#impression management

Because I have a background in psychology, I’ve been able to recognize these patterns both online and offline for years, and the truth is simple: aesthetic innocence doesn't equal moral innocence. Some people weaponize softness as camouflage.

◇ The psychology behind the mask

Psychologists call this impression management: strategically performing different versions of oneself depending on the audience. Everyone does this to some degree (being professional at work, yet casual with friends), but some individuals use it to manipulate, punish and control.

Online, this often appears as personas built around:

pastel aesthetics

baby talk or "smallness"

exaggerated vulnerability

selective naivete

agere-coded language

To most people, this looks harmless. Cute, comforting, even. But that’s the point. A convincing persona can hide very dark behavior.

This type of constructed innocence often overlaps with:

masking (concealing real emotions or aggressions)

pseudoinnocence (pretending to be fragile, clueless or harmless)

vulnerable narcissistic traits (hypersensitivity, manipulativeness, ego-protection)

These traits create a powerful shield: "I can’t be harming anyone. Look how soft I am!"

◇ Vulnerability, weaponized

Some people escalate this performance by faking or exaggerating illnesses, disabilities or neurodivergence to gain sympathy, control narratives or avoid accountability. Clinically, this falls under Factitious Disorder Imposed on Self (FDIS) - also known as Munchausen syndrome - and its online form, Munchausen by Internet.

Signs of this include:

claiming chronic illness or neurodivergence only when convenient

inconsistent or contradictory stories

outrage when questioned

using their "condition" as a shield while harming others

We’ve seen this phenomenon before. Remember when TikTok suddenly exploded with teens "developing Tourette’s overnight"? It wasn’t real Tourette’s. It was mimicking popular creators for attention. The same thing happens with self-diagnosed autism, DID, tics or chronic illness content when the goal is to cultivate a sympathetic persona.

True neurodivergent people don’t use their diagnosis to terrorize others, brag about punishment or orchestrate harassment campaigns.

◇ The language of punishment (and how it betrays their intent)

A major red flag is punitive language disguised as morality. Some individuals claim to be "protecting the community" while using vocabulary that reveals their real motive: domination and retribution. Phrases like:

"Let’s get rid of this person for good." "They don’t deserve to be here." "Terminate them." "We must destroy them."

This isn’t community care and accountability. This is eliminationist thinking, the kind used by people who enjoy seeing their target suffer.

If someone claims to be fragile, soft or harmless, but speaks like they’re delivering a death sentence, believe the behavior, not the persona.

◇ Understanding DARVO

Another tactic that frequently shows up in these cases is DARVO, a manipulation pattern where an abuser:

Denies what they did Attacks the victim Reverses Victim and Offender roles

Example:

They harm someone.

They deny it and claim the victim is the aggressive one.

They suddenly portray themselves as terrified, fragile and overwhelmed.

They rally others to "protect" them from the person they targeted.

The soft persona becomes a weapon in this reversal. They "couldn’t possibly" be the aggressor, so the victim must be.

◇ What matters most: actions, not aesthetics

Someone can flood their blog with hearts, plushies and baby-talk while simultaneously:

bragging about ruining someone’s online presence

encouraging dogpiling

spreading misinformation

selectively sharing screenshots out of context

weaponizing their followers’ pity

wishing harm on their "enemy"

The contrast between the persona and the behavior is the point. It creates cognitive dissonance so people doubt their own perception.

◇ My advice, from professional training and lived experience

Because I have formal education in psychology and firsthand experience with this pattern, here’s what I want everyone to understand:

Document everything. Screenshots, timestamps, links, archives - these all matter.

Watch for inconsistencies. If their story about neurodivergence, illness or trauma changes depending on who they’re talking to, that’s not a symptom, but strategy. If something feels manipulative, it probably is.

Separate persona from behavior. Soft aesthetics mean nothing if the behavior is cruel.

Don’t take the bait. People who thrive on drama want reactions. Silence starves them.

Educate your communities. The more people understand these psychological patterns, the harder they are to exploit.

◇ In case you need it, a TL;DR

Correct me if I'm wrong but there's 20 shillings in a Pound?

And Erving Goffman's Presentation of Self originally cost 56 shillings (which I'm rounding to 60 for ease) in 1956.

=£3

F City - Impression Management

The official music video for Impression Management, which comes from the album, Agenda, by Baltimore's very own F City. The video was directed by Mark Colegrove @ Dire Wit Film.

This Baltimore trio consist’s of Paul Joyce on bass, Lala Anderson on lead vocals and keyboards, and Landis Expandis on lead vocals and drums.

Osećaš li da moraš biti savršen da bi bio voljen?

Ponekad se tvoja potreba da impresioniraš rađa iz straha da nisi dovoljno dobar. Tiho se trudiš da pokažeš samo najbolje, kao da će prava verzija sebe biti odbijena. Prestani da gledaš na to kao na dokaz svoje vrednosti. Možda nisi tu da impresioniraš, već da budeš autentičan. Budi svoj izbor, ne maska koju nosiš. Oslobodi se tereta tuđih očekivanja i pronađi mir u sebi. Savršenstvo nije ulaznica za ljubav. Pre nego što promeniš misao, primeti šta te u njoj boli. Zaslužuješ da te vole zbog onoga što jesi, ne zbog slike koju stvaraš.

Impression management is energy that society steals from you.

There is a structural tension that exists in almost every human life. The tension is between the organism as it actually functions and the image the organism tries to project into the social environment. When these two drift too far apart, the person begins to live inside a permanent act of performance. The performance may look stable from the outside, but internally it requires constant energy to maintain.

To understand why this happens, it helps to look at the basic social mechanics. Human beings are not only biological organisms; they are also reputation-based animals. In a small tribal environment your survival depended heavily on how others perceived you. Being seen as trustworthy, cooperative, disciplined, or virtuous increased your chances of protection and resource sharing. Because of that evolutionary pressure, the brain developed a system that constantly monitors how others might judge us. Modern psychology calls this impression management.

But impression management becomes pathological when the social image becomes more important than the actual functioning of the person. Take figures often presented as spiritual exemplars such as Eckhart Tolle, Rupert Spira, or Thich Nhat Hanh. Public culture tends to portray them as permanently serene beings. The image is one of continuous composure, compassion, and wisdom. Yet biologically they are still human organisms with the same nervous system, impulses, irritations, and fatigue as anyone else.

The problem is not that these individuals have impulses. The problem is that their public identity forbids showing them. Once a person becomes a symbol of calm or enlightenment, any visible contradiction threatens the entire narrative. The role must therefore be defended. That creates a psychological structure with three layers.

First, there is the biological layer. This includes hunger, sexual desire, anger, competition, fear, and the constant need for status and safety. These are ordinary regulatory systems of a mammalian brain.

Second, there is the private personality, which negotiates those drives in messy and inconsistent ways.

Third, there is the public character, which is carefully curated to maintain a stable reputation.

The greater the distance between layer one and layer three, the more energy must be spent suppressing or disguising contradictions. Over time this can create enormous internal strain. The person becomes an actor performing their own identity.

This is why someone like Arthur Schopenhauer is sometimes perceived as oddly refreshing despite his pessimism. He never tried to present himself as morally purified. He openly admitted irritability, vanity, appetite, and resentment. One may disagree with his philosophy, but the distance between the man and the image was relatively small.

Likewise George Gurdjieff, controversial as he was, occasionally described his own appetites in blunt biological terms. Whether one trusts his accounts is another question, but the important point is structural that he did not attempt to erase the animal layer of human behavior.