Is manipulation is a form of force?
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
Yes. Accomplishing something "through force" is making all other options impossible in context; manipulation is a psychological form of force.
The line of questioning seems to be headed at subliminal conditioning and/or dogma...?
The line of questioning seems to be headed at subliminal conditioning and/or dogma...?
I could take it there, particularly with Pascal's wager, but this in response to my other thread. Barnabas asserted that my act of manipulating people into questioning their own beliefs is an act of force, whereas I disagreed since I see it as educational. I see it as a form of head fake where I teach someone that they have the choice to question their beliefs without them realizing that I am doing so.
You can force a person to have an education or at least attempt to. Though this shouldn't be misconstrued with a "learn or die" kind of thing.
This kind of manipulation may be appropriate in some cases, such as parents teaching their children or teachers instructing students, in a situation when being transparent is not an option or counterproductive. However, it may be condescending to suggest that this is the case with these people whom you are so willingly bestowing your insight on. The thing is, if they don't ask, is it your place to teach? Your values may be such that you would feel comfortable if the tables were reversed, but not everyone shares the value of learning above all else (and I don't believe it is necessary for everyone to do so).
On the other hand, they may very well benefit from an expansion of their insights and to their thinking, even if it may be condescending to say. However, this still doesn't address the idea that people have a right to choose to stay embroiled in *insert way of thinking*. Then again, their way of thinking may be hurtful to others (ex. prejudice). How ethical is it to continue to "let them" function within their prejudicial paradigms, for example? Are we not responsible for addressing these issues? Is it the way in which this is addressed that is key? To what extent does one's right to their own values trump the impact those values have on others?
As an aside, I do see force present in the way in which you present your arguments.
Also, it sounds as though you disagree with Barnabas on the condition that it is not force if it is educational? I'm not sure the two are mutually exclusive.
Last edited:
Also, whether manipulation is good, bad or neutral is a whole nother thread. which I think already exists.
Yes and no. There are three individuals on this forum that I could never get to question their beliefs, and even if I had got them to do so, they would never admit it to me. They take pride in the fact that they can believe without questioning. They see it as proof of the commitment they have to their beliefs. My particular style has probably only polarized them further.
Otherwise, there have been many people over the years of varying different beliefs who have taken up my call for critical thinking and while many continue with their beliefs, they do so with a much more open mind.
I also think there is a large segment that is just scared shitless of me and avoid me like a plague because they are afraid I will call them out and make them look stupid.
So it is tough to say what the net effect of my efforts really is.
I don't think anyone is scared of you Satya, Despite your Grim Reaper animal thing. You'll always be an old monkey wearing glasses to me.
I'm glad it seems to have led to what sound like positive/productive outcomes.
I'm sorry I missed answering your original question (facepalm). I think it probably does qualify as a use of force. If "force" is not the correct word, then its accurate equivalent.
What do you think?
What compels you to seek to enlighten people, so to speak?
As Socrates would say, the unexamined life is not worth living. The more you learn, the more you realize how little you actually know, and the more you appreciate the great mysteries in life.
But more and more I think it is a pointless task. Humans simply haven't evolved psychologically as fast as the technology has evolved. We are still incredibly tribal and prone to seeking conformity and group identity. It is just easier to go along with what the group believes than it is to question it. It is very hard for us to see the world outside the categories we have constructed to define it. But that is my quest in life.
You might be interested in reading up on this chart:
View attachment 8129
And then another question arises - If someone was manipulated into a belief in the past, is it wrong to manipulate them into questioning that belief in the future?
In discussion, I don't think force, or manipulation would be as much a concern as deception, insincerity, indirectness, and the various ruses of sophistry.
If something cannot be presented on it's own merit, but relies on some form of hoodwinking to receive an audience, then it would be more of an abuse of trust, than power/force.
If something cannot be presented on it's own merit, but relies on some form of hoodwinking to receive an audience, then it would be more of an abuse of trust, than power/force.
Well we all know how loved lawyers are, but this is a thread on whether manipulation is force, not whether deception is a betrayal of trust.
It would seem that the misuse of trust could easily qualify as a form of manipulation. When this achieves and effect in a subject against their will, there is a violation of sorts. However, force is probably best used in terms of coercion, and not in terms of deception.
Is manipulation a form of force? Well, simply put, any manipulation I perform is essentially the imposition of my will.
Serious question [MENTION=20]Satya[/MENTION] ... How do you determine who is in need of your "services"?
Serious question [MENTION=20]Satya[/MENTION] ... How do you determine who is in need of your "services"?
It's usually simple Socratic Questioning. I use it with everyone. It isn't threatening to people who are already questioning their beliefs.