
How to tell the difference between persuasion and manipulation - anarbadalov
https://aeon.co/ideas/how-to-tell-the-difference-between-persuasion-and-manipulation
======
pmichaud
The money shot: "The distinction between manipulation and non-manipulative
influence depends on whether the influencer is trying to get someone to make
some sort of mistake in what he thinks, feels, doubts or pays attention to."

I have stricter criteria, personally. If I am to persuade someone then
according to my moral compass I have to respect their epistemic process, and
participate in it in a way they would endorse. This is much harder to do than
just being sincere and believing you're right / not trying to cause a mistake.

~~~
scarecrowbob
I like your standard, but it is much harder to do; I've been finding it
difficult to do even when I am aware that we have diverging epistemic
processes... it's hard to tell the difference between thinking someone is
misguided/dumb/evil and thinking that they just have a different idea about
how to do things in this world.

Pragmatics aside (it's much easier to rhetorically persuade someone if you
understand their motives and rationale), there are situations in the world
where we have real disagreements about what right action looks like:

I can't support all the various epistemic situations I see in a moral sense
even if I can appreciate how it's more effective.

For instance, I can understand arguing that some jackbooted thug shouldn't
summarily execute a person and arguing from that thug's position ("don't kill
them because you'll have to do paperwork" or some such thing), but intuitively
I don't feel like I have an obligation to respect that person's process and
thoughts.

In that case, it seems okay to be "manipulative" in the sense of your quote.

But maybe not... Intuitively, I think that there has to be a good reason for
this goal, and I feel like it is a goal I work towards (and yeesh, it takes a
lot of real work on all parts of my identity and awareness), but I also feel
like there are boundaries for that goal.

Is there a larger ethical take away or underwriting rationale in your moral
compass for why we should "respect others' episteme"?

~~~
Kalium
Depends on what your ethical framing is. You sound pretty utilitarian, so I
think your takeaway is that respecting someone else's thought processes is
more likely to deliver the results you want more reliably.

My advice is to never assume that someone is actively _evil_. People almost
never think of themselves as evil. Instead, they have values to which they are
attached and habits of thoughts to which they are accustomed.

You're more likely to achieve genuine understanding of another's mental
processes - or empathy, as it's often called - if you start from a place of
being willing to respect them. This understanding generally gives you a better
appreciation of how to persuade them in a manner that will leave them with a
positive impression of you afterwards.

~~~
dabbledash
Do you believe a person can only be “actually evil” if they consider
themselves evil?

I think when one person describes another person as evil they usually mean
“this person has values to which they are attached - and those are evil
values.”

~~~
Kalium
I don't subscribe to the idea that my values are absolute. Thus, I don't
accept the notion of an objective evil, and the notion of "evil values" is one
I have trouble with.

~~~
eric-hu
One could extend the the grandparent comment with yours:

"When Alice says Bob is evil, she's saying Bob is attached to some values, and
those values are evil by Alice's own value system". This definition avoids
calling any view objectively evil, but admits some values are evil in a given
value system. That should be uncontentious.

~~~
dabbledash
Yes. And I think it can still be wise to avoid jumping to “this person is
evil” too quickly.

Most of us know we often behave in ways inconsistent with our own values
(because of lack of information or just personal imperfection). But when we
see other people behaving in ways we think of as wrong, we’re quick to assume
their behavior reflects their deepest values, instead of weakness or ignorance
or normal hypocrisy.

Seems like a manifestation of the fundamental attribution error:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_erro...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error)

------
RangerScience
A few others have summarized via quote, but I think this one is the most
effective:

"For it is the intention to degrade another person’s decision-making situation
that is both the essence and the essential immorality of manipulation."

A cult leader may not be thinking that they're getting you to make a mistake,
because they're only thinking of themselves. But they _are_ trying to degrade
your decision-making.

Conversely, persuasion could be considered an attempt to _empower_ your
decision making: with new information, new perspectives, lights in blindspots,
education on fallacies, etc.

Doesn't feel _quite_ right, but closer.

~~~
svv
This is a good quote. One similar way to state it is by using the System 1 /
System 2 [1] terminology. Manipulation is when someone pushes the audience to
System 1 reasoning, diverting them from using System 2.

It's not a perfect distinction (there probably are cases where appealing to
System 2 might look a lot like manipulation), but it's succinct, ends-neutral
and not too subjective to be useful in practice.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory#Dual-
proce...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory#Dual-
process_accounts_of_reasoning)

~~~
hyperpape
This is only true if you assume that System 2 is always better. But if someone
has rationalized great cruelty, it is perfectly appropriate to appeal to their
emotions if it will get them to stop (this is essentially equivalent to a
point the author of the original piece makes).

~~~
AstralStorm
Rationalizing is very different from actually making a rational decision, and
is part of System 1 thinking.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

A rational decision starts with defining the epistemic system in which it is
made. Is it bayesian, frequentist, higher order fuzzy logic? How the
weighting, if any, works? What is the data/proposition acquisition algorithm?
Which heuristics are to be used to simplify decision and why?

~~~
hyperpape
Rationalization can mean rationalizing a system 1 decision. It can also just
mean justifying a bad decision using explicit reasons, which is the sense in
which I mean it.

------
unit91
When I like it, it's called "influence". When I don't like it, it's called
"manipulation". At least, this seems to be the way it's commonly used.

~~~
deathanatos
I disagree those are strictly the same thing.

I have a coworker, who largely does not listen to any argument I make; from my
point of view, this is because I am younger, and he perceives me as less
experienced because of my age. However, other coworkers are able to deliver
the same argument to him, and have him listen to that argument. In that
regard, they have influence over him, whereas I do not. Yet, nobody is
attempting to manipulate anybody (in the sense of lie to, or attempting to get
someone to hold a belief that the manipulator does not themselves hold or
knows to be unsound).

~~~
screaminghawk
Sounds like it still fits to me.

From his point of view, you aren't a credible source, so he thinks you are
trying to manipulate him (he doesn't like it). But he respects the other
coworkers so they can influence him (he likes it). It's not just about the
message, there are a lot of factors in play.

*Not saying I agree with the parent's definitions. Just that they could still fit your experience

------
mhneu
It can be very hard to distinguish these two concepts.

Instead, it is more useful to understand the agenda of the person doing
persuasion. Do their interests align with yours? What are they trying to
achieve? That's a good way to get insight into whether you're being
'manipulated' to do things that are not in your interest.

Because the agenda of an information source is key, that makes it vitally
important to understand who owns and manages the outlets you get information
from. In today's world, because of changes in news profitability and thus the
number of financially-independent news outlets, knowing the agendas of
ownership, management, and funders of news sources is absolutely critical.

------
hirundo
It's all semantics. "Persuasion" and "manipulation" are just synonyms except
for different emotional valences. Like "judgment" vs "discrimination",
"patriotism" vs "jingoism", "principled" vs "idealistic". (This is fun. Got
more?)

~~~
GavinMcG
Why do you dismiss "different emotional valences"? People react differently if
they think they're being persuaded vs. manipulated – emotions matter.

~~~
hirundo
I don't dismiss them. Such differences are both persuasive and manipulative.
But I repeat myself.

~~~
GavinMcG
You seem to be accusing the author of drawing a distinction without a
difference – and yet, you admit the difference and deny the distinction!

There is a difference, which you admit, and then contradict.

------
JackFr
OT: The image paired with the articles is captioned as an ad from 1973, which
is which it is clearly not. Editors?

~~~
nkurz
Interesting. This page (scroll down) claims that particular ad appeared in
Life Magazine in 1951: [http://mentalfloss.com/article/73588/14-vintage-ads-
featurin...](http://mentalfloss.com/article/73588/14-vintage-ads-featuring-
ronald-reagan). I'd guess they were mislead by an updated copyright mark on a
reprint. What made you sure the date was wrong?

~~~
JackFr
Reagan was governor of California in 1973 -- unlikely he'd be doing a
Chesterfield ad while sitting governor.

------
visarga
I think the difference lays in the purpose of the persuader/manipulator. If
it's disinterested, it's persuasion, if it's self interested, it's
manipulation. Just like bullshit, which is not exactly synonymous with lying -
the difference lays in the purpose. Telling something (true or false) with the
sole purpose of attaining a goal that does not align with the other person's
interests is bullshit.

------
ErikVandeWater
> What makes a statement a lie and what makes it morally wrong are the same
> thing – that the speaker tries to get someone to adopt what the speaker
> herself regards as a false belief.

This is one perspective. But it introduces a problem that if someone is
manipulated, and by continuation they manipulate another (e.g. MLM schemes),
only the founder of the MLM is morally guilty, even if everyone who joined was
negligent in repeating his lies.

~~~
dragonwriter
Interestingly, in defamation law we recognize _reckless disregard for the
truth_ , not merely actual belief in the falsity of the statement, as a mental
state that (along with actual falsity and resulting harm) produces
culpability.

------
TomMckenny
Even when manipulation is used for the benefit of the listener it still isn't
great.

In such a case the manipulator is already convinced they are correct and the
target's reasoning is going to be faulty or irrelevant. So in principle I
would argue it is always better to present the facts clearly to the listener
simply because the speaker may in fact be in error, can never be infallible.

~~~
cm2012
That doesn't take into account that you're responsible for them understanding
your message. You can't assume customers understand things to highest level
possible, and you don't want to turn them off emotionally by accident.

For instance, say you're trying to promote a password manager, but the average
customer is scared of losing their data. You have very little on page real
estate that will get attention, so what do you say to the customer?

Do you say the technically detailed truth up front?

\- Encrypted by X,Y,Z \- Hashed and salted passwords \- Even if you use a
password manager, if someone gets your master password, they'll have access to
all of your sites, so you'll want to also use a token based 2FA too. \- Link
to more details

Or do you just say:

\- Picture of a secure looking badge icon \- 10,000 people have downloaded us
for secure browsing (even though appealing to who uses it is technically
illogical) \- Link to details

I can tell you as a fact that more people will download your password manager
if you use the second copy, even though it gives much less logical info to the
customer. So using the first one will help less people be secure.

~~~
AstralStorm
And the latter doesn't answer the pressing question the user actually had
about backups.

The full design gives maximum information with keynoting and drill down
structure. With some helpful information on how to secure it.

People tend to get desensitized by marketing BS and completely close over it,
plus it does nothing to stop angry reviews when your application actually
causes or does not solve problems.

------
eevilspock
Much of SV's revenue is built on a foundation of manipulation, tapping into
all manner of human weakness, from our all-to-willingness to trade our souls
for so-called free stuff to our susceptibility to addiction.

But such criticism will never get traction on Hacker News.

 _" It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary
depends upon his not understanding it!"_

~ Upton Sinclair

------
PeanutNore
I recall taking a course in college called "Persuasion" which spent a
considerable amount of time examining this exact question.

------
kolbe
This is one of those topics that feels like it has so many dimensions that
it's impossible to get anywhere in some short essay.

------
slowmovintarget
tl;dr: "The distinction between manipulation and non-manipulative influence
depends on whether the influencer is trying to get someone to make some sort
of mistake in what he thinks, feels, doubts or pays attention to."

~~~
jaggederest
To add to the summary: From the article, I would say that the essential
quality is one of hypocrisy. Manipulative interventions are not authentic, in
the sense that the manipulator does not believe what they are trying to get
the victim to believe.

~~~
jschwartzi
I'm surprised more people aren't saying this. Many people are forgetting that
the manipulator doesn't sincerely believe what they are trying to get you to
believe. They're hypocritically pushing you in a direction they will not go.
How many of the ad executives who advertised cigarettes in the 90s smoked? Do
you think Phillip Morris knew that cigarettes caused lung cancer? If so, the
advertising was a form of manipulation.

As another example, if your girlfriend is trying to talk you into something
that you know she wouldn't do herself, that's manipulative as well.

------
known
Persuasion is about filtering out welter; Manipulation is about deceiving
others;

------
IncreasePosts
I noticed similar wordplay in coverage of the 2016 election. When Trump or
Trump-supporting PACs targeted voters with ads negative on Clinton, it was
labeled by the mainstream media as 'voter suppression', whereas when Clinton
or Clinton-supporting PACs targeted voters with ads negative on Trump, it was
'getting the message out'

~~~
munchbunny
Interesting, I'm surprised to hear that this happened. In my recollection,
most of the mentions of "voter suppression" had to do with things like voter
registration shenanigans, not so much political ads. And voter registration
shenanigans are definitely voter suppression.

~~~
IncreasePosts
Here's an example article of what I was referring to:
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-05-29/inside-
th...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-05-29/inside-the-pro-
trump-effort-to-keep-black-voters-from-the-polls)

AIUI Trump supporters used targeted facebook ads to go after American Haitians
to remind them of the Clinton Global Initiative(which has a very bad
reputation on the ground in Haiti).

------
ggm
How to tell the difference in intent, purely from what is said? Hard.

------
21
When you are telling someone how to change his behavior, what to think, you
are "educating" him or "opening his eyes". You are also a good person
spreading the truth.

But when your opponent in ideology does that, he is "brainwashing",
"propaganding" or "taking advantage of innocence/ignorance". He is a bad
person spreading lies.

~~~
s-shellfish
That goes down to base values.

Questioning ones that fundamentally don't align, but you never actually know,
because you only see your own side.

You can think you see the other side, but that often is incorrect. Those
things are built into us from everything we learn as we grow, from experience.

It's easier to just not consider people opponents, ones you choose to interact
with. That's sometimes hard when the world seems screwed up.

