Manipulative aspies.

Post Reply New Topic

oh...i am simply chuffed liresse.

Manipulation generally means that the person uses lies or deceptions to get someone to do something for reasons other than what they think they are doing them for. For example, leading someone (your victim) do something for reasons that the victim thinks are true but are not true. Like making some girl believe that some guy she likes doesn't like her back, so she will go out with you on a date instead.

Manipulation usually involves some form of deception or delusion, often vanity. In some of the examples other people have put up here, where there was some rule and consequence (police giving speeding tickets), that isn't manipulation because the rules are clearly understood and the punishment is simply an incentive system.

Although I do not try to be most of the time, I can be very manipulative and sneaky. Like at work if you don't like someone you can be very sneaky at getting them in trouble without them expecting it at all. Lets say you work at a customer service desk and you see a person that your enemy always has trouble with. You can call your manager over for a "question" but the real motive is having him or her observe the enemy screw up.

No, manipulation does not generally have that meaning. While people might often use the word in such a context, that does not change the fact that the word itself does not mean anything in particular to do with lies or deceptions.

ma⋅nip⋅u⋅late
   /məˈnɪpyəˌleɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [muh-nip-yuh-leyt]
–verb (used with object), -lat⋅ed, -lat⋅ing.
1. to manage or influence skillfully, esp. in an unfair manner: to manipulate people's feelings.
2. to handle, manage, or use, esp. with skill, in some process of treatment or performance: to manipulate a large tractor.
3. to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage.
4. Medicine/Medical. to examine or treat by skillful use of the hands, as in palpation, reduction of dislocations, or changing the position of a fetus.

- includes "in an unfair manner" but says "esp (especially)" so commonly can have that meaning
- however it certainly is not defined as lies and deception.

If you look up the word in the dictionary, you can find explanations about manipulating one's hands and/or manipulation of the stock market. But the OP was clearly in the context of social manipulation, not Aspies who are chiropractors doing spinal manipulation.

Here's a good definition of social manipulation that uses plain words: "That attempts to control or play upon others' hopes or fears to attain selfish ends while disregarding their aspirations or well being."

When you "play on others' hopes or fears", that is generally by being deceptive or dishonest. If you are honestly telling someone about something that they fear in order to motivate them ("the house is burning down so you have to get out now!") you are only reporting true incentives to them. That is not "manipulation".

Deception or dishonestly is generally implied to be a part of social manipulation, because most cases where you are being honest to motivate someone won't meet the other conditions of being "manipulative".

I am aware the OP is referring to social manipulation. I am aware that people often mean some kind of malicious or deceitful manipulation when they use the word in a social context, but my dictionary does not mention anything about "unfair" (as Liresse's appears to). Where such meanings are referred to in dictionaries they usually indicate that it is an implication that is common rather than an actual meaning (Liresse's dictionary for instance points out that unfair is often meant by appending "esp....". That's not part and parcel of the meaning, but an especially common usage.


That is not a good definition, but rather a reconstruction that takes a common usage of the word and blurs the line between association and identity. The word is often associated in usage with unfair types of manipulation, but that association is not the word's identity.

There is nothing innately unfair in assuring a child they will be punished if they behave in a particular way, nor in rewarding them for desirable behaviors. But this is a form of manipulation. So long as it is being done to further the interests of the child, or without unfairly impacting on the child's interests, it is not unfair. Further no deceit is necessary, although clearly the child's desires and fears are been utilized.

You are legalistically parsing the metes and bounds of the definition as if it were a technical specification. This is a pop term about a social-behavioral concept. If there is a technical, precise meaning for "manipulation" (what you call an "actual meaning") as opposed to a "common meaning", that's news to me.

Here is a cut-and-paste from Wikipedia's disambiguation page on "manipulation". The disambiguation page exists where there is a lot of ambiguity in a term.

Socially

* A means of gaining control or social influence over others by methods which might be considered unfair. Social advantage may be sought through either manipulative or persuasive rhetorical arguments.
* Confidence trick
* Media manipulation
* Parental manipulation

Influence and persuasion

* Abuse
* Advertising
* Brainwashing
* Charisma
* Fraud
* Indoctrination
* Love bombing
* Machiavellianism
* Media manipulation
* Memetic engineering
* Mind control
* Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP)
* Photo manipulation
* Propaganda
* Social engineering
* Social psychology

In finance

* Market manipulation
* Stock manipulation




In your example of the child told he/she will be punished if misbehaving, that is simply persuasion, and maybe teaching behavior. If you look at the Wikipedia disambiguation list, there is a set of manipulations that fall under the category of being persuasion and influence. But while some manipulations might serve the aims of persuasion and influence, the reverse is not true (that all persuasion and influence are manipulations).

It is not a "pop-term" any more than any other non-technical, every day word.

I struggle to understand what you even mean by this. The word has an actual meaning, and common usages. There is nothing new about it being listed in the dictionary with standard meanings. I cannot make sense of what you are saying.


Wikipedia....oh well, then that settles it.....

Please tell me you are joking. I have no intention of ignoring quality publications like the Oxford dictionary because of something posted on Wikipedia (much less because of a disambiguation page). I do not have any idea why you would expect otherwise.

Wikipedia indeed....


No kidding, none of which makes it not manipulation.


None of which changes the fact that manipulation has a particular meaning that does not go away become narrowed just because it is often associated in usage with particular things. Aroma is often associated with pleasant smells, that does not mean that it is incorrect to assert that sewerage has an aroma, or that asserting as much is the same as asserting sewerage smells pleasant. Association is not identity, it really is that simple.

First of all, there was no "Jedi mind trick." No one's that dumb. Second, I'd assume, since he's your friend's father, you'd know him at least casually, which makes manipulating him, as you called it, far more asinine. Probably he thought it was some chummy joke, and now he will probably expect you to return the favor (particularly when he makes a similarly asinine request). I'm not really sure what a kebab plate is that makes it so special—I've heard of shish kebab, which is that stuff on a stick—but it's probably a matter of small favors and chumminess as he sees it. If you did mean to "manipulate" this chumminess against a friend intentionally, that's incredibly vile.

Yes and no. It's deception because you aren't saying directly "This is what I want you to do and you better do it!" If you said "I want you to do this and if you do this the way I want it done you will get a $5000 bonus" It's somewhat deceptive but at least you are being honest about why you are decieving. It's only deceptive because you are disguising what you want, which is for someone to do what you tell them to, by offering a reward if someone does it.

I have been guilty of manipulating people in an attempt to socialize and deal with them, but I feel bad for doing it and like the Op said, they can see right through it. Because of that I have really tried to stop doing that.

Whatever is an "actual meaning", and what makes it actual, and what bearing has this on the matter at hand?

That is not deception by definition. If a reward is offered for a certain type of behavior, it's plainly obvious what is desired.

The meanings of words change over time; dictionaries, especially the Oxford, record historical usages in chronological order. In the context of social interaction, the word manipulation is automatically bundled with negative connotations of deception and self-serving motives. It's a term of condemnation. If the speaker/writer prefers to praise the influencing of others, another word or phrase like convincing argument, persuasion, or leadership would be used. The word carries with it a Latin root for hand; manipulators handle, or use, people like tools. If a manipulator is being "honest" about their motives, they're probably trying to encourage some vice like greed in another person.

I think it is deceptive and I will explain why. Can we do our best without being rewarded? Is it possible or impossible without a reward? Why do we need the reward? It's a deception. We believe we cannot do our best without it, which is a fallacy.