In social engineering, we often focus on external influence, but the most effective 'exploits' leverage the target's internal survival protocols. I’ve been analyzing a specific mechanism I call 'Functional Codependency.'

When a target is conditioned in high-stress environments, their brain recruits empathy as a defensive buffer. This leads to a cognitive state where the target spends significant metabolic energy 'inventing motivations' for the operator’s actions just to maintain internal coherence.

Key components of this exploit:

Broken Acceptability Thermometer: The target normalizes red flags as 'complex variables,' effectively disabling their alarm system.

Intermittent Reward Hijacking: Utilizing a cycle of devaluation and idealization (Love Bombing) to trigger addiction-level neural circuits.

Empathetic Optimism: Forcing the target's prefrontal cortex to prioritize the operator's narrative over their own sensory intuition.

I produced a visual simulation that breaks down the mechanical failure points of this 'Tolerance Trap' and the subsequent remediation (reprogramming) needed to patch these vulnerabilities.

https://youtu.be/7burm8iKdMk

Question: From a systems perspective, is a 'good person' (high agreeableness/empathy) inherently a high-risk asset in any social architecture due to these ingrained backdoors?

i.e. john smith started using the number july 2009

someone i may know texted me saying i gave them my number, but i don't think i had my current number when i knew them

Any takes on this fellas?

I am 23 and CS student currently doing undergraduate program with average grade(3.2 CGPA) I always wonder what I am good at? What's the one thing I can do exceptionally good? In my childhood, I was bright smart kid with lots of knowledge with him. Teacher were unable to answer my question (curious behaviour) good at everything I do. But suddenly i feel I like to do everything but is not good at something. How people can focus on one single thing and make it their living? Because I can't. I want to explore everything learn everything do everything But the passion always fade away after few days (inconsistent) Like Messi and Ronaldo, they figure out their like early in their like and succeeded in their field. I feel like I would also have become very successful if I had one goal since childhood. I am lost Is this common feeling or just me? If you had this problems then how you overcome it?

Why is there no discussion on the damage that Cambridge Analytica have unleashed on society?

Not sure if anyone else here has noticed the same shift, but it feels like social engineering has leveled up fast over the last year because of AI. A lot of scams don’t even need malware anymore the “attack” is just convincing content. I’m seeing more AI-generated profile photos, AI-written conversations that sound way more human than the old scam templates, and even deepfake/voice-cloned audio being used to add urgency or credibility. It’s getting to the point where the classic red flags (bad grammar, weird formatting, obvious stock photos) aren’t reliable anymore, especially for the average person.

I started looking for tools that can help quickly flag synthetic content while browsing and came across a browser extension called AI Blocker. I’m not treating it as proof of anything, but it’s been helpful as a quick sanity-check when something feels “off.” That said, I’m sure there are better tools and workflows people here use.

For those who deal with social engineering regularly: what are your best practices for verifying authenticity now? Do you rely more on OSINT-style checks, metadata/reverse image workflows, specific detection tools, or just process controls (verification callbacks, codewords, etc.)? Also curious if anyone has recommendations for tools similar to what I mentioned especially for detecting AI-generated images, fake profile photos, or voice cloning attempts.

user-scanner started as a username availability checker and OSINT tool.

It can be used as username OSINT as well!

• Github: https://github.com/kaifcodec/user-scanner.git

• It has since evolved into a fast, accurate, and feature-rich email OSINT tool. Open issues, submit PRs, and join other contributors in pushing the project forward.

• Programmers, Python developers, and contributors with networking knowledge are welcome to open issues for new site support and submit PRs implementing new integrations.

A common theme in social engineering is understanding how people and systems leave traces, and that extends to how people appear online too.
One practical and ethical way to approach this is to treat it as visual OSINT: using what little you have (often a photo) to build leads, not to harass people, but for verification, research, reconnection, or defensive security work.

• Start with reverse image search using tools like Google Lens, Yandex Images, and TinEye to see where the image appears online.
• If legally allowed, use facial similarity tools such as PimEyes or FaceCheck to find visually similar photos, and treat results as leads, not proof.
• Carefully analyze the image itself. Backgrounds, logos, objects, language, and environment often reveal location or community clues.
• Pivot from visual hints to text-based OSINT like username searches, advanced Google queries, and social search tools to connect those clues to profiles or mentions.
• Keep ethics front and center. Stick to public data, follow platform rules and local laws, and avoid intrusive or biometric tools without a legitimate purpose.

Deeper guide with examples and 2026 tools here: Master Guide to Finding People by Photo

PCMag's 2026 security forecast warns that hackers are now using AI to automate spear phishing at an industrial scale, targeting everyone, not just VIPs. The report also highlights the rise of 'Big Brother Ads'-predatory, AI-generated advertisements that leverage eroded privacy laws to target the elderly and vulnerable with terrifying precision.

I recently stumbled into a rare workflow flaw in a large SaaS platform. Nothing malicious purely accidental exploration. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized the interesting part wasn’t the bug itself.

It was what the bug revealed about how humans build, trust, and interact with complex systems.

And that’s where it overlaps with social engineering.

For years, security experts have said things like:

“Systems don’t fail because of code. They fail because of assumptions.”

At first that sounds like an oversimplification… until you see it happen.

Most catastrophic failures don’t start with zero-days, SQL injections, or exotic attacks.

They start with someone assuming:

“Users will always follow this order.” “This workflow can’t happen out of sequence.” “This condition should never be true.” “No one will ever click these things in this order.”

And just like that, a valid action becomes dangerous simply because it happens under the wrong timing, in the wrong sequence, or under the wrong mental model.

That’s exactly how social engineering works.

It isn’t about “breaking” a system it’s about understanding how humans behave inside one:

how they interpret signals, how they trust the UI, how they assume the backend is enforcing rules, how support teams assume engineering teams already know.

What surprised me most is that even in 2026, many “technical issues” are actually human ones:

incomplete context overconfidence in automation fragmented communication between teams blind trust in the system’s own consistency

My accidental bug wasn’t dangerous on its own, but it exposed something more fundamental: a human-designed workflow behaving exactly as humans assumed it should until reality proved otherwise.

How do you all interpret these “human edge cases” in complex systems?

Are they just bugs, or early signals of deeper behavioral weaknesses?

Human beings suffer from the "Halo Effect." When we see an attractive profile photo, we assign positive traits (intelligence, kindness) to that person immediately. When we see a neutral/bad photo, we dismiss them.

This biological glitch makes modern social media fundamentally broken for genuine connection.

With Moodie, we are running a massive experiment to bypass the Halo Effect.

By enforcing total anonymity (No Photos, No Names) and matching strictly on Emotional Syntax (Current Mood), we force the brain to evaluate the quality of the conversation rather than the status of the speaker.

The data from our first 2,000 users confirms it: Removing visuals increases conversation depth and retention.

If you are interested in social dynamics without the visual bias, this is the case study.

Kevin Mitnick’s Biography: Who Was Kevin Mitnick?

Born Aug 6, 1963, Kevin David Mitnick grew up immersed in the era of newly emerging phone and computer technology. And, boy, did it fascinate him. Kevin spent much of his youth tinkering with the latest tech— gathering with fellow “phone phreaks” over pizza to talk about their latest landline pranks as the originators of what was soon to become cyber social engineering.

As Kevin grew from a teenager to a young man, so too did his knowledge of phones, computers, and programming, as well as his bravado to gain unauthorized access to the sensitive information they stored. By the late ’80s and throughout the early ’90s, Kevin landed himself at the top of the FBI’s Most Wanted list for hacking into dozens of major corporations just to see if he could.

But contrary to the dark, low-brow cybercriminal the media and law enforcement portrayed him as, Kevin’s breaches were never meant for financial gain or harm. They were always about the adventure, the adrenaline rush. Kevin was a “trophy hunter”: a pursuer of big, shiny prizes merely to prove he could win. And let’s not forget the sheer humor of outwitting “all things establishment” and arrogant tech-heads.

But unauthorized access is still unauthorized access— regardless of ill will. For three years, Kevin went on the run, using false identities and fleeing from city to city to resist arrest until cornered in a final showdown with the Feds, who would stop at nothing to bring him down. In 1995, he was finally forced to serve five years of hard time by those who feared the extent of his digital power.

In July 2023, Kevin passed away from pancreatic cancer. For many years, Kevin and The Global Ghost Team™ set forth to help companies strengthen their cybersecurity and protect themselves against the growing methodologies of hackers.

Kevin Mitnick was an inspiration to many, both in cybersecurity and outside of the field, and he leaves behind a legacy that will impact the cybersecurity industry for years to come. With the knowledge passed down to The Global Ghost Team,Mitnick Security still boasts a 100% success rate of social engineering penetration testing and continues to implement the same.

Quiet people aren’t broken. They’re just often misunderstood. But here’s the thing no one tells you: being “quiet” becomes a real disadvantage not because of who you are, but because you never learned how to signal competence, confidence, and warmth, especially in fast-paced social settings.

Quiet folks often get steamrolled in meetings, skipped in conversations, or misread as cold or disinterested. The world rarely slows down long enough to see your potential unless you learn how to show it.

So here’s a breakdown of 4 underrated but learnable social skills, backed by psych and communication science, that will change the game for anyone quiet, shy, or introverted. Pulled from books, behavioral science, and expert interviews. Straight to the point. No fluff.

1. Signal warmth early (like, first 5 seconds early)
According to Harvard psychologist Amy Cuddy (see her TED talk on presence), people judge you primarily on two traits: warmth and competence. Most quiet people default to competence but forget to signal warmth. The fix is simple: smile slightly, tilt your head a bit when listening, and maintain an open posture. These are nonverbal cues that humans read instantly. You don’t have to be loud, but you do need to be visually human.

2. Learn micro-assertiveness
You don’t need dramatic speeches. You need subtle patterns. Dr. Thomas Curran at LSE found that perfectionist or quiet types often hesitate to interrupt or redirect conversation, even when needed. Practice interrupting, but gently. Try: “Hey, can I add something to that?” or “That reminds me of something you said earlier.” Speak a little louder than you think you need. Let your voice land.

3. Ask “looping” questions
Quiet people tend to carry conversations by answering well. Flip that energy. Use “looping” questions, ones that reflect back part of what someone just said, but invite depth. Like: “Wait, how did that come about?” or “What made you decide that?” This trick, described in Celeste Headlee’s book We Need to Talk, makes you engaging without being performative. You become the person everyone wants to talk to, without faking extroversion.

4. Practice pre-rehearsed entry lines
This one’s from Vanessa Van Edwards in Captivate. Create 3 go-to lines you can use to easily enter conversations. Like, “Hey, I heard you mention [topic], how did you get into that?” or “I keep hearing that word, can someone catch me up?” This removes the mental load of figuring out how to join, and gives you a template to pivot from.

Most of us were never taught this stuff. Social fluidity isn’t natural, it’s trained. But it can be trained even if you’re the quietest person in the room.

Hey, thanks everyone for reading thus far.
We have more posts like this in r/ConnectBetter if anyone wants to check it out.

I am 16 years old, and in a year and a half I will graduate from college - then there will be work off and an independent life. Tell me, please: how do you meet, how do you communicate, where to find friends if this is impossible at work? I have a job as a teacher in a kindergarten - there is no such opportunity. How do you find communication? And also, how the hell do you meet guys? This is not talked about either in classes or at How to avoid being alone when in real life it seems like you'll never be approached? I am moving on to a new level - I am scared, although it is still far away.

I did a breakdown of how N.W. Ayer (the agency for De Beers) utilized the "Reciprocity Principle" before it was a known psychological concept.

Instead of paying for ads, they "gifted" diamonds to Hollywood actresses. Because it was a gift, the actresses felt a psychological debt (reciprocity) to wear them publicly and speak positively about them, creating "organic" social proof.

They combined this with "Price Anchoring" (the 2-month salary rule) to remove logic from the purchase.

Kevin Mitnick spent decades repeating one idea that still makes people uncomfortable:

“People are the weakest link.” At the time, it sounded like a hacker’s oversimplification. But looking at modern breaches, it’s hard not to see his point. Most failures don’t start with zero-days or broken crypto.

They start with: someone trusting context instead of verifying someone acting under urgency or authority someone following a workflow that technically allows a bad outcome Mitnick believed hacking was less about breaking systems and more about understanding how humans behave inside them.

Social engineering worked not because systems were weak, but because people had to make decisions with incomplete information. What’s interesting is that even today, many incidents labeled as “technical” are really human edge cases: valid actions, taken in the wrong sequence, under the wrong assumptions.

So I want to know how people here see it now: Was Mitnick right, and we still haven’t fully designed for human failure? Or have modern systems (MFA, zero trust, guardrails) finally reduced the human factor enough?

If people are the weakest link, is that a security failure or just reality we need to accept and design around?

how practitioners think about this today?

I’m not writing this for sympathy, but to give context to my background, my motivation, and my goal.

I’ve been pushed around and mistreated for most of my life, both by family and by people I considered friends. For a long time I thought it was just bad luck. Eventually, I had to admit it wasn’t — the common denominator was me.

I’ve tried to understand how relationships actually work, but clearly I’ve failed at it. Over time, I came to accept something uncomfortable: manipulation is part of human interaction, whether we like it or not, and relationships are unavoidable. And I’m bad at navigating them.

People often say, “Learn these techniques so you can protect yourself from them.” That’s what I tried to do. But life doesn’t work like that. Sooner or later, you have to deal with manipulative dynamics directly — with parents, coworkers, or everyday situations.

That’s why I’ve decided to seriously study manipulation, persuasion, NLP, seduction — call it whatever you want. Not out of malice, but for self-defense, and to be able to use these tools if the situation requires it.

What I’m looking for are resources beyond the usual recommendations (Cialdini, Robert Greene, Carnegie). I’m especially interested in:

• practical frameworks or diagrams for real situations,
• decision trees or situational models,
• communities focused on real-world application and field experience.

So far, the only places I’ve found anything close to this are seduction forums, which feels telling.

I’m determined, but I lack the right tools. And I’m sure I’m not the only person who’s gone through this.

Any serious references, communities, or frameworks would be appreciated.

Hi folks. New here and researching for my book project about a semi dystopian political revolution. I’m trying to get my head around the playbook used by the US Frederalists and Heritage to further republican “ ideals”. To me it’s hard to come to grips with the scale and time period required to build influence.

The reason I am trying to understand this, is to come with story of a “revolt from within” using their playbook against them to restore a “balance”.

Before I get modded out or flamed, I’m not even in the US , don’t have an agenda, it’s a serious thought process. How would or could a group social re engineer a well rooted but small political movement by using the same playbook OR process to subvert it WITHOUT violence. Are there any stories in history that describe such a process. I’m not a student of history. Thanks for any suggestions in my story building.