Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sun, 30 Aug 1992 11:42:00 GMT
From:         Hortideas Publishing <0004972767@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Happy Birthday, Bill (belatedly)
X-To:         CSGnet <CSG-L@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>

From Greg Williams (920830)

>Bill Powers (920829.2130)

Happy Birthday + 1 day!!!!

>The context of Greg Williams' discussion of manipulation requires a
>particular interpretation of the term.

It certainly does. I defined it in a very particular, precise way.

>What is meant is one person controlling another person's actions
>surreptitiously, leading to that other person doing something one could not
>get the person to do simply by asking.

I thought we'd already reached an agreement that one person cannot control (in
the PCT sense) another. Are you using "control" more colloquially here? If so,
your statement is more or less OK, but it might be possible (at least in some
cases) to achieve the "controller's" desires simply by asking. Still, I am
concerned about your use of "surreptitiously"; my definition of manipulation
did not specify that the influencer's desired perceptions be hidden from the
influencee. An example is the diet center counselor who manipulates the dieter
so that both influencer and influencee see fewer pounds on the influencee.

>The implication is that the other is made to behave in some way independent
>of his or her interests or wishes, without arousing a direct conflict or
>direct resistance by the other person.

Perhaps "in some way independent" at least some of the time, but what I was
trying to get at was manipulation as making the influencee control (to SATISFY
his/her interests or wishes) in such a way as to ALSO satisfy certain
interests/wishes of the influencer. Yes, there should be no direct conflict
within the control structure of the influencee, and no direct resistance by
the influencee. This is why your previous comments about the influencer
altering "don't-care" perceptions of the influencee is important.

>The means of manipulation are not the application of direct force, or a
>request for the other to perform the act, but deceit, indirection,
>misrepresentation of facts, false promises, ambiguous communications, and
>(using the Test) disturbance of variables the victim is known to be
>controlling in order to elicit an opposing response with consequences unknown
>to or unpredicted by the victim.

Some of the consequences could be unknown to or unpredicted by the influencee;
other (or sometimes all) consequences (including the influencer's desired
perceptions which are the "point" of the manipulation for the influencer)
could be known to or predicted by the influencee. The latter possibility is in
no way excluded by my definition of manipulation. This means that, according
to my definition (which seems much broader than your own definition --
remember, I'm trying to make a folk notion more precise), misdirection need
not always be "good" for the influencer and "bad" for the influencee. Also,
your "... and (using the Test)..." should read "... and/or (using the
Test)..." Really, that final clause was as far as my definition of
misdirection went; you have been emphasizing only the, shall I say, NEGATIVE
possibilities. Another example: Pat puts what she thinks is healthy food on
the table; our kids (usually) gobble it up (they say it is really tasty!);
influencer Pat's desired perception is seeing the kids eat "healthy" (her
definition) food, and she manages to help the kids fulfill their desired
perception of eating (their definition) "tasty" food. Now, if you ask one of
our kids whether Pat is providing them with "tasty" food so that she sees them
eating "healthy" food, they'll say, "Sure." There's no deceit, indirection,
misrepresentation of facts, false promises, or ambiguous communications here,
but there IS manipulation as I defined it, because Pat altered some of the
kids' perceptual variables in such a way as to result in them being able to
control for certain perceptions which also result in Pat being able to control
for certain perceptions. Do you begin to grasp the pervasiveness of
manipulation in everyday life?

>While manipulation in this sense might be used for the benefit of the
>manipulee, that is a judgement of the manipulator, not the manipulee; it is
>the goals of the manipulator that are satisfied, while those of the manipulee
>are ignored or bypassed.

No, certain goals of both parties must be satisfied for manipulation to work.
Before a manipulation is successful, the influencer does indeed predict what
the influencee will want, and could be wrong. But afterward, the influencee
can judge for him/herself. In a con game, the influencee (sometimes) decides
not to play again. In what might be termed "benign" or "positive"
manipulation, the influencee would presumably decide to play again. I take it
that the bulk of everyday manipulation is of the latter sort, as people keep
playing.

>Greg's thesis is that there are ways of controlling the behavior of
>other people against their will or without their awareness other than
>by the use of overwhelming physical force.

Again, not "control" in the PCT sense, and, again, not "against their will."

>My thesis is that such apparent control (a) is an illusion, or (b) is
>of no importance to the "victim", or (c) is carried out only with the
>aid of the "victim," or (d) rests on a threat of force in the
>background. I contend that a properly functioning control system
>cannot be controlled from outside, so that any apparent success by a
>manipulator results from some defect of organization in the control
>system.

In sum, I am exploring (with your aid) the PCT foundations of (c). There is
never any PCT-control "from the outside," is there? Success in manipulation
depends on proper functioning of the influencee's control system (note that
con men complain about the occasional mark "too stupid" to understand the
game); it depends most crucially on the influencer having a reasonably good
model of the influencee's control structure -- and this is one of the main
topics for investigation in a GTM based on PCT. More precision in our
definitions has great value, I think, for minimizing confusions due to this
or that word meaning one thing to one person and another to someone else, so
let's keep at it, OK? I'm learning a great deal from this.

Many happy returns (another manipulation?),

Greg
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU