What is Manipulation?

fiat_lux_ · 2014-11-07T22:46:03+00:00

All of those listed are manipulation in the abstract sense.

However, I would not say that the two following examples are "coercive":

Would you describe a coercive argument as manipulation? (e.g. "Do this because it's good for you.")

Would you describe a coercive offer as manipulation? (e.g. "Do this and I'll give you $100.")

Each of the examples you provided is a hypothetical imperative that offers a reward for positive behaviour, rather than a punishment for negative behaviour. That is categorically uncoercive unless more details are provided.

Everyone manipulates others. As MissPerl mentioned: "all meaningful communication is manipulation." No one fully goes into detail about their intents for everything they do or say that could potentially influence others. That's neurotic behaviour to most people.

"Manipulation" is not what bpers lose their shit over from what I've seen and understand. They just have trouble expressing their real concerns.

It's not the manipulation itself that bothers them, it's when the manipulation includes the following factors:

Fraud: Some examples of manipulation lead to fraudulent "contracts" of some kind or another. Serious examples of this are illegal, and it's generally viewed with distaste by most of society. People want contracts to be enforced, even through shaming/ostracizing if possible.
Objectification/Disrespect: On some level, the manipulator is dismissing/disregarding the will of the manipulatee.
Selfishness: It's a problem for them when the manipulation is for selfish purposes. Society selfishly wants individuals to be more selfless.
Significant power imbalance (including information imbalance): this makes the manipulation seem exploitative. E.g. that between adult and child, between teacher and student
Normality: Aberrant social behaviour is always going to be frowned on. In a society full of salesmen and lawyers where rhetorical manipulation is common and expected, people are going to be a lot less sympathetic towards perpetual manipulatees. Some level of due diligence is expected of people.

Some of the above can and does lead to obvious double standards. Feminists of course will often blame these double standards on the patriarchy.

E.g. in the case of women manipulating men, minor examples of this behaviour are common and accepted in society, while men manipulating women are seen as "skeevy", "distasteful", "deceptive", etc. Feminists often explain that this is due to the patriarchy. The patriarchy makes it so that men are generally in control and perceived as such so there is a power imbalance being exploited by men who manipulate the poor and helpless women.

drok007 · 2014-11-07T21:47:42+00:00

Do you think everyone manipulates?

Absolutely. There is virtually no exception to this.

Do you think no one should manipulate?

In ideal world everyone would be honest, but in an ideal world no one would have weapons, we'd have world peace, and socialism would actually work. Since we don't live in an ideal world, I believe manipulation is an essential skill on the same level as knowing how to speak. It's the basis for pretty much all social relationships, at least ones that involve a power dynamic... which, guess what, is the vast majority of them.

What do you mean by manipulate?

I will use Wikipedia's definition of psychological manipulation: "Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the perception or behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive, or even abusive tactics."

Furthermore, Wiki states:

According to psychology author George K. Simon, successful psychological manipulation primarily involves the manipulator:

concealing aggressive intentions and behaviors.

knowing the psychological vulnerabilities of the victim to determine what tactics are likely to be the most effective.

having a sufficient level of ruthlessness to have no qualms about causing harm to the victim if necessary.

Consequently, the manipulation is likely to be accomplished through covert aggressive (relational aggressive or passive aggressive) means.

This is how I will define manipulation for my post, and it's pretty much exactly how I think of manipulation in general.

To use an example I wrote here recently, a child will be extra nice to their parents before asking for a new toy. They're only acting that way so their parents do what they want. This is a very basic method of manipulation.

Would you describe a coercive threat as manipulation? (e.g. "Do this or I break your legs.")

No, that's just straight up blackmail. Going by George K. Simon's guidelines, manipulation should conceal aggressive intentions and any aggressiveness shown should be covert. Simply saying "do what I want or I'll break your legs" is just blackmailing someone, it's not psychological manipulation.

Emotional blackmail on the other hand is manipulation.

Would you describe a coercive argument as manipulation? (e.g. "Do this because it's good for you.")

Of course. This is the best way to manipulate someone - appeal to their own self-interest, make it seem like they're doing something not because they're doing you a favour but because they're doing themselves a favour.

Would you describe a coercive offer as manipulation? (e.g. "Do this and I'll give you $100.")

Not sure about this one, on one hand you're offering benefit to the person you're bribing and you're concealing whatever the real intention is, but on the other hand it's not exactly subtle either. I'd say it could be classed as manipulation depending on how it's done and for what purpose.

Would you describe exploitation as manipulation? (e.g. "You are currently doing this for $0.50, I'll give you $1 to do this [when it's clearly worth $10].)

Yep, fits the definition, and it's shit like this which is why manipulation gets you far in business.

Is sales and marketing manipulation? (e.g. "Buy this!")

The entire industry is built on manipulation.

Is a suggestion manipulation? (e.g. "You should do this.")

I'd need a lot more context for this one.

Does manipulation fall into certain categories but not others? If so, is it objectively divided? How is that determined?

Not really sure what you mean by this.

Should all people have the same ethics?

Of course not.

If not, and everything is manipulation, how do you determine what is good manipulation and what is bad?

If you are intentionally harming someone in some kind of real way then it's bad. For example the "nuclear option" of dread game. But most manipulation is virtually harmless and often subconscious.

moggymojo · 2014-11-07T22:44:26+00:00

I believe that you cannot NOT influence. So, all the time you are influencing the people and situations around you with a greater or lesser degree of skill, finesse and effectiveness.

The examples you showed were all ways of influencing that are more obvious and less effective. So they are seen as ok - ie a reasonably intelligent person would be able to weigh up the pros and cons and decide on the course of action likely to give them the result that they desire most/want to avoid least.... it's a kind of 'informed consent'.

When your influence become less obvious but more effective it will be viewed as becoming manipulative as the person on the receiving end is less able to critically appraise the real situation and act in their own best interests.

When you are stacking the odds in favor of your own interest, at the expense of the other person's interest, it is seen as manipulative.

Whether or not it is seen as being a serious transgression or just this side of acceptable tends to be determined by the level of risk/harm the 'manipulated' party is taking on, how obvious the influence is and how much pre-exisitng trust was 'betrayed'.

Highly obvious, Low risk, low betrayal/low existing trust > Very subtle,high risk, high betrayal/high existing trust.

TubeSockMonkey · 2014-11-07T22:55:43+00:00

preface: I am coming at this from the perspective of a relationship theorist, and youth worker. Your question is relevant to my assumptions, and inquiries about power, communication, role-clarity, autonomy, and ethics. My purpose is to connect communication to ethics.

First off, l assume that all communication is manipulative in that from the day we are born we are trying to anticipate and elicit a response from our environment that meets our needs. In this way manipulation is inescapable, and any assertion that one person is being manipulative and the other is not is essentially dishonest. What's important here is that manipulation cannot be eliminated from human interaction. Manipulation ceases when you die. In the other direction however manipulation can grow without limit. The question at that end is how big does it have to grow to achieve a particular outcome.

Knowing that we cannot eliminate manipulation, the question is how do we keep manipulation from being catastrophically oppressive. One question is whether a manipulator is honest with one's self and others about their own desire, and the intent of their communication. People deny their own agency, rights, and power for reasons to do with their assumptions about self, relationship scripts, etc. Knowing this, we can be compassionate with ourselves and others that dishonesty is not a crime. Dishonesty happens all the time, we all do it. It is often just a factor of the quality of information going into the interaction, like talking to an attractive stranger, hearing a manager says,"meet me in the office." We don't know where we stand, so we withhold information, or try to achieve ends without showing our hand. This is also the basis of good negotiation BTW. We have higher quality of information the greater the strength/history of the relationship, and the lower the personal stakes are the interaction.

Another question is whether this manipulation or interaction result in a mutually beneficial outcome? And, what is the long-term profit for both participants if this interaction becomes the permanent framework for all future interactions? Do not confuse one with the other, or you will have a bad time. Nevertheless, consider that the quality of your current relationships are based on expectations resulting from historic interactions, and broader social convention (see the broader red vs blue pill debate). If you want things to be different, you need to create new situations that redefine the relationship over time. If you don't want to be "manipulative" then you have explicit conversations about your wants and desires, then act that way. There will be resistance, or at least friction as you readjust your expectations of each other.

Follow up: if the result is not mutually beneficial, as if someone has done something against their own self-interest this is where things get into ethics. The darkness we seek to overcome is the reality is that people engage in whatever behavior they seem to think is reasonable based on the best information they have at the time. If you put a gun to my head and tell me to do something against my personal best interest, I am still acting, in the short-term, according to what I think is profitable. When the gun goes away, I experience grief and trauma. This is the basis of "might makes right." The problem is two fold. First that which does not produce mutually profitable interactions closes itself off from the circle of life, and will ultimately die off from the systems around it. This is the way in which narcissists and sociopaths thrive up to a point. The second issue, the crux of the blue pill, I believe, is that the impact is catastrophically coercive. By this I mean that it is traumatizing. Not all coercion is traumatizing. Not all manipulation is traumatizing. We can have another talk about the relationship of your culture to trauma and oppression another time.

edit: adding tiny bits of negative space

MissPearl · 2014-11-07T21:36:00+00:00

I think that we colloquially use manipulation to mean any sort of underhanded tactics.

In the abstract, all meaningful communication is manipulation. In practice we generally think about desired outcome and how a person goes about doing something. For example nobody will pass moral judgement on a person trying to seem "better" according to the standards to their partner but might turn a critical eye towards trying to incite jealousy as being cruel because being jealous is seen as an uncomfortable head state.

With my Gentleman, I'm unlikely to draw censure if I say, tell people I like to make him feel safe, comfortable and happy. However if I said I liked to make him unhappy I could expect limited approval.

For example: When my Gentleman is getting overloaded it's good for me to give him space for a bit. I'll lower his stress level by going into another room until he feels like tracking me down. However if I do this too much or abruptly he feels like he's being rejected he'll feel compelled to act like he needs to seek my good favour to feel secure again.

I could use ignoring him to selectively get spoiled so he could feel reassured I was happy- but instead I keep it to the level of "oops, you need some down time! smooch!" Manipulating his stress levels good manipulating his sense of security bad.

Reginleifer · 2014-11-07T23:16:47+00:00

Everyone manipulates, and while I don't think highly of manipulation in the forms of lying or threats, I could be convinced something is acceptable or righteous based on motives.

Motivations and circumstances matter a lot to me when making judgements. A shitty action CAN be less shitty in the context of a shitty society for example.

2014-11-08T14:45:21+00:00

That is an interesting question. What is the difference between manipulation, coercion and exploitation?

Consider the "straight shooter" archetype: a man who may make threats, but is never underhanded or dishonest about his intentions. In some ways a threat is the most direct mode of getting what you want, entirely honest and unconcerned about the persons opinion of you.

To me the classic manipulative relationship move is "if you leave me I'll kill myself" but if you replace that with "if you leave me I'll kill you" it starts to sound more like outright coercion.

I think that's because in the former situation the manipulator wants you to feel something towards them (specifically, sympathy) wheras in the second the threat is upfront. Manipulation is about getting them to do what you want without having to resort to anything as crude as an outright threat.

Exploitation I also don't think counts, since you could conceive of someone being exploited with all parties knowing what's going on.

CFRProflcopter · 2014-11-07T21:24:52+00:00

Do you think everyone manipulates? Do you think no one should manipulate?

Yes and yes, for the most part.

Would you describe a coercive threat as manipulation? (e.g. "Do this or I break your legs.")

No. I think of manipulation as more subtle. The victim has to not understand what the perpetrators motives are.

Would you describe a coercive argument as manipulation? (e.g. "Do this because it's good for you.")

No. Manipulation involves a lack of fairness. Coercing someone into doing something that is good for them cannot be manipulation.

Would you describe a coercive offer as manipulation? (e.g. "Do this and I'll give you $100.")

It depends what "this" is. Does the person receiving the offer know all the consequences of "this." If yes, then it's not manipulation. If no, then it is manipulation.

Would you describe exploitation as manipulation? (e.g. "You are currently doing this for $0.50, I'll give you $1 to do this [when it's clearly worth $10].)

It could be, depending on context. Exploitation and manipulation often go hand in hand.

Is sales and marketing manipulation? (e.g. "Buy this!")

If the sales person misleads or lies, then yes, obviously. If the sales person is 100% honest, then no.

Is a suggestion manipulation? (e.g. "You should do this.")

If the person making the suggestion has ulterior motives, then possibly.

Does manipulation fall into certain categories but not others? If so, is it objectively divided? How is that determined? Should all people have the same ethics? If not, and everything is manipulation, how do you determine what is good manipulation and what is bad?

I think manipulation is only justified when it is deployed in the best interest of society. Example: manipulating a murderer to turn himself in is OK.

TubeSockMonkey · 2014-11-07T22:52:45+00:00

preface: I am coming at this from the perspective of a relationship theorist, and youth worker. Your question is relevant to my assumptions, and inquiries about power, communication, role-clarity, autonomy, and ethics. My purpose is to connect communication to ethics. First off, l assume that all communication is manipulative in that from the day we are born we are trying to anticipate and elicit a response from our environment that meets our needs. In this way manipulation is inescapable, and any assertion that one person is being manipulative and the other is not is essentially dishonest. What's important here is that manipulation cannot be eliminated from human interaction, and any assumption that it can, or should be eliminated is blind. Manipulation ceases when you die. In the other direction however manipulation can grow without limit. The question at that end is how big does it have to grow to achieve a particular outcome. Ethically, knowing that we cannot eliminate manipulation, the question is how do we keep manipulation from being catastrophically oppressive. One question is whether a manipulator is honest with one's self and others about their own desire, and the intent of their communication. People are often in denial about their own agency, rights, and power for a variety of reasons having to do with their assumptions about self, relationship scripts, etc. With this we can be compassionate with ourselves and others that dishonesty is not a crime. Dishonesty happens all the time, we all do it. It is often just a factor of the quality of information going into the interaction, like talking to an attractive stranger, hearing a manager says,"meet me in the office." We don't know where we stand, so we withhold information, or try to achieve ends without showing our hand. This is also the basis of good negotiation BTW. We have higher quality of information the greater the strength/history of the relationship, and the lower the personal stakes are the interaction. So ask yourself, does this manipulation or interaction result in a mutually beneficial outcome? A follow up question is, what is the long-term profit for both participants if this interaction becomes the permanent framework for all future interactions? Do not confuse one with the other, or you will have a bad time. At the same time, consider that the quality of your current relationships are based on expectations resulting from historic interactions, and broader social convention (see the broader red vs blue pill debate). If you want things to be different, you need to create new situations that redefine the relationship over time. If you don't want to be "manipulative" then you have explicit conversations about your wants and desires, then act that way. There will be resistance, or at least friction as you readjust your expectations of each other. Follow up: if the result is not mutually beneficial, as if someone has done something against their own self-interest this is where things get into ethics. The darkness we seek to overcome is the reality is that people engage in whatever behavior they seem to think is reasonable based on the best information they have at the time. If you put a gun to my head and tell me to do something against my personal best interest, I am still acting, in the short-term, according to what I think is profitable. When the gun goes away, I experience grief and trauma. This is the basis of "might makes right." The problem is two fold. First that which does not produce mutually profitable interactions closes itself off from the circle of life, and will ultimately die off from the systems around it. This is the way in which narcissists and sociopaths thrive up to a point. The second issue, the crux of the blue pill, I believe, is that the impact is catastrophically coercive. By this I mean that it is traumatizing. Not all coercion is traumatizing. Not all manipulation is traumatizing. We can have another talk about the relationship of your culture to trauma and oppression another time.

Title	What is Manipulation?
Author	drok007
Upvotes	9
Comments	66
Date	November 7, 2014 9:05 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2lm5wk/what_is_manipulation/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/what-is-manipulation.284414 https://theredarchive.com/post/284414

Comments