This conversation on manipulation I have great interest in. Of course, since the word carries a lot of confused meaning for you, let us replace it with and discuss solely the following sentiment:
Making another think and or act in a fashion that directly results from an intentional behaviour or action of the Initiating Party. The Initiating Party (IP) accurately predicts that their initiating behaviour or action will effect a certain predicted fashion of thoughts or actions on the part of the Changed Party (CP). The IP continues to knowingly control the CP’s: perception of the IP; thought patterns; and or actions and behaviour. The IP does not inform the CP that they are being controlled by the IP.
My main objection to the above is its dishonesty. Why do I value honesty? Honesty enables two parties to come closer to actually understanding each other—which is already impossible enough a task. I value these interactions (as they make me happy), and thus I value honesty.
Assume one enters an interaction wishing solely for company with another (hopefully interesting) human being—which, again, is the valued result.
In an honest interaction, Alice sends a signal (of any sort—though radio waves would probably not be received) to Bob, Bob responds, and Alice has interacted with Bob.
In a dishonest interaction between Alice and Bob, Alice sends a contrived signal to Bob, having predicted Bob’s response, either receives a confirmation of their prediction or does not. In the former case, they have not interacted, but experimented. In the former case, Bob has interacted with Alice-attempting-to-subversively-control-Bob (henceforth false-Alice). If Alice desires an interaction with Bob, and Bob can only reach false-Alice, then Alice’s goals are not being met.
Indeed, if Alice acts as false-Alice enough Alice may very well become false-Alice. However, Alice values interpersonal interactions. As false-Alice’s interactions are either not interactions at all but rather experiments, or failed attempts to control another party, Alice does not wish to become false-Alice.
Normally, manipulation has some sort of external goal. Alice does not manipulate Bob merely for the joy of manipulating Bob; rather, Alice manipulates Bob because she wants Bob to help her accomplish some sort of goal.
This is incompatible with entering an interaction wishing solely for company. If Alice acts like IP, therefore, this implies that she is either inconsistant, or that she has some other wish (for example, she may wish for the appearance of company).
This conversation on manipulation I have great interest in. Of course, since the word carries a lot of confused meaning for you, let us replace it with and discuss solely the following sentiment:
Making another think and or act in a fashion that directly results from an intentional behaviour or action of the Initiating Party. The Initiating Party (IP) accurately predicts that their initiating behaviour or action will effect a certain predicted fashion of thoughts or actions on the part of the Changed Party (CP). The IP continues to knowingly control the CP’s: perception of the IP; thought patterns; and or actions and behaviour. The IP does not inform the CP that they are being controlled by the IP.
My main objection to the above is its dishonesty. Why do I value honesty? Honesty enables two parties to come closer to actually understanding each other—which is already impossible enough a task. I value these interactions (as they make me happy), and thus I value honesty.
Assume one enters an interaction wishing solely for company with another (hopefully interesting) human being—which, again, is the valued result.
In an honest interaction, Alice sends a signal (of any sort—though radio waves would probably not be received) to Bob, Bob responds, and Alice has interacted with Bob.
In a dishonest interaction between Alice and Bob, Alice sends a contrived signal to Bob, having predicted Bob’s response, either receives a confirmation of their prediction or does not. In the former case, they have not interacted, but experimented. In the former case, Bob has interacted with Alice-attempting-to-subversively-control-Bob (henceforth false-Alice). If Alice desires an interaction with Bob, and Bob can only reach false-Alice, then Alice’s goals are not being met.
Indeed, if Alice acts as false-Alice enough Alice may very well become false-Alice. However, Alice values interpersonal interactions. As false-Alice’s interactions are either not interactions at all but rather experiments, or failed attempts to control another party, Alice does not wish to become false-Alice.
Why should Alice wish to act like IP?
Normally, manipulation has some sort of external goal. Alice does not manipulate Bob merely for the joy of manipulating Bob; rather, Alice manipulates Bob because she wants Bob to help her accomplish some sort of goal.
This is incompatible with entering an interaction wishing solely for company. If Alice acts like IP, therefore, this implies that she is either inconsistant, or that she has some other wish (for example, she may wish for the appearance of company).