Read Online Thought Manipulation: The Use and Abuse of Psychological Trickery by Sapir Handelman - Free Book Online Page A
Authors: Sapir Handelman
Ads: Link
into an imaginary world, and a well- skilled manipulator can take the opportunity to exploit the distress and offer the target a fictitious shelter. In contrast, there are typical situations where it is clear that the target is looking for shortcuts or magical solutions and chooses not to cope with difficulties. In most cases, reality is somewhere in between the extremes. The target’s behavior is a combination of choice and weakness. Accordingly, the more interesting and appropriate question is: Where exactly does free choice end and human weakness begin?
Unfortunately, it seems impossible to find a satisfactory answer to this important question. We do not have an X-ray to the mind and soul that enables us to examine the real motivations behind human actions. However, the ambiguity between choice and weakness can help us demarcate the landscape of our discussion and better understand the manipulation phenomenon. The more challenging cases of manipulative interactions seem to be those in which the target’s responsibility to his role in manipulation is unclear. I suggest labeling this area of uncertainty the “human sensibility sphere.” The term sensibility expresses the ambivalence between choice and weakness.
This book focuses on the human sensibility sphere; that is, on those manipulative interactions where the target cooperates with the manipulator, but his extent of responsibility in doing so is unclear. On the one hand, those manipulative interactions contain certain elements that belong to the decision-making process of the target, such as forgoing critical judgment and laziness that prevents investigation of the intentions behind suspicious interactions. On the other hand, human weaknesses, such as a frustrating life, tiredness from the burden of responsibility, and the common trickery intrinsic to manipulation, promote such difficulties.
It is true that certain manipulative interactions that start as voluntary participation in a free-choice game can reach the “point of no return.” Those cases appear somewhat as an indirect negotiation where everyone is aware, or at least suspicious, of the other party’s intentions. For example, let us imagine a meeting between a young man who is interested in casual sex and a conservative young lady who wishes to get married. The young man invites his lady friend to see his paintings in his apartment. It is quite clear to both of them that there is a hidden agenda that exceeds far beyond an innocent invitation to a private exhibition. Nevertheless, the lady agrees to go. After a certain point, with the help of cheap manipulative courtship tricks, our lady begins to lose her critical judgment, forgoes her suspicions, and lets the womanizer pilot the interaction. Unfortunately, the results are neither engagement nor a long-lasting relationship but a dissatisfaction for her. Who was responsible in that scenario? Why would the woman enter a situation that is disadvantageous for her? Was there a point in which she could have halted the manipulation?
THE MANIPULATOR’S FREEDOM OF CHOICE
The conventional wisdom is to categorize manipulative behavior as offensive. The phenomenon is mainly understood as an attempt by one person to exercise power over another by employing morally questionable means. Indeed, it is beyond controversy that manipulation influences by means that are not usually associated with decency— misdirection, intimidation, and so on. However, is it enough to pass a moral judgment? Can we conclusively resent every form of manipulation?
I have limited our discussion to cases where it is not clear whether the target is acting out of free choice or whether he is motivated by irresistible incentives that a skillful manipulator provides. The question of responsibility, which is crucial to almost any ethical discussion, requires examination of a related issue that is often neglected, and that is the manipulator’s choice to manipulate: Is he or she always
Unfortunately, it seems impossible to find a satisfactory answer to this important question. We do not have an X-ray to the mind and soul that enables us to examine the real motivations behind human actions. However, the ambiguity between choice and weakness can help us demarcate the landscape of our discussion and better understand the manipulation phenomenon. The more challenging cases of manipulative interactions seem to be those in which the target’s responsibility to his role in manipulation is unclear. I suggest labeling this area of uncertainty the “human sensibility sphere.” The term sensibility expresses the ambivalence between choice and weakness.
This book focuses on the human sensibility sphere; that is, on those manipulative interactions where the target cooperates with the manipulator, but his extent of responsibility in doing so is unclear. On the one hand, those manipulative interactions contain certain elements that belong to the decision-making process of the target, such as forgoing critical judgment and laziness that prevents investigation of the intentions behind suspicious interactions. On the other hand, human weaknesses, such as a frustrating life, tiredness from the burden of responsibility, and the common trickery intrinsic to manipulation, promote such difficulties.
It is true that certain manipulative interactions that start as voluntary participation in a free-choice game can reach the “point of no return.” Those cases appear somewhat as an indirect negotiation where everyone is aware, or at least suspicious, of the other party’s intentions. For example, let us imagine a meeting between a young man who is interested in casual sex and a conservative young lady who wishes to get married. The young man invites his lady friend to see his paintings in his apartment. It is quite clear to both of them that there is a hidden agenda that exceeds far beyond an innocent invitation to a private exhibition. Nevertheless, the lady agrees to go. After a certain point, with the help of cheap manipulative courtship tricks, our lady begins to lose her critical judgment, forgoes her suspicions, and lets the womanizer pilot the interaction. Unfortunately, the results are neither engagement nor a long-lasting relationship but a dissatisfaction for her. Who was responsible in that scenario? Why would the woman enter a situation that is disadvantageous for her? Was there a point in which she could have halted the manipulation?
THE MANIPULATOR’S FREEDOM OF CHOICE
The conventional wisdom is to categorize manipulative behavior as offensive. The phenomenon is mainly understood as an attempt by one person to exercise power over another by employing morally questionable means. Indeed, it is beyond controversy that manipulation influences by means that are not usually associated with decency— misdirection, intimidation, and so on. However, is it enough to pass a moral judgment? Can we conclusively resent every form of manipulation?
I have limited our discussion to cases where it is not clear whether the target is acting out of free choice or whether he is motivated by irresistible incentives that a skillful manipulator provides. The question of responsibility, which is crucial to almost any ethical discussion, requires examination of a related issue that is often neglected, and that is the manipulator’s choice to manipulate: Is he or she always
Similar Books
