As a species, humans are programmed to manipulate our physical environment in order to make life easier or more pleasant. We build buildings, cultivate land, divert rivers and streams and many more things. We use trial and error to see what works and we are constantly applying what we know and testing new ideas.
Since we are social creatures, a large part of our environment consists of other people. Our interactions with them are important. As children we experiment with behaviour to try to understand how it will alter our environment by changing the actions of others. Babies, for example, learn what the impact of crying is, young children learn quickly how to get what they want - For example, if I want sweets/candy, should they badger their parents or be extra nice? Whine and mope or be aggressive?
They are learning how other people respond to their behaviour in order to improve their own lives.
Throughout life, we are constantly both applying lessons learnt in the past and experimenting with behaviour patterns and observing how that influences different types of people. Usually, we take a prior understanding and adjust slowly to new information using a
Bayesian updating process.
In some very real sense, we are always manipulating other people. There is no social interaction that we can have in which we do not in some way calibrate our own behaviour depending upon the expected reaction of other people.
So what do we mean by 'manipulation' when we use it in a disparaging way? I am not really sure. I have a few ideas:
1/ I am wondering whether it is a question of degree. For example, someone who has very well understood - probably intuitively or possibly learnt through techniques such as
Neuro-linguistic programming - how people behave might be seen to be particularly manipulative. Someone who is able to quickly judge your reactions to their own behaviour will adapt his own in order to achieve the desired effect. We all do it - that is partly what good communication is about - but people who always seem to get what they want may be particularly good at 'manipulating' others.
2/ Is it the ability to get the reaction one wants from someone in the short term, but which goes against what would have been the wishes of the other person? For example, I am a salesman who works in a store and use my good understanding of customers to manipulate one into making a purchase s/he might regret later on.
This is obviously always a worry, and that is why in most countries, consumers have the right to return products they have purchased 'on a whim'.
3/ Is it a matter of motive? If someone manipulates another person for a 'bad reason', is this what we call 'manipulative'? That, of course, suggests that we can define 'good' and 'bad' and it is not obvious to me that we can. In addition, it suggests that of two equally 'manipulative' people, the person who manipulates you in a way which is good for you, is not 'manipulative', whilst the person who wants bad for you (or good for themselves regardless of you?) is 'manipulative'.
We are constantly seeking to manipulate other people, and cannot help but do it. But it is still not obvious to me what we mean by 'manipulative' in a disparaging way.
Here are two Google auto-suggest that I remember seeing a while ago and found interesting. They give the most popular search results for 'how to get my boyfriend to' and 'how to get my girlfriend to'. They shows how pervasive 'manipulation' is.
Have I missed anything?
7/ Plans to attack the Danish and Dutch football teams during the World Cup to avenge the drawing of Muhammed cartoons. Unfortunately, no big protests from Muslims that those who plan these attacks are soiling Islam. Apparently no problems organising large-scale protests and banning Facebook in Pakistan (and creating Facebook pages) against a Draw Muhammed Day (or here or try it cached if it is blocked) though.
