
The Art Of Manipulation - Garbage
http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/01/the-art-of-manipulation/
======
hxa7241
This seems broadly to pass the Kant test on morality, so it could be said to
be well-grounded.

Something is immoral if it is contradictory when generalised -- that was the
gist of Kant's view. And real manipulation and persuasion seem to fail: if
everyone is allowed to manipulate everyone else, everyone loses their own
control of themselves -- in which case, how can they manipulate someone else?
There is a contradiction.

The two basic checks the article proposes -- "Will I use the product myself?"
and, "Will the product help users materially improve their lives?" -- are
sort-of rough ways of testing for such Kantian contradction.

<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#ForUniLawNat>

~~~
true_religion
> And real manipulation and persuasion seem to fail: if everyone is allowed to
> manipulate everyone else, everyone loses their own control of themselves --
> in which case, how can they manipulate someone else? There is a
> contradiction.

Consider the case of two people A and B in a zero-sum game, who are trying to
manipulate one another. Both parties know the score---that each is attempting
to control the others actions.

When A or B acts, either one party has succeeded at manipulating the other or
both parties have failed.

There can be no situation where A manipulates B (thus A wins), and B
manipulates A (thus B wins simultaneously).

~~~
gnaritas
Manipulation isn't a zero sum game, you can both win. Spouces manipulate each
other concurrently all the time.

------
rdudekul
Great article! I really liked the manipulation matrix. The author did a great
job of impressing upon entrepreneurs like me to create new products that
improve lives by facilitating healthful habits. Couple of questions: 1) How
does one balance the needs of investors while having a clear conscience to
create a product that materially improves users lives but has higher costs or
lowers margins? 2) Is there a fundamental behaviors matrix that defines what
improves users lives?

~~~
tomjen3
I hate it, because if I were to use it, I couldn't make a weight watcher app
(I don't need or want to lose weight), I couldn't make an app to help women
keep track of their period or when to take their birth control pills (I am not
female).

But neither of those are evil, and both of them arguably improve the lives of
their users.

As for how to balance having a conscience, that is easy as you need to find a
product that you believe in and then you won't have moral issues with causing
more people to use.

If you can't find one, then realize that there is no god, no universal morals
and what we believe is right or wrong can be changed. If you simply believe
that you are a moral person and that you don't do things that are unethical
then cognitive dissonance will ensure that you don't have any issues with you
conscience.

------
stcredzero
Manipulation is wrong if it's truly consensual, and it remains truly
consensual after the fact. This is a necessary, but not sufficient condition.
The way I sometimes state this, is that, "Not being f#cked with is a basic
human right."

If you get consent, but the other party changes their mind and you pressure
the other party to remain silent through threats or social pressure, then you
don't have true consent. Buyer's remorse notwithstanding -- markets and
monetary transactions are a different matter.

I think there is a lot of social and cultural conflict that occurs because of
some notion of "implicit consent" or the treatment of certain locations or
social contexts in the way we treat a market. I would find that a man who buys
a woman dinner and therefore feels entitled to sex is being a jerk. Feeling
entitled to sex in almost any context is probably being a jerk. This is
another case where one is applying market rules to an interpersonal
transaction.

------
gyardley
Seems to fall apart at a close look.

Except at the extremes, "materially improves users' lives" seems highly
subjective. You can make this fit almost any product with a clear conscience -
so no one's going to describe themselves as a Dealer or Entertainer.

Also, creating something you personally would use also seems like an odd and
arbitrary distinction. I doubt patio11 is personally running many bingo games
- but I'm certainly not going to criticize him for building a product many
other people find useful.

~~~
acgourley
I think the article would be improved if he took a softer stance here.
Certainly there are observable defined needs (like bingo cards) an
entrepreneur can provide. But many tech companies are trying to invent new
things people didn't yet know they needed. When you go there, you better need
it yourself or be a damned good and empathetic designer.

------
tomjen3
I am somewhat disappointed by this text it claims to be on how to manipulate
people but is in reality a morality story (which I could have gotten in the
local church if I wanted it).

On the other hand, I do enjoy the irony.

~~~
bbrtyth
You and I both. If you haven't already seen it there's a book, (Predictably
Irrational, IIRC) that gives some scientific studies on why certain
manipulations work. You might enjoy that, I did :)

------
boon
This article is great. Can't wait for the next one she publishes so I can read
it immediately!

