IMO, the views that rational analysis and manipulation in social context (esp. with regard to mating) is immoral or dehumanizing is based on observations that a lot of people who consciously employ such techniques often have the wrong objective function.
Consider this analogue situation: If you raise children, you definitely do a lot of rational thinking about their needs, long term interests and try help them to develop, be safe, etc. This requires a lot of objective considerations, prioritizing, even conscious manipulations on several different levels. Nobody would say that this is wrong, dehumanizing or out of place. The reason that this is intuitively accepted is that you probably do this for the right reason: in the long term interest of your children. If you have the right objective function, it is not just fine, it is required.
I think that other social interactions should not be different in this respect. You should consciously employ techniques, objectively analyze and manipulate situations, but your objective function should include the interests of your peers as well. They will sense if you genuinely care about them: Even if you manipulate them, they will be still thankful later if it happened in their long term interests.
You don’t become a “manipulative bastard” just because you are manipulative, but if you are also a bastard.
Yes, I agree 100%. One of the most accurate signals that shows when I trust and respect a person highly is that I not only allow but encourage them to manipulate me, because I believe that it will be to my benefit to do so. I’m pretty sure I’m unusually explicit about the fact that I do that, but I don’t think I’m especially unusual in doing so.
I completely agree with what you are getting at, but I think we should use a more neutral word like “influence” rather than “manipulation,” because manipulation holds negative connotations for many people, or is considered unethical by definition.
The reason that this is intuitively accepted is that you probably do this for the right reason: in the long term interest of your children.
While the relationship between people in socializing and dating is different from the relationship between parent and child, I think your general point stands that people can ethically engage in influence when they consider the interests of the people they are influencing with.
A common rejoinder is something like the following:
“So you think you know what is good for other people, huh? Huh??”
At least, I think we can say that considering the interests of others to the best of your ability is at least necessary to engage in ethical forms of influence, if not sufficient.
Even though people may be wrong in their estimates of the interests of others, that doesn’t mean that reasonable consideration of the interests of others can’t be made that assess the expected value (for the other person) of influencing them to be positive.
Is there another ethical standard that is more restrictive, that doesn’t completely paralyze us poor folks who actually care about ethics, leaving us to stay at home or in the corner of the party leaving the people we want to date at the mercy of those without such qualms?
I used the word “manipulation” as a provocation to get across my point. Exactly those negative connotations made that provocation possible. So my use of the term “manipulation” was already a manipulation of the reader.
Although “influencing” is a broader notion, it is often too general.
Let us consider the following situation: I tell my 2 years old daughter: “Do you want me to read you a story, or you rather watch some video before going to sleep?”
This is a very common technique: focusing her attention on something pleasant in order to make her do something else I want. More sophisticated variants of the same trick work even with adults, for example this is the base of all “bait and switch” scams.
I think most people would agree: I manipulated my daughter. (“Influencing” is also true, but it sounds like a strange euphemism in this context.) Still, I did nothing wrong. “Manipulating” just means that I consciously employed some technique to modify her behavior in a way she did not perceive consciously.
One could argue that manipulation is not necessary with adults, because it is always more efficient to argue rationally, so manipulation necessarily means scam.
I don’t buy that, since it could even make sense to employ mind hacks on your own future self: for example enter a situation you know you won’t like just to force yourself to achieve some more important goals. I think the term “I scammed myself” does not make much sense in such a situation.
Women are great manipulators. They employ all kinds of tricks to make men, each other and children to do stuff they deem desirable while avoiding conflicts. On average, they outperform the average man in this respect by great lengths, which makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary point of view. Funnily enough, women also are attracted to manipulative men, which again, makes just as much sense from an evolutionary point of view. :)
So, when women say, they like “charming men”, they really mean: “shameless manipulators”. Males that can manipulate well enough to show their genes are worthy enough to be combined with theirs, (at least in this respect).
Still, this does not mean, a “shameless manipulator” has to be a jerk, evil or dehumanizing. It is simply independent. Being unskilled does not imply being ethical, just that one can inflict less harm when trying hard.
This is one aspect of partner dancing I found extremely educational: Leading skills are the parallels of this kind of seductive manipulation in a nonverbal setting. Good leaders can make beginner followers to make what they want by using a set of carefully trained tricks to exploiting her own movement and momentum and modify it subtly at the right time and place to achieve their goals. It is very similar to soft martial arts that employ the same techniques in a confrontational setting.
See, I was agreeing with you, and then this non-sequitur. Now I’m just confused (and noticing that I’m confused.) Could you maybe … try explaining what you meant there?
IMO, the views that rational analysis and manipulation in social context (esp. with regard to mating) is immoral or dehumanizing is based on observations that a lot of people who consciously employ such techniques often have the wrong objective function.
Consider this analogue situation: If you raise children, you definitely do a lot of rational thinking about their needs, long term interests and try help them to develop, be safe, etc. This requires a lot of objective considerations, prioritizing, even conscious manipulations on several different levels. Nobody would say that this is wrong, dehumanizing or out of place. The reason that this is intuitively accepted is that you probably do this for the right reason: in the long term interest of your children. If you have the right objective function, it is not just fine, it is required.
I think that other social interactions should not be different in this respect. You should consciously employ techniques, objectively analyze and manipulate situations, but your objective function should include the interests of your peers as well. They will sense if you genuinely care about them: Even if you manipulate them, they will be still thankful later if it happened in their long term interests.
You don’t become a “manipulative bastard” just because you are manipulative, but if you are also a bastard.
Yes, I agree 100%. One of the most accurate signals that shows when I trust and respect a person highly is that I not only allow but encourage them to manipulate me, because I believe that it will be to my benefit to do so. I’m pretty sure I’m unusually explicit about the fact that I do that, but I don’t think I’m especially unusual in doing so.
I completely agree with what you are getting at, but I think we should use a more neutral word like “influence” rather than “manipulation,” because manipulation holds negative connotations for many people, or is considered unethical by definition.
While the relationship between people in socializing and dating is different from the relationship between parent and child, I think your general point stands that people can ethically engage in influence when they consider the interests of the people they are influencing with.
A common rejoinder is something like the following:
“So you think you know what is good for other people, huh? Huh??”
At least, I think we can say that considering the interests of others to the best of your ability is at least necessary to engage in ethical forms of influence, if not sufficient.
Even though people may be wrong in their estimates of the interests of others, that doesn’t mean that reasonable consideration of the interests of others can’t be made that assess the expected value (for the other person) of influencing them to be positive.
Is there another ethical standard that is more restrictive, that doesn’t completely paralyze us poor folks who actually care about ethics, leaving us to stay at home or in the corner of the party leaving the people we want to date at the mercy of those without such qualms?
I used the word “manipulation” as a provocation to get across my point. Exactly those negative connotations made that provocation possible. So my use of the term “manipulation” was already a manipulation of the reader.
Although “influencing” is a broader notion, it is often too general.
Let us consider the following situation: I tell my 2 years old daughter: “Do you want me to read you a story, or you rather watch some video before going to sleep?”
This is a very common technique: focusing her attention on something pleasant in order to make her do something else I want. More sophisticated variants of the same trick work even with adults, for example this is the base of all “bait and switch” scams.
I think most people would agree: I manipulated my daughter. (“Influencing” is also true, but it sounds like a strange euphemism in this context.) Still, I did nothing wrong. “Manipulating” just means that I consciously employed some technique to modify her behavior in a way she did not perceive consciously.
One could argue that manipulation is not necessary with adults, because it is always more efficient to argue rationally, so manipulation necessarily means scam.
I don’t buy that, since it could even make sense to employ mind hacks on your own future self: for example enter a situation you know you won’t like just to force yourself to achieve some more important goals. I think the term “I scammed myself” does not make much sense in such a situation.
Women are great manipulators. They employ all kinds of tricks to make men, each other and children to do stuff they deem desirable while avoiding conflicts. On average, they outperform the average man in this respect by great lengths, which makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary point of view. Funnily enough, women also are attracted to manipulative men, which again, makes just as much sense from an evolutionary point of view. :)
So, when women say, they like “charming men”, they really mean: “shameless manipulators”. Males that can manipulate well enough to show their genes are worthy enough to be combined with theirs, (at least in this respect).
Still, this does not mean, a “shameless manipulator” has to be a jerk, evil or dehumanizing. It is simply independent. Being unskilled does not imply being ethical, just that one can inflict less harm when trying hard.
This is one aspect of partner dancing I found extremely educational: Leading skills are the parallels of this kind of seductive manipulation in a nonverbal setting. Good leaders can make beginner followers to make what they want by using a set of carefully trained tricks to exploiting her own movement and momentum and modify it subtly at the right time and place to achieve their goals. It is very similar to soft martial arts that employ the same techniques in a confrontational setting.
See, I was agreeing with you, and then this non-sequitur. Now I’m just confused (and noticing that I’m confused.) Could you maybe … try explaining what you meant there?