Persuasion that happens in good faith is a two-way street. You explain your position, but also truly listen to theirs. If you are prepared to change your own position based on what they say, then you can hope that they might change theirs based on what you say.
If it is truly two way in this sense, including your best efforts to extract from the other party their strongest, potentially unexpected, arguments for their position and give them your due consideration, it shouldn't feel like manipulation.
Even if you’re not going to change your position, such as when the other party doesn’t believe basic facts or incontrovertible evidence, you have to be willing to listen to their position to understand why they hold that position.
When you have a debate with someone who is only waiting for their turn to talk and visibly doesn’t care to parse what you’re saying, you are not motivated to hear them out.
It has to be a discussion, not a lecture combined with light condescension and dismissal.
This is fine when the question is, “What’s for dinner?” However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity. It’s important to understand where these lines fall within yourself and those you are speaking with. Some arguments aren’t worth having in an effort to persuade, but rather they should be discussions aimed at understanding, being vulnerable and finding ways to respect and live at peace among people we have fundamental differences with. Otherwise we are no different than Crusaders and Jihadists.
> This is fine when the question is, “What’s for dinner?” However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity.
No, it is not the definition of integrity. If you opt to double-down on positions you held in spite of being presented to evidence that contradicts or refutes your prior beliefs, the behavior you are displaying is opposite of integrity, specially the part about honesty and commitment to do what's right.
If your principles don't stand up to scrutiny, you shouldn't hold them. Some of the greatest evils ever committed were done by people certain they were acting according to upstanding principles. There is a middle ground between forcing all people to adopt your viewpoints and accepting all viewpoints as equally valid. Oftentimes you can agree to disagree, but there are certainly times you can't.
"However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed"
That's called being dogmatic. Sure, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but, in the face of extraordinary evidence you'd be a fool to stay unswayed and adhere to your proven false core principles.
> However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity... ...Otherwise we are no different than Crusaders and Jihadists.
And do you suggest a crusader or jihadist or keep this point of view as well? They too might think they are in the right and should keep their (religious etc) integrity, surely?
Everyone/most people always assume they are always in the right; if this was objectively true, there would never be a single debate or argument in the world.
> there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed
Well, yes there is.
In fact, that is the central problem of unresolvable divisions. People implicitly making themselves "the decider" by imagining their principles are so great as to preclude any need for revision. (Faith in the primacy of one's beliefs, is inherently the same as faith in one's own primacy to choose beliefs.)
There is nothing wrong with having strong core principles, because your best understanding supports them strongly. But as soon as you discount the possibility of them being wrong, even partially wrong, not the whole picture, framed within a non-tautological assumption, or not supercedable by other wiser principles, ..., you become the enemy of your own progress.
Nobody's knowledge, wisdom, or principles are complete, or have consistent primacy over all others.
Ultimately, principles, ethics and morality are a kind of economics. Decisions are tradeoffs between options. How does one make choices, so that the result is the outcome with the greatest value, and doesn't create other problems that exceed what is solved. That is a decidability problem, which will never have a complete or completely consistent answer.
The landscape for the question "What is best?" and "What is true?" is chaotic, fractal, non-Euclidean and infinitely complex.
---
One of the biggest reasons to strong man the arguments of others, is the better at strong manning you become, the more likely you find something worth changing your own views over. Regardless of how explicit, implicit, or non-existent that was in their original argument.
Leveraging others disagreement, to identify misunderstandings and gaps in one's own knowledge, is the most important reason to talk to someone we disagree with.
Persuading them should be second, but is also more likely if we are clearly pushing ourselves to improve first.
There are very few cases where someone who disagrees with us doesn't see something wrong with our side. Or at a minimum, is not convinced because we are not as clear of a communicator as we think we are. Or not as good a listener as to what their question is, as we think. Even when we are "mostly right" and they are "mostly wrong", others rarely can't teach us something more about what we already know in one of those dimensions.
---
Finally, don't try to persuade people in real time. Discuss, then move on. Discuss again if they want to.
People don't decide anything big in the moment.
They need time to understand an argument. Time to consider both its strengths and weaknesses. And time to consider ramifications we haven't even imagined. And the freedom to prioritize what is worth going down a rabbit hole for, in their life.
---
I have been preparing to persuade a lot of people of something highly contrarian for a long time. This topic lights all the fires in me!
The earth is not flat. This is indisputable fact. Yet, much ink has been spilt on arguments to the contrary. Refuting some of these arguments is quite difficult, honestly, but none of the arguments really matter because they reject all the convincing evidence as conspiracy or magic.
In this way, what you suggest demands significant labor on the part of the person arguing an obvious fact against an ideologue who will proclaim an open desire to change their belief but whose world view is entrenched in magic making it fundamentally impossible to actually change it.
Long story short I don't buy it and think what you said is full of shit.
"The earth is not flat. This is indisputable fact. "
Well, the earth you walk is indisputable flat. That all of earth is round, comes not from direct observation (except for the very few people who have been in space).
So I dare you to actually argue with flat earthers. It is a good way to test your basic scientific knowledge.
If you poke deep, you will find, that most people learned science the way people learned religion before. By memorising it, not by applying the scientific principle of questioning everything and aim for confirmation via experiment. Some flat earthers are actually more "scientific" in the way that they try out (weird) experiments and not just believe things. (But most probably do have a serious mental condition)
Long story short, this could have been the start of a interesting debate, if you would not have finished your argument with that insult.
Ideally, you explain your position and they explain theirs and it’s an open dialogue. Truthfully, you could be wrong about any number of things you have resolute conviction about- even things you believe are well evidenced.
The cynic in me is aware that actually us as individuals have finite time and mental energy to keep debating things which are base, and our lives are improved by just accepting some base assumptions and engaging our energy at higher levels instead of litigating the basics.
I really don’t like this article. I think this article reflects more our desire to categorize things into neatly numbered lists, and reflects less any thorough understanding of influence. Big lists of aphorisms. Less in the way of concrete detail. Words are used the wrong way. Concepts are broken up into incoherent lists.
“Ratianolising” is the word used in the most wrong way. The word normally describes inventing post-hoc reasons for some decision or behavior.
“Negotiating” is a big list of aphorisms which pull in different directions. Some of the advice sounds like amateurish art-of-the-deal tips which encourage you to extract as many concessions as you can from the other side. Some of the advice pulls in the opposite direction. And then, to mix everything up, the advice to compromise and meet half-way rears its ugly head.
The more I read in this article, the worse my opinion gets. I’m stopping.
You make a good point and I agree mostly to the point being made i.e. it is more fluid than categorical. However, I think it is not being made in good faith. I found the article highly insightful because it provides a solid starting point to those that have not started or don't know much about negotiations and how they happen. It should be safe to assume that there are plenty that have not started yet. It is also true that the more frameworks one reads and learns about, the more they realize that there are gaps in each one of them, and it is indeed fluid, not categorical, and hence reaching the same conclusion.
I can see that some of the categories are a stretch semantically; however, I didn't see the specific categories and their names as central to the point of the article. I think the goal is to demonstrate that 1) everyone engages in persuasion in some form; 2) there are various different styles of persuasion with different strengths and weaknesses, and it's useful to be self-aware about what style(s) you tend to use and whether there are other styles you might want to try out in certain situations. I think breaking it down into 5 somewhat artificial categories is a good framework for making this topic approachable and providing good examples to think about.
I think if you already have well-developed thoughts about persuasion and social interaction, it might not add much, but it was useful for me.
As an attorney, I've found that the best persuasion is the removal of impediments and friction standing between the person you hope to influence and what they want to do in the first place.
Most other tactics amount to force or deceit ("manipulation").
Are you talking about the judge, opposing attorney, your client, coworker, business partner, or who? Surely that context matters much more than you're suggesting, viz what you individually perceive the impediments and friction to be, and how you both think they can be removed?
(Not OP) How so? Behind every "no", there is a good reason. If you are honestly curious to understand the objection or hesitation, you may find ways to address them, and find others opening up to your suggestions when their points have been heard. Fundamental principle behind NVC.
Lawyers vs. lawyers may not be the cleanest example since a defence lawyers job is to make it harder for th prosecution to win, but then might want to get that advantage then mediate a deal.
For most of us ideally a colleague is more aligned than that.
This connects with me. More about helping people do what they already have in mind. Connecting with people and finding overlapping interests rather than a manipulation mindset.
Feels to me like that is addressed by the very first sentence in the article:
> We influence others every day, whether we intend to or not.
And then it’s expanded as it continues.
> Every effective communication is manipulation to a degree.
Yes, to a degree. Seems to me the author is attempting to be pragmatic and not let excessive pedantry cloud the larger point. A friend trying to convince you to stop smoking because they want you to live healthier for longer may be technically manipulating you, but that’s not a useful definition and realistically no one would colloquially consider it to be the case. Whenever you find yourself dismissing an argument because a word can be applied universally, instead steelman the author’s argument by trying to understand the definition they are working with.
When people say or hear "manipulation", it usually implies deception: someone is tricking someone else into a position that's against the former's goals and interests.
It's possible to communicate without manipulating if all you aspire to do is describe reality as you see it, and make an effort to separate your own aesthetic judgements from mere observations of what exists.
People may change their actions without changing their goals when their model of reality becomes more accurate.
To manipulate is to control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously. It implies that you're getting someone to do something they wouldn't if they were aware of what was going on.
The way I read manipulation is that someone is handling (manus: latin for 'hands') someone merely as a tool, bending and pushing and whatnot, just as a mere means to an end, without big regard for the tool, in an egotistical way. Objectifying the other, to some extent.
Advice a sales coach gave me was “sales is sorting, not convincing.”
I always found that put me in the right headspace to focus on listening first, then being clear. Whether they sort themselves into a yes or no is on them.
I had a manager once who argued that there was no difference between influence and manipulation. He was one of the most manipulative people I've ever worked with, and working with him was very obnoxious and stressful. I suspect most people who argue that there is no difference are either very manipulative people trying to justify their own behavior, or are people who have been taken in by such people.
IMO people get too caught up in the words "influence" and "manipulate", and effectively start arguing over definitions (whether they realize that's what they're doing or not). I don't think any of that matters.
What matters is whether you're behaving like a decent human being who respects and cares about others. The negative things that people associate with the word "manipulate" are things like trickery, dishonesty, etc. As long as you are approaching others with respect, authenticity, honesty, and a reasonable amount of humility, then I don't think you need to worry about whether your influence counts as "manipulation" or not: you'll be avoiding the aspects of "manipulation" that make it a bad thing.
I've always found that it's about defining win/win situations. Also, you should make real human connection in the process. If you don't like the person, that's a real issue. It may not be that the person is unlikeable, it may be that you aren't finding a perspective that aligns right.
But yeah, aligning incentives and making friends. Even if they don't go the way you want, you both still had a positive experience and can potentially find a way to work together in the future.
People will do anything for those who encourage their dreams, justify their failures, allay their fears, confirm their suspicions and help them throw rocks at their enemies.
I see a lot of whitewashing of Charlie Kirk on social media at the moment that this quote reminds me of. The guy made a killing from speaking hate and then he got killed by hate himself. Like the guy that's always in the jurassic park movies, that doesn't think letting the t-rex out will be much of a problem, and then he get's killed by the t-rex and everyone else needs to deal with the t-rex of hate and far wingism walking the streets.
Readit News
If it is truly two way in this sense, including your best efforts to extract from the other party their strongest, potentially unexpected, arguments for their position and give them your due consideration, it shouldn't feel like manipulation.
When you have a debate with someone who is only waiting for their turn to talk and visibly doesn’t care to parse what you’re saying, you are not motivated to hear them out.
It has to be a discussion, not a lecture combined with light condescension and dismissal.
No, it is not the definition of integrity. If you opt to double-down on positions you held in spite of being presented to evidence that contradicts or refutes your prior beliefs, the behavior you are displaying is opposite of integrity, specially the part about honesty and commitment to do what's right.
Silly example, but I find arguments fall apart most at the edges.
I challenge you to develop a better definition of integrity. For me, integrity means I will change my mind when presented with convincing data.
I see what you're saying but I think this is called obstinance...
That's called being dogmatic. Sure, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but, in the face of extraordinary evidence you'd be a fool to stay unswayed and adhere to your proven false core principles.
And do you suggest a crusader or jihadist or keep this point of view as well? They too might think they are in the right and should keep their (religious etc) integrity, surely?
Everyone/most people always assume they are always in the right; if this was objectively true, there would never be a single debate or argument in the world.
Well, yes there is.
In fact, that is the central problem of unresolvable divisions. People implicitly making themselves "the decider" by imagining their principles are so great as to preclude any need for revision. (Faith in the primacy of one's beliefs, is inherently the same as faith in one's own primacy to choose beliefs.)
There is nothing wrong with having strong core principles, because your best understanding supports them strongly. But as soon as you discount the possibility of them being wrong, even partially wrong, not the whole picture, framed within a non-tautological assumption, or not supercedable by other wiser principles, ..., you become the enemy of your own progress.
Nobody's knowledge, wisdom, or principles are complete, or have consistent primacy over all others.
Ultimately, principles, ethics and morality are a kind of economics. Decisions are tradeoffs between options. How does one make choices, so that the result is the outcome with the greatest value, and doesn't create other problems that exceed what is solved. That is a decidability problem, which will never have a complete or completely consistent answer.
The landscape for the question "What is best?" and "What is true?" is chaotic, fractal, non-Euclidean and infinitely complex.
---
One of the biggest reasons to strong man the arguments of others, is the better at strong manning you become, the more likely you find something worth changing your own views over. Regardless of how explicit, implicit, or non-existent that was in their original argument.
Leveraging others disagreement, to identify misunderstandings and gaps in one's own knowledge, is the most important reason to talk to someone we disagree with.
Persuading them should be second, but is also more likely if we are clearly pushing ourselves to improve first.
There are very few cases where someone who disagrees with us doesn't see something wrong with our side. Or at a minimum, is not convinced because we are not as clear of a communicator as we think we are. Or not as good a listener as to what their question is, as we think. Even when we are "mostly right" and they are "mostly wrong", others rarely can't teach us something more about what we already know in one of those dimensions.
---
Finally, don't try to persuade people in real time. Discuss, then move on. Discuss again if they want to.
People don't decide anything big in the moment.
They need time to understand an argument. Time to consider both its strengths and weaknesses. And time to consider ramifications we haven't even imagined. And the freedom to prioritize what is worth going down a rabbit hole for, in their life.
---
I have been preparing to persuade a lot of people of something highly contrarian for a long time. This topic lights all the fires in me!
Dead Comment
In this way, what you suggest demands significant labor on the part of the person arguing an obvious fact against an ideologue who will proclaim an open desire to change their belief but whose world view is entrenched in magic making it fundamentally impossible to actually change it.
Long story short I don't buy it and think what you said is full of shit.
Well, the earth you walk is indisputable flat. That all of earth is round, comes not from direct observation (except for the very few people who have been in space).
So I dare you to actually argue with flat earthers. It is a good way to test your basic scientific knowledge. If you poke deep, you will find, that most people learned science the way people learned religion before. By memorising it, not by applying the scientific principle of questioning everything and aim for confirmation via experiment. Some flat earthers are actually more "scientific" in the way that they try out (weird) experiments and not just believe things. (But most probably do have a serious mental condition)
Long story short, this could have been the start of a interesting debate, if you would not have finished your argument with that insult.
I was an idealist, so I understand the position.
Ideally, you explain your position and they explain theirs and it’s an open dialogue. Truthfully, you could be wrong about any number of things you have resolute conviction about- even things you believe are well evidenced.
The cynic in me is aware that actually us as individuals have finite time and mental energy to keep debating things which are base, and our lives are improved by just accepting some base assumptions and engaging our energy at higher levels instead of litigating the basics.
“Ratianolising” is the word used in the most wrong way. The word normally describes inventing post-hoc reasons for some decision or behavior.
“Negotiating” is a big list of aphorisms which pull in different directions. Some of the advice sounds like amateurish art-of-the-deal tips which encourage you to extract as many concessions as you can from the other side. Some of the advice pulls in the opposite direction. And then, to mix everything up, the advice to compromise and meet half-way rears its ugly head.
The more I read in this article, the worse my opinion gets. I’m stopping.
:-(
I think if you already have well-developed thoughts about persuasion and social interaction, it might not add much, but it was useful for me.
As an attorney, I've found that the best persuasion is the removal of impediments and friction standing between the person you hope to influence and what they want to do in the first place.
Most other tactics amount to force or deceit ("manipulation").
For most of us ideally a colleague is more aligned than that.
exactly!
A baby smiling at you is manipulation.
This is nothing bad in itself.
> We influence others every day, whether we intend to or not.
And then it’s expanded as it continues.
> Every effective communication is manipulation to a degree.
Yes, to a degree. Seems to me the author is attempting to be pragmatic and not let excessive pedantry cloud the larger point. A friend trying to convince you to stop smoking because they want you to live healthier for longer may be technically manipulating you, but that’s not a useful definition and realistically no one would colloquially consider it to be the case. Whenever you find yourself dismissing an argument because a word can be applied universally, instead steelman the author’s argument by trying to understand the definition they are working with.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's possible to communicate without manipulating if all you aspire to do is describe reality as you see it, and make an effort to separate your own aesthetic judgements from mere observations of what exists.
People may change their actions without changing their goals when their model of reality becomes more accurate.
I always found that put me in the right headspace to focus on listening first, then being clear. Whether they sort themselves into a yes or no is on them.
IMO people get too caught up in the words "influence" and "manipulate", and effectively start arguing over definitions (whether they realize that's what they're doing or not). I don't think any of that matters.
What matters is whether you're behaving like a decent human being who respects and cares about others. The negative things that people associate with the word "manipulate" are things like trickery, dishonesty, etc. As long as you are approaching others with respect, authenticity, honesty, and a reasonable amount of humility, then I don't think you need to worry about whether your influence counts as "manipulation" or not: you'll be avoiding the aspects of "manipulation" that make it a bad thing.
But yeah, aligning incentives and making friends. Even if they don't go the way you want, you both still had a positive experience and can potentially find a way to work together in the future.
-- Blair Warren