Man-in-the-middle attack (psychology)

A man-in-the-middle attack (not to be confused with the computer attack of the same name, although it shares some similarity) is a psychological technique for shifting blame and attacks from yourself when presenting an argument and shifting it to the original arguer.

A variation of this is the Derren Brown method.

Reasons
The reasons for a man-in-the-middle attack are many and varied, however it is a form of resource conservation in that it helps reduce verbal or other attacks on yourself, at the expense of the target (in effect, you just become a 'man in the middle' passing messages between two people).

For example, in a largely hostile environment where a majority of individuals may not be friendly towards you, it makes efficient resource sense to shift the blame or source origin of an argument or a statement to the original person who presented it. In a sense, the aim is to play people off of each other in order to conserve your own resources.

It also allows you to gauge alliances psychologically. If Charlie contradicts Frank, and you mention to Frank about Charlie's contradiction, if Frank is non-allied with Charlie, Frank will react either negatively or contrarily to Charlie, but is Frank is allied to Charlie, Frank will either excuse, justify or dismiss the contradiction as relatively unimportant.

By passing arguments between two contrarians, it also allows you to play an adaptive argument attack, or alternately the Derren Brown method.

What man-in-the-middle attack is not
It is not shifting blame to someone else, to some random person or lying. You basically shift the origin of the argument from yourself to where you first or earlier heard the argument. So, for example, say you overheard Charlie say Quack the duck is green, and you argued Quack the duck is green, when challenged, you would say "Well, Charlie originally mentioned Quack the duck is green, so you'll have to take the argument up with him.".

It is also not misrepresenting or presenting adverse (IE false) information (like the computer attack of the same name). IE you pass on the argument's origins truthfully. In effect, you act as the courier between two people.

Usage
Usage of a man-in-the-middle attack is many and varied and can be implemented differently depending on the situation. Generally speaking, a man-in-the-middle attack is played defensively, usually to discover further information (such as alliances and counter-arguments) and to avoid attacks (by shifting the source origin, and thus the burden of defence, to someone else).

The techniques are as follows:
 * The courier boy attack:
 * The individual couries information from one contrarian to another on purpose, acting as a courier between two targets. This is usually the prelude to an adaptive argument attack during it's learning cycle.


 * The side-step:
 * Just as an individual is about to attack your argument (likely on a subject you're unfamiliar with or during the learning cycle of an adaptive argument attack), you side-step it by commenting how the comment, argument or information was from someone else and that they should take up the matter with them rather than you. In-effect, you present yourself as an empty, unattackable strawman and remove the steam from their counter-attack. This will waste their resources, having built up a counter-argument for what is, in-effect, a red herring.


 * The alliance test:
 * You merely point out a contradictory point of view between two individuals to one of those individuals to gauge how they react (unlike the side-step, which is played defensively, and the courier boy attack, which is played continuously, this is usually done only once). May result in "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" moment.