Read Online Thought Manipulation: The Use and Abuse of Psychological Trickery by Sapir Handelman - Free Book Online
Authors: Sapir Handelman
Ads: Link
act?
A common explanation of this somewhat weird behavior is overpowering incentives. The manipulator takes advantage of human weaknesses in order to generate incentives that the target will find irresistible. Can it be that manipulative interactions, those motivating situations where the target’s behavior influences the outcome, are possible without the will of the target?
Undoubtedly, the extent of the target’s ability to freely and independently choose his actions in manipulative interactions depends on many variables and parameters, such as objective circumstances, level of knowledge, and psychological state of mind. However, it is specifically the psychological dimension that could help set the range of this controversial discussion by distinguishing between two competitive radical camps: the Freudian faction and the liberal one.
Freud will remind us that it is quite common for human beings to act subversively to their declared aspirations. For example, a young lady may express sincere wishes to get married but has love affairs only with married men. According to the Freudian thesis, it does not make sense that someone who consistently acts against his explicit declarations and best interests does so out of a conscious choice. It is quite reasonable to assume that he is motivated by certain incentives unclear even to himself (which is one of the reasons that he “needs” psychotherapy). Moreover, from the Freudian view it is implicit that understanding and exploiting deep psychological complexes, weaknesses, and motivations might be extremely effective in leading a person to act in the service of aims that he did not agree upon in advance. Accordingly, the art of manipulation is simply knowing how to “press the right buttons” in order to lead a person to act differently than he might otherwise.
It is doubtful that many liberals would accept such a mechanistic model of humanity. Most of them emphasize the individual’s ability to choose, which makes him responsible for his decisions, behavior, and actions. True, the liberals will admit, life is not easy, but any human should insist on coping with real-life hardships rather than escaping to some fantasy world that a manipulator offers. Therefore, cooperating with the manipulator is a matter of free (maybe profoundly defeated) choice rather than the result of someone else playing upon human weaknesses. If the target is stupid enough to cooperate with the manipulator, the liberals insist, he should pay the price for his stupidity.
Both camps, the Freudians and the liberals, agree that the target’s cooperative behavior in psychological manipulation is childish, but where they diverge is over the source of such childishness. The Freudians argue that an infantile behavior is the consequence of a strong desire. Each one of us has an inherent need, they suggest, to preserve his childhood and stick to infantile habits. For that reason, the manipulator is simply abusing one part of our human nature.
In contrast, the liberals argue that there is no evidence to support this absurd view. They believe the opposite; that many of us have strong drives toward maturation. We would like to know more, elaborate our skills, and enjoy “grown-up” activities. However, maturation is a learning process that requires investment, discipline, and overcoming infinite frustrations. Sometimes it looks much easier to stick to our old childish habits than to cope with real-life difficulties. For example, becoming a good piano player demands a lot of hard work. Many music students will prefer to fantasize about performing in Carnegie Hall rather than practice boring, difficult scales. Similarly, in a manipulative interaction, it is easier for the target to choose to cooperate with the manipulator instead of challenging him.
It is hard to deny that there is some truth in both Freudian and liberal opinions. Sometimes reality is so frustrating that a person is almost compelled to escape
A common explanation of this somewhat weird behavior is overpowering incentives. The manipulator takes advantage of human weaknesses in order to generate incentives that the target will find irresistible. Can it be that manipulative interactions, those motivating situations where the target’s behavior influences the outcome, are possible without the will of the target?
Undoubtedly, the extent of the target’s ability to freely and independently choose his actions in manipulative interactions depends on many variables and parameters, such as objective circumstances, level of knowledge, and psychological state of mind. However, it is specifically the psychological dimension that could help set the range of this controversial discussion by distinguishing between two competitive radical camps: the Freudian faction and the liberal one.
Freud will remind us that it is quite common for human beings to act subversively to their declared aspirations. For example, a young lady may express sincere wishes to get married but has love affairs only with married men. According to the Freudian thesis, it does not make sense that someone who consistently acts against his explicit declarations and best interests does so out of a conscious choice. It is quite reasonable to assume that he is motivated by certain incentives unclear even to himself (which is one of the reasons that he “needs” psychotherapy). Moreover, from the Freudian view it is implicit that understanding and exploiting deep psychological complexes, weaknesses, and motivations might be extremely effective in leading a person to act in the service of aims that he did not agree upon in advance. Accordingly, the art of manipulation is simply knowing how to “press the right buttons” in order to lead a person to act differently than he might otherwise.
It is doubtful that many liberals would accept such a mechanistic model of humanity. Most of them emphasize the individual’s ability to choose, which makes him responsible for his decisions, behavior, and actions. True, the liberals will admit, life is not easy, but any human should insist on coping with real-life hardships rather than escaping to some fantasy world that a manipulator offers. Therefore, cooperating with the manipulator is a matter of free (maybe profoundly defeated) choice rather than the result of someone else playing upon human weaknesses. If the target is stupid enough to cooperate with the manipulator, the liberals insist, he should pay the price for his stupidity.
Both camps, the Freudians and the liberals, agree that the target’s cooperative behavior in psychological manipulation is childish, but where they diverge is over the source of such childishness. The Freudians argue that an infantile behavior is the consequence of a strong desire. Each one of us has an inherent need, they suggest, to preserve his childhood and stick to infantile habits. For that reason, the manipulator is simply abusing one part of our human nature.
In contrast, the liberals argue that there is no evidence to support this absurd view. They believe the opposite; that many of us have strong drives toward maturation. We would like to know more, elaborate our skills, and enjoy “grown-up” activities. However, maturation is a learning process that requires investment, discipline, and overcoming infinite frustrations. Sometimes it looks much easier to stick to our old childish habits than to cope with real-life difficulties. For example, becoming a good piano player demands a lot of hard work. Many music students will prefer to fantasize about performing in Carnegie Hall rather than practice boring, difficult scales. Similarly, in a manipulative interaction, it is easier for the target to choose to cooperate with the manipulator instead of challenging him.
It is hard to deny that there is some truth in both Freudian and liberal opinions. Sometimes reality is so frustrating that a person is almost compelled to escape
Similar Books
