My objection is basically that it’s disrespectful (to the point of being unethical) to do this sort of thing to someone without their consent. As with many such things, there are going to be cases where someone has not or cannot actually give consent, and so we have to ask whether or not they would do so if they had all the facts on the table. In these cases, it’s a tricky question whether or not you can assume someone’s consent, and it often best to err on the side of not assuming consent.
I notice that you put this in terms of someone you love manipulating your habits in accordance with your values. That sounds a lot like a case where someone is safe assuming your consent.
I was objecting, in the OP, to the lack of any discussion of what seems to me to be the central moral question in this kind of activity, as well as what I took to be the view that this kind of consent can be quite broadly assumed. With some very few exceptions, I think this is unethical.
The thing is, other people’s actions and reactions will always sway our behavior in a particular direction, and our actions will do the same to others. We evolved to speak and act in such a way as to get allies, friends, mates, etc. - ie, make people like us so we can then get them to do things for us. Those who were good at getting others to like and help them reproduced more frequently than those who were not. Even if I were to agree that influencing others’ behavior without their explicit knowledge and consent is unethical, I can’t not do that.
My every smile, frown, thank-you, sorry, and nagging criticism will do something to affect the behavior of others, and they won’t be thinking “Ah, she thanked me, this will have the effect of reinforcing this behavior.” So if I can’t avoid it, the next best thing would be to influence skillfully, not clumsily. In both cases, the other person’s behavior is being influenced, and in both cases they are not explicitly aware of this. The only difference in the second case is that I know what I’m doing.
I definitely understand where you’re coming from. I can empathize with the sense of violation and disrespect, and I agree that in a lot of situations such behavior is problematic, but I probably wouldn’t agree with you on what situations, or how often they occur. This was my biggest problem with PUA when I first heard about it. I found it horrifyingly offensive that men might take advantage of the security holes in my brain to get me to sleep with them. But...confident, suave men are attractive. If a man were “naturally” that way, then he’s “just sexy,” but if someone who didn’t initially start out that way explicitly studies how to behave in an attractive manner, that’s creepy.
Why? It’s not like no one’s ever allowed to try to get anyone to sleep with them, and it’s not like I would favor a strict rule of a complete, explicit disclaimer explaining, “Everything I say is with the sole intention of convincing you to have sex with me.” (Such a disclaimer wouldn’t even be true, necessarily. Human interaction is complex and multi-faceted, and any given conversation would have multiple motives, even if one dominates.)
So what’s the difference between a man who’s “just sexy” and a “creepy PUA” who behaves the same way? (We’ll ignore some of the blatant misogyny and unattractive bitterness among many PUA, because many women find the abstract concept itself creepy, with or without misogyny.)
I think it’s the knowledge differential, which causes a very skewed power balance. The naturally confident, extroverted man is unconsciously playing out a dance which he never really examined, and the woman he’s chatting up is doing the same. When this man is replaced with a hyper self-aware PUA, the actions are the same, but the woman is in the dark while the man can see exactly why what he says causes her to react the way she does.
It’s like a chess game between Gary Kasporov and a guy who only vaguely realizes he’s playing chess. Yes, it’s unfair. But I think the more practical solution is not making Kasporov handicap himself, but teaching the other guy how to play chess.
I think the line between conscious and unconscious influencing of behavior is thinner and more fluid than you seem to say, more like a sliding scale of social self-awareness. And the line between manipulation and self-improvement is even thinner. What if I decided to be much nicer to everyone all of a sudden because I wanted people to like me? The brain is not a perfect deceiver; soon I’ll probably fake it til I make it, and everyone’s lives would be more pleasant.
In the end, I treat emotional manipulation (which involves changing one’s emotional responses to certain behaviors, rather than telling people factual lies) the way I treat offense. It’s just not practical to ban offending people. I think it’s more useful to be aware of what offends us, and moderate our responses to it. In the same way, it’s not possible to ban influencing other people’s behavior without their explicit knowledge; the naturally sexy man does this just as much as the PUA does. It’s possible to have a norm of taking the other person’s wishes into account, and it’s possible to study the security holes in our own minds and try to patch them up.
So if I can’t avoid it, the next best thing would be to influence skillfully, not clumsily. In both cases, the other person’s behavior is being influenced, and in both cases they are not explicitly aware of this. The only difference in the second case is that I know what I’m doing.
I think there is a difference. You’re right that all our behavior has or can have a reinforcing effect on other people. But smiles, and frowns, and thank-yous and such aren’t therefore just reinforcers. When I smile at someone, I express something like affection, and if I don’t feel any affection, I smile falsely. All these kinds of behaviors are the sorts of things that can be done honestly or falsely, and we ought to do them honestly. We do this with children, but with adults it’s disrespectful.
It might be possible to smile at someone for the sake of reinforcing some behavior of theirs, and to feel affection all the while, but my sense is that either a smile is an expression of affection, or it is done for some ulterior end.
I think your initial reaction to PUA is spot on. It’s a monstrous practice.
my sense is that either a smile is an expression of affection, or it is done for some ulterior end.
Here’s where I think human thinking is more complicated, muddled, and mutually-reinforcing than you say. In the example of saying “Thank you,” is it really so inconceivable that someone might say “Thank you,” while thinking (or, more likely, wordlessly intuiting) something along the lines of “I’m grateful and happy that this person did this, and I would like them to do it again”? In fact, much of these “reinforcement” or “animal training” tips, while phrased repulsively, mostly end up advising, “Remember to consistently express the gratitude you feel , and refrain from expressing any annoyance you might feel.”
Here’s what I might think, if I were the wife in that example: “Not only does nagging and expressing annoyance when I feel my reasonable expectations were not met belittle and irritate my husband, it doesn’t even work. He still doesn’t put the damn clothes in the damn hamper! We’re both less happy, and I didn’t even get him to change.” If I understand you correctly, that last part, where I discuss the efficacy of my nagging at getting me what I want, sounds dishonestly manipulative to you.
We all expect things from others, and we all care about others. Is it always, inevitably wrong to sully considerations of caring/being a nice person with considerations of ensuring your expectations and needs get met? Or is it that the only legitimate way to get other human beings to meet your expectations is to sit them down and explain it all to them, even if they’re annoyed and made unhappy by this Talk and its lack of emotional salience means it doesn’t work?
Saying “Thank you” and ignoring the clothes that don’t get put in the hamper works. It bypasses defensive, angry, annoyed reactions to nagging. It accurately expresses that clothes-in-the-hamper make me happy—in fact, more directly than the nagging method did, because the nagging method required the husband to infer that clothes-on-floor causes irate nagging, therefore clothes-in-the-hamper must cause happiness and gratitude. He’s happy, because he feels appreciated and doesn’t feel like he’s a teenager again being prodded by his mother. I’m happy, because I don’t feel like a grumpy middle-aged mother of a teenager. The clothes are in the hamper.
Was it wrong that I started all this because I was annoyed at having to nag him and wanted a more reliable way to get him to put his clothes in the hamper? Even though the (empirically sound) advice only told me to frame the same content—“Floor bad, hamper good”—in a more positive light, expressing happiness and gratitude when things go right, rather than irritation and disappointment when things go wrong? Even though once I shook myself of the nagging mindset the happiness and gratitude was not grudgingly given, was not an inaccurate portrayal of my now-happier mental state, was not intended to belittle my husband, but only to make us both happier AND get him to put the clothes in the hamper?
My objection is basically that it’s disrespectful (to the point of being unethical) to do this sort of thing to someone without their consent. As with many such things, there are going to be cases where someone has not or cannot actually give consent, and so we have to ask whether or not they would do so if they had all the facts on the table. In these cases, it’s a tricky question whether or not you can assume someone’s consent, and it often best to err on the side of not assuming consent.
I notice that you put this in terms of someone you love manipulating your habits in accordance with your values. That sounds a lot like a case where someone is safe assuming your consent.
I was objecting, in the OP, to the lack of any discussion of what seems to me to be the central moral question in this kind of activity, as well as what I took to be the view that this kind of consent can be quite broadly assumed. With some very few exceptions, I think this is unethical.
The thing is, other people’s actions and reactions will always sway our behavior in a particular direction, and our actions will do the same to others. We evolved to speak and act in such a way as to get allies, friends, mates, etc. - ie, make people like us so we can then get them to do things for us. Those who were good at getting others to like and help them reproduced more frequently than those who were not. Even if I were to agree that influencing others’ behavior without their explicit knowledge and consent is unethical, I can’t not do that.
My every smile, frown, thank-you, sorry, and nagging criticism will do something to affect the behavior of others, and they won’t be thinking “Ah, she thanked me, this will have the effect of reinforcing this behavior.” So if I can’t avoid it, the next best thing would be to influence skillfully, not clumsily. In both cases, the other person’s behavior is being influenced, and in both cases they are not explicitly aware of this. The only difference in the second case is that I know what I’m doing.
I definitely understand where you’re coming from. I can empathize with the sense of violation and disrespect, and I agree that in a lot of situations such behavior is problematic, but I probably wouldn’t agree with you on what situations, or how often they occur. This was my biggest problem with PUA when I first heard about it. I found it horrifyingly offensive that men might take advantage of the security holes in my brain to get me to sleep with them. But...confident, suave men are attractive. If a man were “naturally” that way, then he’s “just sexy,” but if someone who didn’t initially start out that way explicitly studies how to behave in an attractive manner, that’s creepy.
Why? It’s not like no one’s ever allowed to try to get anyone to sleep with them, and it’s not like I would favor a strict rule of a complete, explicit disclaimer explaining, “Everything I say is with the sole intention of convincing you to have sex with me.” (Such a disclaimer wouldn’t even be true, necessarily. Human interaction is complex and multi-faceted, and any given conversation would have multiple motives, even if one dominates.)
So what’s the difference between a man who’s “just sexy” and a “creepy PUA” who behaves the same way? (We’ll ignore some of the blatant misogyny and unattractive bitterness among many PUA, because many women find the abstract concept itself creepy, with or without misogyny.)
I think it’s the knowledge differential, which causes a very skewed power balance. The naturally confident, extroverted man is unconsciously playing out a dance which he never really examined, and the woman he’s chatting up is doing the same. When this man is replaced with a hyper self-aware PUA, the actions are the same, but the woman is in the dark while the man can see exactly why what he says causes her to react the way she does.
It’s like a chess game between Gary Kasporov and a guy who only vaguely realizes he’s playing chess. Yes, it’s unfair. But I think the more practical solution is not making Kasporov handicap himself, but teaching the other guy how to play chess.
I think the line between conscious and unconscious influencing of behavior is thinner and more fluid than you seem to say, more like a sliding scale of social self-awareness. And the line between manipulation and self-improvement is even thinner. What if I decided to be much nicer to everyone all of a sudden because I wanted people to like me? The brain is not a perfect deceiver; soon I’ll probably fake it til I make it, and everyone’s lives would be more pleasant.
In the end, I treat emotional manipulation (which involves changing one’s emotional responses to certain behaviors, rather than telling people factual lies) the way I treat offense. It’s just not practical to ban offending people. I think it’s more useful to be aware of what offends us, and moderate our responses to it. In the same way, it’s not possible to ban influencing other people’s behavior without their explicit knowledge; the naturally sexy man does this just as much as the PUA does. It’s possible to have a norm of taking the other person’s wishes into account, and it’s possible to study the security holes in our own minds and try to patch them up.
I think there is a difference. You’re right that all our behavior has or can have a reinforcing effect on other people. But smiles, and frowns, and thank-yous and such aren’t therefore just reinforcers. When I smile at someone, I express something like affection, and if I don’t feel any affection, I smile falsely. All these kinds of behaviors are the sorts of things that can be done honestly or falsely, and we ought to do them honestly. We do this with children, but with adults it’s disrespectful.
It might be possible to smile at someone for the sake of reinforcing some behavior of theirs, and to feel affection all the while, but my sense is that either a smile is an expression of affection, or it is done for some ulterior end.
I think your initial reaction to PUA is spot on. It’s a monstrous practice.
Here’s where I think human thinking is more complicated, muddled, and mutually-reinforcing than you say. In the example of saying “Thank you,” is it really so inconceivable that someone might say “Thank you,” while thinking (or, more likely, wordlessly intuiting) something along the lines of “I’m grateful and happy that this person did this, and I would like them to do it again”? In fact, much of these “reinforcement” or “animal training” tips, while phrased repulsively, mostly end up advising, “Remember to consistently express the gratitude you feel , and refrain from expressing any annoyance you might feel.”
Here’s what I might think, if I were the wife in that example: “Not only does nagging and expressing annoyance when I feel my reasonable expectations were not met belittle and irritate my husband, it doesn’t even work. He still doesn’t put the damn clothes in the damn hamper! We’re both less happy, and I didn’t even get him to change.” If I understand you correctly, that last part, where I discuss the efficacy of my nagging at getting me what I want, sounds dishonestly manipulative to you.
We all expect things from others, and we all care about others. Is it always, inevitably wrong to sully considerations of caring/being a nice person with considerations of ensuring your expectations and needs get met? Or is it that the only legitimate way to get other human beings to meet your expectations is to sit them down and explain it all to them, even if they’re annoyed and made unhappy by this Talk and its lack of emotional salience means it doesn’t work?
Saying “Thank you” and ignoring the clothes that don’t get put in the hamper works. It bypasses defensive, angry, annoyed reactions to nagging. It accurately expresses that clothes-in-the-hamper make me happy—in fact, more directly than the nagging method did, because the nagging method required the husband to infer that clothes-on-floor causes irate nagging, therefore clothes-in-the-hamper must cause happiness and gratitude. He’s happy, because he feels appreciated and doesn’t feel like he’s a teenager again being prodded by his mother. I’m happy, because I don’t feel like a grumpy middle-aged mother of a teenager. The clothes are in the hamper.
Was it wrong that I started all this because I was annoyed at having to nag him and wanted a more reliable way to get him to put his clothes in the hamper? Even though the (empirically sound) advice only told me to frame the same content—“Floor bad, hamper good”—in a more positive light, expressing happiness and gratitude when things go right, rather than irritation and disappointment when things go wrong? Even though once I shook myself of the nagging mindset the happiness and gratitude was not grudgingly given, was not an inaccurate portrayal of my now-happier mental state, was not intended to belittle my husband, but only to make us both happier AND get him to put the clothes in the hamper?