Signs of Manipulation

a. Signs of Manipulation using Classic Fallacies.

Manipulation techniques have been repeated so often that they have acquired their names in the form of fallacies.  Understanding the fallacy helps with discovering signs of manipulation.   Some of the more common fallacies are set forth below.  

In most fallacies, there are three basic elements, the act, the consequence (or benefit), and the why or connection.  The action and consequence are usually recognized or specified, but sometimes they can be hidden.  However, the “why” is generally missing, side-stepped, convoluted, or false. 

There is almost always an emotion that is triggered to implement the process and hide the manipulator’s actions.  A list of common fallacies is outlined in the link below.   This section is a little long, covering 17 common fallacies.  But it is so informative that it is recommended that you read each one.  Most will be recognized. 

1. A-Priori Fallacy.

“A-priori” is Latin, meaning “from the former.”  It is a simple deduction (why) based on observations or experience.  Sometimes an example helps understand the principle.  Mice eat carrots, “A priori” removing carrots will eliminate the mice.  A deduction is nothing more than a person’s opinion and is subject to the experience and biases of the author.  Using the mice-carrot example, a grain storage company having an infestation of mice may try and blame the infestation on the carrot farmer next door using the A-priori argument.  The true purpose is to detract from the many mouse holes in the silo.  This illustrates that a strong bias can invalidate his deduction.

The following are some “red flag” words suggesting the presence of manipulation:

  • “A-priori,”
  • “proof is in the pudding,”
  • “an honest person never lies,”
  • “no one quarrels with,” etc.


  • An honest person does not steal.
  • How can you dislike the car unless you drive it first?
  • Investment is the first step in making money.

Actions support Blame2. Actions Support Blame Fallacy.

This fallacy is used to justify a consequence of an action without specifying why (causation).  For example, it’s okay to steal from people who stole from you.

Some “red flags” include: “it’s your own fault,” “God only punishes the wrongdoer,” “it’s Karma,” etc.  When the why is missing, there is a high likelihood of manipulation.


  • You caused your own problems.
  • People who drive slowly cannot complain if they get rear-ended.
  • If you ridicule the elderly, you cannot complain when you get arthritis.

Ad Hominem fallacy3. Ad Hominem Fallacy.

This refutes an argument by attacking someone’s character. It is one of the nastiest of fallacies and the most emotional.  Ad hominem is Latin for against the man.  If the emotion level is off the scale, it is most likely the result of the Ad Hominem fallacy.  It avoids answering any elements because it usually degrades into a mud fight.


  • He’s a racist. You can’t believe a thing he says.
  • Her brother was convicted of a felony. Do I need to say more?
  • How can you be a great athlete when you’re a liar and a fraud?
  • I don’t owe her anything. She flunked high school math.

Appeal to authority Fallacy4. Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

This uses a famous person or an accepted authority to disregard questions about “why” or “consequences.”  The Authority fallacy is used extensively by academia and medicine to validate and sidestep the “why.”  For example, if the FDA approves something, the “why” and “consequences” are automatically side-stepped.  Yet, hundreds of drugs and procedures are withdrawn by the FDA each year after numerous failures or lawsuits reveal a different story.

The authority fallacy is used in commercials selling products with a celebrity endorsement.  Very few celebrities have the experience or expertise to know anything about the product.  They seldom post how much they make from their endorsement.  Strange as it sounds, the Appeal to Authority is the easiest to spot.  Look for a celebrity or a referenced authority.  It will be prominently displayed on every page.  It does not mean you should not purchase the product.  It only means you are being manipulated.


  • David Beckham wears Adidas shoes. (He received 160 million for endorsement)
  • Carls Jr. shows Paris Hilton eating a burger while washing a car in a bikini.
  • Jennifer Aniston endorsed Emirates Airlines. (And received 5 million).

Bandwagon Fallacy5. Bandwagon Fallacy.

This is the fallacy that the masses are more intelligent than the individuals; a million minds are more accurate than a single mind.  This fallacy is false on its face.  A million minds are simply the average of a group of people.  There is no information about their intelligence, age group, biases, education, or other information.  Is the average intelligence of a million 15-year-old boys the same as a single Albert Einstein?  The average beliefs have been wrong throughout history, i.e., the earth is flat, witches exist, bloodletting cures many diseases, etc.

This fallacy is used to hide, obscure, and confuse all three manipulation steps, i.e., act, consequence, and why, but it is most often used to sidestep answering the “why.”

Red flags include words like, everyone agrees, most endorse, surveys show, polling supports, etc.  The bandwagon fallacy is used in almost all life-is-coming-to-an-end predictions based on so-called science.  When this pops up, remember that life on earth has been around for hundreds of millions of years and hasn’t ended yet.


  •  Everyone is buying bell-bottomed pants.
  • Most scientists agree that climate changes.
  • Surveys show that if we don’t wear masks and close all businesses that COVID-19 will kill millions.
  • Everyone that has used this diet has lost weight.
  • There are millions of satisfied customers that use this product.
  • The book is on the best seller’s list.

Con Artists Fallacy6. Con Artist’s Fallacy.

This fallacy assumes that superior characteristics (intelligence, physical ability, or wealth) mean you’re more deserving (brighter, better choices, or work harder) and vice versa.  It suggests a hidden message: “I’m better than you, and therefore you should trust me.”  It is called a con artists fallacy because most con artists use it to gain an advantage.

One does not prove it caused the other.  Someone with a better physical body does not mean they know more than your physical features.  Someone who is less healthy does not mean you made bad choices.

The following are some “red flag” words: “you can trust me,” “it’s your own fault,” “it’s no skin off my nose,” “that’s just the way life is,” etc.  This type of manipulation is used to acquire power or money.


  • If you’re a loser, it’s your own fault.
  • My superior body is because I make good choices.
  • I’ve helped millions because they invested with me.
  • If you make bad choices, you’ll be physically unfit.

Odds Fallacy7. Losing Increases Odds of Winning Fallacy.

This fallacy is based on funds already spent will increase your odds of winning in the future.  This belief is based on a lack of understanding of probabilities.  But the definition of probability relates only to things that have not happened, i.e., future events.  Something that has occurred in the past has a probability of one, i.e., it has already happened.  If the probability of winning the lottery in the future is 1 in a million or 0.000001, then multiplying that number by 1 (the number representing all past probabilities) results in the same number (0.000001 times 1 = 0.000001.)

NO ONE should ever fall for that gimmick.  But it happens all the time.  People, particularly the elderly, keep buying trinkets from a particular clearing house on the erroneous belief that their time is coming.  The incredibly entertaining movie Nebraska is an example of this mistaken belief.


  • You’ve put in too much money to get out now.
  • I’m tripling my bet because I’m due for a win.
  • I need to win back my money because my wife will kill me if I don’t.

Red Herring Fallacy8. Red Herring Fallacy.

This is raising an irrelevant, highly emotional argument to mislead. This is used to avoid, sidestep, or confuse any of the three elements, “act,” “consequence,” or “why.”   The easier ones can be spotted by the existence of two totally different subjects. 

“You say we need stop signs to keep us safe.  Cows don’t need stop signs to keep them safe.  Are you suggesting we’re less intelligent than cattle?

Politicians and salespeople have experience in cleverly hiding Red Herrings.  They often trick the opponent by saying a word that opens the door to introduce a different topic, i.e., the Red Herring.  To make it even stronger, they will attempt to get you to say the “new topic word to change the subject” somewhere in your conversation.   This makes it appear that you are introducing a new topic.  Remember, most Manipulators are skilled in their trade.

But here is a trick if you think a Red Herring is being introduced.  Ask the person, “Specifically, how is (point 1) related to (point 2)?”  When the person does not provide any specifics or changes the subject, then quickly and forcefully say: “Just as I thought you have no evidence.”


  • You want me to eat healthier food. Are you suggesting I’m fat?”
  • “You want to teach evolution over God. Are you saying my ancestors are monkeys?
  • You’re saying we need more taxes so our children can have a future.”

Romatic fallacy9. Romantic Fallacy.

This is a fallacy by appealing to one’s self-validating or romantic feelings to avoid answering the “why.”   It suggests that asking about the “why” challenges the existence of a valid emotion, and therefore the question is invalid.


  • If I feel it, it must be true. Are you questioning my feelings?
  • By wearing a padded bra, aren’t you asking to be assaulted?
  • It’s just human nature to follow your heart.

Scare Fallacy10. Scare Tactic Fallacy.

This is one of the most corrupt and dangerous fallacies.  It is done when people are scared, angry, fed-up, or hurting.  There is a sense that something must be done regardless of the merits.  They need a change, even a sham, to stop the hurt or anger.  This is used to avoid, sidestep, or confuse any of the three elements, “act,” “consequence,” or “why.”

The red flags include a heightened sense of fear and words like, “we must act now,” “the world is coming to an end,” “the Russians are coming,” “better safe than sorry,” etc.


  • We must ban carbon dioxide now, or we will all die. (All plants need carbon dioxide, and all animals need plants to source food.  Therefore, banning carbon dioxide will extinguish all life on earth.)
  • Scientists from Harvard warned if Saddam Hussein set the Kuwait oil fields on fire, it would cause world famine. (Hussein did and no detectable effect on the environment occurred.)
  • The Martians just landed at Grover’s Mill in New Jersey. (Radio show broadcast during the depression caused local panic and hysteria.)

Slippery Slope Fallacy11. Slippery Slope Fallacy.

This is setting up an extreme extension of a potential problem and then proving that the extreme example is a dangerous slope. The argument is that if you follow this path, a terrible problem will eventually happen.  This is used to hide or sidestep the “why.”

The red flags include “what’s next,” “then this will happen,” “beware,” “it’s just going to get worse,” etc.


  • Kathy wants to increase the school dance fees. That’s just the first step in prohibiting all dancing at school.
  • If you give them an inch, they will take a mile.
  • If you lend money to him, he’ll be back every day with his hand out.
  • If we send illegal immigrants back to their own country, when will they start deporting everyone they do not like?

Straw Man Fallacy12. Straw Man Fallacy.

This sets up an extreme position expansion to illustrate the absurdity of the opponent’s position. As an example, “they say that animals can laugh. Have you ever seen a cow at a comedy club?”  This is the favorite tool of lawyers who are extremely clever in hiding it.  This is used to hide or sidestep any of the three elements, i.e., “act,” “consequence,” or “why.”


  • That’s like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
  • Women burning their bras is the first step in promoting public nudity.
  • The internal combustion engine is so powerful that it will result in the world ending in 12 years.

Taboo Fallacy13. Taboo Fallacy.

This is drawing a line in the sand that you cannot step across. It is invoked to avoid addressing the “why.”   The line is associated with an extreme point of view.  This fallacy is the favorite tool of the media to terminate any discussion that challenges their position.  These involve all “isms” such as sexism, racism, terrorism, bullyism, ageism, etc.  It is used to generate great emotions.  It is often used by the very people who are sexists, racists, terrorists, etc., to cover their activities.

Anyone who accuses someone of any of the negative “isms” without providing specific facts is a giant red flag announcing that they are trying to manipulate you.


  • We will not tolerate any discussion that we consider racist.
  • We will censor any voice from websites if we think you are sexists.
  • You will be cut off if you question the Bible.
  • Faith is contrary to science and may not be considered in our schools for any purpose.

Crowd Fallacy14. Wisdom of the Crowd Fallacy.

This one is of the most dangerous and persuasive of the fallacies right behind the scare tactic fallacy. If you spot it, you should immediately walk away. It is based on the concept that many are always more intelligent than the one. This is used to avoid, sidestep, or confuse any of the three elements, “act,” “consequence,” or “why.”

Repeated scientific studies have shown that people refuse to hurt others with a painful shock when it is one-on-one.  But when a crowd supported the shock treatment, almost everyone participated in shocking the person, even when the person was screaming in pain.  The crowd effect is so strong that it can drown out the concept of what is right and wrong.

The presence of a crowd easily recognizes this fallacy, and the speaker is recruiting members of the crowd to participate.


  • At a vacation timeshare presentation. “Do you hear that bell? It’s another happy customer.  We may not have many left.”
  • “How many people here believe in ______? Raise your hand.”
  • A salesman in front of a group of people. “You, sir, would you buy this elixir if it is guaranteed to make you healthier and live longer.

15. Single Cause Fallacy.

This fallacy is used to direct the listener to consider a single cause.  It is well known by public speaking experts that the speaker should keep the number of essential topics to three or less.  More than three and the majority of the listeners will tune out.  This is based on the reader’s attention span.  It has nothing to do with truth or facts and everything to do with persuasion.  Persuasion is the primary component of manipulation.

In the television realm, where time is expensive, the rule is that one topic is addressed.  And it should be discussed briefly in the first introduction sentence or headline.

The rule is that there is NEVER one cause.  There are always multiple causes.

Spotting this fallacy is easy.   Count the number of causes listed.

Examples of false statements:

  • Driving under the influence of alcohol caused the accident.” One cause – alcohol caused the accident.
  • “The stock market went down 500 points today because of the increased number of COV19 infections.” One cause – COVID19 made the stock market go down.
  • You will be informed if you listen to ABCD news.” One cause – Listen to ABCD news, and you will be informed.

16. Anonymous Source Fallacy

This is a subspecies of the Authority Fallacy.  Keeping the authority anonymous allows one to exaggerate or even fabricate facts to deceive.  As such, anytime the word “anonymous” is used, it is a red flag that you are probably being manipulated.

Does the fact that a new agency reports an anonymous source change it from manipulation to a legitimate news story?  The short answer is NO.   A new agency will always opt in the direction of creating interest, i.e., triggering emotions.  And there are legal incentives to publish unverified statements.

Reporter Shield laws, passed by 40+ states, bar all contempt actions preventing anyone from revealing the source of their information.  This means that false and fabricated facts can be disclosed to the public without effective consequences.  There is currently no practical way to obtain the person’s identity or statement to disprove the disclosed facts in civil actions.


“Anonymous Source.”

“Unnamed Source”



If any of those words are used to protect access to verification, then this is a Red Flag that you are being manipulated.

17. All Broadcasts, Must Be True Fallacy.

A large segment of society believes that if something is published, it must be true.  This is based on various reasons, but this belief’s primary source is the laws prohibiting publishing false statements.  There is no blanket law prohibiting making false statements to the public.

Defamation laws prohibit making false statements of fact (not opinions) directed to a person that causes damage to that person’s reputation or standing in the community.   But those laws have been emasculated by so many exceptions and privileges that they render the laws non-functional. 

There are privileges associated with making false statements in a courtroom, words by government officials, statements made during political broadcasts or speeches, legislative proceedings, and a long list of other exceptions. 

One of the worst examples of the misuse of this privilege was done by Congressman Adam Schiff when he was making a speech during a congressional hearing.  He made up the false facts for the specific purpose of having news agencies quote these false statements to the public.  Most news agencies repeated these statements and inferred that they were credible by referencing that the records in the US Congress supported the information.  Only a few new agencies reported that the statements were false and were meant to be parity. 


“It can’t be published if it were not true.”

“I read it on the internet, so it’s true.”

“The law prohibits us from saying anything that is not true.”

There are over 100 fallacies.  An internet search can discover them.

b. Name Calling Fallacy.

Name-calling is using abusive names to belittle or humiliate another person or entityThis is the most used manipulation technique.  It is included in multiple fallacies but is addressed as a separate subject.  It is easy to spot, but the rush of emotions seduces one to “want to hear more.”  Because of this reward, it is done over and over again.   You cannot watch television or read social media without seeing or hearing it.   What is the solution?   Turning off the television, avoiding social media, or walking away sounds easy, but it is almost impossible.  The craving for an emotional fix is simply that great.

The “rush of emotions” from calling or hearing people called names is also addictive.  As in all addictions, there is no easy solution.  When the habit becomes widespread, it is like a virus, and it cannot be stopped on an individual basis. 

The solution is practiced in every courtroom in every trial.  When name-calling is done in a courtroom, the attorney states, “objection, improper opinion” (Federal Rule 701) or “objection the prejudice outweighs the probative weight (Federal Rule 403), and the judge always sustains those objections.  Here’s the problem.  With television, social media, public speaking, or newsprint, there is no judge to stop the name-calling.  

The matter is further complicated by the Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254.  The Court held that a public person could not sue for damages for false and defamatory statements without showing actual malice.  The Supreme Court expanded its decision in Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. v. Hepps (1986) 475 U.S. 767. It held that the media could refuse to disclose the sources of the information, effectively barring any action against them.  

c. Calling Opinions as Facts Fallacy.

People are aware that opinions are not facts.  Facts cannot be false as they refer to something that exists.  Opinions are subject to the expertise and biases of the author.   Opinions can be wrong or even lies.   Almost all commercials, publications, and propaganda campaigns, intentionally conflate the difference. 

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) instructs its authors to express their opinions as “statement of facts” [IPCC (2010) Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC 5th Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. IPCC Cross-Working Group Meeting on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties, July 2010, Jasper Ridge, CA] 

Almost every television science channel express opinions as facts.  “The big bang” is not identified as an opinion but is usually reported as a fact.  The concept of the universe being created from nothing and expanding faster than the speed of light is not only an opinion but also inconsistent with most physical and scientific laws.  There were so many inconsistencies with that proposition that two new theories were developed, i.e., dark matter” and “dark energy.”  Many of these scientists expressed these new theories as facts.  When asked what dark matter and dark energy are, the universal reply is “we don’t know, and it’s beyond on comprehension.”

Red flags for this fallacy can be easily spotted by the lack of the word “opinion” in expressing a position.   The term “science” is used throughout the entertainment industry, politics, and all media.  It means nothing more than an opinion by people who may or may not be qualified and are subject to all the biases associated with humans.  The term “political science” used by all of academia has very little science and many opinions.   Other red flags in this category include “scientists agree,” “there is no dispute,” etc.  

Here is an accurate illustration of the difference between facts and opinions.   A traffic commentator on a local news channel said:

“Construction.   No through traffic is allowed due to the Slow Streets Program on Somerset St. Both ways from Woolsey St. to Silver Avenue.  Reported on Jun 5, 2020, 12.20 PM. “

This appears to be full of facts with no opinions.   Facts do not change based on different points of view.  Opinions do.  Can you spot the opinions?

Number 1.  Who reported the observation?  Was it a high school student wanting to mess with you?  Was it Caltrans?  Was it work that was scheduled? 

Number 2.  How long will it be closed?  Will it be closed for 10 minutes between 12:22 to 12:22 PM, or will it be closed for a month?

Number 3. What constitutes through traffic?  Does that mean anyone can drive from Woolsey Street to 1 inch from Silver Ave.  Or does it mean the closure does not apply to residents?  Why didn’t it say, “except for people living there.”

Number 4. What is the traffic?  Is it cars, trucks, or buses? Does it relate to bicycles or people walking?

Number 5.  Slow Streets Program implies that it is only for slowing the traffic.  The unspecified term “construction” could be the installation of traffic signs.

d. Intelligence Illusion Fallacy is another Sign of Manipulation

This fallacy is fundamental to the current period.  Many things are becoming more complex and challenging to understand.  As such, people tend to rely on experts.  This allows the Intelligence Illusion Fallacy to take center stage in the art of Manipulation.  It is essential to understand when this fallacy is being implemented. 

1. Scope & Description.  The Intelligence Illusion fallacy assumes that a rating system or list of credentials can determine one’s intellectual abilities.  The following examples are based on those assumptions:

  • IQ tests can measure a person’s inherent intelligence. 
  • Associating one’s education as the quintessential measurement of one’s mental capacity. 
  • A person who publishes the most articles is more intelligent. 

There are many reasons why these assumptions lead to false impressions.

2. Things not Considered. These various intelligence rating systems do not include such factors as non-conventional thought, work ethic, motivation, biases, serendipity, and a host of other elements that are too many to list.  Most IQ tests attempt to measure how much people can memorize, solving rudimentary logic statements expressed in simple mathematical models, identifying the most appropriate short story description, recognizing simple patterns, and a few other comparisons.  These few areas are grossly insufficient to validate the proposition.  A few examples are illustrative. 

3. Suppression of Non-Conventional Thought. Academia teaches standardized methods and accepted concepts. Doing so inadvertently suppresses creativity and non-conventional thought.  For example, at one time, various diseases were treated with bloodletting, which was practiced for hundreds of years.  A person educated in the medical community must overcome what they were taught in academia to follow a different or non-conventional path.  There are very few courses that teach non-conventional thinking processes.

4. Human Biases. Intelligence rating methods are subject to the biases of the creators and those who regulate the rating system. This includes those who formulate the testing questions and criteria, the credentialing conditions, publication limitations, reviewers, etc.  There is also a significant economic liability or advantage.  The judiciary has provided multiple means for creating roadblocks to anyone challenging a particular point of view.  For example, the cost to challenge biases by a publisher, credentialing entity, or other intelligence rating company often makes such challenges difficult and prohibitively expensive.

5. Work Ethic. Persistence is the Hallmark™ of almost all discoveries, explorations, and progress. Yet, this topic is not addressed in IQ tests or the presence of educational credentials listed after one’s name. 

6. Motivation. Motivation is a driving force for success and societal advancement.  But motivation is neither considered nor measured by conventional intelligence tests.  Miller Reese Hutchinson invented the hearing aid because he was motivated to help his deaf childhood friend.  Dr. Francis Peyton Rous discovered an important cancer route mechanism because he contracted tuberculous from doing an autopsy.  Yet motivation is not considered in these tests since it is too difficult to measure or identify.

7. Serendipity. Sometimes an intervening unpredictable event can cause surprising results. This is not considered in any intelligent measurement. Robert Van de Graaff wanted to be a star quarterback like his brother, but a football injury caused him to think and follow another path.  He developed a high voltage electrical generator used in almost all physics laboratories. 

8. Thousands of missing human qualities.  Other human characteristics are ignored when measuring intelligence.  For example, a farmer producing life-sustaining food with an IQ score of 110 is rated lower than an unproductive drug-dependent person with an IQ of 130.  A criminal sitting in a jail cell having a Ph.D. in political science has a higher rating using the Intelligence Rating System over a person such as Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple Computers, simply because Mr. Jobs did not have a degree.   You can thank narrow-minded people with letters after their name for this fallacy.

3. How to Spot this Fallacy. The elements of this fallacy are easy to spot.   For example, quoting an IQ score or using this score to imply or suggest intelligence falls within this fallacy.  Referencing a person’s degrees, i.e., John Doe, BA, MA, Ph.D., etc., to support his opinions falls within this fallacy.  

However, there are exceptions.  If it is in response to a request, then it does not fall within the fallacy.  For example, if it is a part of a resume’ that has been requested.  This distinction makes discovering this manipulation fallacy more subtle.  Suppose the purpose of giving the education or IQ numbers is to persuade or influence others that your opinions are based on superior intelligence. In that case, it is part of this fallacy.  It is not if it is in response to a request. 

4.  Partial List of Important People Accomplishing Great Discoveries and Objectives With Limited Formal Education.

Table. Education of Important People
Birth Year Name Area Education


Leonardo da Vinci

Inventor, Artist, Sculptor

Basic Reading,Writing


Christopher Columbus
Navigator & Explorer
No Significant Education


William Shakespear
Poet and Writer
Childhood Education Only


Benjamin Franklin

Scientist and Statesman

No Formal Education after 10 years


William Herschel
Reading and writing


Andrew Jackson
General and President
Not formally Education Self Taught


Michael Faraday
Father of Electromagnetism
Reading and Writing


Charles Goodyear
Invented Vulcanized Rubber
High School Only


Abraham Lincoln
US President & Laywer
1 Year of Schooling


Charles Darwin
Dropped out of Medical School


Charles Dickens
Writer &* Poet
Left School at age 12.


Gregor Mendel
Father of Genetics
Trained as High School Teacher but flunked the examination


Mark Twain
On his own since age 12.


John D Rockefeller
Dropped out of High School


Thomas Edison
Dropped out of School at age 12


George Eastman
Inventor of Photographic Film
Dropped out of School at age 13.


Henry Ford
Automotive Manufacturer
Dropped out of school at age 15


Frank Lloyd Wright
Dropped out of University of Wisconsin in the second year.


Wright Brothers
Neither brother attended college.


Winston Churchill
No college degree


Henry Kaiser
Industrialist & Health Care
Left School at age 13.


Walt Disney
Entertainment Industry
High school


Ted Turner
Cable News Network
Dropped out of Brown University.


Larry Ellison
Businessman and Databases
Dropped out of University of Illinois after 2 years,


Steven Spielberg
Movie Director
Dropped out of California State University


Wolfgang Puck
Left School at 14.


Richard Branson
Airline Businessman
Dropped out of school as a teenager.


Paul Allen
Co-Founder of Microsoft.
Dropped out of Washington State University after 2 years.


Oprah Windfrey
Television Personality
Dropped out of Tennessee State University.


Steve Jobs
Founder of Apple Computers
Dropped out of Reed College after 1 semester.


William (Bill) Gates
Co-Founder of Microsoft
Dropped out of Harvard after 2 years.


Michael Dell
Computer Businessman
Dropped out of University of Texas after 1 year.


Jack Dorsey
Founder of Twitter
Dropped out of Missouri University after 2 years.


Mark Zuckerberg

Founder of Facebook.
Dropped out of Harvard after 2 years.

The table represents a minimal number of people who succeeded despite lacking degrees or significant formal education. 

There is a section that discusses remedies for being injured from manipulation.  There is also a section on practice exercises to spot the various types of manipulation.