It seems to me that once we get away from obviously problematic situations (such as blackmail), the distinction is going to be in intent, which is never uncontroversial.
Agreed. But is there any point beyond expressing opprobrium in having two words if you’re not really talking about anything except your own feelings? What I’m really asking is whether a behaviourist along the lines of B.F. Skinner would have been able to distinguish the two concepts. If not, it goes in the “may need to phrase this differently depending on audience but no actual difference in facts or anticipations” category.
The fact that acts A and B inspire different reactions from the community (e.g., acceptance, approval, punishment, etc.) is a meaningful distinction in behaviorist terms.
It seems to me that once we get away from obviously problematic situations (such as blackmail), the distinction is going to be in intent, which is never uncontroversial.
Agreed. But is there any point beyond expressing opprobrium in having two words if you’re not really talking about anything except your own feelings? What I’m really asking is whether a behaviourist along the lines of B.F. Skinner would have been able to distinguish the two concepts. If not, it goes in the “may need to phrase this differently depending on audience but no actual difference in facts or anticipations” category.
It’s been a long time since I logged into LW; I just saw this. Actually, I released a book this year in which I analyze manipulation fairly extensively through the lens of the pickup artist subculture. It’s called Confessions of a Pickup Artist Chaser: http://clarissethorn.com/blog/2012/03/08/confessions-of-a-pickup-artist-chaser-now-available/
The fact that acts A and B inspire different reactions from the community (e.g., acceptance, approval, punishment, etc.) is a meaningful distinction in behaviorist terms.