Persuasion that happens in good faith is a two-way street. You explain your position, but also truly listen to theirs. If you are prepared to change your own position based on what they say, then you can hope that they might change theirs based on what you say.
If it is truly two way in this sense, including your best efforts to extract from the other party their strongest, potentially unexpected, arguments for their position and give them your due consideration, it shouldn't feel like manipulation.
This is fine when the question is, “What’s for dinner?” However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity. It’s important to understand where these lines fall within yourself and those you are speaking with. Some arguments aren’t worth having in an effort to persuade, but rather they should be discussions aimed at understanding, being vulnerable and finding ways to respect and live at peace among people we have fundamental differences with. Otherwise we are no different than Crusaders and Jihadists.
The earth is not flat. This is indisputable fact. Yet, much ink has been spilt on arguments to the contrary. Refuting some of these arguments is quite difficult, honestly, but none of the arguments really matter because they reject all the convincing evidence as conspiracy or magic.
In this way, what you suggest demands significant labor on the part of the person arguing an obvious fact against an ideologue who will proclaim an open desire to change their belief but whose world view is entrenched in magic making it fundamentally impossible to actually change it.
Long story short I don't buy it and think what you said is full of shit.
Feels to me like that is addressed by the very first sentence in the article:
> We influence others every day, whether we intend to or not.
And then it’s expanded as it continues.
> Every effective communication is manipulation to a degree.
Yes, to a degree. Seems to me the author is attempting to be pragmatic and not let excessive pedantry cloud the larger point. A friend trying to convince you to stop smoking because they want you to live healthier for longer may be technically manipulating you, but that’s not a useful definition and realistically no one would colloquially consider it to be the case. Whenever you find yourself dismissing an argument because a word can be applied universally, instead steelman the author’s argument by trying to understand the definition they are working with.
The way I read manipulation is that someone is handling (manus: latin for 'hands') someone merely as a tool, bending and pushing and whatnot, just as a mere means to an end, without big regard for the tool, in an egotistical way. Objectifying the other, to some extent.
I really don’t like this article. I think this article reflects more our desire to categorize things into neatly numbered lists, and reflects less any thorough understanding of influence. Big lists of aphorisms. Less in the way of concrete detail. Words are used the wrong way. Concepts are broken up into incoherent lists.
“Ratianolising” is the word used in the most wrong way. The word normally describes inventing post-hoc reasons for some decision or behavior.
“Negotiating” is a big list of aphorisms which pull in different directions. Some of the advice sounds like amateurish art-of-the-deal tips which encourage you to extract as many concessions as you can from the other side. Some of the advice pulls in the opposite direction. And then, to mix everything up, the advice to compromise and meet half-way rears its ugly head.
The more I read in this article, the worse my opinion gets. I’m stopping.
I can see that some of the categories are a stretch semantically; however, I didn't see the specific categories and their names as central to the point of the article. I think the goal is to demonstrate that 1) everyone engages in persuasion in some form; 2) there are various different styles of persuasion with different strengths and weaknesses, and it's useful to be self-aware about what style(s) you tend to use and whether there are other styles you might want to try out in certain situations. I think breaking it down into 5 somewhat artificial categories is a good framework for making this topic approachable and providing good examples to think about.
I think if you already have well-developed thoughts about persuasion and social interaction, it might not add much, but it was useful for me.
You make a good point and I agree mostly to the point being made i.e. it is more fluid than categorical. However, I think it is not being made in good faith. I found the article highly insightful because it provides a solid starting point to those that have not started or don't know much about negotiations and how they happen. It should be safe to assume that there are plenty that have not started yet. It is also true that the more frameworks one reads and learns about, the more they realize that there are gaps in each one of them, and it is indeed fluid, not categorical, and hence reaching the same conclusion.
As an attorney, I've found that the best persuasion is the removal of impediments and friction standing between the person you hope to influence and what they want to do in the first place.
Most other tactics amount to force or deceit ("manipulation").
This connects with me. More about helping people do what they already have in mind. Connecting with people and finding overlapping interests rather than a manipulation mindset.
Are you talking about the judge, opposing attorney, your client, coworker, business partner, or who? Surely that context matters much more than you're suggesting, viz what you individually perceive the impediments and friction to be, and how you both think they can be removed?
I would say for me that the difference between Influencing and Manipulating is that when you manipulate someone you could a) advance arguments you know to be untrue or that you don't intend to fulfil (negotiating in bad faith) and/or b) trying to get someone to do something that you know with a high degree of certainty is against their best interests.
People will do anything for those who encourage their dreams, justify their failures, allay their fears, confirm their suspicions and help them throw rocks at their enemies.
I've always found that it's about defining win/win situations. Also, you should make real human connection in the process. If you don't like the person, that's a real issue. It may not be that the person is unlikeable, it may be that you aren't finding a perspective that aligns right.
But yeah, aligning incentives and making friends. Even if they don't go the way you want, you both still had a positive experience and can potentially find a way to work together in the future.
I had a manager once who argued that there was no difference between influence and manipulation. He was one of the most manipulative people I've ever worked with, and working with him was very obnoxious and stressful. I suspect most people who argue that there is no difference are either very manipulative people trying to justify their own behavior, or are people who have been taken in by such people.
IMO people get too caught up in the words "influence" and "manipulate", and effectively start arguing over definitions (whether they realize that's what they're doing or not). I don't think any of that matters.
What matters is whether you're behaving like a decent human being who respects and cares about others. The negative things that people associate with the word "manipulate" are things like trickery, dishonesty, etc. As long as you are approaching others with respect, authenticity, honesty, and a reasonable amount of humility, then I don't think you need to worry about whether your influence counts as "manipulation" or not: you'll be avoiding the aspects of "manipulation" that make it a bad thing.
This is a very HN sort of sentiment. How can I be persuasive without being gross?
I had a bit of a moment when I first became a PM. (I've done a bunch of things, engineering / sales / founding, but PM only sort of recently.) I realized that my job was to wake up in the morning and pick fights. Or more diplomatically: to tell people they were doing the wrong thing, and they should be doing a different thing, in a way that made them want to listen to me more in the future, not less.
That's the job. In fact, in almost every job, that's the job.
Impact happens when you reach people and they behave differently because of you. That's nothing to be ashamed of. If you do it authentically and with good intent, it's one of the best things you can do with your time.
Think of what you are doing as revealing information as to why you think your new approach is more aligned with business and business goals. Give them room to do the same.
There might be systemic issues getting in the way. You and them having competing OKRs for example. Good to surface that and deal with it too.
I see this sentiment from time to time in the HN crowd, and I’m really interested in understanding more about it.
My first reaction to this? I think that you’re using “manipulate” to describe a process where somebody doesn’t want to do something, and make them do it anyway, but without using force. It feels like this has to be rooted in some kind of denial of other people’s free will—that they are somehow incapable of choosing to help you or agree with you, and can only be tricked. It seems like you would need to believe that other people don’t genuinely like you or value you.
In one of many possible definitions, manipulation requires deceit; a hidden agenda or goal.
In an "original" definition, manipulation literally means "to move". In that sense, we all manipulate. We move.
The two combined together: You're allowed to "move". You are broadly "allowed" to "manipulate" in that sense. If you add lies, deceit, etc, you're in territory others might not find acceptable, and will in turn reject you or remove you from their lives.
If you feel bad about your "success" but can't see why on a rational level, you may want to remember how your parents or other people growing up treated you. Can you find some childhood memories related to this? Potentially "adverse" experiences related to "manipulation" around you?
Not really, there are honest ways as well to influence as well. I also find it annoying when people try to manipulate at the sake of influencing just to sell something. Infact, wrote a small piece on this https://aishwaryagoel.com/what-engineers-taught-me-about-sel..... would love to know what you think?
Advice a sales coach gave me was “sales is sorting, not convincing.”
I always found that put me in the right headspace to focus on listening first, then being clear. Whether they sort themselves into a yes or no is on them.
Let's go back in history of influencing. How did the Egyptian workers were influenced to build pyramids? How did the leaders influence populations to be part of revolutions? How did the kings influence armies to engage in battles? Slavery apart, but there is something else.
You need to realize that people are not inherently individual beings. In some cultures, individuals hardly have any identity of their own. The identify themselves with a larger creature and they become part of that creature. They play a role assigned to them.
So, influencing involves making an individual to lose their individuality to some extent and become a part of the larger interest group. From that point, it is a matter of telling them what to do for the larger community.
This was easier in the old times when social bonds were stronger in families, tribes, villages etc. Individuals hardly had any privacy. Everyone in the village knows what's going on in every home in that village.
Getting these bonds back is the first step. When you try to influence someone, your need to make them understand who you are, to them. And why it is beneficial to have that bond. Once you have that "we" between you two, there is no explicit influencing required.
The form of the question has assumptions that are broken.
The action of manipulating people is fairly obvious. It means you have a predetermined outcome that you want other people to accept The same assumption is implicit in the "How can I influence others..." Again there is the same predetermined outcome.
The answer then is obvious. You cannot. Perhaps what you are looking for is instead a way to join with other people in a participatory/collaborative fashion. You can ask what other people think, you can talk about what you think.
But as long as you have a predetermined outcome in mind, I suspect your only choices is manipulation.
You might also want to reassess what the question is. We talk about so much, but we do so little. Imagine that my car won't start and I want to fix it. The idea of influencing people here is silliness. We care very little about who thinks what, as long as the car starts. The thinking is in service of an action that produces a result.
I think "manipulation" implies sneakiness, not just influencing somebody. If I tell you that I disagree with your comment, and me saying that is enough to change your mind, then I have influenced you but not manipulated you because I've done nothing but tell you my honest opinion with no unannounced motives.
Public debates are necessary to get new ideas out there, but individuals and groups would rather be horrible than change their minds after an argument.
Attempting to argue with people, in good faith or otherwise, to change their mind is a philosophical trap.
Persuasion is just getting people to come around to your way of thinking without direct argumentation. It gets manipulative, psyopy and evil when fear, envy, lust, guilt, etc nudges are applied.
Only give positive feedback when they are doing the thing you want them too. Absence of positive feedback is as effective as negative feedback, with the positive effect of extracting the change you want instead of placing the change upon the person.
I think it's about helping them map out the options. So, listening to what they want and truthfully sharing your opinion on how the different options will solve their problem. If the best option for them is what you sell, it's a win-win. If it's not, all good. They will thank you if you truly helped them and gave them the best option for their problem. Obviously, this isn't possible if what you sell is never the best option. In that case, the problem exists before the conversation even happens. Either make a better product or change company
By setting a "good" example during a time they are in an unfavorable or weaker position. Which could mean remaining firm on the outside while providing space for their ego to transform their loss into a learning experience and improve their performance. It's written this way because the methods are different for the enabler and/or the receiver. I hope you understand obi one!
Find the place where their interests and yours intersect, and frame them existing there as an inevitability. If there is no intersection, don't try to force it.
What would communication without manipulation even mean? The whole point of making mouth-noises or eye-shapes is to cause the neural activations in people perceiving these shapes to change in some way. If they don't, you haven't communicated.
What most people mean when they ask questions like yours isn't "How do I avoid manipulation?" but "How do I live with integrity?". Answering this question is a field in its own right and isn't coupled to communication per se.
The key question is whether we use our moral compass when we influence or manipulate. Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with moral manipulation.
The real inquiry is about the moral values we prioritize. Are we only focused on our own gain? Do we genuinely aim to help others? Or are we somewhere in the middle?
When we seek to benefit others, is it truly for them, or is it more about our own satisfaction from doing something “good”? Do those “good” actions genuinely help everyone, or merely specific groups at the cost of others? Perhaps someone has lost out because of our so-called “good” deeds.
By pondering and answering these questions, you'll be able to influence others without resorting to non-moral manipulation.
c-suite person here...my job is "influence to empower" my team and others - to unlock opportunity for the company I represent.
My advice would be: Stay honest with yourself. To influence IS to manipulate.
Playing squeamish is a slippery slope into avoiding accountability for your actions.
In other words - don't judge the tools - judge your motives and the outcome.
Accept there is always a trade and balance.
If you can be honest about your motives and actions with yourself your friends and colleagues - chances are that you can achieve your goals with ethics and empathy intact.
If you can't, then it's time to take a look at yourself - not the tools.
What they mean is "influence" (positive connotation) without "manipulate" (negative connotation). But this is simply a nuance on "intent" i.e. whether it is good or bad from the pov of the instigator. But the recipient also has an important role to play in this interaction since they are the one perceiving the intent which might be different from what was intended. So the instigator has to sometimes "manipulate" to gain "influence". The End-Goal often (but not always) justifies the means.
This is the realm of Worldly Wisdom/Propaganda/Politics covered in the classic works of Baltasar Gracian/Machiavelli/Francesco Guicciardini/Kautilya/Kamandaki/Vishnu Sharma/Edward Bernays/Jacques Ellul etc.
On the Psychological realm, see the works of B.F.Skinner on Operant Conditioning/Behaviourism and Verbal Behaviour.
The solution is not to deny yourself the tools of persuasion or "manipulation" but to be authentic and transparent. It's deceptiveness that makes influence or persuasion manipulative, not the tools and techniques.
It's all influence. When it's convenient and good we call it charisma, leadership, crisis navigation. When it's bad we call it manipulative, control freak, sociopathic.
Persuasion that happens in good faith is a two-way street. You explain your position, but also truly listen to theirs. If you are prepared to change your own position based on what they say, then you can hope that they might change theirs based on what you say.
If it is truly two way in this sense, including your best efforts to extract from the other party their strongest, potentially unexpected, arguments for their position and give them your due consideration, it shouldn't feel like manipulation.
This is fine when the question is, “What’s for dinner?” However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity. It’s important to understand where these lines fall within yourself and those you are speaking with. Some arguments aren’t worth having in an effort to persuade, but rather they should be discussions aimed at understanding, being vulnerable and finding ways to respect and live at peace among people we have fundamental differences with. Otherwise we are no different than Crusaders and Jihadists.
The earth is not flat. This is indisputable fact. Yet, much ink has been spilt on arguments to the contrary. Refuting some of these arguments is quite difficult, honestly, but none of the arguments really matter because they reject all the convincing evidence as conspiracy or magic.
In this way, what you suggest demands significant labor on the part of the person arguing an obvious fact against an ideologue who will proclaim an open desire to change their belief but whose world view is entrenched in magic making it fundamentally impossible to actually change it.
Long story short I don't buy it and think what you said is full of shit.
Every effective communication is manipulation to a degree. There is no influence without manipulation.
A baby smiling at you is manipulation.
This is nothing bad in itself.
Feels to me like that is addressed by the very first sentence in the article:
> We influence others every day, whether we intend to or not.
And then it’s expanded as it continues.
> Every effective communication is manipulation to a degree.
Yes, to a degree. Seems to me the author is attempting to be pragmatic and not let excessive pedantry cloud the larger point. A friend trying to convince you to stop smoking because they want you to live healthier for longer may be technically manipulating you, but that’s not a useful definition and realistically no one would colloquially consider it to be the case. Whenever you find yourself dismissing an argument because a word can be applied universally, instead steelman the author’s argument by trying to understand the definition they are working with.
The way I read manipulation is that someone is handling (manus: latin for 'hands') someone merely as a tool, bending and pushing and whatnot, just as a mere means to an end, without big regard for the tool, in an egotistical way. Objectifying the other, to some extent.
I think a distinction based on honest vs dishonest communication can be made
I really don’t like this article. I think this article reflects more our desire to categorize things into neatly numbered lists, and reflects less any thorough understanding of influence. Big lists of aphorisms. Less in the way of concrete detail. Words are used the wrong way. Concepts are broken up into incoherent lists.
“Ratianolising” is the word used in the most wrong way. The word normally describes inventing post-hoc reasons for some decision or behavior.
“Negotiating” is a big list of aphorisms which pull in different directions. Some of the advice sounds like amateurish art-of-the-deal tips which encourage you to extract as many concessions as you can from the other side. Some of the advice pulls in the opposite direction. And then, to mix everything up, the advice to compromise and meet half-way rears its ugly head.
The more I read in this article, the worse my opinion gets. I’m stopping.
:-(
It's from a "professional coach", not a philosopher. He's selling a product to corporations, not trying to find some truth...
I can see that some of the categories are a stretch semantically; however, I didn't see the specific categories and their names as central to the point of the article. I think the goal is to demonstrate that 1) everyone engages in persuasion in some form; 2) there are various different styles of persuasion with different strengths and weaknesses, and it's useful to be self-aware about what style(s) you tend to use and whether there are other styles you might want to try out in certain situations. I think breaking it down into 5 somewhat artificial categories is a good framework for making this topic approachable and providing good examples to think about.
I think if you already have well-developed thoughts about persuasion and social interaction, it might not add much, but it was useful for me.
You make a good point and I agree mostly to the point being made i.e. it is more fluid than categorical. However, I think it is not being made in good faith. I found the article highly insightful because it provides a solid starting point to those that have not started or don't know much about negotiations and how they happen. It should be safe to assume that there are plenty that have not started yet. It is also true that the more frameworks one reads and learns about, the more they realize that there are gaps in each one of them, and it is indeed fluid, not categorical, and hence reaching the same conclusion.
I'll respond to the title instead of the article.
As an attorney, I've found that the best persuasion is the removal of impediments and friction standing between the person you hope to influence and what they want to do in the first place.
Most other tactics amount to force or deceit ("manipulation").
This connects with me. More about helping people do what they already have in mind. Connecting with people and finding overlapping interests rather than a manipulation mindset.
Are you talking about the judge, opposing attorney, your client, coworker, business partner, or who? Surely that context matters much more than you're suggesting, viz what you individually perceive the impediments and friction to be, and how you both think they can be removed?
I would say for me that the difference between Influencing and Manipulating is that when you manipulate someone you could a) advance arguments you know to be untrue or that you don't intend to fulfil (negotiating in bad faith) and/or b) trying to get someone to do something that you know with a high degree of certainty is against their best interests.
People will do anything for those who encourage their dreams, justify their failures, allay their fears, confirm their suspicions and help them throw rocks at their enemies.
-- Blair Warren
So... parents?
I've always found that it's about defining win/win situations. Also, you should make real human connection in the process. If you don't like the person, that's a real issue. It may not be that the person is unlikeable, it may be that you aren't finding a perspective that aligns right.
But yeah, aligning incentives and making friends. Even if they don't go the way you want, you both still had a positive experience and can potentially find a way to work together in the future.
Sometimes there is no win/win.
There is no magic about it
Just give your clear arguments, be detailed, be honest, don't use fallacies, point out fallacies.
It's not about "influence", it's more about communicating your point of view and making it visible and understood by others.
I had a manager once who argued that there was no difference between influence and manipulation. He was one of the most manipulative people I've ever worked with, and working with him was very obnoxious and stressful. I suspect most people who argue that there is no difference are either very manipulative people trying to justify their own behavior, or are people who have been taken in by such people.
IMO people get too caught up in the words "influence" and "manipulate", and effectively start arguing over definitions (whether they realize that's what they're doing or not). I don't think any of that matters.
What matters is whether you're behaving like a decent human being who respects and cares about others. The negative things that people associate with the word "manipulate" are things like trickery, dishonesty, etc. As long as you are approaching others with respect, authenticity, honesty, and a reasonable amount of humility, then I don't think you need to worry about whether your influence counts as "manipulation" or not: you'll be avoiding the aspects of "manipulation" that make it a bad thing.
This is a very HN sort of sentiment. How can I be persuasive without being gross?
I had a bit of a moment when I first became a PM. (I've done a bunch of things, engineering / sales / founding, but PM only sort of recently.) I realized that my job was to wake up in the morning and pick fights. Or more diplomatically: to tell people they were doing the wrong thing, and they should be doing a different thing, in a way that made them want to listen to me more in the future, not less.
That's the job. In fact, in almost every job, that's the job.
Impact happens when you reach people and they behave differently because of you. That's nothing to be ashamed of. If you do it authentically and with good intent, it's one of the best things you can do with your time.
Think of what you are doing as revealing information as to why you think your new approach is more aligned with business and business goals. Give them room to do the same.
There might be systemic issues getting in the way. You and them having competing OKRs for example. Good to surface that and deal with it too.
If I successfully influence someone, I feel I've manipulated them nonetheless.
I see this sentiment from time to time in the HN crowd, and I’m really interested in understanding more about it.
My first reaction to this? I think that you’re using “manipulate” to describe a process where somebody doesn’t want to do something, and make them do it anyway, but without using force. It feels like this has to be rooted in some kind of denial of other people’s free will—that they are somehow incapable of choosing to help you or agree with you, and can only be tricked. It seems like you would need to believe that other people don’t genuinely like you or value you.
In one of many possible definitions, manipulation requires deceit; a hidden agenda or goal.
In an "original" definition, manipulation literally means "to move". In that sense, we all manipulate. We move.
The two combined together: You're allowed to "move". You are broadly "allowed" to "manipulate" in that sense. If you add lies, deceit, etc, you're in territory others might not find acceptable, and will in turn reject you or remove you from their lives.
If you feel bad about your "success" but can't see why on a rational level, you may want to remember how your parents or other people growing up treated you. Can you find some childhood memories related to this? Potentially "adverse" experiences related to "manipulation" around you?
So, let's say you inspire someone just by existing, these things happen.
Not really, there are honest ways as well to influence as well. I also find it annoying when people try to manipulate at the sake of influencing just to sell something. Infact, wrote a small piece on this https://aishwaryagoel.com/what-engineers-taught-me-about-sel..... would love to know what you think?
Advice a sales coach gave me was “sales is sorting, not convincing.”
I always found that put me in the right headspace to focus on listening first, then being clear. Whether they sort themselves into a yes or no is on them.
Let's go back in history of influencing. How did the Egyptian workers were influenced to build pyramids? How did the leaders influence populations to be part of revolutions? How did the kings influence armies to engage in battles? Slavery apart, but there is something else.
You need to realize that people are not inherently individual beings. In some cultures, individuals hardly have any identity of their own. The identify themselves with a larger creature and they become part of that creature. They play a role assigned to them.
So, influencing involves making an individual to lose their individuality to some extent and become a part of the larger interest group. From that point, it is a matter of telling them what to do for the larger community.
This was easier in the old times when social bonds were stronger in families, tribes, villages etc. Individuals hardly had any privacy. Everyone in the village knows what's going on in every home in that village.
Getting these bonds back is the first step. When you try to influence someone, your need to make them understand who you are, to them. And why it is beneficial to have that bond. Once you have that "we" between you two, there is no explicit influencing required.
The form of the question has assumptions that are broken.
The action of manipulating people is fairly obvious. It means you have a predetermined outcome that you want other people to accept The same assumption is implicit in the "How can I influence others..." Again there is the same predetermined outcome.
The answer then is obvious. You cannot. Perhaps what you are looking for is instead a way to join with other people in a participatory/collaborative fashion. You can ask what other people think, you can talk about what you think.
But as long as you have a predetermined outcome in mind, I suspect your only choices is manipulation.
You might also want to reassess what the question is. We talk about so much, but we do so little. Imagine that my car won't start and I want to fix it. The idea of influencing people here is silliness. We care very little about who thinks what, as long as the car starts. The thinking is in service of an action that produces a result.
In my opinion! :-)
[edit: fix wording, typos]
I think "manipulation" implies sneakiness, not just influencing somebody. If I tell you that I disagree with your comment, and me saying that is enough to change your mind, then I have influenced you but not manipulated you because I've done nothing but tell you my honest opinion with no unannounced motives.
Public debates are necessary to get new ideas out there, but individuals and groups would rather be horrible than change their minds after an argument.
Attempting to argue with people, in good faith or otherwise, to change their mind is a philosophical trap.
Persuasion is just getting people to come around to your way of thinking without direct argumentation. It gets manipulative, psyopy and evil when fear, envy, lust, guilt, etc nudges are applied.
Only give positive feedback when they are doing the thing you want them too. Absence of positive feedback is as effective as negative feedback, with the positive effect of extracting the change you want instead of placing the change upon the person.
That sound a lot like manipulation. Like you train dogs.
That is simple. By example.
I think it's about helping them map out the options. So, listening to what they want and truthfully sharing your opinion on how the different options will solve their problem. If the best option for them is what you sell, it's a win-win. If it's not, all good. They will thank you if you truly helped them and gave them the best option for their problem. Obviously, this isn't possible if what you sell is never the best option. In that case, the problem exists before the conversation even happens. Either make a better product or change company
Highly recommend this Coursera course from University of Michigan, "Influencing People": https://www.coursera.org/learn/influencing-people
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wJ4ARj67xn8
Putting people into 'doors' could risk stereotyping. Real conversations are messy, and most people shift styles within minutes.
I actually wrote a blog on this a few days ago. which was focussed more on sales practices of manipulation and better ways to do things: https://aishwaryagoel.com/what-engineers-taught-me-about-sel...
> How can I influence others without manipulating them ?
By listening to them.
Next question.
By setting a "good" example during a time they are in an unfavorable or weaker position. Which could mean remaining firm on the outside while providing space for their ego to transform their loss into a learning experience and improve their performance. It's written this way because the methods are different for the enabler and/or the receiver. I hope you understand obi one!
Effective communication is fundamentally problem solving.
Find the place where their interests and yours intersect, and frame them existing there as an inevitability. If there is no intersection, don't try to force it.
Or, "How can I manipulate others without being perceived to be doing so."
...by showing them a lot of Comic Sans - that will blur their vision and weaken their defense a lot.
What would communication without manipulation even mean? The whole point of making mouth-noises or eye-shapes is to cause the neural activations in people perceiving these shapes to change in some way. If they don't, you haven't communicated.
What most people mean when they ask questions like yours isn't "How do I avoid manipulation?" but "How do I live with integrity?". Answering this question is a field in its own right and isn't coupled to communication per se.
That's a lot of words to make oneself feel better about manipulating others.
Influence is manipulation, plain and simple.
The key question is whether we use our moral compass when we influence or manipulate. Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with moral manipulation.
The real inquiry is about the moral values we prioritize. Are we only focused on our own gain? Do we genuinely aim to help others? Or are we somewhere in the middle?
When we seek to benefit others, is it truly for them, or is it more about our own satisfaction from doing something “good”? Do those “good” actions genuinely help everyone, or merely specific groups at the cost of others? Perhaps someone has lost out because of our so-called “good” deeds.
By pondering and answering these questions, you'll be able to influence others without resorting to non-moral manipulation.
c-suite person here...my job is "influence to empower" my team and others - to unlock opportunity for the company I represent.
My advice would be: Stay honest with yourself. To influence IS to manipulate.
Playing squeamish is a slippery slope into avoiding accountability for your actions.
In other words - don't judge the tools - judge your motives and the outcome.
Accept there is always a trade and balance.
If you can be honest about your motives and actions with yourself your friends and colleagues - chances are that you can achieve your goals with ethics and empathy intact.
If you can't, then it's time to take a look at yourself - not the tools.
Good luck
Not possible.
What they mean is "influence" (positive connotation) without "manipulate" (negative connotation). But this is simply a nuance on "intent" i.e. whether it is good or bad from the pov of the instigator. But the recipient also has an important role to play in this interaction since they are the one perceiving the intent which might be different from what was intended. So the instigator has to sometimes "manipulate" to gain "influence". The End-Goal often (but not always) justifies the means.
This is the realm of Worldly Wisdom/Propaganda/Politics covered in the classic works of Baltasar Gracian/Machiavelli/Francesco Guicciardini/Kautilya/Kamandaki/Vishnu Sharma/Edward Bernays/Jacques Ellul etc.
On the Psychological realm, see the works of B.F.Skinner on Operant Conditioning/Behaviourism and Verbal Behaviour.
Maybe just try to set an example without any attempt to be persuasive at all.
Influence, persuasion, manipulation are all identical in every way except moral.
By accepting the fact that sometimes (many times) you won't get the outcome you desire, in the manner of which you desire it.
The solution is not to deny yourself the tools of persuasion or "manipulation" but to be authentic and transparent. It's deceptiveness that makes influence or persuasion manipulative, not the tools and techniques.
It's all influence. When it's convenient and good we call it charisma, leadership, crisis navigation. When it's bad we call it manipulative, control freak, sociopathic.