Manipulation

In all honesty Michael it could be simply due to the fact that some people don't know the difference between the two. Some people grow up under parents that may only know how to be manipulative and thus a child learns that to be the only way to get what they want. Not every parent shows their children how to be socially persuasive.

The other thing that I noticed in raising my own daughter is I did try to show her both. But I tried more to teach her how to be socially persuasive. She got to see how to do that by helping me in my business, she was lucky to able to experience that. However one cannot prevent a child from witnessing other children gain by manipulation, and once they learn, the parent often becomes a testing ground.
To my daughters dismay, it never worked on me. I didn't allow it, but because of that, as an adult she has experienced more successes by social persuasion, but by using her intellegence and knowledge, not for deceipt. In all honesty, I think social persuasion is more intelligent and much more appreciated and respected.

Open Eyes

I suppose that could be the case. I always assume that I'm in the wrong because I don't have a grasp on the mechanics and concepts, and that they must see something that I don't or can't.

I agree about social persuasion.

If House usually "persuades" people in order to save their lives, why are his actions usually frowned upon and/or seen as manipulative?

I'm curious, did your wife marry you before or after she knew of your diagnosis?

Season 4, Episode 4: Ring Around the Rosie

The guy who "diagnoses" Jane is the new team's boss and has a Master's in forensic psychology. However, I am a bit confused on that diagnosis because from what I understand, psychopaths don't typically have nervous breakdowns or become incredibly sad, yet Jane did with the serial killer Red John.

I cant argue there, in non-psychiatric medicine, there are many new diagnoses, although in psychiatry, there's more disorders added and removed. If you look through the proposed structure for the DSM-V, some disorders are added, and some have their names changed. An interesting change is to anti-social personality disorder, as it is proposed to being re-named dyssocial personality disorder, reflecting dissocial personality disorder in the ICD-10, probably because so many people were confused by the "anti-social" part, they thought ASPD was more like avoidant or schizoid personality disorders.
http://www.dsm5.org/proposedrevision...der-names.aspx

I wasn't on this site 2 years ago, so what were your reasons for initially coming here versus the current reasons for remaining here?

After. Long after. We lived together for about four years before we decided to get married... because I knocked her up.

Ah, that's his name... I knew it started with a "J". I'll have to watch the episode later. I'm already procrastinating way too much as it is... As far as psychopaths becoming incredibly sad... It isn't impossible. What's that word? Inconceivable... ... Although, it's rare. Highly unlikely. I recently read an article which stated that psychopaths may experience normal emotions in certain scenarios (extreme loneliness, grief, rejection, etcetera). I'll try to find it later and maybe start a new thread on the topic...

Oh, goody! I get a brand new label! Perhaps, if they're going to state that manipulation is an indication of a disorder, they should clarify what constitutes pathological manipulation...

My wife had a baby. I was stressed out at the time and mulling over things. Now, I'm not here for any specific reason. Certain things will come up from time to time that I like to discuss, and I enjoy the conversation.

When was House diagnosed as a psychopath? I truely use caution when it comes to these weekly series presented for entertainment, it is obvious that many liberties are taken for shear entertainment purposes. Lets not forget that House was an addict to Vicaden which he used for pain, and he used it a lot and there was a point where it was presenting hallucinations and becoming clear that his brain was changing etc.

It is well known that drug abuse can present a very manipulative person, anything
for that high, so to speak. And along with that House is quite the nonconformist and his manipulation is not really for evil self gain. He often has to manipulate because
often he wants to access procedures and tests that don't meet with the guidelines
for proper procedures.

House is really a fictictious charector Michael and that program is popular because it expresses the constant challenges of witt. And the main menu of that program is the use of intelligence to override emotionality as well as expressing constant displays of thinking outside the box.

And House does have feelings, however he uses a lot of methods to avoid exposing his emotionality. He also picks up on the emotionality of others very well and he does enjoy testing emotionality, strangly to keep himself on track with self persuasion to keep his emotions under wraps. He also struggles with committing himself to anyone emotionally, full well somehow knowing he may not do well cultivating those kinds of relationships as it can be somewhat monotonous.

Open Eyes

so is it wrong then to be a non-conformist? is that seen as a person who manipulates more than others?

i find that speaking out & challenging others to think outside the "box" upsets people here...& somewhat outside pc...but speaking for here...i don;'t want or need cyber hugs..they don't help me when i am in need of support...

i try to offer valid info for people that they can use & yet i tend to get shot down at times because it isn't hand holding let me dab the tears for you stuff...

sorry so not my style...i enjoy challenging someone to think about solutions...not to wallow & act....perhaps that is manipulation but dabbing cyber tears can only do so much..at some point you have to get up & fix yourself...

I suppose that could be the case. I always assume that I'm in the wrong because I don't have a grasp on the mechanics and concepts, and that they must see something that I don't or can't. ~ Michael

You are truely not alone in this area Michael as far as trying to understand the mechanics and concepts and as I know that you don't want to touch on the area of what you have disclosed what you are, but perhaps some of your confusion might be yourself basing on that disorder/whatever.

But I assure you that it is a confusing area no matter what personal issue someone has. So it is a good question to present. It is making me think because I do know the difference, but I struggle to define it verbally. And I don't mean to bring up your personal issue in a negetive way. But I have to think about how you describe what you can and cannot do, and it can be challenging intellectually to explain certain things to you. But I actually like the challenge because it forces me to examine intellect over emotionality. Which is the productive solution anyway.

Excuse me for getting off topic for a bit. Wanted to explain myself by saying, I tend to stick up for issues/ people who I think aren't being treated fairly - such as certain religions, sexual orientation etc. We're aware there's a stigma that comes with mental illness, but there's a double stigma if you happen to be a narcissist, psychopath, anti social etc. People hear this and are more apt to assume the worst. I'm not fighting this OPer's battles for him because I know he can do this...but I don't even think he realizes the depth of prejudice that comes with this label...that's what I'm standing up for. Back to the topic of good VS bad manipulation.

This is a gentle reminder to please keep your posting on topic. Michael says it very well here,

Thanks
sabby

Stumpy, being a non-conformist doesn't have to lead to a wrong. And that is often why "House" is a draw for viewers. And as viewers watch that series they are left to wonder if House's non-conformist style is going to be productive or in the end counter productive.

And Stumpy, I hear you, I also find that speaking outside the box to others can feel fruitless and unwanted. And that is due to the fact that many people feel that the most secure position to be in is that of allowing themselves to conform to whatever structure is in place. And personally I find it amazing how some people conform to being controlled in ways that can truely limit and constrict them and even deceive them. And Stumpy, I have seen that so many times in my life that I have often been left very confused and even somewhat shocked.

Now here is where persuasion comes into play. Persuasion can be accomplished in a couple of ways and it does require some real thought, even out of the box thinking. Most people tend to conform and because they might be manipulated into thinking they are gaining somehow by conforming, there can be blindness involved. So the only way they can be persuaded away from whatever they are conforming to is by watching something take place that exhibits the gains of personal freedom by not conforming.

In PC one of the challenges that is often expressed is that of invalidation.
Many members that come here do so because outside PC they have struggled with issues (especially in the area of abuse) and were invalidated in many ways. All the hugs and hand holding that takes place here in PC may be the only place that a member can recieve that much needed response. And many times members really feel alone and misunderstood outside PC. And somehow they need to know that they are not alone in that area of being misunderstood. And when we talk about persuasion, often it is necessary for someone to understand that whatever issues they face along with personal confusion and sense of loss are valid.
And when we acknowledge the pain and personal struggle of another person we then can proceed to the next level of helping that person identify ways to work their way to healing and recovering some personal strength.

None of the members of PC are qualified therapists, other than DocJohn.
This is a support group and it can be very challenging because we do intermingle with quite a few disorders. And each disorder can present real difficulties for each member and what is often seen is a sentiment of a desire to self punish or a sense of failure. However there is a lot of anger and frustration as well, which is truely understandable in many cases.

Stumpy, within your own personal struggles you found ways to recognize
how you unknowingly gave into your mental illness, and better ways to prevent that process. So you are further along in learning how to consciously improve your perceptions that may have only served to keep you stuck in a troubled state of mind. And because you have achieved that it is easier for you to recognize the ways the others give into being stuck. And on some level you have learned that what may have worked for you at some point is when you left the confines of emotionality ruling you and embraced the intellectual path that provided a way out.

Your imput is important in PC. Because there has to be a combination of validation along with suggestions of how to take the next step. It is important to recognize how you might be getting shot down Stumpy. Also, are you getting shot down or do you just feel you are because you don't get an immediate response of unstuckness? It is not easy Stumpy to assist another person into adapting ways of helping themselves get unstuck. And the only way that can even begin to take place is by first validating that other person as well as helping that other person see their stuckness better. And that is a real challenge, especially here in PC. Because in PC we can come across other members that express themselves in ways (according to their disorder) that we can interpret as invasive, accusitory, maniupulative, disruptive, defensive, or so direct and black and white that they seem to convey an intentional critisism.

In all honesty, considering the variety of psychological issues along with a variety of obstacles members have endured due to parental upbringing, culture, and various societal conformities, this is an amazingly supportive site. And equally amazing to me is that there is a strong undertone of anger and frustration within many members here that can be so easily triggered and hard to contain.

This is an interesting topic to address in this environment Michael. As I mentioned earlier, I am not so sure your going to be left with an answer that will resolve your confusion. However you will have a variety of oppinions to consider.

Open Eyes

He wasn't. And this isn't about psychopathy or any other mental disorder. Nons can manipulate just as much or as well as psychopaths. I'm focusing on the manipulative behaviour itself.

Are you suggesting that he's exempt from responsibility because he's a nonconformist drug-addict? Is it not still manipulation?

I haven't watched this show in awhile. But, in the seasons before he got shipped off to the psych ward, it was made pretty clear that his main motivation was the challenge of solving the puzzle. He never went to see patients or took cases that he thought were boring. He manipulated the patients and procedure in order to find out what was wrong, even if it risked hurting the patient or the hospital. He did start to become invested in most cases as the puzzle became more complex, but that isn't unlike my own obsessions with "the game".

Not to mention... he also manipulates people for s***s and giggles. He once told an adulterous woman and her boyfriend that she was a modern-day Virgin Mary just so he could win a bet. Cuddy quite appropriately remarked that he was "confusing good and evil again".

Again, that absolves him of guilt? If anything, he would be more guilty because he should know better.

I've noticed that too, especially in certain forums. Is it manipulation, or bad in any way, to disagree with someone? To challenge someone? Or simply to offer advice without pressing the button? I think some people confuse disagreement as being unsupportive. But what's more unsupportive to the person than condoning behaviour and supporting thoughts that may be harmful to them?

...

Some more thoughts from the television on manipulation...

http://vod.fxnetworks.com/watch/wilfred (Adult material. Profanities aren't censored.)

While the entire series involves a lot of manipulation (mostly on Wilfred's part), Identity explores the consequences of manipulative behaviour and losing touch with one's moral values. And Doubt is one giant mind-**** worthy of much applause.

I think it's interesting that Ryan experiences such backlash for his manipulative schemes, but Wilfred gets off scot-free again and again. Why is Wilfred seemingly free of responsibility? What does this say about our culture and how we view manipulative people?

What does this say about our culture and how we view manipulative people?

Well, first we are manipulated into watching a weekly series that is ficticious and designed to fill some kind of innate human desire that has been predetermined as something that perks interest in just about all human beings. Then as we are watching that we sit during commericals that try to manipulate us into thinking we must go out and either take the newest remedy to help us deal with all kinds of human ailments, then we hear about the various side effects which include death, oh dont you just love the nice green butterfly that represents a good nights rest, or a swelling throat, morning hangover, and yes even death.

Sigh, I don't write the script for House Michael, I did say a lot of liberties are taken for entertainment purposes. I certainly wont waste my time on over analyzing something that has come from someones imagination, or perhaps tapping on presenting a charector that gets to express different behaviors that many would like to say under their breath to other people IRL but know enough not to.

"I've noticed that too, especially in certain forums. Is it manipulation, or bad in any way, to disagree with someone? To challenge someone? Or simply to offer advice without pressing the button? I think some people confuse disagreement as being unsupportive. But what's more unsupportive to the person than condoning behaviour and supporting thoughts that may be harmful to them?"~quote Michael

I don't think it is bad to disagree with someone Michael. A lot depends on how a disagreement is presented. Here in PC, that can be a challenge because after all, many members struggle with different issues that we may not understand, and we many not even know all their history either that may have been very abusive.

As far as hugs is concerned. I posted in the Sanctuary of Spiritual support because I was addressing something that was very difficult. Outside PC for the most part I was left with a situation and could not address it the way I wanted. And every time I expressed any kind of weariness, being tired, scared, troubled, concerned, etc. IRL I just got jabbed with cold "Just deal" comments that only made me feel worse. So, ok, I am a mush and I take certain responsibilities very seriously. And all I really wanted was hugs, or I hear you, I will listen. Because outside PC I had to be very strong, buck up and with what I have going on in my brain, as hard as I tried it was aggrivating my condition. I hate what I have so much, I can't even put it into words how much I hate it. It gets so one doesn't even know how to think because all the things I did do in my past, bucking it up, just dealing, surviving etc, somehow didn't prevent this condition. Its like added cruelty just for surviving and doing ones best to be strong and buck up etc.

Sure, some people may find those cyber hugs coy or of no real value, even annoying.
But I don't, I somehow just needed to find a way to not be so alone with what I was dealing with. I will appologize if any hugs I have given anyone were not appreciated or were considered offensive. And I don't offer them to be manipulative at all. But I do know intimately what it feels like to really need one. And I also know how nice it is to get one, even a cyber one. But that is just me, I have a lot of empathy for others, and I don't know if that is a virture or a curse.

To be honest I hate to ask for help and somehow I have felt like it is just imposing on others, but that goes way back and it was not a healthy experience. Nope, I am supposed to be the one to just come up with all the solutions and "Just Deal". That is what I thought I did, apparently as I was "Just dealing" my brain wasn't.

"Again, that absolves him of guilt? If anything, he would be more guilty because he should know better."
~quote Michael

No, Michael, trying to hide emotions doesn't always mean someone should know better and thus be guilty.
Often this is done in efforts to conceal the vulnerable side of someone, thus causing an interruption in whatever efforts are being made to intellectualize a resolve. People with emotionality do this all the time.
And that is why House is somewhat attractive, he seems to recognize that the emotionality can become the focus whereas in his atmosphere, one has to keep a cool head so to speak, he is a team leader in that show. People in that field have to maintain composure and learn to over-ride emotions. That can be a very challenging field. I know because my aunt was a nurse and her son is one of the world's top surgeons.

And actually the efforts to dissassociate or find ways to over-ride emotion is a part of other fields as well, veterinarians, all kinds of physicians, emergency workers, and yes, even therapists have to learn how to avoid or even manipulate their own emotianality away from therapy. It is a very demanding job, I am not sure how well they manage that process, most therapist have therapists themselves.

Therapist themselves have to learn how to be very persuasive. And often many patients were so badly manipulated the therapist has to assure the patient that he/she is only helping and wont manipulate.
Open Eyes
"

I've noticed that too, especially in certain forums. Is it manipulation, or bad in any way, to disagree with someone? To challenge someone? Or simply to offer advice without pressing the button? I think some people confuse disagreement as being unsupportive. But what's more unsupportive to the person than condoning behaviour and supporting thoughts that may be harmful to them?

At times it seems some people (here and offline) are... fuzzy agressives? Support or die? It is always suprising to me to see a person who present themselves as goody-good to go into attack mode the moment their world-view is challenged (and it is easy to do, without even trying to).

Maybe the goody-good behaviour may be a way of manipulating too, because it is harder to resist to goodie-good (and seemigly fragile) person than to somebody who is rational and you know they wil not take things too personally.

Not saying there aren't any genuinely good people... but I always imagine devil as a proper polite man in business casual atttire.

Lol, Venus are we a big bowl of nuts or what?



Oh, we do try, we sure are not perfect. And it is important to understand that different members do deal with different issues and we are not therapists, or specialists that have the background of each member here. And we do have emotional/intellectual differences, capacities and incapacities along with different cultural backgrounds. As I mentioned before, it is a relatively supportive site considering the variations of issues members address.

Open Eyes

I owe Michael and everyone else on this thread an apology. My prior post was not appropriate and I asked for it to be removed.

The truth is I don't really know Michael. I had a rough week last week and I think I transferred my feelings onto him. I wish I had just focused myself elsewhere.

Realizing who I am and how I operate is sometimes a slow arduous process.

Again, sorry.

Well... You sit and watch commercials... I get up and make a sandwich or take a 2.4 minute nap...

Characterization is based on real life experiences and situations. Stories reflect real struggles of everyday life. And analysing characters from a story can be very enlightening and entertaining, hence why character analyses exist.



Have you ever studied Terror Management Theory? I don't agree with many of its core concepts. But it argues that people construct cultural worldviews to give themselves a sense of meaning and belonging, so to speak. This helps them cope with the deep-seated and ever-present fear of death. And people will fight, even kill, to protect their beliefs.

No worries, mate. I hope you're feeling better?

"Characterization is based on real life experiences and situations. Stories reflect real struggles of everyday life. And analysing characters from a story can be very enlightening and entertaining, hence why character analyses exist." ~Michael

Well, somewhat, alot of what they have on television is kind of repetitive. At least House is somewhat entertaining. I can see how they depict the charectors based on their occupational demands. Often in real life in this environment it is very common for these people to participate in interactions that allow them to distract their emotions from clouding judgment as I said earlier. In fact as I mentioned my aunt being a nurse for most of her life did adopt a detachment from getting emotionally involved with the patients. And she had not realized how much she had done that until after she retired and was back into a regular life, she remarked that she had to learn how to let out her normal emotions again.

I had worked for a psychiatrist/neurologist for a while and I entered his field work into a computer and it was interesting because he was studieing prisoners that commited crimes where they were in very troubled living conditions. Some of the crimes involved young children and it was very disturbing. However this psychiatrist/neurologist had a very similar sense of humor as House. He was always testing people's reactions in odd ways. And I believe it was his way of distacting from the reality of what he was studieing by applying that odd humor to free his psychie up. It was an interesting group of researchers, I liked working around them, they were very different, but a nice different, extremely intellectual.

Ugh, I try to zone the commercials out as much as possible. I liked the old commercials where there used to be some humor and more creativity to them.
I can remember the old alka selzer ones where they made a stomach a charector.
and it was a cartoon that was very clever that always got a chuckle.

I am actually more drawn to the history channel, nova, science channel, national geogaphic channels, biography channel, Nightline, 60 minutes more brain food stuff and there are less commercials or maybe I can just absorb what I watched and bypass the commercial crap IDK.

Open Eyes

Coming late to this thread (and picking up on Michael's original question):There'll probably never be just one answer as to when it's acceptable and when it's not. Even when it's a politician who's doing the manipulating, we're more likely to hold it against them if they're from what we consider the wrong end of the political spectrum.

I think what makes certain actions manipulative is not so much what the person says and does, as where they're coming from. If I tell you what's going on with me and what you need to know in order to make an informed choice, I'd call that being straight with you. If I act like the kind of person you'd trust more than you'd trust me, and I tell you just enough to lead you to make the choice I'm hoping you'll make, I'd call that manipulation.


Here's a really basic example. People in my area used to have gas heaters with pilot flames in them, and they'd turn off the pilot during the summer to save gas. When the weather got cooler again, some would know how to relight their own pilot while others would call the gas company to do it for them. The gas company only had so many technicians and was usually a few days or even a few weeks behind. Word got around: "Tell them you smell gas. They come a lot sooner that way."


I posted something about manipulation a couple of years ago. We'd been discussing why some people found the idea of DBT (Dialectical Behavior Therapy, developed by Marsha Linehan) scary. This is taken from the middle of a much longer reply:

When I was little, my parents kept warning me that I mustn't be superstitious. Some silly people believed in ghosts, devils, witches, and such -- but we knew better, didn't we?

When I was about four I happened to be visiting with some relatives. At one point my cousin, a few years older, threatened that if I didn't do something or other he was going to get the ghosts after me. My grandmother overheard him and warned him to knock it off.

A few months later, we happened (long story) to be living in a building that had once been an inn. The bathroom was way down the hall and around a corner, the lights didn't always work, and the toilets would automatically flush themselves from time to time. My parents were trying to teach me to walk there by myself but it was just the kind of place I found scary, I hated it, and I wanted someone with me. "What's there to be afraid of?" they demanded. I knew that if I admitted I didn't know, they'd tell me I was silly and keep trying to make me go by myself. I told them, "Ghosts and devils."

"Ghosts and devils?! Who on earth told you about ghosts and devils?"

"My cousin."

By that time their attention was fully on their outrage at my cousin for telling me tales, and I was off the hook. A few weeks later we moved to a nicer place with a much more convenient bathroom.

Not just manipulation ... Fairly barebones stuff at that. And in one so young, oh my!

Ah, you're a shrewd one, FooZe. I'll have to keep my eye on you.

The gas leak gambit is the only one I would really object to, and only because it could backfire (pun fully intended). Half the town is complaining of potential gas leaks, and none of their claims hold true? The technicians may find that a wee bit suspicious and decide to do something in retaliation... like decide there just may be a "real concern" and get the home owners to cough up a lot of cash on unneeded tests and inspections, or even parts for the furnace.

But using tactics such as "classic misdirection" and other "under-handed Machiavellian s***" to get what you want doesn't really strike me as wrong. Well, I wouldn't be upset by it, anyway. To me, it's just normal communication. And maybe that's the case for other people, such as your ex, who just learn to communicate that way.

When I think manipulation I immediately picture marionettes. You generally can't manipulate someone the way you can pull the strings on a puppet, the person still has some sort of say in whether or not to allow you to 'manipulate' them.

The 'moral event horizon' you mentioned in the first post is the point in which you use someone as a means only, or against their will.

If you lie or omit information in order to attain desirable results, the cause may be from a perceived imbalance of power.

Manipulation in regards to human interaction seems like a dirty word, maybe the people that claim your being manipulative are manipulators themselves.

"What is the difference between someone who is convinced and one who is deceived? None, if he is well deceived." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Thank you to everyone for the discussion. It was very helpful.

I don't think it's within my capacity to be offended by most manipulative behaviour. But I can see how, if the intention is purely selfish or harmful to someone else, it can be upsetting to most people. So... I think the best way for me to go about this is to step back and see if my actions are or may harm someone physically, financially, or emotionally. The last one isn't easy see most of the time... But I'm working on it...