Manipulation: Morally right or wrong?

Its wrong

Its wrong especially when it is done without a person's consent.

Manipulation can also foster peer pressure, when a few people stick to their own opinions and those people are forced to change because of a widely accepted idea or practice.

People should have their own opinions. Manipulation is like a bondage, without knowing it and it is not good especially if a person manipulates a subject for his or her own personal gain. Manipulation reduces humankind to slavery.

It is wrong, but people being manipulated should have some sort of control of where they are getting their influenced, all of a sudden ideas from. The people subjected to manipulation must at least have some certain awareness of it being done, it is possible.
 
A lot of this discussion seems to get down to what precisely is manipulation. A few definitions have been provided, and I'll repeat a few of them, but in a scan these are the ones google offered that seem relevant to the psychological process I think is being discussed:

exerting shrewd or devious influence especially for one's own advantage; "his manipulation of his friends was scandalous"

manipulate - influence or control shrewdly or deviously; "He manipulated public opinion in his favor"

manipulate - control (others or oneself) or influence skillfully, usually to one's advantage

Control or influence seems essential.

The OP described attempts to control the variables in our environment. I think this is a key distinction. One can be skillful or clever or devious or shrewd in attempts to control or influence, but I don't believe it is ever certain that the desired outcome will be achieved. Control speaks to me of certainty of outcome.

If we are talking about attempts to control then, or influence, what makes the outcome uncertain? How the recipient of the attempted manipulation will ultimately choose to react. That choice may be based on a shrewdly constructed presentation by the manipulator, or on outright deceptions, but something in the presentation will have inspired the recipient of the manipulation to respond in a certain way and that choice belongs to the recipient.

I think part of what makes manipulation so scary is that is often plays to parts of our self that we do not want to acknowledge, but that the one manipulating is somehow aware of and taking advantage of. So when we have chosen to respond to a manipulation, we may be uncomfortable with what ends up feeling like a breach to our sense of control over our self. It feels like a violation. The manipulator has often broken into and entered our experience of self through avenues we've stopped looking at because they don't fit with our self-constructed sense of self. When we see those parts of self choosing to express through the manipulator's finesse, we often have difficulty incorporating what we have chosen to participate in with what we would consciously choose to create as our self-expression. That expression seems not us--not our choice, and so must be the result of something bad and out of our control...the manipulator. The thing is I don't think we do anything psychologically that we don't choose to do.

Just because manipulation is done to the manipulators own advantage, often targets parts of our self that we choose to close our eyes to, and involves some degree of shrewd or even devious presentation, does not, in my mind, make it bad. It just makes it clever, shrewd, devious attempts to influence others or control variables to the manipulator's advantage. If we choose to engage, then I think it reveals something about what we wanted to believe. Rather than devote energy to condemning the manipulation, it might be wiser to devote energy to integrating whatever the manipulation revealed that left us uncomfortable, so that we have a stronger presence the next time we engage with someone manipulative and we can choose with more of our conscious power in play.
 
Here's what manipulation isn't:
"You should do <insert task here> because it is <insert beneficiary aspect here>."
Here's what manipulation is:
"You should do <insert task here> because if you don't, I would feel <insert emotion here>."

Or

"You should do <insert task here> because it's the moral thing to do. If you don't do it, you are an immoral person." etc.
The former is merely persuasion. Do not confuse the two.
 
I loove Tovlo's new insights on how we can approach manipulation :D makes the definition so much more deep.... I just love it when subjects like these stray as far away from black and white as possible!

But back to like manipulation thingy....

To me manipulation is a very... fluid concept. If you don't consciously manipulate someone.... is it manipulation? If you "manipulated" someone because.... well that's what you always do (more subconscious/oblivious)... Is it any different to someone who exercises manipulation on a conscious level?

As stated in this thread... if you deduce far enough.... almost everything you do can seem to be a form of manipulation!

We also could argue that because this form of interaction is so interwoven in our society that it's impossible to get rid of. Stronger yet... you can see it as something "essential" and even positive in our day to day lifestyle.

Now just because something has always been there or just because something is essential does not per se mean it is in any way good or baaad.... It does add some interesting variables... right? :0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free will... uuh Free will.... Touching free will is so dangerous! Free will is such a diluted concept.... If you think about it too much you not only get slightly confused by all the contradictions... semantics... logical improbabilities... but there's also this heated emotional attachment by lots of people...so yea... you know what I mean? :0?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But this is an interesting observation! Manipulation does seem to be a very common skill being used by people on a daily basis~ (whether they know it or not) I wonder what kind of reasoning there could be for such a development in society. nyaaaaa
 
I would also agree with Aeon in the sense that the act of manipulation requires two people to engage in it. For it to work, it requires someone to be willing to go along with what the manipulator wants. While I can see the idea of suggestion being worrisome, perhaps your friend has more of a knack of telling people what they want to hear? Perhaps your friend is able to boslter ideas/thoughts already in place--this seems more likely. It is probably an extension of your friend's ego that makes them think they somehow cause others to do things.
 
Very interesting insights...

On the free will thing...

Does anyone change their vote if the person manipulating has a significantly higher intelligence level?

I don't mean to say if you are manipulated you are dumb. I DON'T think that at all. But anatomically, people of a lower intelligence may be unable to form the mental networking necessary to understand that they're being manipulated: as in they never had a chance of detecting it.

Also...

This reminds me of how in this country, we have laws that remove a person's guilt in a crime if what they did was under extreme coercion (for example, if a guy holds a gun to your head and tells you to steal something or else he'll shoot you, you will likely not be held responsible for your theft because you were "under duress")...

So...

Is coercion a form of manipulation (or extreme "suggestion" if you will)? And does a person's susceptibility (i.e. intelligence level giving them the lack of ability to detect) change the amount of freedom they actually have in this context?
 
And to answer a question: my friend in the post is an ESTP. Also, she's not an "asshole" :), though, she has made some bad choices (with good intent, but still bad choices according to her own assessment). Good question though. If this post was secretly designed to get someone to call her one so that I didn't have to be the bad guy, would you consider yourself manipulated? ;)
 
I think it is foolish to consider intelligence as a factor. Unless someone has a signficant birth defect, most humans have varying degrees of intelligence. Someone can be much more emotionally intelligent versus the normally accepted idea of what intelligent means. There is being naive that can be a factor because our social strength is built upon experience and whatnot. As to whether the thread was manipulative, it could be that one can choose to see it as a way for someone to stress a point by getting other views rather than a direct way to censure someone. Manipulation exists because we are individuals who must learn to co-exist and all the other crap that goes along with that. In the end, my opinion is thus, one can only be true to their own honor and sense of right and wrong. Make your own choices in life and face the consequences of those choices.
 
Everything is a manipulation, arguably. Having a simple conversation with a friend manipulates them by encouraging them to speak back, or sounding disappointed if they don't want to hang out with you subtly manipulates them into saying yes next time or reconsidering this time, or expressing displeasure through a facial expression when they tell you about something they done expresses a manipulation for them not to do that thing again. We are not robots and, as such, we manipulate others and allow ourselves to be manipulated at various times.

This was pretty much my point.
 
I think it depends on whether or not you are manipulating for your own personal gain or not.
 
This should be a simple question. Consult with the golden rule.

The Golden Rule is problematic when one engages with a person who seeks to be mistreated.

Given this, the question is not so simple after all
 
I don't believe people can be manipulated, everything a person does is by their own freewill I do believe people can be mislead but that is the purpose of the ability to judge, otherwise you'd just jump into every pyramid scheme you came across.

Further more, you can't con a person who is honest and doesn't believe in a free lunch.


//////C | D (C=Cooperate, D= Defect)

C -1,-1 | -10,0

D 0, -10 | -5, -5



Sometimes manipulation is necessary, D/D is the only Nash equilibrium any other move will change the other persons move. is it manipulation or is it saving your butt?
 
Last edited:
The Golden Rule is problematic when one engages with a person who seeks to be mistreated.

Given this, the question is not so simple after all — at least from the perspective of one who does not wish to be mistreated.


cheers,
Ian

I don't think it's very blurry; you still recognize it as "mistreated" and by definition you understand it as wrong. To contribute is like saying that she wanted you to decapitate her, so you did it. We should know what unhealthy is and that a persons want to be unhealthy doesn't really warrant a complete reversal in ethical standard. At the very least, it is, indeed their choice; leave it to them and have no hand in it.

This is my take.

I don't believe people can be manipulated, everything a person does is by their own freewill I do believe people can be mislead but that is the purpose of the ability to judge, otherwise you'd just jump into every pyramid scheme you came across.

Further more, you can't con a person who is honest and doesn't believe in a free lunch.

Consider the full range of what manipulation means:

1. to manage or influence skillfully, esp. in an unfair manner: to manipulate people's feelings.

2. to handle, manage, or use, esp. with skill, in some process of treatment or performance: to manipulate a large tractor.

3. to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage.

I get the feeling that you're able to take this stance because you believe in an absolute human free will, one that denies that we live in a causal universe? Because if you do acknowledge that, then I don't see any room to say that cause doesn't have effect. Even on the human level - to say that we have no influence over and cannot be influenced by.. that we are somehow impenetrable because we're supposed to be responsible and in control of all of the humanly incalculable math that is the universe playing out?

I just don't think so. Your brain will now have the memory of this post left in it for who knows how long. Consider yourself manipulated :D
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's very blurry; you still recognize it as "mistreated" and by definition you understand it as wrong. To contribute is like saying that she wanted you to decapitate her, so you did it. We should know what unhealthy is and that a persons want to be unhealthy doesn't really warrant a complete reversal in ethical standard. At the very least, it is, indeed their choice; leave it to them and have no hand in it.

This is my take.

Based on this feedback, my sense is that I have been misunderstood.

I agree, there is no point in engaging in behavior that one does not value, despite what may be wanted by others.

That said, my initial statement concerns the other side of the engagement. When we engage, even nobly, with those who would seek to be mistreated, the Golden Rule would instruct them to mistreat us.

Inasmuch as this is true, I don
 
Based on this feedback, my sense is that I have been misunderstood.

I agree, there is no point in engaging in behavior that one does not value, despite what may be wanted by others.

That said, my initial statement concerns the other side of the engagement. When we engage, even nobly, with those who would seek to be mistreated, the Golden Rule would instruct them to mistreat us.

Inasmuch as this is true, I don’t value the Golden Rule.



By definition, the uni-verse is non-dual. Given this, the uni-verse is not causal, as no contextual relationship exists between or among no-thing-ness.


cheers,
Ian

My bad, totally missed your point in the original post. That could indeed be a problem, but I'm not sure how plausible that is. Those people tend to know that they are pretty messed up and that others aren't, and that they don't value things the way they do. A basic intuition compensates for the exception of the golden rule in that case. Not something to be trusted in, though; I'd still be worried about their evaluation of how I expect to be treated. I'd say that anytime a person shows any kind of real interest in that (including as it may be expressed in sexuality) that you should be at least a little on guard as to what their judgement may be.

Also.. on the "uni-verse" thing. This word has etymological roots predating the first telescopes (Early 1600s) by almost three centuries; it wasn't developed with any kind of in-depth scrutiny into the nature of the universe.

This would be like saying that the "individual" is a cohesive whole with no contextual relationships or even processes inside of their body and brain.
 
Last edited:
I think that in most cases people manipulate others in order to gain something for themselves, and yes, I do think that's wrong. but sometimes I have seen people manipulate people out of a bad situation or decision, and while I would love for it to be possible to do such a thing without manipulation, I'm still happy that that person isn't doing something that was bad for them.
 
I think that in most cases people manipulate others in order to gain something for themselves, and yes, I do think that's wrong. but sometimes I have seen people manipulate people out of a bad situation or decision, and while I would love for it to be possible to do such a thing without manipulation, I'm still happy that that person isn't doing something that was bad for them.

How do you mean exactly? Could you perhaps give an example...
 
I've seen youth workers do it with clients where I work all the time. instead of coming down hard on them, we manipulate them into doing what we thing is ultimately the best thing for them. We offer rewards for them to stay in school etc, while we make life harder for them if they don't.

i'm not explaining this well sorry. I'm really tired.
 
Back
Top