3 ms·

When I like it, it's called "influence". When I don't like it, it's called "manipulation". At least, this seems to be the way it's commonly used.

• Karunamon 8y ago
  "Propaganda" is another descriptor along those lines. Neither tells you anything about the content other than the value judgment belonging to the person making the statement.
  • jaggederest 8y ago
    There's a pretty clear definition: "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." Leaving aside the issue of bias, I think we can agree that if a particular piece of information, designed to mislead the public, is widely disseminated, that is propaganda. Widely disseminating facts, or privately disseminating misleading information is not propaganda.
    • randcraw 8y ago
      If I may pick a nit... Propaganda is intended to change a belief or a course of action through a substantial amount of disinformation, i.e. lying repeatedly or omitting many facts. Thus the intended audience doesn't have to be big (no wide dissemination) as long as the lies / omissions are numerous and show deliberate intent to deceive. For example, a man can conduct a propaganda campaign lasting years and make many misleading statements toward only his wife. However, it'd be a stretch to refer to a single isolated lie as propaganda, even if it were intended for an audience of millions. I suggest the dividing line between persuasion and manipulation to be akin to 'assent' vs 'consent'. Persuasion requires agreement, the informed, equal, and voluntary meeting of two minds, not a un/mis-informed compliance or subservience of one mind toward another. The latter could never be called persuasion.
      • xupybd 8y ago
        Does the definition of Propaganda require that the information is disinformation? For example I consider the anti smoking packaging required in New Zealand propaganda. It’s all true but seeing a smokers lungs dissected on a packet of cigarettes to me seems like propaganda.
• bsder 8y ago
  I call it "manipulation" when someone is trying to get me to believe something contrary to factual evidence.
• deathanatos 8y ago
  I disagree those are strictly the same thing. I have a coworker, who largely does not listen to any argument I make; from my point of view, this is because I am younger, and he perceives me as less experienced because of my age. However, other coworkers are able to deliver the same argument to him, and have him listen to that argument. In that regard, they have influence over him, whereas I do not. Yet, nobody is attempting to manipulate anybody (in the sense of lie to, or attempting to get someone to hold a belief that the manipulator does not themselves hold or knows to be unsound).
  • screaminghawk 8y ago
    Sounds like it still fits to me. From his point of view, you aren't a credible source, so he thinks you are trying to manipulate him (he doesn't like it). But he respects the other coworkers so they can influence him (he likes it). It's not just about the message, there are a lot of factors in play. *Not saying I agree with the parent's definitions. Just that they could still fit your experience
• deviationblue 8y ago
  Or, if it's from someone I don't like anyways or want others to dislike/disregard: manipulative.