I'm thinking about the art of manipulation...
It's not something I have ever given that much thought to, I consider myself an honest guy and hate the thought of using deciet to get people on my side.
The furtheest I go in terms of manipulating others is simply to curb any agressive instincts so that I don''t come across as a threat. I'm not even great at doing this in the heat of the moment.
I find generally speaking, being honest with people gets results... it never makes you the most popular person but it earns one some integrity and respect from those who can recognise your earnestness.
I've never really delved into the blacks art of manipulation. I tend to think that in the long run these kinds of things catch up with you. besides, I understand the feel good factor associated with knowing that your honest and upfront.
I've noticed with some people, who seem to be masters in the art of manipulation, that 'playing the victim' is a common technique aimed at inspiring sympathy/pity.
Does this really work? i'm sure it does, but how about long term? surely the falsness of playing the vitim will be exposed?
But how about the ethical implications? is it ok to be dishonest in order to gain support? It's the kind of thing I have always despised and so I don't think I will be adopting any stratergy like this intentionally.
Often victims will be highlighted by politicians or media in order to gain support for some kind of change to the way things are done... Sometimes one baby victim is highlighted and yet non of the victims of the 'new way' are highlighted.
For example a baby with whooping cough might be used in order to convince people of the need for vacination... yet the many babies who suffer due to the vaccination are ignored.
Would this kind of manipulation be legal? is it something that the media or governments should be allowed to do?
Certainly in terms of science and rational thought... impartiality and observation of facts should be king, rather than emotional responses towards pathos.
That's really what this kind of thing is isn't it, pathos. An attempt to gain sympathy and support by highlighting ones suffering. It all seems a bit pathetic to me.
Do you think it would be a better world if people only ever attempted to influence others using honesty... or do you think manipulating others with pathos is going to be more effective in unifying a comunity and forming the best policies?
Certainly pathos is an effective tool, when it is convincing. But is it acceptable and should it be legal to use dishonest pathos in order to manipulate others?
There's really two areas... first is with ethical implications peopleusing ppathos in there own relations, families, small comunities etc... then there is the broader realm of media and government leadership... Where decisions that affect us all are influenced. Is it/should it be legal for media or public servants of anykind to use pathos in order to swing the opinions of the majority in their favour?
Personally I find it childish and decietful, petty and insecure to use this kind of tenique in our personal relationships. But I find it dangerous and deeply sinister if used by governments etc.
I actually tend to resent the fact that somebody is attempting to make me feel sorry for them by playing the victim... not that I have witnessed it much since leaving highschool.
Ofcourse there are many other types of deciet that can be used to win an argument or harbour support from an audience... In America in particular there seems to be a culture of debate in which people are taught many types of techniques that can win arguments and influence people decietfully.
Perhaps some of you here know a bit about this kind of thing? Is it right that people in top education who will go on to influence society are skilled in the dark arts of rhetoric... Ethos, pathos and logos? can this kind of things be justified?
Would it not create a better world if people were simply honest and stopped trying to manipulate others for there own personal gains?
I'm a logos sort of guy I think... I try to win an argument with logic. If it's a subject I have some authority in, then that gives me a certain amount of ethos... I prefer to avoid appealling to a persons feelings and sypathetic nature in order to gain support, especially if I need to lie or mislead or deny the validity of opposing views in order to strike up an emotional connection with the audience. I find that to be very low.
Anyway, i'd like to learn more about this so that I can gaurd against it better... i'd heard of pathos before today, but never heard of ethos or logos... this is all fairly new to me. Is emotional black mail such as 'if you leave me I will kill myself' a kind of pathos?
The dark arts... not my thing really. I'm much more into honesty and integrity. But then I am heavily re-ligious, in that I believe in the concept of re-ligioning mankind in an awareness of unity, conectedness, shared and mutually beneficial aspirations, family values, shared inheritance, etc etc.
But I want to know what others think of decietful manipulation, and also honest manipulation. Which is more effective? more powerful? longer lasting? can decietful manipulation be for the greater good? Any comments on anything I have said?
Thanks for reading