= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
cousin_it comments on The Dark Arts - Preamble - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (139)
This is a followup to the thread you linked, but I'll mention it here because it may be relevant to the current conversation.
I spent a little while with TheValliant (offsite) trying to pin down a definition of "manipulation"--specifically, to divide it from acceptable forms of nonverbal communication. The facets which came to mind immediately were "trying to get someone to do something they otherwise wouldn't have," which is clearly too broad, and "displaying exaggerated emotion," which is sometimes valid (when you're trying to communicate an emotion and your natural expression is too subtle). We got from there to "trying to make someone feel an emotion they otherwise wouldn't have," which still isn't right, because it covers gestures of affection.
What we eventually settled on was this: "Using emotion to bypass someone's normal decision-making process." That is, creating emotions in someone else for the purpose of getting them to do something. This phrasing also makes it pretty clear why we find it abhorrent: it's opening a back door into someone else's brain, and about as invasive as that makes it sound.
The reason I felt a need to pin it down is that TheValliant, like you, has a policy of not tolerating it under any circumstances, and it seemed to me that that required understanding what it was. So now I'm curious--does the above definition match the thing you hate?
Your definition is too broad - for example, it applies to women using makeup. Maybe amend it to "creating negative emotions in someone else for the purpose of getting them to do something".
Specifying negative emotions is too narrow; that wouldn't apply to any strategy that leaves its target marginally happier but at a resource cost considerably greater than the marginal increase in happiness could've been obtained with elsewhere. Of Cialdini's 6 "weapons of influence," all of which I'd classify as manipulative, only "authority" seems to cause negative emotions with any consistency. PErhaps the metric is orthogonal to the quality of emotion?
"Negative emotions" certainly isn't right--the example in the post was about making the woman feel better.
I'm not sure I agree with your exception (I don't equate "making a good impression" or "living up to a social expectation" with "creating emotion"), but perhaps we could make it clearer by adding "for a specific decision" to the end? i.e. the manipulation must have a specific goal.
The example in the post is not okay because it's piggybacking on an existing negative emotion, and if the woman refused, that emotion would've been reinforced. Like a guilt trip.
So do you not think it's possible to manipulate through positive emotion? What about flattering and pampering someone 'til they fall for you, then robbing them blind?
It's possible, but I don't have the same aversion to it.
Wait, what? Really? You don't find that example scenario objectionable?
Hmm. To me it's kinda "bad in theory", like killing kittens. The strong hate is reserved for the things I actually did a lot and then decided to cut out.
Heh. Okay, we think about those things very differently, but that's fine. :P