That all communication is an attempt to manipulate the behavior of others.
"Manipulate" is perhaps an overly cynical way of saying that everyone has their own motivations, which they pursue both consciously and unconsciously.
You mean like... all, all? How so? You mean like by asking you this question I'm "manipulating" you into answering it? If so that's a bit of a stretch in my personal opinion.
A stretch, yes. But itβs an interesting model for understanding what communication is. By telling you this, I am manipulating you into understanding my point of view and hopefully getting you to agree with me.
Itβs important to note that not all manipulation is negative. I should hope parents manipulate their children into being aware of safety.
Even chit-chat could be seen as manipulating each other into βbeing socialβ but even I would say thatβs a long shot.
I think the definition of manipulation is a bit odd here. Manipulation to me has a connotation of being nonconsensual. If both or all parties are voluntarily participating I wouldn't consider it manipulation.
But I do see what you all mean, conceptually.
Huh, I've never thought of this before... I like your example of chit-chat. Because for some instances, you could say that one engages in it to manipulate the other person into relieving their own anxiety from being silent around others. Or forcing the other person to give up their personal interests, or, more cynically, making the other person think you are interested.
I've never thought of communication like this before but now I'm going to manipulate everyone in real life into thinking I'm a know it all by telling them this lol
You ask the question in the hope that the answers will provide you either entertainment or edification.
I answered the question in the hope that others will give me a sense of validation for my views or, failing that, start an entertaining or edifying discussion on a topic I'm already interested in.
Right, so I think you have a different definition of "manipulation", perhaps. Which is fine. π
"alter the behavior of others for one's own perceived benefit", yeah?
That's too neutral or positive for my connotation. Mine includes something negative from the perspective of the one being manipulated. It might be incorrect but it's my connotation.
That's a cynical way to put it, if technically correct. Manipulation has a negative connotation for people, but people don't communicate for exclusively malicious reasons.
You might as well say that any conscious entity only acts out of reason, to get food, joy, rest... Or that it isn't possible to speak without words. That much goes without saying. Everyone knows that, which makes this an odd thing to bring up in this thread.
And I'd suggest that you can't prove that a conscious entity without reason ceases to act. We've all surely done something or other for "no particular reason" even if an outward observer might assign one.
Does that mean it's possible to speak without meaning anything in particular? I genuinely don't know.
But I can be sure of one thing, that speaking with the intent to achieve one thing, almost never achieves that exact thing. Is failed manipulation still manipulation? Is unintended manipulation still manipulation? People interpret meaning where non was meant all the time.
That's a good point where the aspect of correctness aside even, it unhelpfully puts too much focus on the sender, whereas communication is widely known to be more of a partnership between both the sender and the recipient(s).
e.g. birds singing is interpreted differently by other birds (want some fuq?) than us humans who happen to hear it as well (oh, such pwetty songs!)
I can see this one. Some just have good intent and is mutual. Some is just malicious.
That all communication is an attempt to manipulate the behavior of others.
"Manipulate" is perhaps an overly cynical way of saying that everyone has their own motivations, which they pursue both consciously and unconsciously.
You mean like... all, all? How so? You mean like by asking you this question I'm "manipulating" you into answering it? If so that's a bit of a stretch in my personal opinion.
A stretch, yes. But itβs an interesting model for understanding what communication is. By telling you this, I am manipulating you into understanding my point of view and hopefully getting you to agree with me.
Itβs important to note that not all manipulation is negative. I should hope parents manipulate their children into being aware of safety.
Even chit-chat could be seen as manipulating each other into βbeing socialβ but even I would say thatβs a long shot.
I think the definition of manipulation is a bit odd here. Manipulation to me has a connotation of being nonconsensual. If both or all parties are voluntarily participating I wouldn't consider it manipulation.
But I do see what you all mean, conceptually.
Huh, I've never thought of this before... I like your example of chit-chat. Because for some instances, you could say that one engages in it to manipulate the other person into relieving their own anxiety from being silent around others. Or forcing the other person to give up their personal interests, or, more cynically, making the other person think you are interested.
I've never thought of communication like this before but now I'm going to manipulate everyone in real life into thinking I'm a know it all by telling them this lol
You ask the question in the hope that the answers will provide you either entertainment or edification.
I answered the question in the hope that others will give me a sense of validation for my views or, failing that, start an entertaining or edifying discussion on a topic I'm already interested in.
Right, so I think you have a different definition of "manipulation", perhaps. Which is fine. π
"alter the behavior of others for one's own perceived benefit", yeah?
That's too neutral or positive for my connotation. Mine includes something negative from the perspective of the one being manipulated. It might be incorrect but it's my connotation.
That's a cynical way to put it, if technically correct. Manipulation has a negative connotation for people, but people don't communicate for exclusively malicious reasons.
You might as well say that any conscious entity only acts out of reason, to get food, joy, rest... Or that it isn't possible to speak without words. That much goes without saying. Everyone knows that, which makes this an odd thing to bring up in this thread.
And I'd suggest that you can't prove that a conscious entity without reason ceases to act. We've all surely done something or other for "no particular reason" even if an outward observer might assign one.
Does that mean it's possible to speak without meaning anything in particular? I genuinely don't know.
But I can be sure of one thing, that speaking with the intent to achieve one thing, almost never achieves that exact thing. Is failed manipulation still manipulation? Is unintended manipulation still manipulation? People interpret meaning where non was meant all the time.
That's a good point where the aspect of correctness aside even, it unhelpfully puts too much focus on the sender, whereas communication is widely known to be more of a partnership between both the sender and the recipient(s).
e.g. birds singing is interpreted differently by other birds (want some fuq?) than us humans who happen to hear it as well (oh, such pwetty songs!)
I can see this one. Some just have good intent and is mutual. Some is just malicious.
Technically true, but ambiguous.