4 ms·

Politicians manipulate people's behaviour by appealing to their perceived best interest. So do companies marketing products. So do the Society of Engineers and

Politicians manipulate people's behaviour by appealing to their perceived best interest. So do companies marketing products. So do the Society of Engineers and the College of Physicians. Come to think of it, so do unions. Is there any "reasonableness" to their position? You can decide for yourself. If you don't like the expression "social engineering," I'm perfectly happy with "Engineers manipulate public behaviour to solve the problem of how to be paid handsomely." Whether that manipulation is in society's best interests is another argument, and yes I am avoiding it.* * "Avoiding it" does not mean that I disagree with your point.

joe_the_user 16y ago
"Social engineering" and "manipulation" are terms for influence with a negative connotation. So I don't think you are entirely avoiding the question whether this influencing is valid. Moreover, you are making the presupposition that the end-goal is higher pay. That might be one goal but its quite possible engineers actually believe that regulation serves the public good. We could discuss this too but "meta-conversation" is mostly about avoiding the sneaking-in of positions without support. If a person were to say "engineers do an excellent job of educating the public concerning the need for their services to be regulated", well then the statement would skewed the other way - "Educate" is term with positive connotations. Perhaps "engineer have pushed for the regulation of their field" would be close to neutral...
- raganwald 16y ago
  I appreciate what you are trying to say, but one part of what you are saying jars. You are saying that phrases like "manipulate" have a negative connotation, and you also say that this is linked to whether the influence is "valid." I don't know that the two are coupled in this manner. If I observe a politician making an election promise, is it only "manipulation" if he has no intention of attempting to fulfil his promise? What if he promises something and follows through with it? Is it manipulation if he personally doesn't care about the issue but is only doing it to get elected? What if he cares about some other issue, but promotes this issue to get elected so he can pursue another agenda he believes in? I think the "validity" of influence is a very murky point to debate. There's what a politician believes, what a politician believes you believe, what they believe you might believe if told they believe it... Ultimately I find it easier to use the word "manipulate" to describe what happens when one person attempts to influence the behaviour of another for their own ends, whether I agree or disagree with those ends. Getting away from politicians and back to regulated professions, Chiropractors and Doctors are both regulated professions. They seem to hate each other's practices. I believe each is sincere in arguing against the other, and I have a personal belief about the efficacy of one vs. the other, but I would also describe them both as attempting to manipulate public opinion about the other's profession. I wouldn't say that one is manipulative and the other isn't purely because of my belief that one is right and that the other is wrong.

joe_the_user 16y ago

"Social engineering" and "manipulation" are terms for influence with a negative connotation. So I don't think you are entirely avoiding the question whether this influencing is valid. Moreover, you are making the presupposition that the end-goal is higher pay. That might be one goal but its quite possible engineers actually believe that regulation serves the public good. We could discuss this too but "meta-conversation" is mostly about avoiding the sneaking-in of positions without support. If a person were to say "engineers do an excellent job of educating the public concerning the need for their services to be regulated", well then the statement would skewed the other way - "Educate" is term with positive connotations. Perhaps "engineer have pushed for the regulation of their field" would be close to neutral...

raganwald 16y ago
I appreciate what you are trying to say, but one part of what you are saying jars. You are saying that phrases like "manipulate" have a negative connotation, and you also say that this is linked to whether the influence is "valid." I don't know that the two are coupled in this manner. If I observe a politician making an election promise, is it only "manipulation" if he has no intention of attempting to fulfil his promise? What if he promises something and follows through with it? Is it manipulation if he personally doesn't care about the issue but is only doing it to get elected? What if he cares about some other issue, but promotes this issue to get elected so he can pursue another agenda he believes in? I think the "validity" of influence is a very murky point to debate. There's what a politician believes, what a politician believes you believe, what they believe you might believe if told they believe it... Ultimately I find it easier to use the word "manipulate" to describe what happens when one person attempts to influence the behaviour of another for their own ends, whether I agree or disagree with those ends. Getting away from politicians and back to regulated professions, Chiropractors and Doctors are both regulated professions. They seem to hate each other's practices. I believe each is sincere in arguing against the other, and I have a personal belief about the efficacy of one vs. the other, but I would also describe them both as attempting to manipulate public opinion about the other's profession. I wouldn't say that one is manipulative and the other isn't purely because of my belief that one is right and that the other is wrong.