[Plato]

I notice that "manipulation" is one of the favourite buzz words around here, and because I like to stir the pot I'd like to point out that there is no real distinction between manipulation and non-manipulation.

To be clear, I am not saying all behaviour is manipulative or anything like that... I'm saying it's not a real concept at all.

Maybe I can explain why that is.

For there to be a distinction between manipulative and non-manipulative actions, we would need an objective basis for decision making. What does this mean? It means that we should be able to appeal to peoples' reason in attempts to persuade them of something, or influence them in some way. There would have to be an objective right or wrong.

Example of how this plays out in real life:

Take the debates over abortion. There is no right or wrong here... at least any that can be decided by reason. This is because of incommensurable moral premises. Essentially, it's a well accepted fact that there is no objective right or wrong; just subjective opinions and inclinations one way or another.

Give that only subjective opinions exist, when we try to influence one another to come to a certain point of view our only tool is rhetoric.

Rhetoric being the art of persuasion... or manipulation if you will. The person who eventually gets their way is not the person who is right. It's the person who has the best skills of persuasion.

The upshot of all this is that we cannot make a meaningful distinction between manipulative and non-manipulative behaviour and because of this the concept doesn't exist. The concept of manipulation, in a social sense, only exists as a contrast to non-manipulation.

People try to put down men who want to improve their social skills with women as manipulative. The truth is, it's just learning how people respond if you do this, as opposed to that.