Manipulation / Non-manipulation - not a real distinction

[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.

[Alexjstrandberg]

Being persuasive and manipulative are two distinct things. Persuasive is putting a bow and a ribbon on your argument. Manipulation is trying to control the person into thinking the way you by any means necessary.

Persuasive comes from honesty, heart and passion. While manipulation is controlling and dishonest. One is upfront and the other is not.

Anti-smoking adds are very manipulative because they use fear tactics and twist the truth on many occasions. They are trying to get you to see what they see instead of simply presenting the truth in a way that speaks to people.

Also, most of the information on getting better with women socially is pure manipulation.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

To me, the word manipulation denotes a sinister intent. So, a guy who is improving his social skills with women by going out, trying different approaches, all of that is not by definition manipulative. His intent and his honesty are what we look at. For instance, it may work really well when picking up women to act like you are looking to get married and start a family, but getting a woman to sleep with you by telling her that when your real intent is only a one night stand is manipulative.

Similarly, a woman who says to a man, "I would like it if you brought me flowers" is not manipulative, whereas a woman who sulks, says, "You know, so-and-so's husband brings her flowers all the time" etc is considered manipulative.

I can tell I'm not making my point really well here, so either it's invalid or I'm just not expressing myself well. In any case, I do think that there is such a thing as manipulation, and some, NOT ALL, PUAs are practicing it (and, yes, so are tons of women).

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Plato

Essentially, it's a well accepted fact that there is no objective right or wrong; just subjective opinions and inclinations one way or another.

I laugh, because after a couple of years on these forums, several times I have watched people respond like a frog in a blender to a remark like that.

"There is, too, objective right and wrong! There is! There is! And you're WRONG if you say there isn't!!"

"Well, that's your subjective opinion, and I know I'm right about that."

"Nu-uh! I'm really mad now!"

"Really? How amusing."

"You big catfish."

{{thread gets closed; someone gets warned or banned.}}


For me, when I'm evaluating someone as being "manipulative," I mean that the person is being less than forthright -- that (s)he is using underhanded means to get what he thinks he wants, but that is usually habitual thought rather than heart's desire, in my observation. There's nothing wrong with that (); but my strong preference is to be with folks who are forthright and interested in heart's desires, as opposed to habitual, reactive desires. So I reckon your (the desirer's) choices might be effectively made in the light of that awareness, and also in recognition of your own awareness, relative to the people you want to attract/manipulate/influence.

[RT Wolf]

Originally Posted by Plato

Essentially, it's a well accepted fact that there is no objective right or wrong; just subjective opinions and inclinations one way or another.

Yes, it is an objectively accepted fact that there is no objective right or wrong.

You've made an interesting attempt to dissolve this distinction, however I disagree with it. This is an issue that I've been wrestling with so lemme throw in my cent and half:

When faced with a question, I attempt to figure out how things current are and then figure out if there's a better way, rather than trying to build a certain argument. Largely this involves introspection, analysis of other people's behaviour, attempts to distill principles and then choose among the alternatives.

I haven't made much headway but here are some factors that influence whether something is considered valid influence or manipulation:

1. Lack of choice or autonomy. People really don't like feeling like they don't have a choice or are being controlled. Often, things that are subconscious or beyond conscious control are called manipulation. So are situations in which an artificial dilemma is created and someone takes advantage of it (blackmail for example).

2. Categorically manipulative things, regardless of effectiveness. Like getting a puppy just to pick up women, you don't acutally care about the puppy.

3. Effectiveness. If something is 95% effective in working a lot of people, we tend to think of this as manipulative, for some reason, probably due to number 1.

4. Treating others as means to ends rather than ends in themselves. Using people (and animals), especially in a way that's worse off for them.

Anything else that might influence whether something is called manipulative versus influence?

Plato, I do want to note one thing about your argument: you appear to be using radical moral relativism (I prefer moral pluralism over complete relativism) to justify actions being merely judged as manipulative and "bad". I agree there are no "objective" right or wrongs, because nothing we do has meaning "objectively". Objectively being used meaning a dispassionate third party observer, perhaps a rock. A rock doesn't give a crap about much humans do. Human beings make meanings out of everything, there are no meanings "out there".

So, since right or wrong is only relevant to us human beings, I feel its important to listen to what other human beings are saying about what's "good" behaviour, even if you decide to go against it, rather than assuming they're all wrong because there's no objective right or wrong. Know what I mean?

[Plato]

I just realised I left out the most important sentence of the whole thing:

For a behaviour to be non-manipulative it has to attempt to influence people based on reason. However, reason produces no answers ("no ought from is" etc) and therefore non-manipulation isn't real.

Originally Posted by RT Wolf

3. Effectiveness. If something is 95% effective in working a lot of people, we tend to think of this as manipulative, for some reason, probably due to number 1.

4. Treating others as means to ends rather than ends in themselves. Using people (and animals), especially in a way that's worse off for them.

Some really interesting points, but these are the ones that caught my attention because they are so relevant. You're right that I'm being entirely relativistic, and haven't justified that position at all here.

Point 3 about effectiveness is excellent! The moment something reaches a certain degree of efficiency it is declared manipulative, whereas if something is innefficient it's not. Logically this makes no sense, of course.

Point 4 about treating other people as means to ends is the real key of the whole thing isn't it?

My argument (actually not mine, Alasdair MacIntyre's) is that because there is no rational basis for anything, and that we all affect each other whether we like it or not, what we are doing can neither be said to be manipulative or non-manipulative. It just IS. Whether we are conscious of the effect we have is irrelevant. Whether we are honest about our intentions is also irrelevant.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Angela

For me, when I'm evaluating someone as being "manipulative," I mean that the person is being less than forthright.

So they are deceptive in their means rather than honest? They are still using "means" though, whether consciously or not, to achieve the effects they do.

On this basis I don't think manipulation is a good word to use. Honesty has meaning. Manipulation doesn't.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

To me, the word manipulation denotes a sinister intent.

I think you mean deception. Manipulation isn't the correct word for what you're talking about.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Alexjstrandberg

Being persuasive and manipulative are two distinct things. Persuasive is putting a bow and a ribbon on your argument. Manipulation is trying to control the person into thinking the way you by any means necessary.

If we know 100% that an action is going to produce a certain response, that is perfect "manipulation", is it not? The person had no choice but to respond the way they did.

But as I mentioned in another post, efficiency in controlling our environment really means being able to predict responses to our actions. This is not inherently sisnister. It just means that experience has taught us how behaviour X affects another person, and using that to achieve a repsonse we desire rather than one we don't.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Plato

So they are deceptive in their means rather than honest? They are still using "means" though, whether consciously or not, to achieve the effects they do.

On this basis I don't think manipulation is a good word to use. Honesty has meaning. Manipulation doesn't.

In my view, the opposite of being forthright is not being deceptive -- it's being underhanded. Not the same thing. But maybe you believe "underhanded" has no meaning, too.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Plato

I think you mean deception. Manipulation isn't the correct word for what you're talking about.

Well, I meant what I said actually.

To me, manipulation always includes deception or trickery, otherwise it wouldn't be manipulation.

I'm not saying I'm right, but I think I know that I meant what I said

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Angela

In my view, the opposite of being forthright is not being deceptive -- it's being underhanded. Not the same thing. But maybe you believe "underhanded" has no meaning, too.

I actually don't know what underhanded means. Could you give an example?

[Plato]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

To me, manipulation always includes deception or trickery, otherwise it wouldn't be manipulation.

Manipulation, if it has a meaning is to alter the world in some way. Non-manipulation is to alter the world for a reason that we could all agree upon rationally. Since there is no objective reason to alter it any particular way, it is impossible to have non-manipulative intentions.

[Martyn13]

Originally Posted by Plato

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.

Plato, once you've said that only subjective opinions exist, that's a non-starter - a conversation-stopper.

Anything you say after that, or indeed, anything that anyone says ever, could also be met by 'Only subjective opinions exist' -
Saying that doesn't really get us anywhere!

To summarise, in my opinion, you are treating

'Only Subjective opinions exist', as if it was an Objective statement

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Martyn13

Plato, once you've said that only subjective opinions exist, that's a non-starter .

The dissolution of the distinction between manipulative and non-manipulative actions is a direct consequence of the incommensurability of contemporary moral premises. Hence it is the beginning of this conversation.

[Martyn13]

Originally Posted by Plato

The dissolution of the distinction between manipulative and non-manipulative actions is a direct consequence of the incommensurability of contemporary moral premises. Hence it is the beginning of this conversation.

In my opinion, you are treating your initial premise as if it was 'Objective',
but if you believe that all opinions are inherently subjective, including 'Eveything is Subjective', then using this statement as an 'Objective' starting point of a discussion, seems illogical, or at least, just as subjective as any other opinion!

If all opinions are subjective, then trying to solidify the 'quicksand' of subjectivity by (unconscious) assumptions will fail, as your premise will Always be only Subjective (in my opinion!)

[RT Wolf]

Originally Posted by Plato

My argument (actually not mine, Alasdair MacIntyre's) is that because there is no rational basis for anything, and that we all affect each other whether we like it or not, what we are doing can neither be said to be manipulative or non-manipulative. It just IS. Whether we are conscious of the effect we have is irrelevant. Whether we are honest about our intentions is also irrelevant.

That sounds like its based on the assumption that all forms of affecting others are ethically the same. Is that correct?

It also sounds like there's multiple meanings of the word "manipulation" at work here.

[Martyn13]

Regarding the idea of manipulation -
It seems to be something that we all do all the time - Manipulating our envionment, our garden etc.

I think that Manipulation is not defined by the action, but the intent.

If for example, we explain another point of view to someone, we may have as an aim, to alter that person's understanding, but alternatively, we may just wish to help them see different perspectives, without any specific axe to grind, and therefore no specific interest in outcome.

I also get a negative feeling from people who try to manipulate others.
I think that most manipulation is unconscious, but if we become aware of attempted manipulation, then it is irritating, as it removes our perceived freedom.

I personally don't like the idea of putting on an act in order to quickly get girls.
I suppose it depends on what you want - If you wish to simply 'seduce' a girl quickly, or are interested in a more meaningful loving relationship

In the long run, it is more attractive to have the inner strengtth to be confident with the way we are, regardless of the perceived norm.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by RT Wolf

That sounds like its based on the assumption that all forms of affecting others are ethically the same. Is that correct?

Yes, and no. Here's what is correct:

Premise1) moral premises are incommensurable (also see Hume's "Ought from Is" fallacy)

P2) reason is redundant in resolving ethical debate, or any decision making.

P3) all decisions are based on non-rational factors.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Martyn13

I think that Manipulation is not defined by the action, but the intent.

Correct!

This is absolutely true.

Unfortunately, due to the fact that we cannot rationally say whether an intent is good or bad, we cannot determine whether an action is manipulative or not. There is no distinction between the two.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Martyn13

In my opinion, you are treating your initial premise as if it was 'Objective',
but if you believe that all opinions are inherently subjective, including 'Eveything is Subjective', then using this statement as an 'Objective' starting point of a discussion, seems illogical, or at least, just as subjective as any other opinion!

If all opinions are subjective, then trying to solidify the 'quicksand' of subjectivity by (unconscious) assumptions will fail, as your premise will Always be only Subjective (in my opinion!)

I am not saying "opinions are subjective". I'm saying that attempts to use reason to make ethical judgments ultimately fail. Our ETHICAL judgments are subjective, or to speak correctly, not rational.

[Martyn13]

Originally Posted by Martyn13

I think that Manipulation is not defined by the action, but the intent.

Originally Posted by Plato

Correct!

This is absolutely true.

Unfortunately, due to the fact that we cannot rationally say whether an intent is good or bad, we cannot determine whether an action is manipulative or not. There is no distinction between the two.

The definition of 'manipulation' has no bearing upon whether the intent is good or bad. There are many manipulations which are generally considered to be good E.g. Manipulation of terrorists to free hostages, manipulation of plants etc.

What makes an action 'manipulation', is the (perceived) strength / existence of the intent (conscious or unconscious), rather than the subjective value you place on it.

If you perceive that an action has an observable intent associated with it, then that action becomes defined as manipulative.

I would say that, loosely speaking, 'living in the present' would be defined as unmanipulative - even if the person got what they wanted - It would not have technically occured due to manipulation.

Of course, logic is only one way of understanding and viewing reality.
Whether an action is manipulative or not, would ultimately be just whether you would 'feel' it to be.

The definition might not be logically absolutely watertight, but that applies to everything - but that doesn't mean that the word 'manipulation' has no meaning. 'Feelings' are just as valid as Logic, and are more subtle