Talk:Manipulation (psychology)/Archives/2012

Copyright

I understand the copyright issue but was it really necessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater ? There are well over 100 references in Wikipedia to "psychological manipulation" and manipulation in the psychological sense. It seems extremely surprising that a psychological manipulation article had not been done before. I also included about 6 See alsos and Wiki categorization which have been lost by deleting the article. I was poised today to develop the text i had already written and would have probably resolved any copyright issues anyway. Also i was intending to include material today derived from a variety of other sources that i would have thought were unlikely to have copyright issues. I dont even have a copy of what was there yesterday so i can develop it. Was it really necessary to completely delete the whole article ? The article is just a stub. Yesterday I just threw a few essentials together to get the article in place as i had limited time. I was intending to develop it properly today and over the next few days.--Penbat (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Underhanded, unfair tactics

Underhanded and unfair are words that will eventually receive the comment: Grow Up. If there is an apparent advange in the use of a somewhat devilish, demonish, or specific louse tactic then someone, somewhere will use it.
Louse tactics create underlaying social unrest, termites eating at foundations, and is an indication of a not so decent mind (not honorable). When louse tactics go too far, they become criminal. There are laws made to counter louse tactics but those laws are somewhat difficult to apply. Many an individual would recommend having de-lousing spray handy.
I don´t know what the issue with copyright was but for what it is worth: Copyright is really no issue when you quote the source and do the references as per bookreport style. It becomes an issue when you quote a whole book verbatum. Just keep in mind that many a book mongerer wrote and writes books to survive, even if they don´t really make a living. Wikipedia is free. That there will be complaints due the form that a million monkeys will not so randomly type on a million typewriters, should be taken with a shrug. The facts of life are such that you can read a book, memorize that book, then quote that book either in writing or through speach with absolutely no references given except your own memory. As if that could be patented and/or copyrighted. Now, to be correct, the statements due Wikipedia that by interacting with wikipedia you loose your legal copyright or left protection due law is incorrect. When you print in wikipedia you do not loose that protection but you give wikipedia the rights to ´commercialize´ your work through the processes inherent in wikipedia, Fair Use, while still retaining your own rights to commercialize your part of that work on your own. Electronic interactions in this manner are not legally binding agreements and never will be. You have your own liability, independant of the liability of wikipedia, and that liability can not be transferred. (Fractalhints (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

Advertising uses psychological manipulation. —mattisse (Talk) 15:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction?

So "doctors try to persuade patients to change unhealthy habits". Yes, they have "no qualms about causing harm to the victim if necessary." This is just one example of contradictions in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnarr (talk • contribs) 11:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Examples in art?

I was wondering if it would be worth adding some references in art for this article? For example, I recently watched a movied called Whipped and and I couldn't help but notice striking traces of Psychological manipulation by the character played by Amanda Peet, which seems to go on pair with the basic manipulative_strategy of a psychopath proposed by Hare and Babiak. --Pinnecco (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This is probably a better home: Fictional portrayals of psychopaths --Penbat (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I notice Whipped (film) --Penbat (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Advancing only the interests of the manipulator?

I don't think the claim that psychological manipulation always only advances the interests of the manipulator is accurate. Such broad, sweeping generalizations just don't always work in the real world. For example, I can see many cases where the manipulator is doing what he/she is doing to advance someone ELSE's interests. There are many possible variations. Gringo300 (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. Even if the manipulation is always in the manipulators interests, it could still be in the manipulators interests to help the target for example "doctors can try to persuade patients to change unhealthy habits".

It goes on to say "Social influence is not necessarily negative. For example, doctors can try to persuade patients to change unhealthy habits. Social influence is generally perceived to be harmless when it respects the right of the influenced to accept or reject it, and is not unduly coercive. Depending on the context and motivations, social influence may constitute underhanded manipulation."

So it already says it may not be at the other persons expense and it may be in the interests of the manipulator to benefit the target for example parents sometimes use reverse psychology to make children behave.--Penbat (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, getting rid of the word "only" would probably be helpful. --Penbat (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Parenting is a very good example. A brief examination of manipulation within common techniques used by parents or teachers might improve the article.108.8.48.47 (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

"According to Simon"

Uh, what? Who's Simon? And who's Braiker? This article is badly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.22.236 (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Try looking at the references.--Charles (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Simon is mentioned further up the article and his name is linked. I've added Braiker's first name. Jim Michael (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Manipulation of dependent/vulnerable persons

1. The article mentions elder abuse, but not psychological manipulation of children, developmentally delayed persons, or persons who are vulnerable/subordinate by reason of being forcibly held against their will (hostages, slaves, etc.), and similar situations where the abilities and circumstances of the victim substantially impair their ability / opportunities to resist or escape.

2. None of the lists of victim responses to psychological manipulation includes well-founded (or not) fear of escalating the psychological manipulation with the attendant increased risk of psychological traumatization, or of physical (including) sexual abuse. Worst case, this is the state of being terrorized.

3. Relatedly, the list of the "too"s, in effect, passes judgement on qualities sometimes seen in persons who have experienced or are vulnerable to experience psychological victimization. These qualities should rather be presented as victim selection criteria used by manipulators, and psychological characteristics that afford specific manipulative opportunities - rather in the way that glass affords breaking and plastic affords scratching. 68.149.154.238 (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's called the process of selling

"Once the psychopath has identified a victim, the manipulation phase begins. During the manipulation phase, a psychopath may create a persona or mask, specifically designed to ‘work’ for his or her target. A psychopath will lie to gain the trust of their victim. Psychopaths' lack of empathy and guilt allows them to lie with impunity; they do not see the value of telling the truth unless it will help get them what they want."

Translation: Once the seller has identified a potential buyer, the advertising phase begins. During the advertising phase, a seller may create a brand image, specifically designed to ‘work’ for his or her target audience. A seller will make exaggerated claims to gain the trust of their potential buyers. Sellers' lack of individual concern for their customers allows them to exaggerate their wishes with impunity; they do not see the value of telling the truth about what they want (to customers) unless it will help get them what they want (i.e. money and/or what they plan to get from it).siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 09:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

yes it also says somewhere that a sociopath views everybody in terms of what they can get from them- (a con man views every person as a possible mark) in the same way my sales teacher pointed out that everyone is a potential customer (called a prospect). There are a lot of similarities between sales, cons and so called sociopaths. I personally doubt a lot of what is believed about sociopaths/psychopaths and I DON'T believe that every conman is a "path" nor that every "path" is a conman. I think this article heavily confuse three separate concepts- psychopaths/sociopaths, con-men, and manipulation. There is a lot of good info but ultimatly, it's not a very good article on the subject of manipulation (nor do I think it's very npov). Also, more and better information should be listed about "buttons." This information falls short and the list is really not composed of separate things. Rather it is a description of a person who seems highly open to scamming/manipulation divided up into a list of buttons. ANYBODY can be manipulated and everybody has buttons that can be pushed- guilt, anger, pride- usually anything that can be used to create stress and discomfort. Sorry for the rant but I definitly see a need for a nonbias, focused clean up.

2602:306:CE64:1EF0:B564:CDA3:5C5C:5F72 (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)amyanda2000

Unwarranted juxtaposition and overall biased perspective

The article seems to group disparate analyses each with too little independent qualification. For example, Braiker's manipulation techniques seem more objective and general than Simon's, which seem to be addressing how a victim might practically recognize manipulative behavior more than providing an explanation of what fundamentally constitutes such behavior. It is appropriate to include the different viewpoints, but they should each be granted more unique focus and explanation or they merely confuse the reader by countering each other's usefulness. One very basic question that should be answered of each perspective is in what context it is addressing psychological manipulation. Both Braiker and Simon wrote works intended to deal with manipulation. Kantor's work is probably more appropriate for such an article as it seems to be a more academic study of manipulation rather than a practical guide.

In the introduction, the article recognizes that psychological manipulation may not always have a negative influence, but otherwise the article seems engineered (understandably so, given the sources) to address avoiding or mitigating manipulation. It places large focus on the psychopathology of manipulation, but there are plenty of situations in which psychological manipulation is very normal. There is a lot of room for expanding the scope of this article, and I think that that step is necessary for it to become very useful. As the article is now, it constitutes what seems like an okay section for a basic outline of what manipulation consists of, in terms of low-level interpersonal interaction. I realize that there are many other articles on topics in psychological manipulation, but this article should roughly attempt to delineate its scope at all levels. Some research should certainly be included in fields like cognitive science, military/police tactics, advertising, security, and political science.

It would also be good to include some section addressing exemplary instances of manipulation and the way it has been viewed in certain historical and philosophical contexts. In literature, Demian, Nineteen Eighty-four, several works by Mark Twain, Wuthering Heights, Hamlet, and many others provide interesting and varied studies of psychological manipulation. Movies like Good Will Hunting, Minority Report, and Star Wars reflect society's ideas about psychological manipulation and the ethics associated with it. I would like to add some information myself, but I am only here because I just began studying the subject. I don't really feel comfortable with my own understanding, but I found this article a great deal less interesting than I had hoped.108.8.48.47 (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I mention that the word "he" is used a lot in this article? There are also females that psychologically manipulate. Could we potentially change it to a gender-neutral term such as "manipulator" to avoid bias? Just a thought - doesn't HAVE to be enforced. 76.235.182.216 (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"It", "they", or any English non-pronoun that you can attribute to any single human being. Those are your choices in the English languages (approximately). You may have better luck in other languages, or even other types of English which I'm not well versed in, which are, in this respect, superior. Have a great day!siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 21:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Psychological conditions

Regarding the POV tag, I feel the current claim needs to be more clearly attributed as a point of view of a self-help book, and balanced by views on how such conditions do not necessarily or at all involve manipulation, which there's a fair bit of research on and attempts to combat the stigma about. I can only see some of the claims made, via Google books, so I'm not sure how to address each condition. There's also the issue of turning the tables, re the validity of these diagnoses, and re how people with such diagnoses are treated (or excluded) by services/society etc, and the labelling of them as manipulative, is itself sometimes alleged to be manipulative. Finally I noticed the book seems to include drug addicts incl. alcoholics in its list of manipulators but the section here currently omits that. I'll try to make some additions in due course, and think there's good points made in sections above too which it would be good to get collaboratively reflected in this interesting article. Every (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Columns

It is my opinion that columns (which unfortunately don't show up in all browsers) make an extended see also list visually neater. Andrewaskew (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Victim

This article does not explain the strengths of the victim and the eventual end to the predatory game. Please add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.201.160 (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)