Does anybody knows who came up with that sentiment? I’m searching some good quotes that express the idea. Maybe there’s a book or article that steelman’s it?
Not sure if I read it or reinvented it, but seems like one of the Sleight of Mouth NLP patterns.
For example, when someone accuses you of manipulation, you can try the strategy of wild generalization “everything in this universe is manipulation; even when a photon hits an electron, it is manipulating it”, or you can focus on details and insist that each detail taken separately is okay “dude, I just pressed a few keys on my keyboard and clicked a mouse button; either tell me which of those keys was the ‘manipulation’ you are talking about, or quit accusing me of that epiphenomenal bullshit”, or go meta “you know what is manipulation? accusing other people of manipulation!”, etc.
Essentially, the book is a Clever Arguer Handbook. Not sure if it is the exact opposite or LW, or a reverse-psychological way to show you how all the clever arguing is just juggling with the meaningless noises. I haven’t actually read the book, only the summary, but even that already contains a lot of memetic toxins.
Clever arguing is the sort of thing we should try to avoid as much as possible. You might be able to shut someone up by making one of these arguments just by the other person’s lack of available retort, but you aren’t going to actually change their mind or have their feelings about you improve.
Yes. That’s a great description! This specific Dark Art is about how to find the suitable noncentral argument quickly; it provides a few general directions where to look.
Clever arguing is the sort of thing we should try to avoid as much as possible.
Depends. But if the goal is to find the truth, then yes.
you aren’t going to actually change their mind or have their feelings about you improve.
Well, if you do it right, you are going to influence them. That’s exactly why people do it. Of course, if you do it wrong, it may backfire.
For example, when someone accuses you of manipulation, you can try the strategy of wild generalization “everything in this universe is manipulation; even when a photon hits an electron, it is manipulating it”, or you can focus on details and insist that each detail taken separately is okay “dude, I just pressed a few keys on my keyboard and clicked a mouse button; either tell me which of those keys was the ‘manipulation’ you are talking about, or quit accusing me of that epiphenomenal bullshit”, or go meta “you know what is manipulation? accusing other people of manipulation!”, etc.
All deliberate human interaction is manipulation, in something the same way that everything you touch is made of atoms. The issue there isn’t wild generalization, it’s that “manipulation”, as a specific reference for a specific class of human behaviors, is fuzzy to the point of uselessness. It doesn’t carve the world at any useful joints.
I think that notion is implicitely in a lot of places, but I’m seeking for a explicit expression of it that I can reference for an article that I’m writing.
“The striving for significance, this sense of yearning, always points out to us that all psychological phenomena contain a movement that starts from a feeling of inferiority and reach upward. The theory of Individual Psychology of psychological compensation states that the stronger the feeling of inferiority, the higher the goal for personal power.” (From a new translation of “Progress in Individual Psychology,” [1923] a journal article by Alfred Adler, in the AAISF/ATP Archives.
… everything is about the struggle to gain power over others, which can become pathological …
“The soul under pressure of the feeling of inferiority, of the torturing thought that the individual is small and helpless, attempts with all its might to become master over this inferiority complex. Where the feeling of inferiority is highly intensified to the degree that the child believes that he will never be able to compensate for his weakness, the danger arises that in his striving for overcompensation, will aim to overbalance the scales. The striving for power and dominance may become exaggerated and intensified until it must be called pathological. The ordinary relationships of life will never satisfy such children. Well adapted to their goal, their movements will have to have a certain grandiose gesture about them. They seek to secure their position in life with extraordinary efforts, with greater haste and impatience, with more intense impulses, without consideration of any one else. Through these exaggerated movements toward their exaggerated goal of dominance these children become more noticeable, their attacks on the lives of others necessitate that they defend their own lives. They are against the world, and the world is against them.” (From “The Feeling of Inferiority and the Striving for Recognition,” [1927] a journal article by Alfred Adler, in the AAISF/ATP Archives.
According to those quotes a lot of people are manipulative because of inferiority complexes.
The ordinary relationships of life will never satisfy such children.
That suggests that he only talks about some children and not all children. Some children are manipulative for those reasons but that doens’t mean all of them are.
Even if that’s true, I don’t think it implies that all “All human interaction is manipulation”. It only implies that a lot of it is at it’s driven by an inferiority complex.
I think “all human interaction is manipulation” is false on its face. I was putting forward Adler as a candidate for being a modern root of this meme. His teachings are still quite influential.
I think “all human interaction is manipulation” is false on its face.
The fact that you consider a statement to be false on its face doesn’t mean that there nobody in support of it. Pointing me to a different meme is besides the point.
Please be a little bit more charitable. He pointed you to a quite relevant quote and gave examples. That this source doesn’t exactly cover what you want covered is not his fault. He can’t read your mind.
I think that clarity of distinguishing different ideas from each other is useful. I think that it’s bad to be to vague to be wrong. In this case I think that _rpd simply switched from one meme to a different meme. I don’t think it takes mind reading to see the difference between A: “all human interaction is manipulation” and B: “a lot of human interaction is manipulation because people are acting out of inferority” .
A get’s used to justify that being manipulative isn’t bad, because everybody is always manipualtive. B doesn’t lend itself to that conclusion and is thus a completely different meme.
In particular A get’s used that way in this article. Asking for favors that way might be manipulative but that doesn’t matter as all communication is manipulative.
Does anybody knows who came up with that sentiment? I’m searching some good quotes that express the idea. Maybe there’s a book or article that steelman’s it?
Not sure if I read it or reinvented it, but seems like one of the Sleight of Mouth NLP patterns.
For example, when someone accuses you of manipulation, you can try the strategy of wild generalization “everything in this universe is manipulation; even when a photon hits an electron, it is manipulating it”, or you can focus on details and insist that each detail taken separately is okay “dude, I just pressed a few keys on my keyboard and clicked a mouse button; either tell me which of those keys was the ‘manipulation’ you are talking about, or quit accusing me of that epiphenomenal bullshit”, or go meta “you know what is manipulation? accusing other people of manipulation!”, etc.
Essentially, the book is a Clever Arguer Handbook. Not sure if it is the exact opposite or LW, or a reverse-psychological way to show you how all the clever arguing is just juggling with the meaningless noises. I haven’t actually read the book, only the summary, but even that already contains a lot of memetic toxins.
Looks a lot like the Worst Argument in the World.
Clever arguing is the sort of thing we should try to avoid as much as possible. You might be able to shut someone up by making one of these arguments just by the other person’s lack of available retort, but you aren’t going to actually change their mind or have their feelings about you improve.
Yes. That’s a great description! This specific Dark Art is about how to find the suitable noncentral argument quickly; it provides a few general directions where to look.
Depends. But if the goal is to find the truth, then yes.
Well, if you do it right, you are going to influence them. That’s exactly why people do it. Of course, if you do it wrong, it may backfire.
All deliberate human interaction is manipulation, in something the same way that everything you touch is made of atoms. The issue there isn’t wild generalization, it’s that “manipulation”, as a specific reference for a specific class of human behaviors, is fuzzy to the point of uselessness. It doesn’t carve the world at any useful joints.
I think that notion is implicitely in a lot of places, but I’m seeking for a explicit expression of it that I can reference for an article that I’m writing.
Perhaps look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Adler ?
Is there a specific quote from Adler about manipulation? Googling
"Alfred Adler" manipulationdoesn’t give me good results.Given that Adler seems to be a theist, I’m also not sure whether he thinks that way.
He was the inferiority complex guy …
… everything is about the struggle to gain power over others, which can become pathological …
According to those quotes a lot of people are manipulative because of inferiority complexes.
That suggests that he only talks about some children and not all children. Some children are manipulative for those reasons but that doens’t mean all of them are.
My understanding is that Alder thought we all start with an inferiority complex because we all start as small, weak children.
Even if that’s true, I don’t think it implies that all “All human interaction is manipulation”. It only implies that a lot of it is at it’s driven by an inferiority complex.
I think “all human interaction is manipulation” is false on its face. I was putting forward Adler as a candidate for being a modern root of this meme. His teachings are still quite influential.
The fact that you consider a statement to be false on its face doesn’t mean that there nobody in support of it. Pointing me to a different meme is besides the point.
Please be a little bit more charitable. He pointed you to a quite relevant quote and gave examples. That this source doesn’t exactly cover what you want covered is not his fault. He can’t read your mind.
I think that clarity of distinguishing different ideas from each other is useful. I think that it’s bad to be to vague to be wrong. In this case I think that _rpd simply switched from one meme to a different meme. I don’t think it takes mind reading to see the difference between A: “all human interaction is manipulation” and B: “a lot of human interaction is manipulation because people are acting out of inferority” .
A get’s used to justify that being manipulative isn’t bad, because everybody is always manipualtive. B doesn’t lend itself to that conclusion and is thus a completely different meme.
In particular A get’s used that way in this article. Asking for favors that way might be manipulative but that doesn’t matter as all communication is manipulative.