This discussion of the merits of manipulation goes back to the observations made at the end of Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini. After an entire excellent book about the major compliance tools people use on one another to alter each other's behavior - even against their will - he spends a vital chapter in the end speaking about the moral consideration to it all. In that chapter, he brought up the natural question that comes to mind after reading about how you can bilk people out of donations by shoving daisies in their hands or convince a prisoner to confess to a major crime by offering him a Coke:
"Is this morally permissible to do?"
The answer he gave was pretty useful. He pointed out that these persuasion routes, these roads to gaining compliance, are all hardwired biological instincts in most people that are of vital importance in social formation, stability, and producing prosperity. Yes, they can be manipulated by those who simply want resource extraction or even by those with more malicious intents. But the instincts are there for damn good reason, and it would be foolish once knowing them to not use them to help guide people to making positive choices. And that was the key that Bismarck was also noting: Manipulation with positive intent towards the subject, to guide them to behaving in ways beneficial to them if not also others beyond them, is in fact something of a duty of those who come to learn of these methods. That and helping them to see through what is a ruse and what is a positive intent that they might approach all attempts at manipulation with eyes-open.
So many people in Nationalist political circles believe that upfront, naked, brutal honesty with no excuses or frills is not only good but even morally necessary. I appreciate their ever-seeking love of Truth, but the Truth alone is insufficient to move the hands of men. Unfortunately they often despise knowing that reciprocity allows one to indebt someone by gift-giving and thereby gather more resources as they try to discharge that burden, or that merely citing social proof in the form of showing big numbers is enough to convince virtually everyone that you're important and should be followed. They hate not being able to simply give people the medicine straight, and instead spurn the sugar that would help them drink it down.
We are rationalities ensconced in bodies of flesh and bone, bodies that have to navigate this world and get along with others like ourselves in order to survive and thrive. We are not pure intelligences able to imbibe Truth straight from the tap, and hardly any will even attempt it. If you want the masses to accept your beliefs, to follow your lead, give you resources, and do what you ask of them, you must embrace "manipulation". Call the rose by any other name if you must - persuasion, influence, compelling, enticing, eliciting. But you must embrace it to find social success. How you embrace those methods and utilize them is where you are to be rightly judged, but acting in knowing accordance with natural principles to affect the world is not in itself to be praised or condemned, merely noted for the real moral hinge-points.
That is, when Captain Bismarck sails off with his merry men of Tortuga towards those gleaming corporate shores, he and they should all know the many clever leverages and tricks he has used to gather them aboard. The good captain will ensure that his followers are serving a mutually-desired end that will earn the entire crew just rewards - and not just the captain. In the end it is not that Bismarck dazzled them with charming promises of riches and power to gain their compliance, but whether he chooses to make good on his promises to his crewmen or chooses to maroon them and scuttle off with the booty himself. But as Bismarck designed Tortuga, the real wealth comes not from the entry-fee but from enriched crewmen ready to support his ongoing ventures. For this venture at least, the main interests of the crew are right in line with the interests of the Captain - as all virtuous upcycles in enterprise are.
But a lover of manipulation should beware, that being able to appreciate a cunning play does not save you from taking the results straight to the gut. Merely seeing the malicious manipulator's strings does not make them pull any less urgently towards the fire. Transact as you wish, with the lifeguard's approach - with good intent, but always feet-first.
I’ve sometimes thought that I don’t fundamentally object to being lied to, but I definitely object if it’s done in a way that comes across as ungraceful, low effort or otherwise insulting to my intelligence.
I think this is kind of similar to what you’re saying about manipulation.
"I don’t know what I want or what my actual values are, so I ask him to lead me to water in a way that feels mostly autonomous."
This is so interesting. I feel similarly pretty often, but probably for different reasons than you that I haven't quite figured out yet. I wonder if you've analyzed why you don't know what your values are or what you want. Do you think is because you can see merit in so many different things? Or that you're indecisive by nature, or just have such a strong theory of mind that it backfires? Does this happen often with high-openness people? I'd be super curious to read your more expanded thoughts on that some time.
In Myers Briggs terms it is an Fe vs. Fi sort of thing... As an ENTP Fi is my "blind spot" and I genuinely don't understand having "values" in the same way an INFP or something has values. For me values = loyalty to my friends and reciprocity to anyone who has helped me professionally financially etc. But this comes off as grifty and transactional to Fi types who are very moralistic and to me seem like dour sociopaths most of the time, because I see the world as an inherently messy place where abstract principles aren't always going to map perfectly with real life situations and simply being personally honorable is a better thing to strive for.
In practice I think the problem that Rajeev helps me with is that I naturally try to ascribe a LARPy "narrative" to situations in my life that make it a "good story." This is very helpful for creating a sort of thematic energy to draw upon and motivate sustained action (esp as low conscientiousness nibba) but sometimes the framing doesn't actually track with the reality on the ground. In those situations someone like Rajeev can help me course correct so I don't embarrass myself or become the villain in my own story. Because of his incredibly strong Fe he helps me create the right story/myth for the situation, and since he's an ENFJ with superbly developed unconscious Ne and I'm an ENTP with superbly developed unconscious Ni the creative feedback loop is incredibly generative.
So, (and I realize this is a bit of an odd thing in this article to focus on) but is there truly nothing other than the "friend / enemy" distinction, as you see it? Is there no "neutral"? I dunno. Maybe I'm even less neurotypical than I thought, but usually people have to *do* something to make "enemy" with me, but it's also fairly rare that people make "friend".
This discussion of the merits of manipulation goes back to the observations made at the end of Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini. After an entire excellent book about the major compliance tools people use on one another to alter each other's behavior - even against their will - he spends a vital chapter in the end speaking about the moral consideration to it all. In that chapter, he brought up the natural question that comes to mind after reading about how you can bilk people out of donations by shoving daisies in their hands or convince a prisoner to confess to a major crime by offering him a Coke:
"Is this morally permissible to do?"
The answer he gave was pretty useful. He pointed out that these persuasion routes, these roads to gaining compliance, are all hardwired biological instincts in most people that are of vital importance in social formation, stability, and producing prosperity. Yes, they can be manipulated by those who simply want resource extraction or even by those with more malicious intents. But the instincts are there for damn good reason, and it would be foolish once knowing them to not use them to help guide people to making positive choices. And that was the key that Bismarck was also noting: Manipulation with positive intent towards the subject, to guide them to behaving in ways beneficial to them if not also others beyond them, is in fact something of a duty of those who come to learn of these methods. That and helping them to see through what is a ruse and what is a positive intent that they might approach all attempts at manipulation with eyes-open.
So many people in Nationalist political circles believe that upfront, naked, brutal honesty with no excuses or frills is not only good but even morally necessary. I appreciate their ever-seeking love of Truth, but the Truth alone is insufficient to move the hands of men. Unfortunately they often despise knowing that reciprocity allows one to indebt someone by gift-giving and thereby gather more resources as they try to discharge that burden, or that merely citing social proof in the form of showing big numbers is enough to convince virtually everyone that you're important and should be followed. They hate not being able to simply give people the medicine straight, and instead spurn the sugar that would help them drink it down.
We are rationalities ensconced in bodies of flesh and bone, bodies that have to navigate this world and get along with others like ourselves in order to survive and thrive. We are not pure intelligences able to imbibe Truth straight from the tap, and hardly any will even attempt it. If you want the masses to accept your beliefs, to follow your lead, give you resources, and do what you ask of them, you must embrace "manipulation". Call the rose by any other name if you must - persuasion, influence, compelling, enticing, eliciting. But you must embrace it to find social success. How you embrace those methods and utilize them is where you are to be rightly judged, but acting in knowing accordance with natural principles to affect the world is not in itself to be praised or condemned, merely noted for the real moral hinge-points.
That is, when Captain Bismarck sails off with his merry men of Tortuga towards those gleaming corporate shores, he and they should all know the many clever leverages and tricks he has used to gather them aboard. The good captain will ensure that his followers are serving a mutually-desired end that will earn the entire crew just rewards - and not just the captain. In the end it is not that Bismarck dazzled them with charming promises of riches and power to gain their compliance, but whether he chooses to make good on his promises to his crewmen or chooses to maroon them and scuttle off with the booty himself. But as Bismarck designed Tortuga, the real wealth comes not from the entry-fee but from enriched crewmen ready to support his ongoing ventures. For this venture at least, the main interests of the crew are right in line with the interests of the Captain - as all virtuous upcycles in enterprise are.
But a lover of manipulation should beware, that being able to appreciate a cunning play does not save you from taking the results straight to the gut. Merely seeing the malicious manipulator's strings does not make them pull any less urgently towards the fire. Transact as you wish, with the lifeguard's approach - with good intent, but always feet-first.
(P.S. The PDF of Influence for those looking to read it themselves: https://ia800203.us.archive.org/33/items/ThePsychologyOfPersuasion/The%20Psychology%20of%20Persuasion.pdf)
Walt is weak for Ashkenazi goddesses💯
I’ve sometimes thought that I don’t fundamentally object to being lied to, but I definitely object if it’s done in a way that comes across as ungraceful, low effort or otherwise insulting to my intelligence.
I think this is kind of similar to what you’re saying about manipulation.
"I don’t know what I want or what my actual values are, so I ask him to lead me to water in a way that feels mostly autonomous."
This is so interesting. I feel similarly pretty often, but probably for different reasons than you that I haven't quite figured out yet. I wonder if you've analyzed why you don't know what your values are or what you want. Do you think is because you can see merit in so many different things? Or that you're indecisive by nature, or just have such a strong theory of mind that it backfires? Does this happen often with high-openness people? I'd be super curious to read your more expanded thoughts on that some time.
In Myers Briggs terms it is an Fe vs. Fi sort of thing... As an ENTP Fi is my "blind spot" and I genuinely don't understand having "values" in the same way an INFP or something has values. For me values = loyalty to my friends and reciprocity to anyone who has helped me professionally financially etc. But this comes off as grifty and transactional to Fi types who are very moralistic and to me seem like dour sociopaths most of the time, because I see the world as an inherently messy place where abstract principles aren't always going to map perfectly with real life situations and simply being personally honorable is a better thing to strive for.
In practice I think the problem that Rajeev helps me with is that I naturally try to ascribe a LARPy "narrative" to situations in my life that make it a "good story." This is very helpful for creating a sort of thematic energy to draw upon and motivate sustained action (esp as low conscientiousness nibba) but sometimes the framing doesn't actually track with the reality on the ground. In those situations someone like Rajeev can help me course correct so I don't embarrass myself or become the villain in my own story. Because of his incredibly strong Fe he helps me create the right story/myth for the situation, and since he's an ENFJ with superbly developed unconscious Ne and I'm an ENTP with superbly developed unconscious Ni the creative feedback loop is incredibly generative.
So, (and I realize this is a bit of an odd thing in this article to focus on) but is there truly nothing other than the "friend / enemy" distinction, as you see it? Is there no "neutral"? I dunno. Maybe I'm even less neurotypical than I thought, but usually people have to *do* something to make "enemy" with me, but it's also fairly rare that people make "friend".
Everyone else is just sort of... there.
I dunno. Anyway. :D
I guess it depends on the depth of your relationship.
Tho maybe people with BPD tendencies shouldn't read Schmitt.
Sorry you only worsened my views on women rather than improved it
So youre into feet
it's a big reason I am so racist
nonwhite women have ugly feet