Influence, persuasion, manipulation are all identical in every way except moral.
How can I influence others without manipulating them?
41–50 of 232 posts
Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like people who make such blanket value statements like "I don't cheat people" or "I don't lie" aren't being honest with themselves, or are putting too much faith in the stability of the society they live in. The easiest retort is Anne Frank. You're hiding her in your attic and a Nazi asks if you're hiding enemies of the state. There you go, a time when you'll definitely lie and cheat! Someone might answer, "w…
> There you go, a time when you'll definitely lie and cheat! I don't think this is the win you think it is. Kantians and se deontologists will absolutely say that no, you cannot lie and cheat even in that scenario. You have a moral duty to not lie but also a moral duty to resist tyranny. You cannot sacrifice one to achieve the other, you must choose only options that fulfill both duties.
Have you ever met in real life a person who wouldn't lie to the axe murderer, because of their Kantian values?
If a Kantian can be put into a situation where their morals would require them to say the word that gives up Anne Frank, we can safely say it's a bad moral system.
Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?
#43Persuasion that happens in good faith is a two-way street. You explain your position, but also truly listen to theirs. If you are prepared to change your own position based on what they say, then you can hope that they might change theirs based on what you say. If it is truly two way in this sense, including your best efforts to extract from the other party their strongest, potentially unexpected, arguments for their…
This is fine when the question is, “What’s for dinner?” However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity. It’s important to understand where these lines fall within yourself and those you are speaking with. Some arguments aren’t worth having in an effort to persuade, but rather they should be discussions aimed at understanding, being vulnerable…
> This is fine when the question is, “What’s for dinner?” However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity.
No, it is not the definition of integrity. If you opt to double-down on positions you held in spite of being presented to evidence that contradicts or refutes your prior beliefs, the behavior you are displaying is opposite of integrity, specially the part about honesty and commitment to do what's right.
Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?
#44If I successfully influence someone, I feel I've manipulated them nonetheless.
Not really, there are honest ways as well to influence as well. I also find it annoying when people try to manipulate at the sake of influencing just to sell something. Infact, wrote a small piece on this https://aishwaryagoel.com/what-engineers-taught-me-about-sel..... would love to know what you think?
Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?
#45Persuasion that happens in good faith is a two-way street. You explain your position, but also truly listen to theirs. If you are prepared to change your own position based on what they say, then you can hope that they might change theirs based on what you say. If it is truly two way in this sense, including your best efforts to extract from the other party their strongest, potentially unexpected, arguments for their…
This is fine when the question is, “What’s for dinner?” However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity. It’s important to understand where these lines fall within yourself and those you are speaking with. Some arguments aren’t worth having in an effort to persuade, but rather they should be discussions aimed at understanding, being vulnerable…
> However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity... ...Otherwise we are no different than Crusaders and Jihadists.
And do you suggest a crusader or jihadist or keep this point of view as well? They too might think they are in the right and should keep their (religious etc) integrity, surely?
Everyone/most people always assume they are always in the right; if this was objectively true, there would never be a single debate or argument in the world.
Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed Well, yes there is. In fact, that is the central problem of unresolvable divisions. People implicitly making themselves "the decider" by imagining their principles are so great as to preclude any need for revision. (Faith in the primacy of one's beliefs, is inherently the same as faith in one's own primacy to choose beliefs.) There is…
No, I disagree. Not all differences need resolving. Mature adults should learn to respect those differences. It doesn’t mean you have to change your worldview to get along. This is not about how tight or loose your convictions are, but rather how much empathy and grace you’re willing to grant to others. I can vehemently disagree with you while also seeking to understand and love you. Mischaracterizing strong and, yes…
> And the freedom to prioritize what is worth going down a rabbit hole for, in their life.
Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed Well, yes there is. In fact, that is the central problem of unresolvable divisions. People implicitly making themselves "the decider" by imagining their principles are so great as to preclude any need for revision. (Faith in the primacy of one's beliefs, is inherently the same as faith in one's own primacy to choose beliefs.) There is…
That's all well and good, but when you have to put your trust in someone and person A believes "it's wrong to cheat people" and person B has a whole framework for thinking about the problem on a case by case basis, you just go with A, right?
> That's all well and good, but when you have to put your trust in someone and person A believes "it's wrong to cheat people" and person B has a whole framework for thinking about the problem on a case by case basis, you just go with A, right?
Whut?
Surely it would also depend on the situation, and the relevance and reasoning behind B's view.
Are we in preschool with children? Then probably A is right.
But if B is a teacher and explains that the kids love a game in which they all rampantly cheat, and the teacher has given up because they are having an absolute blast breaking the rules and trying to trick each other? I hope you would change your mind too.
Are we talking about an undercover agent in a dangerous country, attempting to get a critical component from a drunk bioweapons scientist, at a card table in a casino?
These are humorous examples, but real world versions are not hard to come by.
Principles that have few or no exceptions tend to be very narrow in scope. Like don't preemptively launch world ending nukes during a stable peacetime.
The sensible approach is have the best principles you can, be willing to improve them, and apply them with care and situational flexibility.
Principles are maps, not the actual moral territory.
Principles are wisdom, not an algorithm.
Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?
#48Public debates are necessary to get new ideas out there, but individuals and groups would rather be horrible than change their minds after an argument.
Attempting to argue with people, in good faith or otherwise, to change their mind is a philosophical trap.
Persuasion is just getting people to come around to your way of thinking without direct argumentation. It gets manipulative, psyopy and evil when fear, envy, lust, guilt, etc nudges are applied.
Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?
#49Not possible.
What they mean is "influence" (positive connotation) without "manipulate" (negative connotation). But this is simply a nuance on "intent" i.e. whether it is good or bad from the pov of the instigator. But the recipient also has an important role to play in this interaction since they are the one perceiving the intent which might be different from what was intended. So the instigator has to sometimes "manipulate" to gain "influence". The End-Goal often (but not always) justifies the means.
This is the realm of Worldly Wisdom/Propaganda/Politics covered in the classic works of Baltasar Gracian/Machiavelli/Francesco Guicciardini/Kautilya/Kamandaki/Vishnu Sharma/Edward Bernays/Jacques Ellul etc.
On the Psychological realm, see the works of B.F.Skinner on Operant Conditioning/Behaviourism and Verbal Behaviour.
Re: How can I influence others without manipulating them?
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is fine when the question is, “What’s for dinner?” However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity. It’s important to understand where these lines fall within yourself and those you are speaking with. Some arguments aren’t worth having in an effort to persuade, but rather they should be discussions aimed at understanding, being vulnerable…
> However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity... ...Otherwise we are no different than Crusaders and Jihadists. And do you suggest a crusader or jihadist or keep this point of view as well? They too might think they are in the right and should keep their (religious etc) integrity, surely? Everyone/most people always assume they are always…
A saying I like, apparently first made by Quine: "I always think I'm right, but I don't think I'm always right."
In other words, for every belief I have, I think it's right. Clearly, otherwise I would have abandoned it already. But I don't think that the set of all my beliefs is 100% free of errors or inconsistencies.