> You're describing manipulating people, not communicating with them. You interpreted the parent comment in a shallow and uncharitable fashion. You missed the

> You're describing manipulating people, not communicating with them. You interpreted the parent comment in a shallow and uncharitable fashion. You missed the deeper insight the statement has. > The point of communication between engineers is usually to establish a mutual understanding, not make them do something you want. Through that mutual understanding you both come to agree on what should be done. You are describing a form of mind control, just not the sci fi/fantasy version of total mind control. If I start a conversation with you about a problem and we end with a mutual understanding (meaning I understand your perspective and you understand mine and we share perspective about the facts of the issue) then I literally used my words to directly impact your your mind (and you did the same). Assuming the "mutual understanding" lands in a place where we both agree the problem needs to be fixed, there's a really good chancw my words also impact your actions. Mind control. Manipulation. Whatever. Communication literally controlled your mind and your actions or it wasn't effective communication.