ManipuLation

[Lib]

How would you define manipulation?

Do you condemn it per se or the intentions are important?

Do people who have been manipulated must be held responsible for their actions?

 

[The Cat]

Considering that life and society is just a manipulation. No I don't condemn it per say. I often find far more tedious the idealistic notion that it's something that only some people do.

EVERYONE does it on some level. Being kind is just as much a manipulation as intimidating someone. It's just viewed in a better light. Depending on what narrative you want to buy into. Please, thank you, fuck off; boiled down bare bones manipulation.

Because that's just the thing.

We manipulate ourselves most of all, you dig deep enough, read close enough between the lines, analyze carefully enough, you can find manipulation in any thing and everything and everyone.

The funny part is, we're not actually opposed to being manipulated if it makes us feel good. But people don't like feeling stupid. How could I fall for that feels worse I wager than how could you do that to me? I dunno. As for intentions, well, everyone always has the best of them don't they?

As for accountability? Sooner or later the day comes when we all have to answer for the things we've done or didn't do...or then again maybe not. Maybe that's just something we tell ourselves to soothe ourselves that we're right?
*tosses wooden nickles into the ring.* For whatever that's worth.

 

[Lark]

Considering that life and society is just a manipulation. No I don't condemn it per say. I often find far more tedious the idealistic notion that it's something that only some people do.

EVERYONE does it on some level. Being kind is just as much a manipulation as intimidating someone. It's just viewed in a better light. Depending on what narrative you want to buy into. Please, thank you, fuck off; boiled down bare bones manipulation.

Because that's just the thing.

We manipulate ourselves most of all, you dig deep enough, read close enough between the lines, analyze carefully enough, you can find manipulation in any thing and everything and everyone.

The funny part is, we're not actually opposed to being manipulated if it makes us feel good. But people don't like feeling stupid. How could I fall for that feels worse I wager than how could you do that to me? I dunno. As for intentions, well, everyone always has the best of them don't they?

As for accountability? Sooner or later the day comes when we all have to answer for the things we've done or didn't do...or then again maybe not. Maybe that's just something we tell ourselves to soothe ourselves that we're right?
*tosses wooden nickles into the ring.* For whatever that's worth.

Interesting.

I wonder how popular this idea is and its origin.

I dont agree with it at all to be honest. I'd encourage you to consider it and think about it a bit more. Perhaps I'd have believed something like that when I was younger but I would not now. I think there's a category error comparing what I would consider normal human concourse or social interaction with manipulation let alone to suggest equivalence. I dont think its a matter of mere semantics either and choice of morally weighted words to describe things that are essentially the same in essence. In large part because there is such a long chain through out human history leading up to but not culminating or concluding in Kant's categorical imperative that no one be merely a means to another's end.

As cutting edge as some varieties of amorality and amoralism initially appear to people who have benefited from being raised in environments with at least a modicum of healthy norms its ill shit, not particularly revolutionary, certainly not "beyond good and evil" which is a dichotomy its impossible to transcend, you can be extra evil or extra good or you can perhaps challenge definitions of good or evil as false, erroneous etc. but you cant be beyond either. Its like Russell's application of rigor to mathematics, he challenged what existed as being merely axioms but eventually had to admit that his life's work in that respect did little besides produce a further set of axioms itself.

Relativism falls down because if its true then the idea of relativism itself can only ever be relative.

Amorality, in my experience, has only ever been an argument, justification or rationalisation for immorality. I'd encourage a rethink as its a slippery slope or thin end of the wedge. Particularly when combined with ideas that manipulation should be considered normative too. At its best this thinking gives you the PUA movement. At its worst your average rape, murder, human trafficking, dead inside, they were all asking for it kind of sub-humanity.

I dont believe that the idea of accountability is merely something people tell themselves to soothe themselves, for any reason, I've more often heard it said that its something victims tell themselves to soothe themselves as they can not or refuse to act themselves, at least that's Nietzsche's basis for hypothesizing an unter mensch capable of nothing but resentment. That is rather than "soothe ourselves that we're right", which could be the thinking of someone seeking to deny or avoid the judgement of others on their behaviour.

That's also a discussion of accountability as it pertains to philosophic consequentialism, specifically consequence as imposed by an external authority of some sort, perhaps an "ultimate authority" such as God or divine judgement. Considering consequentialism for a moment, there are natural consequences, these just happen, they arent imposed by anyone, they happen as a matter of course and can involve a variety of being called to account.

Natural consequences are unavoidable, although often denied, disowned or disregarded for as long as they can be by anyone who is engaging in amoral behaviour. It can involve self-reproach, attacks of conscience, atropy or entropy in your thinking or behaviour, addictive traits, paranoia, name it, people have been identifying illness contingent upon certain behaviour for millennia and there's a shit ton in pre-psychological literature too about it, "hardening your heart" was to avoided for instance, most ghost stories, superstition etc.

The better schools of thought that have arisen in human history have had a clear eye to this and cautioned people against drinking the Kool Aid of amorality, the consequences are unavoidable, you can deny them and that'll work for a while, you can imagine you're avoiding or escaping all consequences because you avoid some consequences, the judgement of your associates, neighbours, courts, others, even yourself (Freud elaborated at length as to how people do this, then Anna Freud his daughter developed that idea further) but everything's eventual.

 

[The Cat]

Interesting.

I wonder how popular this idea is and its origin.

I dont agree with it at all to be honest. I'd encourage you to consider it and think about it a bit more. Perhaps I'd have believed something like that when I was younger but I would not now. I think there's a category error comparing what I would consider normal human concourse or social interaction with manipulation let alone to suggest equivalence. I dont think its a matter of mere semantics either and choice of morally weighted words to describe things that are essentially the same in essence. In large part because there is such a long chain through out human history leading up to but not culminating or concluding in Kant's categorical imperative that no one be merely a means to another's end.

As cutting edge as some varieties of amorality and amoralism initially appear to people who have benefited from being raised in environments with at least a modicum of healthy norms its ill shit, not particularly revolutionary, certainly not "beyond good and evil" which is a dichotomy its impossible to transcend, you can be extra evil or extra good or you can perhaps challenge definitions of good or evil as false, erroneous etc. but you cant be beyond either. Its like Russell's application of rigor to mathematics, he challenged what existed as being merely axioms but eventually had to admit that his life's work in that respect did little besides produce a further set of axioms itself.

Relativism falls down because if its true then the idea of relativism itself can only ever be relative.

Amorality, in my experience, has only ever been an argument, justification or rationalisation for immorality. I'd encourage a rethink as its a slippery slope or thin end of the wedge. Particularly when combined with ideas that manipulation should be considered normative too. At its best this thinking gives you the PUA movement. At its worst your average rape, murder, human trafficking, dead inside, they were all asking for it kind of sub-humanity.

I dont believe that the idea of accountability is merely something people tell themselves to soothe themselves, for any reason, I've more often heard it said that its something victims tell themselves to soothe themselves as they can not or refuse to act themselves, at least that's Nietzsche's basis for hypothesizing an unter mensch capable of nothing but resentment. That is rather than "soothe ourselves that we're right", which could be the thinking of someone seeking to deny or avoid the judgement of others on their behaviour.

That's also a discussion of accountability as it pertains to philosophic consequentialism, specifically consequence as imposed by an external authority of some sort, perhaps an "ultimate authority" such as God or divine judgement. Considering consequentialism for a moment, there are natural consequences, these just happen, they arent imposed by anyone, they happen as a matter of course and can involve a variety of being called to account.

Natural consequences are unavoidable, although often denied, disowned or disregarded for as long as they can be by anyone who is engaging in amoral behaviour. It can involve self-reproach, attacks of conscience, atropy or entropy in your thinking or behaviour, addictive traits, paranoia, name it, people have been identifying illness contingent upon certain behaviour for millennia and there's a shit ton in pre-psychological literature too about it, "hardening your heart" was to avoided for instance, most ghost stories, superstition etc.

The better schools of thought that have arisen in human history have had a clear eye to this and cautioned people against drinking the Kool Aid of amorality, the consequences are unavoidable, you can deny them and that'll work for a while, you can imagine you're avoiding or escaping all consequences because you avoid some consequences, the judgement of your associates, neighbours, courts, others, even yourself (Freud elaborated at length as to how people do this, then Anna Freud his daughter developed that idea further) but everything's eventual.

Whatever helps you sleep at night man.
I didn't just come up with my perspective on a lark.
Further it's not based on any theories or philosophies I'm aware of.
Just my own personal life experience. If yours has been different...
Huzzah. Bully. I'm glad.
Truly.
May your good fortune continue.

Further more from my perspective: your response rather proves my point.
But it's not really a big deal.
Agree.
Disagree.
Free internet last I checked.

 

[Lib]

That's also a discussion of accountability as it pertains to philosophic consequentialism, specifically consequence as imposed by an external authority of some sort, perhaps an "ultimate authority" such as God or divine judgement. Considering consequentialism for a moment, there are natural consequences, these just happen, they arent imposed by anyone, they happen as a matter of course and can involve a variety of being called to account.

Natural consequences are unavoidable, although often denied, disowned or disregarded for as long as they can be by anyone who is engaging in amoral behaviour. It can involve self-reproach, attacks of conscience, atropy or entropy in your thinking or behaviour, addictive traits, paranoia, name it, people have been identifying illness contingent upon certain behaviour for millennia and there's a shit ton in pre-psychological literature too about it, "hardening your heart" was to avoided for instance, most ghost stories, superstition etc.

The better schools of thought that have arisen in human history have had a clear eye to this and cautioned people against drinking the Kool Aid of amorality, the consequences are unavoidable, you can deny them and that'll work for a while, you can imagine you're avoiding or escaping all consequences because you avoid some consequences, the judgement of your associates, neighbours, courts, others, even yourself (Freud elaborated at length as to how people do this, then Anna Freud his daughter developed that idea further) but everything's eventual.

Not sure you understand consequentialism. It postulates that moral serves society to increase utility, thus it doesn't have value on its own. Manipulation is justified by consequentialism, murder is justified, everything is justified because it's a natural consequence. Utility is not what you say it is, there are objective measures for it.

 

[Lark]

Whatever helps you sleep at night man.
I didn't just come up with my perspective on a lark.
Further it's not based on any theories or philosophies I'm aware of.
Just my own personal life experience. If yours has been different...
Huzzah. Bully. I'm glad.
Truly.
May your good fortune continue.

Further more from my perspective: your response rather proves my point.
But it's not really a big deal.
Agree.
Disagree.
Free internet last I checked.

It is that.

Its interesting to know what you think. It sounds different to some of your other posting and I'm not sure what that could mean. Just noticing.

No need to be defensive or get offended, if that happened, I'm not persuaded of your point and I still think it'd be a bad idea to see manipulativeness become normative. Perhaps its not essential to be persuaded of the same.

I wonder if your opinion's shared by the other moderators here on this forum.

 

[Lark]

Not sure you understand consequentialism. It postulates that moral serves society to increase utility, thus it doesn't have value on it's own. Manipulation is justified by consequentialism, murder is justified, everything is justified because it's a natural consequence. Utility is not what you say it is, there are objective measures for it.

^ this is unclear.

 

[Lib]

^ this is unclear.

What part is unclear to you? Utilitarianism?

 

[The Cat]

It is that.

Its interesting to know what you think. It sounds different to some of your other posting and I'm not sure what that could mean. Just noticing.

No need to be defensive or get offended, if that happened, I'm not persuaded of your point and I still think it'd be a bad idea to see manipulativeness become normative. Perhaps its not essential to be persuaded of the same.

I wonder if your opinion's shared by the other moderators here on this forum.

You're free to make of it whatever you like, but from the horses mouth: It doesnt mean anything. If you decide to assign meaning to it or it strikes a certain chord within you that resonates in harmony or discordantly; that is entirely cool, but totally incidental. The posts of Gentleman Jack do not necessarily represent the posts of all Gentleman Jacks across the multiverse. Just this one. So I can't speak to what you do or don't notice.

I'm not offended. Relax ^_^
You don't need to be persuaded to my opinion.
I don't care if you agree with me or don't.
You are perfectly free to accept that is normative, or rally against it claiming that it's not.
You're absolutely correct. It's not essential.
I can't persuade you of anything anyway, only you can do that.

As to whether my opinions are shared by other mods. You'd have to ask them.

But I highly doubt it.

In my experience most folks I know take comfort in believing that nobody else shares my opinions.

 

[Lib]

[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION] instead of attacking Jack you might wanna define 'manipulation' first. That's the point of this thread anyway

 

[Lark]

You're free to make of it whatever you like, but from the horses mouth: It doesnt mean anything. If you decide to assign meaning to it or it strikes a certain chord within you that resonates in harmony or discordantly; that is entirely cool, but totally incidental. The posts of Gentleman Jack do not necessarily represent the posts of all Gentleman Jacks across the multiverse. Just this one. So I can't speak to what you do or don't notice.

I'm not offended. Relax ^_^
You don't need to be persuaded to my opinion.
I don't care if you agree with me or don't.
You are perfectly free to accept that is normative, or rally against it claiming that it's not.
You're absolutely correct. It's not essential.
I can't persuade you of anything anyway, only you can do that.

As to whether my opinions are shared by other mods. You'd have to ask them.

But I highly doubt it.

In my experience most folks I know take comfort in believing that nobody else shares my opinions.

I do think its interesting what I'm seeing. I wonder if others see it too.

 

[Lark]

[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION] instead of attacking Jack you might wanna define 'manipulation' first. That's the point of this thread anyway

I'm attacking Jack?

I know this game. I'm not interested in playing.

Was pretty sure after the magpie and xann accounts were banned or even after some of the recent discussions these sorts of games might cease or at least become a little less commonplace. Then again what it takes to keep them going is people posting.

So there's that.

 

[The Cat]

I do think its interesting what I'm seeing. I wonder if others see it too.

What are you seeing?

 

[Lib]

I'm attacking Jack?

I know this game. I'm not interested in playing.

Was pretty sure after the magpie and xann accounts were banned or even after some of the recent discussions these sorts of games might cease or at least become a little less commonplace. Then again what it takes to keep them going is people posting.

So there's that.

Games? The philosophy section is meant for discussing ideas, not banned members... Should we not discuss anything because Lark is afraid?

 

[Luminous]

[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION] instead of attacking Jack you might wanna define 'manipulation' first. That's the point of this thread anyway

I was about to say...

 

[Coriolis]

How would you define manipulation?

Do you condemn it per se or the intentions are important?

Do people who have been manipulated must be held responsible for their actions?

Merriam-Webster is good enough for me. I am going with the definition that applies to people, based on your OP.

to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage

I prefer people be above board about what they want. I am more than happy to help someone gain their own advantage, especially if in doing so, I can achieve something I want as well. The classic "win-win" scenario. I realize, however, that many people don't operate this way. I prefer not to manipulate others, and will resort to doing so only if other methods seem unlikely to succeed AND the manipulation won't ultimately harm them.

The funny part is, we're not actually opposed to being manipulated if it makes us feel good. But people don't like feeling stupid. How could I fall for that feels worse I wager than how could you do that to me? I dunno. As for intentions, well, everyone always has the best of them don't they?

I object to any attempt to manipulate me, even/especially if done through trying to make me feel good. I would rather someone try to make me feel stupid, actually, because I can see through that quite quickly - not that I never do anything stupid, but it is easy to unearth when I really have. Attempting to manipulate me is a sure way to lose my respect, and my cooperation unless that would be tantamount to biting off my nose to spite my face. (Yes, I have found myself in such situations.)

 

[The Cat]

I object to any attempt to manipulate me, even/especially if done through trying to make me feel good. I would rather someone try to make me feel stupid, actually, because I can see through that quite quickly - not that I never do anything stupid, but it is easy to unearth when I really have. Attempting to manipulate me is a sure way to lose my respect, and my cooperation unless that would be tantamount to biting off my nose to spite my face. (Yes, I have found myself in such situations.)

I object to it too, still doesnt change that its a thing. Run from it or learn from it. Fight it and deny it. Like it or not believe it or not, just like me, your opinions will do little to change reality. Only color it. I wish things were different. But as theyre not. I dont seem much value in throwing someone else off the cliff for something I have the capacity for myself. Which I believe EVERYONE does. Intentionally unintentionally. I've been on both sides. I've been manipulated, and I've learned it as a consequence. But just like this conversation is a manipulation, this thread, the forum, the whole of civilization; its all a manipulation. People trying to make things just a little bit more like they want it for them and theirs.

 

[Lib]

I was about to say...

We must be soul sisters

 

[Maou]

Manipulation to me is tricking/convincing people to doing what you want. It can be harmful, helpful, or neutral. But on the other side of the same coin, you have support. Support is an example of positive manipulation. Social behaviors are ultimately selfish. You may think you are helping someone, but deep down its for your own satisfaction of wanting to feel accepted and loved.

I agree with Jack that manipulation is part of everything, its what it means to be a social creature.

 

[Tilt]

I used to consider myself highly manipulative but my therapist wants me to reframe as "strategic"/"tactical". I don't know if there is really a difference or if it's just semantics.