Even if it genuinely made the object of your love happier?
The essence of all persuasion, manipulation, whatever you call it, is giving others what they want; sometimes knowing what they want better than they themselves.
If they are as cold and calculatingly manipulative as you imply, most people who do PUA would almost definitely have no problem being kind, committing and caring towards women if that worked, i.e. made women happy to be with you.
In one sense, a con-man who sells you a fake medicine to treat a serious affliction is “giving you what you want”. After all, you willingly paid for the medicine, and — not knowing that it is fake, and expecting it is a real cure — you believe that you are better off than before the exchange. You feel better having bought it; in the moment, you are glad to have bought it.
But in another sense, he is not “giving you what you want”, because your goal in buying the medicine was to get a cure for the affliction, and fake medicine won’t do that. Once you find out that you have been defrauded, you are not glad any more, but probably angry or indignant at being deceived. Not very many people would react to discovering that they have been cheated, by fondly recalling how nice it felt to believe that they would be cured.
That website is a PUA website, so probably not what Ritalin is looking for.
More importantly, I couldn’t follow that advice if I tried. I don’t think it’s even possible to do that if you’re actually in love with someone.
Even if it genuinely made the object of your love happier?
The essence of all persuasion, manipulation, whatever you call it, is giving others what they want; sometimes knowing what they want better than they themselves.
If they are as cold and calculatingly manipulative as you imply, most people who do PUA would almost definitely have no problem being kind, committing and caring towards women if that worked, i.e. made women happy to be with you.
Not at all. Consider the standard FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) -- it is manipulation, it is clearly not giving the subject what it wants.
This seems like a dictionary dispute.
In one sense, a con-man who sells you a fake medicine to treat a serious affliction is “giving you what you want”. After all, you willingly paid for the medicine, and — not knowing that it is fake, and expecting it is a real cure — you believe that you are better off than before the exchange. You feel better having bought it; in the moment, you are glad to have bought it.
But in another sense, he is not “giving you what you want”, because your goal in buying the medicine was to get a cure for the affliction, and fake medicine won’t do that. Once you find out that you have been defrauded, you are not glad any more, but probably angry or indignant at being deceived. Not very many people would react to discovering that they have been cheated, by fondly recalling how nice it felt to believe that they would be cured.
No, I don’t think this is a meaningful sense of “what you want”. In the same way giving your wallet to an armed robber is “what you want”, too.
I agree; I wouldn’t use the word that way — but that notion of “want” would explain the way miekw is using it above.
Do you think that it’s completely implausible that someone would want to experience those emotions too?
I’m not claiming you’ll have much success giving only those, but the wider the range of emotions you can incite, the better.
The claim that most would want this is more extreme and more difficult to find evidence for. I have no evidence beyond my own experience.
It’s plausible, I guess, but that’s not what actually happens in 99% cases of manipulation through FUD.