what about the difference between manipulation and persuasion ? the difference between force and cooperation, of win lose and win win?
I disagree, so I doubt we will have much to say to each other from here on out. I will add for clarification that most humans seem rather more lazy than ambitious. I think a better case can be made for a general presumption toward “the avoidance of unnecessary work” being a fundamental characteristic of human nature, and indeed, successful genomes.
Persuasion is manipulation. What do you mean by “what about the difference between force/cooperation, win/lose, win/win”?
http://www.squidoo.com/persuasion-or-manipulation
each of these give differences between the two.
perssuasion win win/ cooperation
manipulation win lose/ force
I meant what do you mean by asking me the differences. Anyone can look in a dictionary, but why are you asking me. That’s what I’m wondering.
As for persuasion vs manipulation, that’s just simply not true. Manipulation applied to psychology tends to take on a negative connotation, but at its base it means to influence.
my point is that there are different methods of influence, some negative, some positive.
you say its not true, then you give a example where it is true.
that seems to be a pschopathic nihilistic take to put difference types of influence on equal amoral terms.
Are you suggesting you can’t persuade people in negative ways?
perhaps persuasion is more neutral, perhaps it’s techneges that i am thinking about. with the definition of manipulative i was looking at, intention seemed to be a key difference between persuasion and manipulation. with other definitions simply suggesting manipulation as management , sure it can all be called manipulation and people will judge if it’s postive or negative manipulations.
Yes. And since morals aren’t really true but merely constructs of the minds of homo sapiens, it follows that their purpose is to manipulate minds (the subject’s mind and/or those of others). It seems their function is to limit competition for liberty and power.
So if I tell you that I don’t want to conquer everything, am I lying or simply manipulated by the ethical system?
No, youre just attempting to manipulate hashem to consider you as less competition. The insatiable thirst for more is axiomatic.
Unlimited, perpetual demand for a better position is a part of the foundation of elementary economics. That requires a base amount of liberty and power, and perpetually more liberty and power. Obviously, such drive is tempered by a plethora of factors, among which are the drive to have social relations, and the envenvironmen
Anyway, what’s so hard about acknowledging that social interaction is mutual manipulation?
unlimited perpetual demand for a better position is not an insatiable demand to conquer.
Not sure I understand what you mean here. The “desire for a better position” doesnt require a “base amount of liberty and power.” someone could be utterly powerless and without liberty, and desire an improvement in their position.
so youre agreeing with me that it is not properly described as “unlimited”?
its either trivial or needs to be supported, depending on how you define “manipulation.”
unlimited perpetual demand for a better position is not an insatiable demand to conquer.
Yes, it is. How do you presume to continue satisfying an endless demand for more without an endless need to conquer. Anyway, history seems to be irrefutable evidence that homo sapiens does, as a matter of fact, tend to conquer, endlessly.
The “desire for a better position” doesnt require a “base amount of liberty and power.” someone could be utterly powerless and without liberty
What? Someone “utterly powerless and without liberty” is dead, by definition. Recall the proverbial standing room. At a minimum, he must have the liberty to remain alive, and the power to do so.
so youre agreeing with me that it is not properly described as “unlimited”?
I’m thinking unlimited in terms of quantities, so maybe unlimited isn’t the best word. Unending perhaps. The point is it doesn’t run out, or else man wouldn’t act. Elementary economics. You should know that.
its either trivial or needs to be supported, depending on how you define “manipulation.”
Everyone seems to be thinking in terms of their own lingual predjudices. So people are attacking the idea of manipulation, like I’m proposing that everyone is secretly trying to exploit their fellows. While that’s partly true, my point in asking why it’s so hard to acknowledge that social interaction is mutual manipulation was to bring people back to what the words mean, instead of just thinking in terms of their prejudice about them. We manipulate each other, it’s nothing to be ashamed of.
first of all, a “better position” is not equivalent to “more” as there is a qualitative aspect involved. Secondly, catallacty. These desires can be more easily and efficiently satisfied through voluntary action, as you get other people to voluntarily work for you.
history is nothing without interpretation. Your interpretation would seem to differ from mine in several particulars. For example, you appear to be interpreting history from with a collectivist methodology, as opposed to something methodologically individualistic. The vast majority of humans indeed do not seem to be determined to accumulate more and conquer more, as they choose to do otherwise. Furthermore I would suggest that your view of history is not sufficiently informed by the aboriginal peoples of the earth who seem particularly apalled at the idea of conquering the globe.
here I am envisioning a person who is strapped to a bed, on life support. They have no liberty to move and they have no power to free themselves. Yet he wishes to escape. However, the room is soundproofed and so he has no means of alerting anyone to this desire. This hypothetical person couldnt exist?
I do know that, which is why I question your interpretation. Continually desiring things is not the same as continually desiring more things. This continual desire for more seems to underpin your argument. I submit that this is not actually the case for human nature qua human nature. Any number of real people could desire to conquer the entire earth, nay the universe, and not be satisfied until they died or were crowned as emperor of dune. But there are also any number of people who desire to live without working, and so are somewhat less ambitious.
there is no proper denotation of a given verbum. Thats why its helpful to define your terms. The problem here is tha the definition of “manipulate” that youre using is significant to the discussion. So it seems like its a petitio principii.
here I am envisioning a person who is strapped to a bed, on life support. They have no liberty to move and they have no power to free themselves. Yet he wishes to escape.
LOL. I actually laughed so don’t take this the wrong way, but what the hell are you talking about?? Hahaha.
history is nothing without interpretation.
History is a record of patterns and exceptions, if nothing else. I maintain my point: the genus homo sapiens has historically tended, and does presently tend, to conquer. An especially important characteristic is our tendency to continually expand our range of things conquered and yet to conquer.
The vast majority of humans indeed do not seem to be determined to accumulate more and conquer more, as they choose to do otherwise.
Any given individual isn’t necessarily representative of homo sapiens. The patterns in history of thousands and millions and billions of people over countless generations in similar circumstances and environments expose the patterns and exceptions of the tendencies of homo sapiens. Even the economic axiom humans act means nothing if it isn’t verifiable by studying multiple people.
And yet you missed my point. The drive of homo sapiens is to conquer. Picture Crusoe, starting with nothing and needing to survive and then eventually adding society and exchange. None of it is possible without creating capital to overcome obstacles to consumption/exchange. But the primal drives of any given person are tempered, like I said several times, by the drive to have social relations, and by the environment, etc etc.
EDIT: Ok some of it is possible without capital. An utterly ridiculous bare minimum. So bare and absurd even your hypothetical aborigines dare not go there. Even they make and use capital. Even our cavemen ancestors make and use capital. It’s one of the main marks of intelligence approaching the level of homo sapiens.
I guess I’m talking about how you werent making sense earlier when you said:
unless you would care to explain yourself in light of this little exchange we have had.
I dont agree. I think that “conquer” is a poor descriptor for the behaviors that totalitarian agricultural humans engage in, which have led to the world we know. If you said “produce” instead then I think I might agree with you.
I cant say I agree with this. Every indidividual homo sapiens is necessarily representative of homo sapiens.
I consider this most compelling evidence that you should spend the greater part of your time examining the aborigines, rather than the past 10,000 years of agricultural human history.
exactly why I consider “conquer” to be a poor word choice for this activity. Would you say that plants conquer the solar radiation or that the lion conquered the wildebeast?
seems by manipulate he means management and conquer use of resources. sure we must manage social relationships and eat. this does not require being violent towards other humans or using force against them. by cooperating with each other, people can grow a garden and eat the fruits of that labour. this had mutual cooperative management and conguering of nature as to grow a garden.
on the point of prejudice towards words, sure manipulation can be influence and conquer can be optain by effort or productivity or gain.
“conquering” nature seems like a bad idea too, maybe we should work with the nature of things to get what we want.
working with the nature of things is part of conquering nature. building a house and garden is still working with the laws of nature, not conqeuring nature in the sense of defyng the laws of physics, but management and work to shape and make use of the environment.
http://custance.org/old/noah/ch1t.html this was a interesting article about peoples working with nature.