> Replying to LO628 --
>
> The "M" word--interesting idea... however, I guess I don't have the same
> aversion to it. Seems to me that most everything we do is "manipulation"
> in the sense that we are trying to influence someone to do something--
[...continuation snipped...]
Uh-huh. Tell the truth, I feel the same way about it. That was why I
stuck in the little confessional anecdote. But I don't know that I'm
right about this. In an entirely neutral, purely descriptive or
behavioral con- text, sure, most of our interactions might be
'manipulative'; and then, as in your post, we'd distinguish between
virtuous and vicious manipulation.
But something's wrong here. It's bothered me for a long time; I get to a
certain point in the thought and my mind balks, like a horse shying away
from a snake. And at that point I always end up improvising. I'm doing
that now.
Is it possible that even in that "neutral" sense, that manipulation isn't
the whole of our possible interactions? If that turned out to be the
case, then the answer to your question
> otherwise, why would we be communicating in the first place? The issue
...would not be as readily apparent as one might suppose. We'd have to
choose between "manipulation" and those other candidates, whatever they
might be.
> also doesn't appear to be how "intentional" it is, since most of what we
> do, at least at the time we do it, is largely driven by unconscious
> motivation and habit patterns.
>
[Sidebar, in the interests of better acquaintanceship: I believe almost the
exact opposite. Substitute "served" for "driven", and contemplate the
results for a while...]
> I think the problem centers on the ethics of the event, especially who is
> it serving. If it is wholly self serving and to the detriment of the
> client (system), then it has a negative connotation; if it serves both,
> then it is considered more positive. The question to me is more one of how
Once again, my discomfort is with the first move: making "manipulation" a
sort of neutral descriptive term. Once we've done that, the rest is a
foregone conclusion.
Let me just rant at things for a minute to clear my head: The fundamental
meaning of "manipulation" is an activity aimed at a predetermined end, set
by the actor, independently of and not conditioned by those acted upon.
The latin root verb is (I believe) related to "handling". I submit that
REGARDLESS OF INTENTION, this is one of the lower forms of human
interaction.
Even when it's only me and my wife and my scheming how to get the bigger
disc drive.
If you challenged me to identify, or at least suggest, some other kinds of
interaction that I'd be willing to put a higher value on, the first one
that comes to mind is this: our participation in LO@world.std.com. This
is shared inquiry, and it simply doesn't fit (no way) under the word
"manipulation".
From: Jim Michmerhuizen <jamzen@world.std.com>