[psysec] I'm interested, but in you

[Mike Murray]

Anchoring is a weapon?

Perfume makers are screwed then...

;-)




On 4/29/09, Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org> wrote:
> Sarah Gordon wrote:
>> Operationally (in social-psychology, human behaviour, etc.) there is a
>> difference in definition between 'influence' and 'manipulation'. So,
>> probably when we are talking about things that fall into this basket,
>> using operational definitions consistently is one good step toward
>> clarifying what we are saying.
>>
>> Being friendly toward someone is not (necessarily) manipulating them. It
>> would be more likely to be a manipulative event if you had devised in
>> advance what your response would be to spectrum of responses -  with the
>> goal of achieving some goal. i.e. if the feedback loop is in some way
>> artificially constructed at one end, etc.
>
> So influences are part of the natural world, thus unavoidable, and
> manipulation is pre-meditated?
>
> I like this statement, but it is incomplete taking into consideration
> that there are levels as well as layers of manipulation. Emotional
> manipulation between family members may not necessarily be _conscious_
> which is a key to intent under the legal definition as I understand it.
>
>> But..what is the issue we are discussing here? I think it is whether or
>> not it is unethical to 'manipulate' and or "influence". And I think can
>> be determined - but not across the board. Its a case by case because
>> there are so many factors. In some cases, taking away 'choice' or
>> limiting it is a Good Thing. In others, it is very very Bad.
>
> Nothing is every 100%, and "it depends" is a repeating theme in my life.
> Often, "it" depends on: (a) perspective and (b) particular circumstance.
>
> The intent of a manipulator to indeed manipulate is self-explanatory and
> defines itself as an act of manipulation. Perception means that a
> certain action may be viewed by some as legitimate.
>
> What you said on taking away choice is key.
> If the person being manipulated would not have acted the same way if not
> for this manipulation AND was not in complete control OR was not aware
> of what's going on, he or she is being manipulated. Would you agree?
>
> The issue of whether manipulation is "good" or "bad", and when, is
> another matter all together.
>
> The problem I encountered when exploring this subject was that I became
> a better communicator the more I learned. It made me realize that the
> tools in our repertoire or the weapons in our arsenal (whatever you like
> best) are the same under the categories of communication and
> manipulation, with some notable exception.
>
> By way of analogy, a kitchen knife can be used as a weapon but a gun is
> created as one, therefore a gun is a tool of attack (a weapon) rather
> than one which can be used for attack as an after-thought
>
> In my personal opinion, three examples of notable exceptions which are
> weapons when used in communication (without consent where it applies)
> are anchoring, threat of danger to self or another, and physical coercion.
>
> 	Gadi.
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

Mike Murray

Phone - 773-360-0658
Skype - mike.murray
Aim - mmepisteme