to ask, “Who is Rob!” So they can say, “You don’t know Rob BONTA, the State Attorney General? We have been friends for years… blah blah blah.” Mmkay. When you know Barry and Michelle from Chicago, hit me up.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
I once was hanging out with my extended family, wealthy cousins I don't see often, and they were talking down about people who only use them to climb socially.
Yes that definitely happens too. It’s generally off-putting when people make it so obvious that their intentions are selfish and transactional, whichever direction it’s going.
Source-record spotlights
They somehow have a connection/know everyone.
Yes that definitely happens too. It’s generally off-putting when people make it so obvious that their intentions are selfish and transactional, whichever direction it’s going.
I once was hanging out with my extended family, wealthy cousins I don't see often, and they were talking down about people who only use them to climb socially.
What the counts show
Within 8 source records, 1 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments8 preserved records · 8 of 8 source records accounted for
Archive: 8 index entries preserve 8 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Praise turned all the way upCompliments delivered at a volume the relationship does not support.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Praise turned all the way up
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Praise turned all the way up
Appears when: Praise turned all the way up
What the pattern means: Compliments delivered at a volume the relationship does not support: pet names for strangers, appreciation of you as a whole person from someone who has known you two minutes, laughter at everything you say. Commenters describe it as sales register — and one record inside the group answers that they say it and mean it.
What commenters described: So those are the times that don't feel "off." When someone has known me for 2 minutes and only in the context of the thing I just did, it doesn't feel genuine that they appreciate me as a whole person. They don't know me as a whole person. The people I know who say it to strangers are all salesmen and have admitted to me that it's a tactic to build false intimacy/trust.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
Aww... I say that lol. But I mean it. I appreciate you as a whole person not for just the little thing that was done.
So those are the times that don't feel "off." When someone has known me for 2 minutes and only in the context of the thing I just did, it doesn't feel genuine that they appreciate me as a whole person. They don't know me as a whole person. The people I know who say it to strangers are all salesmen and have admitted to me that it's a tactic to build false intimacy/trust.
Source-record spotlights
Comments or questions about my looks or body.
Over complimenting. Comes off as insincere and ass kissy
Salespeople are the worst for that aren't they
What the counts show
The exact phrase “as a whole person” recurs across 2 of the 15 source records in Praise turned all the way up; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments15 preserved records · 15 of 15 source records accounted for
Archive: 15 index entries preserve 15 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Conversations that only run one wayAttention that flows in, never out. 29 records.
Questions that only go one wayInterest that collects and never reciprocates.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Questions that only go one way
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Questions that only go one way
Appears when: Questions that only go one way
What the pattern means: Interest that collects and never returns. Commenters describe rapid questioning with no reciprocal curiosity, contact that stops once the answers are given, and in one account information supplied that way used later to mock them in front of colleagues. Two records come from people who question that way and say they simply prefer getting to the point.
What commenters described: I have a family member who does this and it annoys the ever living hell out of me. Constantly messaging me asking specific questions about how I’m doing, my job, my kids, etc. but when i try to be polite and give a typical response to something like “we’re good! and how are you?” “Kids are fine, toddlers are hard! How’s your kid?” “Work is alright, looking forward to a break! How’s it going for you?” she just ghosts the conversation. Then a couple weeks later messages me, ignores my question to ask more about my life. Sometimes she asks more follow up questions too for specific details of things which I try to answer but I find even weirder. I’m pretty close to blocking her tbh.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
I told my therapist this was unacceptable and they didn't appreciate the feedback.
Tbh I sometimes catch myself doing this. For me it’s more because oftentimes I don’t like to talk a lot about unnecessary things and just get to the point and ask certain question I’m curious about. But that’s like that for me.
Source-record spotlights
They ask you a lot of questions about yourself randomly and just stop talking to you after you tell them
i always found it weird when first dates would ask about my parents & their careers
They would never talk about themselves o oh want to get information out of me . Learned the hard way that this is a manipulation tactic
What the counts show
The exact phrase “asking rapid fire questions” recurs across 2 of the 11 source records in Questions that only go one way; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments11 preserved records · 11 of 11 source records accounted for
Archive: 11 index entries preserve 11 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Every road leads back to themConversations that reroute to the speaker no matter where they start.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Every road leads back to them
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Every road leads back to them
Appears when: Every road leads back to them
What the pattern means: Conversations that reroute to the speaker regardless of where they start: the one-up, the interruption, the story about themselves offered as a credential. The group carries its own counterpoint — an autistic commenter explains relating by matching stories and asks that it not be read as self-absorption.
What commenters described: yes! or they try to one-up you. for example “last month i visited CA….” they interrupt you with something like “omg i’ve been to CA once but it was so (negative comments) but we were only there to make a connecting flight to HAWAII .” then proceeds to talk about their hawaii trip lol. something like that. or when you tell them a medical issue or a bone you broke in your wrist and suddenly they’re 5 minutes in on the story where their entire arm got bit off and reconstructed (obviously an example but you get the point 😂)
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
yes! or they try to one-up you. for example “last month i visited CA….” they interrupt you with something like “omg i’ve been to CA once but it was so (negative comments) but we were only there to make a connecting flight to HAWAII .” then proceeds to talk about their hawaii trip lol. something like that. or when you tell them a medical issue or a bone you broke in your wrist and suddenly they’re 5 minutes in on the story where their entire arm got bit off and reconstructed (obviously an example but you get the point 😂)
yes! or they try to one-up you. for example “last month i visited CA….” they interrupt you with something like “omg i’ve been to CA once but it was so (negative comments) but we were only there to make a connecting flight to HAWAII .” then proceeds to talk about their hawaii trip lol. something like that. or when you tell them a medical issue or a bone you broke in your wrist and suddenly they’re 5 minutes in on the story where their entire arm got bit off and reconstructed (obviously an example but you get the point 😂)
Source-record spotlights
Lack of empathy and Self-awareness.
yes! or they try to one-up you. for example “last month i visited CA….” they interrupt you with something like “omg i’ve been to CA once but it was so (negative comments) but we were only there to make a connecting flight to HAWAII .” then proceeds to talk about their hawaii trip lol. something like that. or when you tell them a medical issue or a bone you broke in your wrist and suddenly they’re 5 minutes in on the story where their entire arm got bit off and reconstructed (obviously an example but you get the point 😂)
A lack of interest in experience beyond their own.
What the counts show
Across 10 source records, the most common observable tactic structure is “Turn it into a game” (3 records). This is a wording pattern, not a measured outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Observable tactic structures
Counts show source records whose wording matches the tactic structure; biological explanations remain commenter claims unless separately checked below.
Browse the original comments10 preserved records · 10 of 10 source records accounted for
Archive: 10 index entries preserve 10 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Talk that manages youSpeech patterns that steer the exchange rather than join it.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Talk that manages you
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Talk that manages you
Appears when: Talk that manages you
What the pattern means: Speech that occupies the exchange rather than joins it: interruption, overtalking, verbosity, corporate register, generalisation, and a question answered with another question. Commenters describe the effect as being handled rather than talked to, and more than one reads the excess wording itself as concealment.
What commenters described: People who are verbose. I just think they are hiding something in their words or trying to be something they are not... unless they are neurodivergent, and that is more of a nervous thing.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
Source-record spotlights
Any kind of corporate-speak.
Using generalizations
Checking their phone while I’m talking to them
What the counts show
Within 8 source records, 1 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments8 preserved records · 8 of 8 source records accounted for
Archive: 8 index entries preserve 8 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Pressure, promises and follow-throughWhat happens after you say no, and after they say they will. 25 records.
Not taking the first noA refusal treated as an opening offer.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Not taking the first no
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Not taking the first no
Appears when: Not taking the first no
What the pattern means: A refusal treated as an opening position. The records describe the same escalation from different angles — an offer pressed after it was declined, a request repeated until it is easier to agree — and one draws the boundary explicitly: a single courteous check is not the same as insisting.
What commenters described: When they offer you something, you say “no, thanks” and then they insist. “Have one of my cigarettes,” No thanks, I’ll get my brand inside.” “Dude, have one of my cigarettes” I understand the occasional “you sure? It’s not a big deal” when they think you’re afraid to ask for something. But insisting after a refusal suggests a disregard for another’s agency. It suggests an entitlement to another’s attention or body.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
Source-record spotlights
Boundary pushing
Not taking the first "no" as the only "no."
When they offer you something, you say “no, thanks” and then they insist. “Have one of my cigarettes,” No thanks, I’ll get my brand inside.” “Dude, have one of my cigarettes” I understand the occasional “you sure? It’s not a big deal” when they think you’re afraid to ask for something. But insisting after a refusal suggests a disregard for another’s agency. It suggests an entitlement to another’s attention or body.
What the counts show
Within 3 source records, 1 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments3 preserved records · 3 of 3 source records accounted for
Archive: 3 index entries preserve 3 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Promises that did not survive contactCommitments that dissolved between the saying and the doing.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Promises that did not survive contact
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Promises that did not survive contact
Appears when: Promises that did not survive contact
What the pattern means: The gap between what was agreed and what happened. Commenters report repeated flaking, work handled badly enough not to be asked again, and agreements broken while still being affirmed, including exclusivity. The reasoning is uniform across the group: a small commitment not kept is read as a sample of the larger ones.
What commenters described: Flaking. Every once In a while due to uncontrollable circumstances is one thing, but repeatedly flaking, showing up late, and just plain not doing what they agreed they would do.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
God, I used to be such a huge flake and now I cringe thinking about it.
These people drain the life out. These people are usually pampered babies. I have this guy who constantly “forgets” about things we plan and I have to keep reminding him. On the day of the plan, he “forgets” to tell me he doesn’t want to go because he "CBA". rigghhtt... I even apologised for not reminding him once. That was the fifth time he “forgot”. Then after that I’ve stopped inviting him to anything. If he invites me, I don’t go. Or don’t look at his message. Because I also “forget” to just see his message these days. If we meet outside somewhere common, then I just say “what a coincidence”. This is the same person who constantly complains about not having many friends in a new country, how other people are racists to him 🙄 and complains about how nobody likes the country he came from. He's the definition of someone who wants a village but doesn't want to be a villager. Funniest thing is that he even complains how his doctors are bad. He doesn’t do the things his doctors tell him to do and blames the doctors. L.O.L. Sometimes I play pranks on him, he says “yes” to everything even though he doesn’t wanna do it, so I ask him to go to an event that is 6 months away, he says yes, pays for the ticket. Then he “forgets” about it. I’ve wasted his £150 so far. He talked about getting some furniture afetr he moved houses, I said I have a spare he can use. Then I conveniently "forgot" to tell him about it in the coming days. He also never reached out to me after that. Last time we met, he was still saying how he's still looking for furniture and had to spend money. I said good luck. I just love spinning this guy's head around in the rare cases we meet outside sometimes. He's the type of person to get into things, spend hundreds into this new hobby and leave it after 2 months and then complain about money. So I constantly try and rope him into doing new things 😂. He's convinced and invited a bunch of other people to take part in his new hobby's competition, they're all coming but he recently said he was gonna drop out of it because he's realised that it actually takes effort..... hahahahaha. We used to go to this common club, I had to stop going beacause of personal reasons and he stopped as well. I'm back after many months and met my other friends who still go regularly. All this time he hasn't gone a single time. That really tells me how much of a faker he is. He's waiting for me to invite him. Why would I invite someone to a place where he couldn't be arsed to go at all. Maybe he "forgot" he likes this activity. He complained about not having enough salary to support himself ( he lives alone ) but wants to get married next year and have kids. Absolutely incapable of taking a step back and reflecting on things he does. Guess that's what everyone is like in his country. Goddam Entitled moron. Someone who is more physical needs to smack some maturity to this 26 year old guy. But until then, I really wish he keeps this up and keeps being an AHole to everyone.
Source-record spotlights
Flaking. Every once In a while due to uncontrollable circumstances is one thing, but repeatedly flaking, showing up late, and just plain not doing what they agreed they would do.
My coworker who I was friendly with was all but sitting in a married VPs lap at a company happy hour. He mentioned his wife at least 3 times while they acted couple-y and I felt like a third wheel so I left and sat with another group. I can't trust someone who would participate in a cheating relationship, even if they're single
He revealed he has children while hitting on women.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “actions dont match” recurs across 2 of the 12 source records in Promises that did not survive contact; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments12 preserved records · 12 of 12 source records accounted for
Archive: 12 index entries preserve 12 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Takers, and people who pull you away from othersRelationships run at a deficit, sometimes with your other ones cut back.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Takers, and people who pull you away from others
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Takers, and people who pull you away from others
Appears when: Takers, and people who pull you away from others
What the pattern means: Relationships that run at a deficit, and the sharper version in which your other relationships are what is being reduced. Commenters describe warmth that appears only when something is needed, refusal to help with anything small, and — in the most serious records — someone routing your contact with other people through themselves.
What commenters described: Uncooperative. If they won't help you with a small thing imagine what will happen when a big thing arrives. The opposite may true as well, going overboard and demanding medical information or wanting to go to private appointments like financial stuff with you. A normal balance is what to watch for.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added1
If he needs help, he can go to 12 step. It is not on you to help him. Stay away from people, places and things and he is one. 12 step would also do you well. This time it was the only thing I had not tried and it truly works and has gifted me a life I could never have imagined. Surround yourself with other people who are doing g the work so that you can be the best husband and father that you can be! With support. You’ve got this! Just for today!
Source-record spotlights
They try to take more than they give.
Anyone trying to nudge you away from other people. My aunt, who is my abuser, would do this to me and to others. She would get me away from everyone somehow and close the door and I was trapped. I was really young and never felt like I could say no. It was verbal abuse for years until I was 18 and then it became SA. I don’t trust anyone trying to nudge me away from the group now unless I really know them well and they’re safe.
Someone won't let you have his phone number or visit his home. Someone takes too long to answer basic questions like what is your name. Someone gives bad advice. Someone tries to decide for you. Go play yourself then ie in chess when someone tells you where to go.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “anyone trying to” recurs across 2 of the 10 source records in Takers, and people who pull you away from others; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments10 preserved records · 10 of 10 source records accounted for
Archive: 10 index entries preserve 10 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
What they do when it does not countBehaviour aimed at people and situations that cannot answer back. 29 records.
How they treat staff and strangersBehaviour toward people who are paid to absorb it.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: How they treat staff and strangers
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
How they treat staff and strangers
Appears when: How they treat staff and strangers
What the pattern means: Behaviour toward people paid to absorb it, read as the unguarded version. Commenters name servers, bartenders, cashiers and phone staff, and extend it to anyone addressed as though they were below the speaker's station; one widens it to how the person speaks to their own mother.
What commenters described: The way they speak to cashiers, clerks, on the phone after waiting, etc . Temperament overall I guess
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
Source-record spotlights
Treats service workers poorly.
The way they speak to cashiers, clerks, on the phone after waiting, etc . Temperament overall I guess
How they treat their mothers
What the counts show
Within 7 source records, 3 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments7 preserved records · 7 of 7 source records accounted for
Archive: 7 index entries preserve 7 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Carts, litter and the drive homeSmall unwitnessed choices read as the whole character.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Carts, litter and the drive home
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Carts, litter and the drive home
Appears when: Carts, litter and the drive home
What the pattern means: Unwitnessed small choices treated as the whole character: the cart left in the parking lot, litter, lane discipline, things not put back. Commenters differ on the weight it carries — one narrows the claim to temperament rather than morality — but agree that the absence of any audience is exactly what makes it informative.
What commenters described: Moving things. People that don’t put things back where they belong are careless and lazy. They also tend to be messy with their personal space and that leads to them also being unorganized in other areas of their lives. If you’re careless and messy that’s a red flag.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
I don't know about telling whether they're a good person, but you can tell a lot about temperament, specifically.
Along the line of this - when you’re driving somewhere following a friend in the car ahead of you, and they drive super fast, generally unsafe.
Source-record spotlights
Leaving a shopping cart in the middle of a parking lot
Along the line of this - when you’re driving somewhere following a friend in the car ahead of you, and they drive super fast, generally unsafe.
Roadrage can be a sign of narcissism
What the counts show
The exact phrase “a shopping cart” recurs across 2 of the 15 source records in Carts, litter and the drive home; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments15 preserved records · 15 of 15 source records accounted for
Archive: 15 index entries preserve 15 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Animals, children and people who cannot push backCruelty aimed where there is no cost.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Animals, children and people who cannot push back
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Animals, children and people who cannot push back
Appears when: Animals, children and people who cannot push back
What the pattern means: Cruelty aimed where it costs nothing: harm to an animal, scapegoating a child, an insult about a neurodivergent person delivered in a concerned tone, amusement at something that hurt someone innocent. This is the one place in the corpus where commenters describe the cue as decisive rather than suggestive.
What commenters described: People who are needlessly unkind to any helpless animals/creatures/humans. I once had a boyfriend who got frustrated and kicked my dog, 😢 it was the beginning of the end.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
Source-record spotlights
When they talk negatively about a Neurodivergent person that is part of their diagnosis. Small comments here and there that don't seem to be harsh, but is an underhanded insult that is masked with a worried tone.
When they laugh about antisocial behaviour that hurt someone innocent
People who are needlessly unkind to any helpless animals/creatures/humans. I once had a boyfriend who got frustrated and kicked my dog, 😢 it was the beginning of the end.
What the counts show
Within 7 source records, 4 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments7 preserved records · 7 of 7 source records accounted for
Archive: 7 index entries preserve 7 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The animal testOne of the busiest answers in the thread, and one of the few the thread argued itself out of. 31 records.
When a dog did not like themAn animal's reaction taken as a verdict.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: When a dog did not like them
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
When a dog did not like them
Appears when: When a dog did not like them
What the pattern means: An animal's reaction taken as a verdict. The accounts are specific — a dog that suddenly began barking at a familiar visitor, a generally friendly dog that growls at a particular handful of people — and the reasoning offered is that the animal registered something before the owner did. The objections this drew are kept in their own sub-pattern below.
What commenters described: I can definitely say this is a good way to judge someone. I had a dog that loved when people came to the house. He even loved my girlfriend at the time. But at one point every time she came over, my dog would go crazy barking at her. When she got close to him to pet him, he went running to hide behind the sofa. She was cheating on me during that time and my dog somehow knew something was up with her.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
My dog loves literally everyone but the handful of people she growls at I definitely take note of.
I can definitely say this is a good way to judge someone. I had a dog that loved when people came to the house. He even loved my girlfriend at the time. But at one point every time she came over, my dog would go crazy barking at her. When she got close to him to pet him, he went running to hide behind the sofa. She was cheating on me during that time and my dog somehow knew something was up with her.
Source-record spotlights
Dog don't like them.
If my dog doesn't like you, you will NOT be trusted.
If dogs don’t like them…
What the counts show
The exact phrase “my dog doesnt like” recurs across 3 of the 13 source records in When a dog did not like them; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments13 preserved records · 13 of 13 source records accounted for
Archive: 13 index entries preserve 13 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
People who do not like animalsThe stated dislike itself treated as the warning.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: People who do not like animals
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
People who do not like animals
Appears when: People who do not like animals
What the pattern means: Here the stated dislike, not the animal's reaction, is the cue. Cats come up as often as dogs, and the reading offered is an intolerance of something that cannot be controlled. One record widens it from a single statement to a person's whole history with pets, and one narrows it to whether they can say why.
What commenters described: For me, it's cats specifically. Anyone who has stated they don't like cats has turned out to be narcissistic, downright sociopathic or controlling. Such people cannot stand what they cannot control. These people do like dogs though.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
For me, it's cats specifically. Anyone who has stated they don't like cats has turned out to be narcissistic, downright sociopathic or controlling. Such people cannot stand what they cannot control. These people do like dogs though.
More specifically, their pet history. Some people don't want pets and that's okay, but when I think about my own family's relationship with pets, a lot of things start to make sense.
Source-record spotlights
When they don't like animals. Or animals don't like them.
"no pets on the couch"
They don't like dogs or any animals for that matter.
What the counts show
The exact phrase “they dont like cats” recurs across 2 of the 10 source records in People who do not like animals; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments10 preserved records · 10 of 10 source records accounted for
Archive: 10 index entries preserve 10 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
The commenters who pushed back on the dog testThe counter-argument, made from inside the same thread.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: The commenters who pushed back on the dog test
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
The commenters who pushed back on the dog test
Appears when: The commenters who pushed back on the dog test
What the pattern means: The most direct disagreement in the corpus, made inside the same thread. The objections are that dogs predict nothing, that rescue dogs carry learned reactions to whole categories of people, that some of the worst people are animal magnets, and — from two commenters — that their own dog dislikes everybody, or dislikes them for reasons that have nothing to do with character.
What commenters described: As if dogs have some magical power to predict if someone will make you any harm in the future. A red flag for me is when people start distrusting someone based if their dog likes that person. That’s a sign of very low intelligence and critical thinking.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
Yeah dogs are definitely not the best judge. Some of the worst people I've known have been animal magnets, and some rescue dogs I've owned have hated black folks and men.
And that's fine, you do you. But I'd never have you in my corner 🤷♀️.
Where commenters report limits
This doesn’t work for me because my dog hates everyone
Source-record spotlights
Yeah dogs are definitely not the best judge. Some of the worst people I've known have been animal magnets, and some rescue dogs I've owned have hated black folks and men.
“I like animals more than I like people” yes because you have no social skills or awareness, and you prefer to be around animals because they don’t hold you to a standard and can’t complain about you
I don't like dogs. Well behaved dogs are ok, I guess. But jumpy, smelly, loud dogs just suck.
What the counts show
Within 8 source records, 0 explicitly report a benefit and 1 explicitly report a limit or failure. These are attributed experiences, not effectiveness data.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments8 preserved records · 8 of 8 source records accounted for
Archive: 8 index entries preserve 8 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Reading the body instead of the wordsCues people said they registered before they could explain them. 30 records.
Eyes, smiles and the face that does not matchExpression and words arriving out of step.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Eyes, smiles and the face that does not match
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Eyes, smiles and the face that does not match
Appears when: Eyes, smiles and the face that does not match
What the pattern means: Expression and words arriving out of step: a smile that stops before the eyes, a stare that does not move, a face held too long in one position. Commenters describe reading it faster than they can explain it, and the group contains its own corrections — depression, autism and simply the shape of somebody's mouth are all raised as alternative explanations.
What commenters described: If they have hard eyes. It’s hard to describe, but there are hard eyes and soft eyes. Soft eyes show emotion, they take you in with compassion and dignity. Hard eyes are flat, look at some mugshots. They show no warmth or caring. Like a poker face but with the eyes. They see you and measure you instead of recognizing your humanity.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
I had an ex that was extra loud for no reason when we went out for dinner one night in a quiet restaurant. Found out they were cheating on me at the time a couple of weeks later.
Brian Cox the scientist. His non stop smile irks me. To be fair, I think its’ just the shape of his mouth. Nobody can consciously smile that long.
Source-record spotlights
Certain body language and eye movements. Also excessively loud people in an otherwise calm setting.
Avoiding eye contact
If they have hard eyes. It’s hard to describe, but there are hard eyes and soft eyes. Soft eyes show emotion, they take you in with compassion and dignity. Hard eyes are flat, look at some mugshots. They show no warmth or caring. Like a poker face but with the eyes. They see you and measure you instead of recognizing your humanity.
What the counts show
Within 20 source records, 2 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments20 preserved records · 20 of 20 source records accounted for
Archive: 20 index entries preserve 20 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Handshakes and physical tellsContact read for pressure, grip and intent.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Handshakes and physical tells
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Handshakes and physical tells
Appears when: Handshakes and physical tells
What the pattern means: Physical contact read for intent: the over-firm grip, the second hand laid over yours, the limp handshake, the refusal to meet an eye while shaking. Commenters treat pressure and duration as a message about the exchange that follows, and one adds an explicit exemption for arthritis.
What commenters described: When you go to shake someone's hand and they over aggressively pump your hand and squeeze really hard, BUT (here is the kicker), they cover your hand with their other hand, at the same time. Like, no.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
Source-record spotlights
When you go to shake someone's hand and they over aggressively pump your hand and squeeze really hard, BUT (here is the kicker), they cover your hand with their other hand, at the same time. Like, no.
Anyone who won’t look me in the eye while talking to me or has a weak floppy handshake
Limp Handshake. Unless they're an older person who has arthritis.
What the counts show
Within 4 source records, 1 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments4 preserved records · 4 of 4 source records accounted for
Archive: 4 index entries preserve 4 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Gut feeling and “energy”A judgement people reported making before they had a reason.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Gut feeling and “energy”
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Gut feeling and “energy”
Appears when: Gut feeling and “energy”
What the pattern means: Judgements people report making before they can account for them, described as energy, a spider sense or a voice. The group is honest about its own standing: one record concedes the reading may be wrong and argues the discomfort was still real enough to act on, and another says the sense only arrived after a while.
What commenters described: Oh yes, I trust my instincts about people instantly. I’m never usually wrong.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
Oh yes, I trust my instincts about people instantly. I’m never usually wrong.
And if you’re “wrong”, it was still an energy you didn’t enjoy so good riddance
Source-record spotlights
After a while, you can feel the dark energy almost like a spider sense
And if you’re “wrong”, it was still an energy you didn’t enjoy so good riddance
Eu não sei mas tenho um sentido de olhar na pessoa… mas escolho acreditar que a pessoa pode mudar. Na vdd meu eu de ontem era assim, agora? Se puder, eu dou uma rasteira no momento que ela pensa em maldade comigo. E acredite! Eu sinto de um jeito que não sei explicar.
What the counts show
Within 6 source records, 1 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments6 preserved records · 6 of 6 source records accounted for
Archive: 6 index entries preserve 6 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
What the thread admitted about itselfAnswers whose own authors flagged them as unfair, unprovable, or simply a preference. 37 records.
Surface markers people knew were unfairAppearance and habit cues their own authors called irrational.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Surface markers people knew were unfair
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Surface markers people knew were unfair
Appears when: Surface markers people knew were unfair
What the pattern means: Cues about appearance and habit whose own authors often flag them as unreasoned — tattoos, socks, shoes, fingernails, emoji use, insisting on the long form of a name. Several are stated as preferences rather than claims, one names the irrationality in the same sentence as the cue, and one is answered on the spot by a tattooed commenter.
What commenters described: I don’t know why, and I know it’s irrational, but people wearing colored contacts or people with those auto-tinting glasses.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
I don't trust grinning preachers at all. I agree that they come across as being as fake as hell.
I cuss…it was off putting to some, especially religious people.
Source-record spotlights
Being a TikTok detective and saying the husband did it because he's a gemini
Cishet men with long fingernails.
People who don’t like the Beatles
What the counts show
Within 25 source records, 7 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments25 preserved records · 25 of 25 source records accounted for
Archive: 25 index entries preserve 25 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Politics, flags and group markersGroup signals read as a position on how you will be treated.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Politics, flags and group markers
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Politics, flags and group markers
Appears when: Politics, flags and group markers
What the pattern means: Group signals read as a forecast about how the commenter expects to be treated: political affiliation, national flags, a position on a conflict, a particular word used for women. These records are about affiliation rather than conduct, which is what separates them from the rest of the guide.
What commenters described: When they (men or women) call women "females." I know that a lot of people use this term and not all of them are "bad" people, but they are not welcomed in my friend circle.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
Source-record spotlights
MAGA, super religious, “alpha male”
When I see a group of White people with American flags, I go the other way.
If they say support Israel but I guess I would say that is absolutely harmful and they are potentially dangerous.
What the counts show
Within 6 source records, 2 ask a question and 0 explicitly say they intend to try the idea; neither signal is treated as an outcome.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments6 preserved records · 6 of 6 source records accounted for
Archive: 6 index entries preserve 6 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
“I don’t trust anyone anyway”Answers that decline the premise and set trust to off by default.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: “I don’t trust anyone anyway”
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
“I don’t trust anyone anyway”
Appears when: “I don’t trust anyone anyway”
What the pattern means: Answers that decline the premise: trust set to off by default rather than broken by anything in particular. One commenter reframes it as a correction after having been far too trusting; another argues the opposite case, that the isolation of trusting nobody costs more than being let down does.
What commenters described: It sounds paranoid, but looking back I've been way too trusting.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added1
It sounds paranoid, but looking back I've been way too trusting.
Source-record spotlights
I don't trust people in general
Hmm I don't look at it that way. I automatically don't trust people until I see otherwise 🤣
I think you can trust anyone when you don’t need them to be anything but what they are. A lot of heartache can come from trusting people but that’s nothing compared to the isolation and stagnation of not trusting anyone. Moving forward requires trust.
What the counts show
This report keeps all 6 source records for “I don’t trust anyone anyway” together and surfaces traceable examples without converting anecdotes into proof.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments6 preserved records · 6 of 6 source records accounted for
Archive: 6 index entries preserve 6 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Cowardice and folding under pressureA late-arriving theme whose own thread spent most of its length disagreeing about the word. 19 records.
“You cannot trust a coward”Reliability treated as a question of nerve rather than intent.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: “You cannot trust a coward”
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
“You cannot trust a coward”
Appears when: “You cannot trust a coward”
What the pattern means: A late answer that reframes trust as a question of nerve rather than intent: someone can be kind, well meaning and genuinely fond of you and still, the argument runs, fold when it matters. Related records name people-pleasing, refusing to take a side, and dropping a friendship under pressure from a partner as the same failure.
What commenters described: Idk if this qualifies as "harmless" but for me it is Cowardice. You can't trust a coward because regardless of their intent, they will succumb to Fear.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
I don’t think it does qualify as harmless, cowardice can be a hazard in most situations.
Yes. Never. Trust. Pussies. Their fear of being seen and known means they will never show you who they really are. They will mirror you and spend every minute saying "I'm just like you!...You know you, and I'm exactly like you, so you already know me! (\*so don't loo too close at who I really am!). If they can't stand up for themselves, be damn certain they will never stand up for your tribe.
Where commenters report limits
1000% agreed, unfortunately it’s hard to pinpoint if someone’s an actual coward until a situation serious enough comes up. The thought that someone I could know for years might freeze up or run if my life were in their hands makes me nervous
Source-record spotlights
Idk if this qualifies as "harmless" but for me it is Cowardice. You can't trust a coward because regardless of their intent, they will succumb to Fear.
I might get bashed for this buttt - choosing to live in a gated community. I'm not sure it makes them a bad person. But they're not my kind of person. Perhaps it relates back to the cowardice discussion.
I was thinking to myself earlier about some famous quotes about cowardice, harm, etc. What I take from it is: Only good people who are capable of great violence are capable of great mercy. Cowards are obsessed with cultivating a mask of goodness, but lack the courage to stand on business.
What the counts show
Within 13 source records, 0 explicitly report a benefit and 1 explicitly report a limit or failure. These are attributed experiences, not effectiveness data.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments13 preserved records · 13 of 13 source records accounted for
Archive: 13 index entries preserve 13 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
Fear is not the same as cowardiceThe immediate objection to the answer above it.
Pattern card naming the behaviour, what commenters reported noticing, how they said they distinguished it, and what the thread disputed: Fear is not the same as cowardice
Source-backed answers are shown before diagnostics; the complete source archive remains below.
Fear is not the same as cowardice
Appears when: Fear is not the same as cowardice
What the pattern means: The immediate objection, from inside the same thread. Commenters separate fear from cowardice, note that a fear of being seen does not make somebody untrustworthy, raise neurological conditions as an alternative explanation, and — in one record — turn the cue back on the language the original answer was written in.
What commenters described: Fear and Cowardice are far from the same thing. Fear can reveal much and serve you and your loved ones well. However, the Fear of a Coward doesnt serve them but rather it is the Coward that is beholden to their Fear. Im sure youd agree that theres some mfs out there without a healthy sense of Fear and that shit can also get them and you killed.
Limit: Reported impression only. Commenters describe what made them uneasy; nothing in the thread shows the behaviour predicts dishonesty, and this is not a test to run on anyone you know.
What the replies added2
Yeah, youre right. Ig I moreso meant that someone can be genuinely kind, loving, and have truly good intentions and I still cannot trust them if I believe them to be a Coward. If that makes sense
It's hyperbole. I'm OK with being ill-mannered if it makes the point.
Source-record spotlights
I don’t think it does qualify as harmless, cowardice can be a hazard in most situations.
A fear of being seen. I have this in some circles. It doesn't itself make you untrustworthy.
What if I still have a fear of being seen but I can still me (awkward and all). I can’t pretend to be other people nor do I want to
What the counts show
The exact phrase “a fear of being seen” recurs across 2 of the 6 source records in Fear is not the same as cowardice; the complete archive stays available below.
What commenters explicitly report
These buckets are a deterministic partition based on explicit phrasing in the source text; they are not sentiment scores or effectiveness findings.
Browse the original comments6 preserved records · 6 of 6 source records accounted for
Archive: 6 index entries preserve 6 distinct source records · Every displayed synthesis count resolves to source-record IDs
How this catalog was built
Source: Reddit comments — 1 thread, 855 comments (361 top-level, 494 replies)
Selected comments from the discussion
This export carries real like counts and timestamps. The first 18 are the most resonant on-topic top-level comment from each stage of the discussion, ranked by resonance within their arrival-time cohort so later arrivals are not penalised for having had less time to accumulate likes. The last 6 received no likes at all and were chosen for the specificity of what they describe.
How the discussion breaks down
Relative volume of distinct source-backed records across every reviewed category in this corpus.
Lying about things that did not matter
71 distinct coded comment records4 normalized answers
Too much, too fast
71 distinct coded comment records6 normalized answers
Jokes that carry a jab
58 distinct coded comment records5 normalized answers
Talking about people who are not there
52 distinct coded comment records3 normalized answers
Never their fault
44 distinct coded comment records3 normalized answers
Advertising your own goodness
41 distinct coded comment records3 normalized answers
What the thread admitted about itself
37 distinct coded comment records3 normalized answers
The animal test
31 distinct coded comment records3 normalized answers
Reading the body instead of the words
30 distinct coded comment records3 normalized answers
Conversations that only run one way
29 distinct coded comment records3 normalized answers
What they do when it does not count
29 distinct coded comment records3 normalized answers
Announcing that you can be trusted
28 distinct coded comment records2 normalized answers
Pressure, promises and follow-through
25 distinct coded comment records3 normalized answers
Cowardice and folding under pressure
19 distinct coded comment records2 normalized answers
A different person in every room
12 distinct coded comment records3 normalized answers
The thread kept arguing with itself
This thread does not settle. 494 of its 855 records are replies (58%), and a large share of them exist to argue with the answer directly above them. The pattern is consistent enough to be a finding in its own right: nearly every widely-liked cue in this corpus drew a reply from somebody who does the thing, or who thinks the cue proves nothing.
13 records are people recognising themselves. Under the complaint about teasing, one commenter answers: “It's different when I do it. Its my love language for when I know you well.” Under passive aggression: “I’m passive aggressive unknowingly, probably just no inhibition when speaking from my adhd” Under oversharing: “I do this, but it’s autism.” Under the interrogation complaint: “Tbh I sometimes catch myself doing this. For me it’s more because oftentimes I don’t like to talk a lot about unnecessary things and just get to the point and ask certain question I’m curious about. But that’s like that for me.”
Other records contest the cue itself. The animal test drew the sharpest reply in the corpus — “As if dogs have some magical power to predict if someone will make you any harm in the future. A red flag for me is when people start distrusting someone based if their dog likes that person. That’s a sign of very low intelligence and critical thinking.” — and a plainer one: “This doesn’t work for me because my dog hates everyone” The changing-personality answer drew the same treatment: “Everyone does this. You act differently around your boss than you do around your friends, and differently around your friends than you do around your mom. I guess if you’re telling your boss how much you love golf and your friend walks in and you start talking about how much you hate golf, that’s suspicious. But most of the time, it’s normal social calibration.” And one commenter simply rejected the whole exercise: “Most of these are just people being awkward 😂 Came to learn something. Left with less than nothing bc a majority of these are silly”
That is why the sub-patterns below keep the objections beside the answers rather than under them. Two of the 49 sub-patterns exist only to hold pushback — Fear is not the same as cowardice and The commenters who pushed back on the dog test — and a third, Explanation, not excuse, holds the argument about whether a reason for a behaviour changes what it costs the people around it.
Browse the original comments855 audited comments and replies
Dataset, coverage, and methodology
How this was counted
The working unit is a comment record, not a person and not a distinct behaviour. All 855 canonical comments from this one thread (361 top-level, 494 replies) were read in four passes and each was assigned to exactly one sub-pattern or one exclusion bucket.
577 records name a behaviour that made the commenter stop trusting someone, and all 577 appear in the complete index below. The other 278 break down as agreements, jokes and emoji with no cue in them (151), questions and definitional exchanges (36), personal asides that name no cue (33), advice or sympathy offered to another commenter (21), off-topic tangents (13), fragments and bare links (8), commentary about the thread itself (7), arguments about somebody else's answer that name no cue of their own (5), and records that address another account by name (4).
577 counts classified comment records, not distinct behaviours. Repeats were deliberately kept: 34 records name gossip, 13 say a dog disliked the person, and each stays its own row rather than being merged into one.
Heart counts are the raw numbers as captured. The first hour of this thread holds 55.9% of all its hearts, so a ranking by raw hearts would mostly rank arrival time; the themes below are ordered by how many records they hold, not by popularity.
Nothing here is verified beyond what people typed. These are reported impressions, not findings about behaviour, and a number of the cues are disputed inside the thread by the people replying to them. Read it as a record of what a crowd said unsettles them — not as a way to assess anyone you know.
Member discussion