10 ms·

How can I influence others without manipulating them?

232 points by kiyanwang 1y ago

sema4hacker 1y ago
If I successfully influence someone, I feel I've manipulated them nonetheless.
- codr7 1y ago
  So, let's say you inspire someone just by existing, these things happen.
- klodolph 1y ago
  I see this sentiment from time to time in the HN crowd, and I’m really interested in understanding more about it. My first reaction to this? I think that you’re using “manipulate” to describe a process where somebody doesn’t want to do something, and make them do it anyway, but without using force. It feels like this has to be rooted in some kind of denial of other people’s free will—that they are somehow incapable of choosing to help you or agree with you, and can only be tricked. It seems like you would need to believe that other people don’t genuinely like you or value you.
  - kaechle 1y ago
    Those are some bounding leaps you made without much context. Are you in sales? Kidding aside, my first reaction was: perhaps the occasions they were aware of their own influence were ones in which they didn't much care for the outcome. Or maybe a conflict of interest, like trying to win over a hiring manager for a position you know you'll hate. I don't think cajoling or persuading others inherently manipulative, but I can think of a lot of examples where doing so feels grimy.
    - klodolph 1y ago
      > I don't think cajoling or persuading others inherently manipulative, but I can think of a lot of examples where doing so feels grimy. What I am trying to do is understand why sema4hacker, and some others, feel that influencing people is manipulative. So if you pop into the conversation and say that you don’t feel the same way that sema4hacker does, that doesn’t really help me understand sema4hacker’s perspective. That’s the bounding leap here and I want to pull it apart, dissect it. The bounding leap from “I influenced somebody” to “I manipulated them”. I think there’s not just raw, random feelings here, but some kind of rational thought that I want to understand.
      - kipchak 1y ago
        I'm one of those people-For clarity I'm referring to influence in the active 'How to Win Friends and Influence People' sense. To me "influence" and "manipulation" seem like forms of persuasion but with positive and negative connotations, like "public relations" versus "propaganda". None of them are necessarily bad on their own, but the choice of words seems like it depends on the perspective who is perceiving or describing the influencer/manipulator and their motives. Influence can be seen as manipulation and manipulation seen as influence. For example someone who dislikes an "ifluencer" is probably more likely to think of them as manipulating their audience into buying products. Convincing someone to join a religious group could be seen as positive influence by current members, and manipulation by an outsider. Clarity of purpose from the person doing the persuading is not necessarily clear as well. There is likely there's likely a mixture of factors motivating them to persuade, including some to their own benefit. People, especially those who think they are doing good, will also generally grade themselves on a bit of a curve and rationalize their actions towards being positive, especially in moral and emotional contexts.
        klodolph 1y ago
        I think manipulation is just negative influence, and influence doesn’t really have either positive or negative connotations.
- rendx 1y ago
  In one of many possible definitions, manipulation requires deceit; a hidden agenda or goal. In an "original" definition, manipulation literally means "to move". In that sense, we all manipulate. We move. The two combined together: You're allowed to "move". You are broadly "allowed" to "manipulate" in that sense. If you add lies, deceit, etc, you're in territory others might not find acceptable, and will in turn reject you or remove you from their lives. If you feel bad about your "success" but can't see why on a rational level, you may want to remember how your parents or other people growing up treated you. Can you find some childhood memories related to this? Potentially "adverse" experiences related to "manipulation" around you?
- agcat 1y ago
  Not really, there are honest ways as well to influence as well. I also find it annoying when people try to manipulate at the sake of influencing just to sell something. Infact, wrote a small piece on this https://aishwaryagoel.com/what-engineers-taught-me-about-selling/ https://aishwaryagoel.com/what-engineers-taught-me-about-sel..... would love to know what you think?
fuzzfactor 1y ago
Maybe just try to set an example without any attempt to be persuasive at all.
treetalker 1y ago
I'll respond to the title instead of the article. 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").
- smcin 1y ago
  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?
  - rendx 1y ago
    (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.
  - nenenejej 1y ago
    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.
- jbs789 1y ago
  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.
- wiz21c 1y ago
  > force or deceit exactly!
- joquarky 1y ago
bentt 1y ago
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.
- croes 1y ago
  Sometimes there is no win/win.
  - bentt 1y ago
    Give me an example.
    - leakycap 1y ago
      I'm sure you can think of a personally meaningful example if you try; have you turned on the news lately? There's a big story that people seem to be having a hard time finding a win/win and people are starving and being killed. Sadly, that description doesn't even narrow it down to one "no-win" situation I can think of, so your comment is slightly concerning on its face.
      - bentt 1y ago
        I asked as a chance (a challenge even) to reframe an arbitrary situation. Even the one you mention, at this exact moment, a win/win could be framed around the benefits of stopping the war. While it's entirely reasonable to pick a perspective that focuses on the awfulness that has occurred, looking ahead, a peace deal would benefit all sides. Certainly it's closer to win/win than continuing down the current path. My point is that the perspective we take is a choice.
tonystubblebine 1y ago
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.
dsubburam 1y ago
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.
- twodave 1y ago
  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.
  - Nevermark 1y ago
    > 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!
klodolph 1y ago
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. :-(
- etbebl 1y ago
  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.
- pkoiralap 1y ago
  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.
jdbernard 1y ago
The solution is not to deny yourself the tools of persuasion or "manipulation" but to be authentic and transparent. It's deceptiveness that makes influence or persuasion manipulative, not the tools and techniques.
Frannky 1y ago
I think it's about helping them map out the options. So, listening to what they want and truthfully sharing your opinion on how the different options will solve their problem. If the best option for them is what you sell, it's a win-win. If it's not, all good. They will thank you if you truly helped them and gave them the best option for their problem. Obviously, this isn't possible if what you sell is never the best option. In that case, the problem exists before the conversation even happens. Either make a better product or change company
trjordan 1y ago
This is a very HN sort of sentiment. How can I be persuasive without being gross? I had a bit of a moment when I first became a PM. (I've done a bunch of things, engineering / sales / founding, but PM only sort of recently.) I realized that my job was to wake up in the morning and pick fights. Or more diplomatically: to tell people they were doing the wrong thing, and they should be doing a different thing, in a way that made them want to listen to me more in the future, not less. That's the job. In fact, in almost every job, that's the job. Impact happens when you reach people and they behave differently because of you. That's nothing to be ashamed of. If you do it authentically and with good intent, it's one of the best things you can do with your time.
- nenenejej 1y ago
  Think of what you are doing as revealing information as to why you think your new approach is more aligned with business and business goals. Give them room to do the same. There might be systemic issues getting in the way. You and them having competing OKRs for example. Good to surface that and deal with it too.
  - trjordan 1y ago
    Right -- the stereotypes of "selling" or "telling" or "persuading" are unhelpful in a lot of contexts. Even in direct selling, many people don't want to feel they're being sold to! At a minimum, they don't want to feel out of control on decision they care about. But they're frequently open to learning, even if the constraints of how much time / credit they'll give you are extremely different.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
chainmail2029 1y ago
It's all influence. When it's convenient and good we call it charisma, leadership, crisis navigation. When it's bad we call it manipulative, control freak, sociopathic.
talkingtab 1y ago
The form of the question has assumptions that are broken. The action of manipulating people is fairly obvious. It means you have a predetermined outcome that you want other people to accept The same assumption is implicit in the "How can I influence others..." Again there is the same predetermined outcome. The answer then is obvious. You cannot. Perhaps what you are looking for is instead a way to join with other people in a participatory/collaborative fashion. You can ask what other people think, you can talk about what you think. But as long as you have a predetermined outcome in mind, I suspect your only choices is manipulation. You might also want to reassess what the question is. We talk about so much, but we do so little. Imagine that my car won't start and I want to fix it. The idea of influencing people here is silliness. We care very little about who thinks what, as long as the car starts. The thinking is in service of an action that produces a result. In my opinion! :-) [edit: fix wording, typos]
- swores 1y ago
  I think "manipulation" implies sneakiness, not just influencing somebody. If I tell you that I disagree with your comment, and me saying that is enough to change your mind, then I have influenced you but not manipulated you because I've done nothing but tell you my honest opinion with no unannounced motives.
  - talkingtab 1y ago
    What I was trying to get at was the concept of mutual benefit in thinking. For example, my thinking is better because of your comment. If we want to think together - create some good thought then the focus is on understanding, not influencing or manipulating. But yes, you can and did influence me. Or perhaps more accurately, your thinking about this helped me think about it better and more clearly. Thanks!
dimitrios1 1y ago
By accepting the fact that sometimes (many times) you won't get the outcome you desire, in the manner of which you desire it.
CuriouslyC 1y ago
Find the place where their interests and yours intersect, and frame them existing there as an inevitability. If there is no intersection, don't try to force it.
Animats 1y ago
Or, "How can I manipulate others without being perceived to be doing so."
agcat 1y ago
I actually wrote a blog on this a few days ago. which was focussed more on sales practices of manipulation and better ways to do things: https://aishwaryagoel.com/what-engineers-taught-me-about-selling/ https://aishwaryagoel.com/what-engineers-taught-me-about-sel...
ltbarcly3 1y ago
Influence, persuasion, manipulation are all identical in every way except moral.
dwoldrich 1y ago
Public debates are necessary to get new ideas out there, but individuals and groups would rather be horrible than change their minds after an argument. Attempting to argue with people, in good faith or otherwise, to change their mind is a philosophical trap. Persuasion is just getting people to come around to your way of thinking without direct argumentation. It gets manipulative, psyopy and evil when fear, envy, lust, guilt, etc nudges are applied.
rramadass 1y ago
Not possible. What they mean is "influence" (positive connotation) without "manipulate" (negative connotation). But this is simply a nuance on "intent" i.e. whether it is good or bad from the pov of the instigator. But the recipient also has an important role to play in this interaction since they are the one perceiving the intent which might be different from what was intended. So the instigator has to sometimes "manipulate" to gain "influence". The End-Goal often (but not always) justifies the means. This is the realm of Worldly Wisdom/Propaganda/Politics covered in the classic works of Baltasar Gracian/Machiavelli/Francesco Guicciardini/Kautilya/Kamandaki/Vishnu Sharma/Edward Bernays/Jacques Ellul etc. On the Psychological realm, see the works of B.F.Skinner on Operant Conditioning/Behaviourism and Verbal Behaviour.
oddmade 1y ago
c-suite person here...my job is "influence to empower" my team and others - to unlock opportunity for the company I represent. My advice would be: Stay honest with yourself. To influence IS to manipulate. Playing squeamish is a slippery slope into avoiding accountability for your actions. In other words - don't judge the tools - judge your motives and the outcome. Accept there is always a trade and balance. If you can be honest about your motives and actions with yourself your friends and colleagues - chances are that you can achieve your goals with ethics and empathy intact. If you can't, then it's time to take a look at yourself - not the tools. Good luck
vasusen 1y ago
Highly recommend this Coursera course from University of Michigan, "Influencing People": https://www.coursera.org/learn/influencing-people https://www.coursera.org/learn/influencing-people
self_awareness 1y ago
Influence is manipulation, plain and simple. The key question is whether we use our moral compass when we influence or manipulate. Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with moral manipulation. The real inquiry is about the moral values we prioritize. Are we only focused on our own gain? Do we genuinely aim to help others? Or are we somewhere in the middle? When we seek to benefit others, is it truly for them, or is it more about our own satisfaction from doing something “good”? Do those “good” actions genuinely help everyone, or merely specific groups at the cost of others? Perhaps someone has lost out because of our so-called “good” deeds. By pondering and answering these questions, you'll be able to influence others without resorting to non-moral manipulation.
aorloff 1y ago
> How can I influence others without manipulating them ? By listening to them. Next question.
steve1977 1y ago
Every effective communication is manipulation to a degree. There is no influence without manipulation. A baby smiling at you is manipulation. This is nothing bad in itself.
- apples_oranges 1y ago
  I think a distinction based on honest vs dishonest communication can be made
- latexr 1y ago
  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.
  - squigz 1y ago
    It's not only the more rational (and productive) position to take, it's part of HN's guidelines: > 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- harperlee 1y ago
  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.
- 1y ago
obioneknowsit 1y ago
By setting a "good" example during a time they are in an unfavorable or weaker position. Which could mean remaining firm on the outside while providing space for their ego to transform their loss into a learning experience and improve their performance. It's written this way because the methods are different for the enabler and/or the receiver. I hope you understand obi one!
Leftium 1y ago
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. -- Blair Warren
- hahahaparents 1y ago
  So... parents?
  - leakycap 1y ago
    Parents are the worst part of many children's lives. So... probably friends.
- Sammi 1y ago
  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.
  - tbirdny 1y ago
    I didn't know Charlie Krik before. After watching these videos, I don't believe he was such a hateful person: Amir Odom: https://youtu.be/N14ywRyTWVI https://youtu.be/N14ywRyTWVI Bill Maher: https://youtu.be/OblCcO7-Alg https://youtu.be/OblCcO7-Alg Jordan Peterson: https://youtu.be/dP0TagcNvCg https://youtu.be/dP0TagcNvCg
    - jbs789 1y ago
      He clearly feels he is superior to everyone else, including the interviewers. He feigns humility but interrupts repeatedly.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
isodude 1y ago
Only give positive feedback when they are doing the thing you want them too. Absence of positive feedback is as effective as negative feedback, with the positive effect of extracting the change you want instead of placing the change upon the person.
- croes 1y ago
  That sound a lot like manipulation. Like you train dogs.
  - isodude 1y ago
    Is it though? I would imagine the person wanting to change instead being forced. Where would you draw the line?
surfingdino 1y ago
That's a lot of words to make oneself feel better about manipulating others.
hidroto 1y ago
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wJ4ARj67xn8 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wJ4ARj67xn8
mind_orbit 1y ago
Putting people into 'doors' could risk stereotyping. Real conversations are messy, and most people shift styles within minutes.
quotemstr 1y ago
What would communication without manipulation even mean? The whole point of making mouth-noises or eye-shapes is to cause the neural activations in people perceiving these shapes to change in some way. If they don't, you haven't communicated. What most people mean when they ask questions like yours isn't "How do I avoid manipulation?" but "How do I live with integrity?". Answering this question is a field in its own right and isn't coupled to communication per se.
intended 1y ago
Effective communication is fundamentally problem solving.
zkmon 1y ago
Let's go back in history of influencing. How did the Egyptian workers were influenced to build pyramids? How did the leaders influence populations to be part of revolutions? How did the kings influence armies to engage in battles? Slavery apart, but there is something else. You need to realize that people are not inherently individual beings. In some cultures, individuals hardly have any identity of their own. The identify themselves with a larger creature and they become part of that creature. They play a role assigned to them. So, influencing involves making an individual to lose their individuality to some extent and become a part of the larger interest group. From that point, it is a matter of telling them what to do for the larger community. This was easier in the old times when social bonds were stronger in families, tribes, villages etc. Individuals hardly had any privacy. Everyone in the village knows what's going on in every home in that village. Getting these bonds back is the first step. When you try to influence someone, your need to make them understand who you are, to them. And why it is beneficial to have that bond. Once you have that "we" between you two, there is no explicit influencing required.
jokoon 1y ago
There is no magic about it Just give your clear arguments, be detailed, be honest, don't use fallacies, point out fallacies. It's not about "influence", it's more about communicating your point of view and making it visible and understood by others.
cessen 1y ago
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.
mediumsmart 1y ago
That is simple. By example.
PicassoCTs 1y ago
[dead]
adornKey 1y ago
...by showing them a lot of Comic Sans - that will blur their vision and weaken their defense a lot.
gadders 1y ago
I would say for me that the difference between Influencing and Manipulating is that when you manipulate someone you could a) advance arguments you know to be untrue or that you don't intend to fulfil (negotiating in bad faith) and/or b) trying to get someone to do something that you know with a high degree of certainty is against their best interests.
le-mark 1y ago
This is an interesting read and reminded me of this. In the 2000s I was at a company that had a consultant come in and give each group a talk a that was essentially “how win friends and influence people” for business. I had a relationship with this book. I had read it years before and put it into practice as part of my life. It worked, but I became jaded, yeah I could be a great friend to people but it was almost never reciprocated, and I came to believe that using the techniques in the book were manipulative and deceitful at worst, and just not genuine at best. So the consultant got to the end and asked for questions, and I asked “isn’t this all just manipulating people and dishonest?” Be sputtered and stammered and didn’t have much of a response. My boss was not thrilled that I had called it out, I was being difficult. That started a real problem for me at that company and I eventually left.
mhb 1y ago
tldr? Use a Comic Sans-adjacent font in your essays?
mattxxx 1y ago
well, manipulation is more about intent, rather than technique... I think it doesn't matter if you chose the correct "door" if you're trying to get someone to operate against their own interests.
softwaredoug 1y ago
Someone once told me the only way to influence is to let yourself be influenced. You have to open up to the other person / other side or nothing will move And you never control how the influence works exactly :). You influence others in ways you won't be able to control or predict.
- commandersaki 1y ago
  Probably why chuggers (charity muggers) never get my money.
scoofy 1y ago
This is discussed at length in ancient philosophy. Reason is showing people why they should come to your position. Rhetoric, persuasion, manipulation are all ways of convincing people to take your side based on a story, rather than dispassionate good faith. > Yet logic alone is not enough. Overused, it can become cold and detached. The author here shows show their hand.
jrm4 1y ago
You can't? These are connotatively different, but denotatively identical ideas?
nickpsecurity 1y ago
If you have Christ, you can pray for them. God controls all random events and us. He also knows what's best for us. By praying, and if God says yes, He might provide what they need in the right way at the right time. He also sometimes gives people the better thing they didn't think to pray for. If He says no, that's also what's best due to His perfect knowledge. Finally, it builds our own inner compassion for other people. When doing evangelism, Jesus told us to scatter seed, water, and harvest. God provides the growth. So, we can share the Gospel or truths in God's Word... His work, not our schemes... while letting them make their own decisions. Instead of manipulation, we are simply offering a gift out of love for them that they can do what they want with (or ignore). We do it while praying their choices have maximum glory to God and benefit to them, not us. We're also commanded to display Christ-like character in our interactions with people. Paul reminds his critics "we were blameless among you" and cared like a mother nursing her child. James said to show our faith by our works, like taming the tongue or feeding a starving brother. Paul says imitate me as I imitate Christ. Our character can have a profound impact on people around us. Personally, I've been able to improve a lot just by seeing how my brothers and sisters speak and act in many situations. They've also sometimes learned from how the Holy Spirit showed me to handle specific situations. So, these are examples of how to influence people without selfishly manipulating them. In two cases, without any manipulation of your own since one is asking the sovereign God to make the right calls and the other is just demonstrating godly behavior in a way that positively impacts them.
txrx0000 1y ago
Describe reality. Make an effort to separate your aesthetic judgements from your observations.
LennyHenrysNuts 1y ago
Well, the author certainly lost the ability to influence me with that choice of font.

232 points by kiyanwang 1y ago

sema4hacker 1y ago

If I successfully influence someone, I feel I've manipulated them nonetheless.

codr7 1y ago
So, let's say you inspire someone just by existing, these things happen.
klodolph 1y ago
I see this sentiment from time to time in the HN crowd, and I’m really interested in understanding more about it. My first reaction to this? I think that you’re using “manipulate” to describe a process where somebody doesn’t want to do something, and make them do it anyway, but without using force. It feels like this has to be rooted in some kind of denial of other people’s free will—that they are somehow incapable of choosing to help you or agree with you, and can only be tricked. It seems like you would need to believe that other people don’t genuinely like you or value you.
- kaechle 1y ago
  Those are some bounding leaps you made without much context. Are you in sales? Kidding aside, my first reaction was: perhaps the occasions they were aware of their own influence were ones in which they didn't much care for the outcome. Or maybe a conflict of interest, like trying to win over a hiring manager for a position you know you'll hate. I don't think cajoling or persuading others inherently manipulative, but I can think of a lot of examples where doing so feels grimy.
  - klodolph 1y ago
    > I don't think cajoling or persuading others inherently manipulative, but I can think of a lot of examples where doing so feels grimy. What I am trying to do is understand why sema4hacker, and some others, feel that influencing people is manipulative. So if you pop into the conversation and say that you don’t feel the same way that sema4hacker does, that doesn’t really help me understand sema4hacker’s perspective. That’s the bounding leap here and I want to pull it apart, dissect it. The bounding leap from “I influenced somebody” to “I manipulated them”. I think there’s not just raw, random feelings here, but some kind of rational thought that I want to understand.
    - kipchak 1y ago
      I'm one of those people-For clarity I'm referring to influence in the active 'How to Win Friends and Influence People' sense. To me "influence" and "manipulation" seem like forms of persuasion but with positive and negative connotations, like "public relations" versus "propaganda". None of them are necessarily bad on their own, but the choice of words seems like it depends on the perspective who is perceiving or describing the influencer/manipulator and their motives. Influence can be seen as manipulation and manipulation seen as influence. For example someone who dislikes an "ifluencer" is probably more likely to think of them as manipulating their audience into buying products. Convincing someone to join a religious group could be seen as positive influence by current members, and manipulation by an outsider. Clarity of purpose from the person doing the persuading is not necessarily clear as well. There is likely there's likely a mixture of factors motivating them to persuade, including some to their own benefit. People, especially those who think they are doing good, will also generally grade themselves on a bit of a curve and rationalize their actions towards being positive, especially in moral and emotional contexts.
      - klodolph 1y ago
        I think manipulation is just negative influence, and influence doesn’t really have either positive or negative connotations.
rendx 1y ago
In one of many possible definitions, manipulation requires deceit; a hidden agenda or goal. In an "original" definition, manipulation literally means "to move". In that sense, we all manipulate. We move. The two combined together: You're allowed to "move". You are broadly "allowed" to "manipulate" in that sense. If you add lies, deceit, etc, you're in territory others might not find acceptable, and will in turn reject you or remove you from their lives. If you feel bad about your "success" but can't see why on a rational level, you may want to remember how your parents or other people growing up treated you. Can you find some childhood memories related to this? Potentially "adverse" experiences related to "manipulation" around you?
agcat 1y ago
Not really, there are honest ways as well to influence as well. I also find it annoying when people try to manipulate at the sake of influencing just to sell something. Infact, wrote a small piece on this https://aishwaryagoel.com/what-engineers-taught-me-about-selling/ https://aishwaryagoel.com/what-engineers-taught-me-about-sel..... would love to know what you think?

fuzzfactor 1y ago

Maybe just try to set an example without any attempt to be persuasive at all.

treetalker 1y ago

I'll respond to the title instead of the article. 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").

smcin 1y ago
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?
- rendx 1y ago
  (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.
- nenenejej 1y ago
  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.
jbs789 1y ago
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.
wiz21c 1y ago
> force or deceit exactly!
joquarky 1y ago

bentt 1y ago

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.

croes 1y ago
Sometimes there is no win/win.
- bentt 1y ago
  Give me an example.
  - leakycap 1y ago
    I'm sure you can think of a personally meaningful example if you try; have you turned on the news lately? There's a big story that people seem to be having a hard time finding a win/win and people are starving and being killed. Sadly, that description doesn't even narrow it down to one "no-win" situation I can think of, so your comment is slightly concerning on its face.
    - bentt 1y ago
      I asked as a chance (a challenge even) to reframe an arbitrary situation. Even the one you mention, at this exact moment, a win/win could be framed around the benefits of stopping the war. While it's entirely reasonable to pick a perspective that focuses on the awfulness that has occurred, looking ahead, a peace deal would benefit all sides. Certainly it's closer to win/win than continuing down the current path. My point is that the perspective we take is a choice.

tonystubblebine 1y ago

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.

dsubburam 1y ago

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.

twodave 1y ago
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.
- Nevermark 1y ago
  > 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!

klodolph 1y ago

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. :-(

etbebl 1y ago
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.
pkoiralap 1y ago
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.

jdbernard 1y ago

The solution is not to deny yourself the tools of persuasion or "manipulation" but to be authentic and transparent. It's deceptiveness that makes influence or persuasion manipulative, not the tools and techniques.

Frannky 1y ago

I think it's about helping them map out the options. So, listening to what they want and truthfully sharing your opinion on how the different options will solve their problem. If the best option for them is what you sell, it's a win-win. If it's not, all good. They will thank you if you truly helped them and gave them the best option for their problem. Obviously, this isn't possible if what you sell is never the best option. In that case, the problem exists before the conversation even happens. Either make a better product or change company

trjordan 1y ago

This is a very HN sort of sentiment. How can I be persuasive without being gross? I had a bit of a moment when I first became a PM. (I've done a bunch of things, engineering / sales / founding, but PM only sort of recently.) I realized that my job was to wake up in the morning and pick fights. Or more diplomatically: to tell people they were doing the wrong thing, and they should be doing a different thing, in a way that made them want to listen to me more in the future, not less. That's the job. In fact, in almost every job, that's the job. Impact happens when you reach people and they behave differently because of you. That's nothing to be ashamed of. If you do it authentically and with good intent, it's one of the best things you can do with your time.

nenenejej 1y ago
Think of what you are doing as revealing information as to why you think your new approach is more aligned with business and business goals. Give them room to do the same. There might be systemic issues getting in the way. You and them having competing OKRs for example. Good to surface that and deal with it too.
- trjordan 1y ago
  Right -- the stereotypes of "selling" or "telling" or "persuading" are unhelpful in a lot of contexts. Even in direct selling, many people don't want to feel they're being sold to! At a minimum, they don't want to feel out of control on decision they care about. But they're frequently open to learning, even if the constraints of how much time / credit they'll give you are extremely different.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

chainmail2029 1y ago

It's all influence. When it's convenient and good we call it charisma, leadership, crisis navigation. When it's bad we call it manipulative, control freak, sociopathic.

talkingtab 1y ago

The form of the question has assumptions that are broken. The action of manipulating people is fairly obvious. It means you have a predetermined outcome that you want other people to accept The same assumption is implicit in the "How can I influence others..." Again there is the same predetermined outcome. The answer then is obvious. You cannot. Perhaps what you are looking for is instead a way to join with other people in a participatory/collaborative fashion. You can ask what other people think, you can talk about what you think. But as long as you have a predetermined outcome in mind, I suspect your only choices is manipulation. You might also want to reassess what the question is. We talk about so much, but we do so little. Imagine that my car won't start and I want to fix it. The idea of influencing people here is silliness. We care very little about who thinks what, as long as the car starts. The thinking is in service of an action that produces a result. In my opinion! :-) [edit: fix wording, typos]

swores 1y ago
I think "manipulation" implies sneakiness, not just influencing somebody. If I tell you that I disagree with your comment, and me saying that is enough to change your mind, then I have influenced you but not manipulated you because I've done nothing but tell you my honest opinion with no unannounced motives.
- talkingtab 1y ago
  What I was trying to get at was the concept of mutual benefit in thinking. For example, my thinking is better because of your comment. If we want to think together - create some good thought then the focus is on understanding, not influencing or manipulating. But yes, you can and did influence me. Or perhaps more accurately, your thinking about this helped me think about it better and more clearly. Thanks!

dimitrios1 1y ago

By accepting the fact that sometimes (many times) you won't get the outcome you desire, in the manner of which you desire it.

CuriouslyC 1y ago

Find the place where their interests and yours intersect, and frame them existing there as an inevitability. If there is no intersection, don't try to force it.

Animats 1y ago

Or, "How can I manipulate others without being perceived to be doing so."

agcat 1y ago

I actually wrote a blog on this a few days ago. which was focussed more on sales practices of manipulation and better ways to do things: https://aishwaryagoel.com/what-engineers-taught-me-about-selling/ https://aishwaryagoel.com/what-engineers-taught-me-about-sel...

ltbarcly3 1y ago

Influence, persuasion, manipulation are all identical in every way except moral.

dwoldrich 1y ago

Public debates are necessary to get new ideas out there, but individuals and groups would rather be horrible than change their minds after an argument. Attempting to argue with people, in good faith or otherwise, to change their mind is a philosophical trap. Persuasion is just getting people to come around to your way of thinking without direct argumentation. It gets manipulative, psyopy and evil when fear, envy, lust, guilt, etc nudges are applied.

rramadass 1y ago

Not possible. What they mean is "influence" (positive connotation) without "manipulate" (negative connotation). But this is simply a nuance on "intent" i.e. whether it is good or bad from the pov of the instigator. But the recipient also has an important role to play in this interaction since they are the one perceiving the intent which might be different from what was intended. So the instigator has to sometimes "manipulate" to gain "influence". The End-Goal often (but not always) justifies the means. This is the realm of Worldly Wisdom/Propaganda/Politics covered in the classic works of Baltasar Gracian/Machiavelli/Francesco Guicciardini/Kautilya/Kamandaki/Vishnu Sharma/Edward Bernays/Jacques Ellul etc. On the Psychological realm, see the works of B.F.Skinner on Operant Conditioning/Behaviourism and Verbal Behaviour.

oddmade 1y ago

c-suite person here...my job is "influence to empower" my team and others - to unlock opportunity for the company I represent. My advice would be: Stay honest with yourself. To influence IS to manipulate. Playing squeamish is a slippery slope into avoiding accountability for your actions. In other words - don't judge the tools - judge your motives and the outcome. Accept there is always a trade and balance. If you can be honest about your motives and actions with yourself your friends and colleagues - chances are that you can achieve your goals with ethics and empathy intact. If you can't, then it's time to take a look at yourself - not the tools. Good luck

vasusen 1y ago

Highly recommend this Coursera course from University of Michigan, "Influencing People": https://www.coursera.org/learn/influencing-people https://www.coursera.org/learn/influencing-people

self_awareness 1y ago

Influence is manipulation, plain and simple. The key question is whether we use our moral compass when we influence or manipulate. Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with moral manipulation. The real inquiry is about the moral values we prioritize. Are we only focused on our own gain? Do we genuinely aim to help others? Or are we somewhere in the middle? When we seek to benefit others, is it truly for them, or is it more about our own satisfaction from doing something “good”? Do those “good” actions genuinely help everyone, or merely specific groups at the cost of others? Perhaps someone has lost out because of our so-called “good” deeds. By pondering and answering these questions, you'll be able to influence others without resorting to non-moral manipulation.

aorloff 1y ago

> How can I influence others without manipulating them ? By listening to them. Next question.

steve1977 1y ago

Every effective communication is manipulation to a degree. There is no influence without manipulation. A baby smiling at you is manipulation. This is nothing bad in itself.

apples_oranges 1y ago
I think a distinction based on honest vs dishonest communication can be made
latexr 1y ago
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.
- squigz 1y ago
  It's not only the more rational (and productive) position to take, it's part of HN's guidelines: > 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
harperlee 1y ago
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.
1y ago

obioneknowsit 1y ago

By setting a "good" example during a time they are in an unfavorable or weaker position. Which could mean remaining firm on the outside while providing space for their ego to transform their loss into a learning experience and improve their performance. It's written this way because the methods are different for the enabler and/or the receiver. I hope you understand obi one!

Leftium 1y ago

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. -- Blair Warren

hahahaparents 1y ago
So... parents?
- leakycap 1y ago
  Parents are the worst part of many children's lives. So... probably friends.
Sammi 1y ago
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.
- tbirdny 1y ago
  I didn't know Charlie Krik before. After watching these videos, I don't believe he was such a hateful person: Amir Odom: https://youtu.be/N14ywRyTWVI https://youtu.be/N14ywRyTWVI Bill Maher: https://youtu.be/OblCcO7-Alg https://youtu.be/OblCcO7-Alg Jordan Peterson: https://youtu.be/dP0TagcNvCg https://youtu.be/dP0TagcNvCg
  - jbs789 1y ago
    He clearly feels he is superior to everyone else, including the interviewers. He feigns humility but interrupts repeatedly.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

isodude 1y ago

Only give positive feedback when they are doing the thing you want them too. Absence of positive feedback is as effective as negative feedback, with the positive effect of extracting the change you want instead of placing the change upon the person.

croes 1y ago
That sound a lot like manipulation. Like you train dogs.
- isodude 1y ago
  Is it though? I would imagine the person wanting to change instead being forced. Where would you draw the line?

surfingdino 1y ago

That's a lot of words to make oneself feel better about manipulating others.

hidroto 1y ago

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wJ4ARj67xn8 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wJ4ARj67xn8

mind_orbit 1y ago

Putting people into 'doors' could risk stereotyping. Real conversations are messy, and most people shift styles within minutes.

quotemstr 1y ago

What would communication without manipulation even mean? The whole point of making mouth-noises or eye-shapes is to cause the neural activations in people perceiving these shapes to change in some way. If they don't, you haven't communicated. What most people mean when they ask questions like yours isn't "How do I avoid manipulation?" but "How do I live with integrity?". Answering this question is a field in its own right and isn't coupled to communication per se.

intended 1y ago

Effective communication is fundamentally problem solving.

zkmon 1y ago

Let's go back in history of influencing. How did the Egyptian workers were influenced to build pyramids? How did the leaders influence populations to be part of revolutions? How did the kings influence armies to engage in battles? Slavery apart, but there is something else. You need to realize that people are not inherently individual beings. In some cultures, individuals hardly have any identity of their own. The identify themselves with a larger creature and they become part of that creature. They play a role assigned to them. So, influencing involves making an individual to lose their individuality to some extent and become a part of the larger interest group. From that point, it is a matter of telling them what to do for the larger community. This was easier in the old times when social bonds were stronger in families, tribes, villages etc. Individuals hardly had any privacy. Everyone in the village knows what's going on in every home in that village. Getting these bonds back is the first step. When you try to influence someone, your need to make them understand who you are, to them. And why it is beneficial to have that bond. Once you have that "we" between you two, there is no explicit influencing required.

jokoon 1y ago

There is no magic about it Just give your clear arguments, be detailed, be honest, don't use fallacies, point out fallacies. It's not about "influence", it's more about communicating your point of view and making it visible and understood by others.

cessen 1y ago

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.

mediumsmart 1y ago

That is simple. By example.

PicassoCTs 1y ago

[dead]

adornKey 1y ago

...by showing them a lot of Comic Sans - that will blur their vision and weaken their defense a lot.

gadders 1y ago

I would say for me that the difference between Influencing and Manipulating is that when you manipulate someone you could a) advance arguments you know to be untrue or that you don't intend to fulfil (negotiating in bad faith) and/or b) trying to get someone to do something that you know with a high degree of certainty is against their best interests.

le-mark 1y ago

This is an interesting read and reminded me of this. In the 2000s I was at a company that had a consultant come in and give each group a talk a that was essentially “how win friends and influence people” for business. I had a relationship with this book. I had read it years before and put it into practice as part of my life. It worked, but I became jaded, yeah I could be a great friend to people but it was almost never reciprocated, and I came to believe that using the techniques in the book were manipulative and deceitful at worst, and just not genuine at best. So the consultant got to the end and asked for questions, and I asked “isn’t this all just manipulating people and dishonest?” Be sputtered and stammered and didn’t have much of a response. My boss was not thrilled that I had called it out, I was being difficult. That started a real problem for me at that company and I eventually left.

mhb 1y ago

tldr? Use a Comic Sans-adjacent font in your essays?

mattxxx 1y ago

well, manipulation is more about intent, rather than technique... I think it doesn't matter if you chose the correct "door" if you're trying to get someone to operate against their own interests.

softwaredoug 1y ago

Someone once told me the only way to influence is to let yourself be influenced. You have to open up to the other person / other side or nothing will move And you never control how the influence works exactly :). You influence others in ways you won't be able to control or predict.

commandersaki 1y ago
Probably why chuggers (charity muggers) never get my money.

scoofy 1y ago

This is discussed at length in ancient philosophy. Reason is showing people why they should come to your position. Rhetoric, persuasion, manipulation are all ways of convincing people to take your side based on a story, rather than dispassionate good faith. > Yet logic alone is not enough. Overused, it can become cold and detached. The author here shows show their hand.

jrm4 1y ago

You can't? These are connotatively different, but denotatively identical ideas?

nickpsecurity 1y ago

If you have Christ, you can pray for them. God controls all random events and us. He also knows what's best for us. By praying, and if God says yes, He might provide what they need in the right way at the right time. He also sometimes gives people the better thing they didn't think to pray for. If He says no, that's also what's best due to His perfect knowledge. Finally, it builds our own inner compassion for other people. When doing evangelism, Jesus told us to scatter seed, water, and harvest. God provides the growth. So, we can share the Gospel or truths in God's Word... His work, not our schemes... while letting them make their own decisions. Instead of manipulation, we are simply offering a gift out of love for them that they can do what they want with (or ignore). We do it while praying their choices have maximum glory to God and benefit to them, not us. We're also commanded to display Christ-like character in our interactions with people. Paul reminds his critics "we were blameless among you" and cared like a mother nursing her child. James said to show our faith by our works, like taming the tongue or feeding a starving brother. Paul says imitate me as I imitate Christ. Our character can have a profound impact on people around us. Personally, I've been able to improve a lot just by seeing how my brothers and sisters speak and act in many situations. They've also sometimes learned from how the Holy Spirit showed me to handle specific situations. So, these are examples of how to influence people without selfishly manipulating them. In two cases, without any manipulation of your own since one is asking the sovereign God to make the right calls and the other is just demonstrating godly behavior in a way that positively impacts them.

txrx0000 1y ago

Describe reality. Make an effort to separate your aesthetic judgements from your observations.

LennyHenrysNuts 1y ago

Well, the author certainly lost the ability to influence me with that choice of font.