(comment continued)
Look for positive and negative reinforcers in the environment. "I often post a link to Facebook, and then I keep returning to Facebook throughout the day because I want to see whether it's accumulated new likes and comments." Here, logging on to Facebook after posting a link keeps getting reinforced by the accumulation of comments and likes, which provide a reward each time that the page is opened and there's a new one. Could something be done to eliminate those reinforcers? ("If anyone sees me responding to a comment or posting a link, don't like it but do remind me that I was supposed to be working.") Or maybe provide reinforcers for something else? ("For each ten minutes that passes without me logging onto Facebook, could you please come give me a hug?")
Be specific about the causes of emotional reactions. "My boss is so full of himself, it drives me nuts." Exactly how does the full-of-himself-ness manifest? If the exact behavior is "he often interrupts", maybe something could be done about that thing in particular. Best case: the boss comes from a conversational culture where interrupting is normal, and hasn't even realized that someone would consider it rude - but this would have been impossible for the others to suggest if the problem description would only have been on the level of "he's so full of himself".
This is also a useful technique for reducing your own annoyance at others, even if it was just something you did in your head. "I'm getting frustrated now because that person is talking really loudly and I would like to read." Breaking down an atomic "AAAAAGH I'M SO FRUSTRATED" into a "I'm feeling [specific emotion] because [specific cause] and [that violates my desire/need to something]" is not only useful for debugging, it can also relieve the frustration by itself.
Assume that problems won't fix themselves. In one session, someone says they intend to implement some change for next week's meeting. In the next session, they say, "yeah, that plan didn't really work out, but I was kinda busy and distracted this week. I'm going to try harder."
Chances are, if they were busy and distracted this week, they're likely to be busy and distracted the next week, too. "I'm going to try harder" often translates either as "I don't actually care about solving this problem but want to give the impression that I do", or alternatively, "I don't actually know how to fix this but I'm going to try again the same way, in the hopes of magically getting a different result now". Assuming that the person really does want to solve their problem, try to figure out exactly what went wrong and how it could be avoided in the future.
Ask, "is there a more general problem here?" Someone wants to cut down on the amount of money that they spend on fast food. One day when they're coming home from work they walk past a hamburger place, are tempted by the advertisements, and go there to eat. This happens several times.
The specific problem in this case would be "I always end up eating at the Burger King on the 27th street on my way home". The more general form of the problem might be something like "each time I walk past a fast food place when I'm hungry, I end up eating there". General solutions might be "pick a route that allows you to avoid seeing fast food places when you're hungry" and "make sure to carry something with you that allows you stave off the worst of the hunger until you're home".
Focusing. Someone is having difficulties deciding whether to try to solve a problem or whether to accept its consequences and let it be. One approach would be to have them verbalize all the reasons why the unsolved issue bothers them, and then say out loud, "having considered all of these consequences of the problem, I find that they're acceptable and it's better to just let this be". Does saying that feel right to them, or does something about it feel wrong? What if they were to say, "having considered all of these consequences of the problem, I find that they're unacceptable and I want to solve the problem", instead? Would that feel right or wrong?
Quick Murphyjitsu. After you've come up with a plan, it may be useful to have the other person do a quick Murphyjitsu on it. How surprised would they be if this plan failed? If not particularly, is there any obvious failure mode that comes to mind and which could be fixed?
Check that the person remembers something actionable. Sometimes discussion may suggest some actionable things, then drift to e.g. more general discussion of the problem which doesn't provide as many concrete suggestions. If this happens, make sure that the person whose problems are being debugged still remembers the actionable suggestions they got earlier on.
This should be a top level post, probably in main.
First, the Dark Arts are, as the name implies, an art, not a science. Likewise, defending against them is. An artful attacker can utilize expected defenses against you; if you can be anticipated, you can be defeated. The rules, therefore, are guidelines. I'm going to stage the rules in a narrative form; they don't need to be, however, because life doesn't follow a narrative. The narrative exists to give them context, to give the reader a sense of the purpose of each rule.
Rule #0: Never follow the rules if they would result in a worse outcome.
Now, generally, the best defense is to never get attacked in the first place. Security through obscurity is your first line of defense. Translations of Sun Tzu vary somewhat, but your ideal form is to be formless, by which I mean, do not be a single point of attack, or defense. If there's a mob in your vicinity, the ideal place is neither outside it, nor leading it, but a faceless stranger among it. Even better is to be nowhere near a mob. This is the fundamental basis of not being targeted; the other two rules derive from this one.
Rule #1: Do not stand out.
Sometimes you're picked out. There's a balancing art with this next piece; you don't want to stand out, to be a point of attack, but if somebody is picking faces, you want to look slightly more dangerous than your neighbor, you want to look like a hard target. (But not when somebody is looking for hard targets. Obviously.)
Rule #2: Look like an unattractive target.
The third aspect of this is somewhat simpler, and I'll borrow the phrasing from HPMoR:
Rule #3: "I will not go around provoking strong, vicious enemies" - http://hpmor.com/chapter/19
The first triplet of rules, by and large, are about -not- being attacked in the first place. These are starting points; Rule #1, for example, culminates in not existing at all. You can't attack what doesn't exist. Rule #1 is the fundamental strategy of Anonymous. Rule #2 is about encouraging potential attackers to look elsewhere; Rule #1 is passive, and this is the passive-aggressive form of Rule #1. It's the fundamental strategy of home security - why else do you think security companies put signs in the yard saying the house is protected? Rule #3 is obvious. Don't make enemies in the first place, and particularly don't make dangerous enemies. It has critical importance beyond its obvious nature, however - enemies might not care if they get hurt in the process of hurting you. That limits your strategies for dealing with them considerably.
You've messed up the first three rules. You're under attack. What now? Manage the Fight. Your attacker starts with the home field advantage - they attacked you under the terms they are most comfortable in. Change the terms, immediately. Do not concede that advantage. Like Rule #1, Rule #4 is the basis of your First Response, and Rule #5 and Rule #6. The simplest approach is the least obvious - immediate surrender, but on your terms. If you're accused of something, admit to the weakest and least harmful version of that which is true (be specific, and deny as necessary), and say you're aware of your problem and working on improving. This works regardless of whether there's an audience or not, but works best if there is an audience.
Rule #4: Change the terms of the fight to favor yourself, or disfavor your opponent.
Sometimes, the best response to an attack is no response at all. Is anybody (important) going to take it seriously? If not, then the very worst thing you can do is to respond, because that validates the attack. If you do need to respond, respond as lightly as possible; do not respond as if the accusation is serious or matters, because that lends weight to the accusation. If there's no audience, or a limited audience, responding gives your attacker an opportunity to continue the attack. If there's a risk of them physically assaulting you, ignoring them is probably a bad idea; a polite non-response is ideal in that situation. (For crowds that pose a risk of physically assault you... you need more rules than I'm going to write here.)
Rule #5: Use the minimum force necessary to respond.
It's tempting to attack back: Don't. You're going to escalate the situation, and escalation is going to favor the person who is better at this; worse, in a public Dark Arts battle, even the better person is going to take some hits. Nobody wins. Instead, mine the battlefield, and make sure your opponent sees you mining the battlefield. If you're accused of something, suggest that both you and your opponent know the accused thing isn't as uncommon as generally represented. Hint at shared knowledge. Make it clear you'll take them out with you. If they're actually good at this, they'll get the hint. (This is why it's critically important not to make enemies. You really, really don't want somebody around who doesn't mind going down with you, and your use of this strategy becomes difficult.)
Rule #6: Make escalation prohibitively costly.
You might recognize some elements of martial arts here. There are similarities, enough that one is useful to the other, but they are not the same.
You're in a fight, and your opponent is persistent, or you messed up and now things are serious. What now? First, continue to Manage the Fight. Your goal now is to end the fight; the total damage you're going to suffer is a function of both the amplitude of escalation and the length of the fight. You've failed to manage the amplitude; manage the length.
Rule #7: End fights fast.
At this point you've been reasonable and defensive, and that hasn't worked. Now you need to go on the offensive. Your defense should be light and easy, continuing to react with the lightest necessary touch, continuing to ignore anything you don't need to react to; your attack should be brutal, and put your opponent on the defensive immediately. Attack them on the basis of their harassment of you, first, and then build up to any personal attacks you've been holding back on - your goal is to impart a tone of somebody who has been put-upon and had enough.
Rule #8: Hit hard.
And immediately stop. If you've pulled off your counterattack right, they'll offer up defenses. Just quit the battle. Do not be tempted by a follow-up attack; you were angry, you vented your anger, you're done. By not following up on the attack, by not attacking their defenses, you're leaving them no reasonable way to respond. Any continuing attacks can be safely ignored; they will look completely pathetic going forward.
Rule #9: Recognize when you've won, and stop.
Defense follows different rules than attack. In defense, you aren't trying to inflict wounds, you're trying to avoid them. Ending the fight quickly is paramount to this.