See my above comment, I manage to subvert Basic Human conversation fairly well in real life.
I empathize with all of your complaints. Doing things like explicitly pointing out when you’re manipulating other people (like when I said I empathize with all of your complaints) while still qualifying that within the bounds of the truth (like I will do right now, because despite the manipulativeness of disclosure involved my empathy was still real [although you have no real reason to believe so and acknowledge that {although that acknowledgement was yet another example of manipulation ([{etc}]) }]).
For another less self referential example, see the paragraph I wrote way above this where I explicitly pointed out some problems of the norms involved with apologies, but then proceeded to apologize anyway. I think that one worked very well. My apology for apologizing is yet another example, that one also worked fairly well.
(I hope the fact that I’m explicitly telling you all of this verifies my good intentions, that is what the technique depends upon, also I don’t want you to hate me based on what is a legitimate desire to help [please cross apply the above self referential infinitely recursive disclaimer].)
Although in real life, I’m much less explicit about maniuplation, I just give it a subtle head nob but people usually seem to understand because of things like body language, etc. It probably loses some of its effectiveness without the ability to be subtle (or when you explain the concept itself while simultaneously using the concept, like I attempted to do in this very comment). Explaining the exact parts of the technique is hard without being able to give an example which is hard because I can’t give the example through text because of the nature of real life face-to-face communication.
See my above comment, I manage to subvert Basic Human conversation fairly well in real life.
I empathize with all of your complaints. Doing things like explicitly pointing out when you’re manipulating other people (like when I said I empathize with all of your complaints) while still qualifying that within the bounds of the truth (like I will do right now, because despite the manipulativeness of disclosure involved my empathy was still real [although you have no real reason to believe so and acknowledge that {although that acknowledgement was yet another example of manipulation ([{etc}]) }]).
For another less self referential example, see the paragraph I wrote way above this where I explicitly pointed out some problems of the norms involved with apologies, but then proceeded to apologize anyway. I think that one worked very well. My apology for apologizing is yet another example, that one also worked fairly well.
(I hope the fact that I’m explicitly telling you all of this verifies my good intentions, that is what the technique depends upon, also I don’t want you to hate me based on what is a legitimate desire to help [please cross apply the above self referential infinitely recursive disclaimer].)
Although in real life, I’m much less explicit about maniuplation, I just give it a subtle head nob but people usually seem to understand because of things like body language, etc. It probably loses some of its effectiveness without the ability to be subtle (or when you explain the concept itself while simultaneously using the concept, like I attempted to do in this very comment). Explaining the exact parts of the technique is hard without being able to give an example which is hard because I can’t give the example through text because of the nature of real life face-to-face communication.
Blargh,.