[Splintered] Manipulation: What defines it?

[navkat]

Derrived from this thread: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31878.0.html which started to go off-course into a discussion about manipulation which got me thinking about some stuff not directly related to the concepts of labeling and chunking so I felt it deserved its own thread instead of jacking that one off in a different direction.

So, to pick up: manipulation is such a subjective word and concept, right? I mean what you define as "coercive" may not be to others.

I dated a guy who accused a lot of people of trying to "manipulate" him and actually once told me he considers himself a veritable expert on the subject of deducing people's intent since he'd been to years worth of therapy that trained him to be acutely aware of people's coercive tactics. Yet, he's an admitted proponent of the Seduction Society/Pickup Artist techniques which he sees as "self-marketing," a harmless way of maximizing the efficiency of your influence with people to increase your probability of desirable outcomes with them. Sounds perfectly reasonable, right?

Okay, I once saw him send this link to a friend: http://www.attractology.com/articles/inner-game/cat-string-theory/

Here's more off that site: http://www.attractology.com/2010/03/engagedisengagereengage-edr-technique/
and: http://www.attractology.com/2010/03/call/

This, in particular, bothers me:

5) Whatever story you go into, try somehow incorporating her into it, disqualifying her (if possible) during the story and later try to make her qualify herself to you. Not as much as you would do in person but just a small little disqualification could be thrown in there

And how different is that from The Rules of the late 90s?
Parodied on SNL ("Get the ring!"): http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/the-rules-show/1354349

So what say you? Isn't this the very definition of being manipulative (as we've come to understand the negative connotation)? Or is this stuff (as my ex understands it) a harmless/necessary part of being effective socially?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think that it's almost entirely a marketing ploy to sell books to emotionally retarded people.

[Doktor Howl]

ATTN, MEN THAT WANT TO PICK UP WOMEN:

1.  Be nice. 

2.  Be honest.

3.  Remember that you are talking to a human being.  That's the thing behind the boobs.

4.  Make her laugh.

5.  See #3.


ATTN, WOMEN THAT ARE TRYING TO PICK UP MEN:

1.  We're kinda dumb about this shit, you have to spell things out.  In small words.

2.  Make us laugh.  This is more important than looks.

3.  Smile.  We fucking love it when you smile.

4.  Remember that you are talking to a human being.

5.  Be nice.


(In neither gender's case does "be nice" equal "be a doormat".  It means be pleasant.)

There is no need for manipulation.  There is no need for "seduction" or "pickup artistry".  Unless you're a complete fucking sociopath.

[Doktor Howl]

I think that it's almost entirely a marketing ploy to sell books to emotionally retarded people.

Also, this.

Didn't the tard who owned CoG write one of those?

[Placid Dingo]

I want to talk about some issues in my job regarding manipulaion but first ill address the PUA thing. I may already have talked about this but I got really into the whole 'pick up artist' thing starting university. It was the first thing I read that was a guide to manipulating people (in this case, women).

It did me a lot of good, actually, because i got a few key things from it which were shrouded in pretty wanky language bit boiled down to

- be confident (inner game, limiting beliefs)
- put your best foot forward (outer game/demonstrating value)

It also was the first thing I'd read that killed off a few fallacies like 'women are after love and men are after sex'.

Ironically, considering the book is about how to manipulate, it did a job on pulling me into that scene by playing on all those 'nice guy who's tired of the friend zone' narratives that were already buzzing in my head.

I'm nothing like a 'PUA' now, nor do I see it as remotely desirable. I've seen some of the techniques work and generally have felt like I'd sooner just put up with getting laid a whole lot less that imitate the kind of asshole I see succeeding with those methods.

But I would like to digress...



My current job involves working with primary school children. A teachers job is largely manipulation, albeit a more altruistic kind. We want a kid to learn, if they want to or not. You can use;

Parallel acknowledgement: tell the kid beside the naughty one what they're doing well to cue appropriate behaviour.

Pavlovian Conditioning: positive reenforcement for desirable behaviour. Negative reinforcement for undesirable behaviour.

Offering a choice in order to give an illusion of autonomy.

So I have an interest in what manipulation is and when it's justified. 

[Oysters Rockefeller]

There is no need for manipulation.  There is no need for "seduction" or "pickup artistry".  Unless you're a complete fucking sociopath.

Well said.


Also!

My current job involves working with primary school children. A teachers job is largely manipulation, albeit a more altruistic kind. We want a kid to learn, if they want to or not.

This is kind of interesting. I've always viewed manipulation has having heavy negative implications, but this example is a good one of when there is obvious manipulation, but for something that can easily be seen as good.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I find manipulation useful and necessary in the workplace, occasionally. I find it absurd and contemptible when dating someone.

For example, in a corporate environment there are sometimes politics that get in the way of what I believe to be the best solution to a problem. In that situation, I generally find a way to manipulate the situation to get others to agree with that solution... it may be getting them on my side with point A, then using point A as a foundation for my solution. Other times, I'll propose the solution to someone with more political power in a way that allows them to promote the position as though its their idea.

I think humans manipulate people, conversations and situations all the time, often without even thinking about it.

Intentionally using it on a person you're dating is, IMO, dishonest and a good sign that the relationship will fail.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

I'd say manipulation occurs when you inject a layer of abstraction without being obviously persuasive.

I play poker and pool for money. It's "betting" until I start manipulating, and then it's gambling. From time to time it borders on "conning", but that's got such an ugly sound to it.

A couple examples:

Controlling table image is a big part of poker, but I wouldn't call it manipulative per se. If I play very few hands, bet them aggressively, my image will let me bluff more effectively. Trying to get people to think something that's not always correct is just textbook though.

If I spot a player who wants people to know how good they are, that's one place where I manipulate. I'll play a lot of hands and make shitty bets whenever I can afford to. It will look like I'm going for a loose table image. When my dumb fucking luck wins a few pots against the target player's good play, though, it will feel like they've been slapped in the face. Duping someone into thinking the wrong thing, allows you to trip them up here and there. Pissing them off so they're not doing any thinking, means they'll trip over their own feet trying to get at you.

Same concept applies to pool. There's the known hustle of hiding your skill so your opponent thinks they have a chance. There's the lesser-known manipulation of setting up situations that make your shots look easy, their shots look hard, and the whole thing look like luck. "I can" is a reason to try again. "I could've if only..." is a compulsion to bleed money. A better gambler can often take money from a better player like this. A better gambler/better player can sink the fucking hook in a fish like this.

If you're only portraying yourself in a calculated way, it's not necessarily manipulation. If you're injecting emotions below the detection of another person, it is. (and some assholes get a real kick out of it)

[navkat]

Personally, it frightens me. I'm no good at these games or controlling anything because
1. I can't read people's intent. 
2. I could never get away with pulling some control shit cause I can't "blur the edges" of acceptability for myself unless I'm in danger or there's a damned righteous reason.
3. My conscious is on a constant loop of asking me: "do you know what the FUCK you're talking about here? No? Then you're not controling ANYthing. Sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up!"

I've told lies to cover my ass in scary or desperate situations before but the idea of the people I meet...some of them being "moles" to trick me....some of their responses, behaviours and reactions to me--our friendships and relationships being well-crafted series of routines and subroutines, use of psycho/medical submission techniques and other Neuro-linguistic Programming tools...it scares me because it means they aren't invested in my well-being and happiness the way I am them, they're invested in pulling my strings to elicit my affection-responses towards them...AND I CAN'T TELL WHO THEY ARE UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

Yes, I think you have to be a little bit cold (a. sociopathic or b. narcissistic) to use these techniques to "manage" the people in your life who have let you in. To behave in ways intended to be frustrating to the desires of someone who likes you to make it easier for yourself to cultivate a "supply" of their adoration instead of accepting that which they'd offer naturally.

For me: it's pretty close to what the Good Dok said:

1. Be nice
2. Make me laugh
3. Keep yourself clean and reasonably looked after.
4. behave with as much intelligence as you have at your disposal
5. be nice to others--If you scream at the waitress for not bringing extra Ranch dressing, it's our last date.
6. Show you are making an effort to entertain me and that it's really no problem. You like me and want to show me stuff, right?

I will:
1. be nice
2. laugh maniacally at everything because I'm easily amused.
3. not even see your blemishes you're all nervous about. I'm not terribly aware of such things
4. keep up with you on many subjects and show off my smarty-panceness so you know you scored a clever one
5. get warm-fuzzies when you hold open the door for that mom with the baby carrier..i just won't mention it.
6. Make it clear whether I'm entertained or not and come up with ideas or end the date if I'm not.

[Doktor Howl]

5. be nice to others--If you scream at the waitress for not bringing extra Ranch dressing, it's our last date.

Yeah, that.  Right there.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

5. be nice to others--If you scream at the waitress for not bringing extra Ranch dressing, it's our last date.

Yeah, that.  Right there.

Thirded. I totally judge people on how nice they are to "the help", whether it's a fancy restaurant or a Taco Bell drive through. If you're rude to the drive-through girl, as far as I'm concerned you have established yourself as being less than human and getting dropped off the Marqham into 2 AM freeway freight traffic is too good for you.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Like so:

[East Coast Hustle]

Note to outsiders: that bridge/interchange arrangement isn't strictly necessary in an engineering sense, but the more confused Californians we can feed to the bridges the fewer of us get chosen.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

Note to outsiders: that bridge/interchange arrangement isn't strictly necessary in an engineering sense, but the more confused Californians we can feed to the bridges the fewer of us get chosen.

Holy fuck, that's real??? Looked at it on my phone and just assumed it was some macabre illustration. Reality's just running up the score at this point.

[Doktor Howl]

Like so:

It sings.