Perhaps you can expand on this because I do not see how it’s functionally different from what I said.
You spoke about the equivalent would be the therapist talking to people in the enviroment of the patient that are external to the therapist. A chaperone doesn’t change things in the enviroment of the protein that are external to it to make the enviroment interact with the protein in a good way.
I understand the intention of the therapist is to be like the chaperone. But your analogy seems to be between the chaperone and what the therapist actually does.
There are reasons why the phrase holding space is frequently used to describe this kind of communication as something that the therapist does.
There are things in the field of alternative communication that are hard to communicate. I’m not sure whether there’s much more that I can say at this point if what I have already written doesn’t bring the idea across.
therapist participates in is literally nonmanipulative
Words have a bunch of literal meanings. The literal meaning that it’s about is (3) at webster: “: “to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one’s purpose”. In this case the therapist doesn’t have a particular purpose towards which they want the patient to change.
I’ll make this last comment to clarify my position and if you want to reply, I’ll let you have the last word (I say this with sincerity and not in a passive-aggressive manner!)
First of all, I feel like you’re continuing to defend the idea of nonmanipulative communication. To make it clear, I’m not questioning whether it exists or is useful or anything at all. I’m questioning the idea that the chaperone-protein analogy is actually analogous to any sort of communication.
You spoke about the equivalent would be the therapist talking to people in the enviroment of the patient that are external to the therapist. A chaperone doesn’t change things in the enviroment of the protein that are external to it to make the enviroment interact with the protein in a good way.
Hmm.
I don’t feel as if that’s exactly material to the point at hand. The main point is that the chaperone doesn’t interact with the protein in any way. It’s impossible for a human to be like the chaperone and for the human to communicate with the “protein”.
However, I will point out that I don’t mean to claim exactly what you seem to think I mean to claim. My only claim is that the therapist interacting with people other than patient, without interacting with the patient, would be somewhat analogous to the chaperone. That is as far as it goes. That doesn’t go far enough to become a useful analogy because the chaperone—protein relationship is not equivalent to any sort of communication.
There are reasons why the phrase holding space is frequently used to describe this kind of communication as something that the therapist does.
There are things in the field of alternative communication that are hard to communicate. I’m not sure whether there’s much more that I can say at this point if what I have already written doesn’t bring the idea across.
I think you’re still sidestepping the point here. “Things in the field of alternative communication” have almost no bearing on the point of my comments.
My whole point is that the chaperone-protein “relationship” is not communication at all. There is no special type of communication that is not communication.
(You can probably make the argument that the protein communicates one-way with the chaperone. How does the chaperone “know” where to be? I do not know. However, this is impossible to analogize with the type of communication you’re analogizing with.)
In this case the therapist doesn’t have a particular purpose towards which they want the patient to change.
Sure, I agree.
My comments do not attempt to dispute that. My point is that, I do not think you made the case for this definition of (or any of the definitions of) “manipulative” because 1) the chaperone is not analogous to communication of the type you describe and 2) your post largely hangs on this analogy.
If you take away the analogy, your post amounts to the assertion that non-manipulative communication exists.
You spoke about the equivalent would be the therapist talking to people in the enviroment of the patient that are external to the therapist. A chaperone doesn’t change things in the enviroment of the protein that are external to it to make the enviroment interact with the protein in a good way.
There are reasons why the phrase holding space is frequently used to describe this kind of communication as something that the therapist does.
There are things in the field of alternative communication that are hard to communicate. I’m not sure whether there’s much more that I can say at this point if what I have already written doesn’t bring the idea across.
Words have a bunch of literal meanings. The literal meaning that it’s about is (3) at webster: “: “to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one’s purpose”. In this case the therapist doesn’t have a particular purpose towards which they want the patient to change.
I’ll make this last comment to clarify my position and if you want to reply, I’ll let you have the last word (I say this with sincerity and not in a passive-aggressive manner!)
First of all, I feel like you’re continuing to defend the idea of nonmanipulative communication. To make it clear, I’m not questioning whether it exists or is useful or anything at all. I’m questioning the idea that the chaperone-protein analogy is actually analogous to any sort of communication.
Hmm.
I don’t feel as if that’s exactly material to the point at hand. The main point is that the chaperone doesn’t interact with the protein in any way. It’s impossible for a human to be like the chaperone and for the human to communicate with the “protein”.
However, I will point out that I don’t mean to claim exactly what you seem to think I mean to claim. My only claim is that the therapist interacting with people other than patient, without interacting with the patient, would be somewhat analogous to the chaperone. That is as far as it goes. That doesn’t go far enough to become a useful analogy because the chaperone—protein relationship is not equivalent to any sort of communication.
I think you’re still sidestepping the point here. “Things in the field of alternative communication” have almost no bearing on the point of my comments.
My whole point is that the chaperone-protein “relationship” is not communication at all. There is no special type of communication that is not communication.
(You can probably make the argument that the protein communicates one-way with the chaperone. How does the chaperone “know” where to be? I do not know. However, this is impossible to analogize with the type of communication you’re analogizing with.)
Sure, I agree.
My comments do not attempt to dispute that. My point is that, I do not think you made the case for this definition of (or any of the definitions of) “manipulative” because 1) the chaperone is not analogous to communication of the type you describe and 2) your post largely hangs on this analogy.
If you take away the analogy, your post amounts to the assertion that non-manipulative communication exists.