Semantics aside, the word psychopath to describe some neurodivergent people must be reconsidered. It means sickness of the mind. This is a negative, unwarranted label to describe people who are different, but are undeserving of this horrible label. Instead of convincing people that psychopaths can be okay too, maybe start a movement to reconsider the label. Distinguish it from ASPD and the human monsters portrayed in the movies. Eliminate the term or leave it to the movie makers. Say you have Diminished Innate Affectivity or DIA. Not an expert so I don't know if that adequately describes your neurodivergency, but you understand. Not psychopath, not movie monster, just different.
Aye, such ideas have been expressed here previously, but I think your term+ acronym is so far the best, at least I remember not reacting with "that's neat" to what came up earlier. But the memory si not fresh.
You know, it's possible the issues you're describing here tie to the broader issue of psychological splitting.
Simply put, it's a chronic aversion to nuance- and an outright inability to hold positives and negatives in mind at the same time.
I do agree with your take. I regard positive manipulation as influence ( and negative iinfluence as manipulation). It's ultimately just a tool. So is selfishness. So is tribalism. Tools are neutral, in themselves.
Tools are like shoes, quite useful to protect our feet, but quite unpleasant for someone else if we step on someone's toes - especially if they're barefoot.
There needs to be some way to distinguish whether it is or isn't predatory. As in, yes, of course you want something from someone, but do you want the other person to be worse off or not, how likely they are to later go "I regret it." or "this is not the result I agreed to". Both punch and carress are a touch, but they are touches with very different outcomes. It comes down to avoidance of harm. And possibly to collective experience with people rationalizing awful things to crowds. And we are still prone to it, but we also hold in our minds those times when clever talking led to trouble.
I agree with this. Granted, I suspect many people using the world haven't sat down quietly and examined the word and its implications in fine detail. But I agree that the term 'manipulation,' as used by most people, tends to imply a lack of informed consent, benefit, or comfort on the part of the person being manipulated.
That doesn't make it a bad thing, however. I have no need of affection or emotional interaction with other people, for instance, but this is standard for most people. It doesn't seem like something that they think needs consent, benefit, or comfort when it comes to dealing with me, they still expect it from me. I don't benefit from it, I didn't volunteer for it, and I didn't consent to it either, but if it is not provided then I am the bad guy in the situation. Just because most humans need these things to survive, doesn't mean that the pursuit of these things is any less manipulative.
People manipulate everyone they know for those emotional wants and needs, but give themselves a pass assuming that it's just "normal". It isn't to everyone, but the expectation remains the same.
Well, as you say, 'manipulation' is a loaded term for many people, though I can appreciate you using it as a broader category encompassing positive and negative social interactions.
Here's a quick Google search for the definitions of "emotional labor":
-----------------------------
1. The mental activity required to manage or perform the routine tasks necessary for maintaining relationships and ensuring smooth running of a household or process, typically regarded as an unappreciated or unacknowledged burden borne disproportionately by women.
"she wondered what would happen in a household where nobody did the emotional labor"
2. The management of one's emotions in order to present oneself and interact with other people in a certain way while doing a job.
"in the airline industry emotional labor is vital to the success of the product"
-----------------------------
Perhaps that term is more loaded in the direction that you want?
No. I find "emotional labor" to be a meaningless term that is used by people that want something to complain about.
If they are a part of a relationship there are requirements that are a part of that. when people say that they do all the "emotional labor" they are often discounting the aspects of the relationships that they don't have to manage. If they have a bad partner that doesn't do their part, leave. Otherwise, then need to keep up their end of the bargain.
As for business, that isn't "emotional labor" it's trying to rehabilitate manipulation by using a buzz word to try and sound better because people will somehow believe that "emotional labor" is a softer word that people will like better. Using it is literally manipulation with the intent to deceive.
Manipulation is the clay human relationships are sculpted in It is how people interact, it is how they relate, and it is how they survive.
I’d like to hear you discuss the concept of kindness versus chronic ‘niceness’ as you’ve seen it applied by people you’ve observed. Do you agree with the notion that turning the other cheek with friends and others that one might care about is a weakness or a character flaw, or even another form of manipulation? Have you observed Toxic Niceness in people - if there is indeed such a thing? i apologize if this sounds like a vagu topic, but if it sparks any thoughts in you it might be something you could address in a future post.
Toxic niceness is a thing. It is the person that buys other people's friendships, or at least they try. They buy things or do things for others with the assumption that they are now "owed" friendship from that person. When they don't get what they assume that they are owed they consider themselves to be, and present themselves as a victim and the other person is accused of taking advantage of them.
The idea that only psychopaths can be altruistic is interesting to me, but it might be right. I've never done anything without a payoff, as much as I want to think of myself as a good person. That said, I would experience disproportionate consequences to stay in alignment with my sense of self. For example, I would put myself in harm's way to help someone, but I would also feel good about myself as I walked away and I would have gained courage that would benefit me in life. That all adds to my sense of self, which is a good thing. If you hadn't said "selfishness" is a good word, I was definitely going to.
Manipulation as a positive is interesting. I hadn't thought of that word, but isn't it interesting that we think of "influence" as a positive, but that is just a synonym for manipulation. Even this human desire to make a difference in the world is all just another way to say "influence" or "manipulation". What an interesting thought!
I always wondered why "tolerance" was considered a value. It's suggesting that we should grit our teeth and bear the differences of others and suffer through them. Gross. How about we learn from each other's differences to expand our world and openly embrace them as something that can actually bring us joy. Yet, whenever society wants to humanize a person (who is already human, btw), they talk in terms of sameness and the best they can come up with is that we all bleed the same color. Neurotypical humanity is gross if we could really see ourselves.
I also stopped seeing loyalty or commitment as values. Those words go back to some of the stuff you said about tribalism. Loyalty creates a bias in favor of those in our social circle instead of offering fairness. Commitment means that there will be a time in that relationship when we need to deploy tolerance and grit our teeth and bear the person who is supposed to be there to enrich our lives simply because we are committed, but there is no way we'd love them enough to choose them in this moment. Walking away from people who no longer enrich my life has left me with open spaces to upgrade and then I have overflow to do so much more in the world instead of hanging out with emotional vampires who always leave me half-empty. That brings us back to the value of selfishness. Nobody gets to take from my cup. They get the overflow. My selfishness leaves me with plenty of overflow.
Signed,
A person who's learned a lot of valuable lessons from betrayal from neurotypicals and from a bestie whose brain is genetically wired like a psychopath's. Her morality is higher.
Ah yes. I can think of many terms which are neutral in original definition and are now loaded with unwarranted inferences and/or implications.
There are a series of novels from the author Jack Vance which play with terms and their connotations in the interactions. "His behavior is most remarkable," was an oft-repeated sentence from novel to novel, and it rarely meant remarkably good, merely worthy of remark.
MEA CULPA, in a letter I prepared for my boss at the time and for the head of the government branch that funded his program, I used "exceptional decorum" as a compliment for two flight attendants that redused to serve an obviously inebriated passenger with alcoholic beverages. Exceptional means somewhere in statistically significant outllier performance, either unbelievably dismal, or "things were run wrong before they showed up" context, and decorum is simply a cotainer for the sort of behavior observed, and is dependent on the tribal observers for its adherence to norms or mores.
And I HAVE KNOWN that everything I did is selffish for a long time. Accepting that required shrinking my head a bit, but then I started with an inflated self-view since my birthday is December 24, and I grew up think I was special because everyone around me was celebrating on my birthday. So I am selfish, so what? At the end of each day, I review my actions and bring myself to account. My lifelong objetive started out that I would leave the world a but better than I ffound it. Now my objecrive has shrunk a bit, but I hope to set up a survial enclave with a good chance to weather the fall of civilization and the sixth major extinction event and to emerge with DNA sequences and high technology in a few thousand years to build back because we will not have the energy stores to make the climb to our current tech a second time. That accomplishment would make me feel at peace to discover whatever awaits the end of my life.
Negative neutral words... Hmm, try checking the early definitions of "egregious". From outstandingly good to horribly bad in a few short centuries is a most remarkable journey.
As much as I am capable of loving anything, I love your efforts to raise awareness of critical thinking. This particular article touched a trigger for me. \o/
Yes, I talked about this already this week. Not on substack but elsewhere.
It's like the second thought on masking for me. The first level is that people have emotional connection to other people and even the theory of other people. So they get upset when things they perceive as negative go towards them. This is a primary object. The second is that they put different emotional weights on different words. This is part of what clues them into people not being NT. Or rather, it is one of the things that means they do not like others. Also, it is why they do not like the disabled. Since they assign a certain emotional meaning to a word or set of words or concepts and if someone else does not validate that then they decide the person does not fit with them. Because NT's automatically know which words are emotionally relevant.
I have always noticed that NT's don't get on so well if someone has really been through something. The example I am thinking of is fleeing a tyrannical government but this could also be disability or other things. Including pressure from intelligence.
I think this is because they ascribe a lot of significance to things that people that have really been through something do not think is so relevant. Gossip and such. Or the emotional to's and fro's of the most narcissistic members.
This is also why NT's don't like certain questions. Because NT's know what the good thinking will be in any situation without taking thought. To question the apparent good thinking reveals that you are not connected to their emotion religion.
So obviously this is very relevant to understanding the social scene and masking.
Yes, I have seen this with the survivors of abuse that my friend works with. Its interesting, but people will complain about their lot in life and whatever suffering that they have gone through, but when they are introduced to someone who's own suffering far outstrips theirs they don't know how to handle it, and tend to not want to deal with that individual. It's really fascinating.
That is ... morally bankrupt. But then no surprises there.
I suspect it is part of how a lot of NT's relate often in normal life. Always holding some sort of reason why they are a victim (I work long hours etc.) and resenting anyone stealing their thunder by being more, or more provably, a victim.
Alternate take - they feel helpless in the face of a problem outside their scope, they feel also threathened by this being suddenly very real thing and like "it should be resolved, thatđ' how world is supposed to work" and the immediate clean resolution is nowhere to be seen, there is burden to be carried, a burden they are not trained for and so they drop the burden by removing its source from their attention, getting away from distress generating sight.
I find this cowardice/haplessness more likely than "How dare they make me look less victimized?!".
Also... You know how people have visceral reactions to sickness, rot, waste, scenes of murder, injuries etc. It is a reaction mobilizing them to get from the source of danger. Away from where a predator could be still lurking, away from where infection could spread. Nevermind mirror neurons, this double-edged sword, screaming an echo of the harm at them. Psychically damaged person is comparable to a person sick with plague. Very roughly. It is not always the best suited mechanism.
That was a very interesting post. I can't be massively sure on the motivations if I'm honest but that is another thing to consider. Fear and overwhelm are a constant with neurotypicals... With everyone perhaps in this society at the moment.
I’ve had some thoughts for awhile about psychopaths being more altruistic than the rest of society. This is proving to be correct in my eyes.
Learning that the empaths will only help you when there is some emotional pay off for them in the end, and telling them facts, which freaks them out, makes them run the other way, or block you for calling them out on their crap, when they are doing the same thing to others…I don’t understand that. Why are they scared of their own truths, especially when they constantly truth bash others? It sounds contradictory to me. The empaths manipulate a lot more than the psychopaths do, for more selfish reasons I think, but that’s just my personal perspective on the matter lol.
Turns out telling humans the truth can either do nothing, be beneficial, or extremely dangerous.
I have no issue with telling humans the truth, but it sure gets me into some weird situations, and sometimes dangerous ones if I’m not careful.
Unfortunately, since most don’t understand my nature, I have to lie a lot to stay safe.
One of the things that I tend to point out to people that insist that neurotypicals aren't manipulative and psychopaths, of course, are is this:
Psychopaths are born and live in a word surrounded by neurotypicals, and manipulation is a learned behavior, who do you think we learn to do it from? Psychopathy is rare, and yet we are surrounded by manipulative people all the time.
Yeah, but a person can learn something even by themselves, by experimenting, being inventive. You don't neccesarily need to see other people do it, only need to observe results of your actions. By which I do not deny that people are manipulative.
You are better at spotting that mechanism than the rest of the population and not vulnerable to it unlike the rest of population, so that advantage is pegged down as big potential danger.
And I think there is also this, hmm, let's call it proneness to conviction/conclussion by NT folks, that your outlook is missing some important elements, like when a person is partially colourblind, or some level of sound escapes them and so what you put out is distorted version of that on which the rest of people runs and that sort of influence is not compatible with the environment they create among themselves. That if they let your kind to build the world in your likeness, it would be a world in which they, NTs, would have harder times, or even an actually collapsing unsustainable structure. This in fact might be the reason why some guy told you, that he would barr psychopaths from entering governing posts, because they lack empathy. I've heard occasionally similar statement about tech gigants and autism. It was not meant in the sense of them being evil and malicious (at least not neccesarily) but that what seems perfect in their mind is out of sync with human reality.
With all this complementarity can a bit difficult aim, but worthwhile all the same.
Manipulation is taught, not self learned. You have to have the basics before you can experiment with your own actions. Children have no ability to predict cause and effect, which is why they will lie about the most silly things imaginable. They cannot see that their tall tales are clearly that. To them, the world is defined by imagination. What actually works is learned through observation of adults and older kids.
I find it fascinating that neurotypicals have a notion that psychopaths are interested in reshaping the world in any way. We just want to be left to ourselves without being considered serial killers for existing.
Yeah, I agree with this, we don't want to give anyone above IQ 100 a chance at influencing anything, because NT's are doing so well handling everything.
🤣🤣🤣 no, Neurotypicals suck at handling most things, and most all think you are evil or dangerous for being extremely different from them, when you are just existing. 🙄
I think that in people's mind manipulation is linked together with lie. Not the whole root, but part of the issue of aversion.
And it has just sprung into my mind - controlling, making someone into an automaton. You do not give them a choice, where they can consider their options and pick something, instead you steal their autonomy from them, puppet them and what's worse often to their lack of awareness. It is viral, it is cordiceps. I think that is the impression that comes to mind when word "manipulation" is dropped.
Huh, today I am really deep in pathogenic and violent mind-place.
Agreed. Understanding where they are coming from can aid in bridging the differences, addressing concerns behind blunt refusal. I just cannot tell how relevant was this particular vision I've painted.
Semantics. Language is not static. It evolves. Sterile definitions are often ignored in favor of idiomatic language. If you had to explain the definition of a word every you use it, you'd never get your point across. So some words have taken on negative connotations. So what? Poor words, I feel sorry for them. Manipulation is a bad word. If you want a more positive connotation, use a different word. A thesaurus might help.
The last time I consciously manipulated someone was when I was friends with a suicidal person and I kept manipulating her not to commit suicide. She was very good at being subtly hostile towards people so I just pushed through that and became deliberately "cute" and perhaps a bit clingy, I never let the hostility get to me I just carried on being affectionate. While she knew me she just wasn't able to do it. She told me once that I had stopped her.
I disagree. Manipulation is simply what it is. Deciding that it is negative because it soothes or bolsters an emotional part of an individual's worldview doesn't change that reality. It simply means that there is a level of denial that is being entertained.
The word “ engagement” might be a less provocative word for NTs who bristle at the thought that they manipulate. I see no harm in someone saying they want to engage someone in order to gain an end rather than “manipulate” them, if their intent is to declare their goal as mutually beneficial with that choice of word - as long as they’re acknowledging that it is still a means to an end that they themselves want. A ‘Win-Win’ with the condition that the ‘engager’ is looking for something he or she has decided is desirable for them to start as a requirement. If someone approached me and in the course of the conversation it became obvious that they are out to get something from me - with no benefit (and possibly even a negative effect) for me - then that’s clearly selfish manipulation. If - on the other hand - they declare their intent for mutual benefit and take the time to explain the process (some closed-end process that only harvests the described outcome, and no other surprises tag along) then that would be ‘engagement’ for me. That would help to clarify the situation as non-toxic or unselfish manipulation. I myself would prefer that clarification if people who know me were to characterize me to others.
Using the word "engagement", instead of "manipulate" is manipulating them into being more receptive of the fact that they are manipulative. Seems a bit cyclical to me.
No. The idea is that the ‘engager’ is initiating the situation as mutually beneficial from the start, and that entails the prerequisite that mutual trust is fundamental. You can say that trust can be betrayed and therefore should be earned first, and I won’t argue with you on that. I’m describing an agreement between two or more people who engage with the understanding that they’re going to play by the golden rule. Things could very well go sideways, and the agreement is predicated on this rule. It may not work out, but the honest one in the party can at least walk away with the knowledge that their intentions were above board, that they wanted to ‘engage’ and with their integrity is intact. From your perspective we’re talking semantics, I suppose, but the choice of word at the start defines intent for the initiator. And any betrayal reflects on the one doing it. The point is intent. This is important to people like me. I’m sure you roll your eyes at the foolish idea of granting trust before garnering evidence that it is well-placed, but a consistent attitude of mistrust is toxic to NTs. Being very selective with whom you enter into this type of agreement is vital. Those people have to constantly look over their shoulders. Just ask Putin or Kim Jong 2.0. But a rose by any other name. We can use our own words. Thanks again for another engaging post.
How do you rate persuasion, act of convincing. It means one wants to make someone agree with what one proposes, but it carries notion of transparency, that manipulation does not. Influence might be regarded similarly to persuasion. Engagement seems too loose to me, engagement is even waving at each other without saying "hello", it does not say anything about accomplishment of anything, whereas persuasion, influence and manipulation do.
All this aside, I do agree it is vital to note that word manipulation does describe what we do. I attended a lecture focused on teaching and we did run int that term and also into term "ideology" and just yeah. There needs to be some ideology, some kind of outlook and principles of conduct. And kids literally need some clear boundarries as they grow up. The problems arise when we cannot modify it to better fit new information or specific situations.
This is interesting. I agree manipulation is a neutral word with negative connotations. It suggests a ‘doer’ and a ‘done to’ with the ‘done to’ being far worse off thanks to the manipulator. For me I think I’d look at the motivation behind the manipulation. Is the intent to do harm? ( Negative form of manipulation) Is the intent simply personal gain without severe loss to the other? ( neutral / common form) is the intent to benefit the other person as well as yourself ( positive form).
I manipulate a lot. I don’t cause harm, honestly I do it most often to save time, speed things along a bit. I would never manipulate someone to the point where they suffered a real loss or I upset them. Unless the person is an ass, then the ‘fair game’ principle applies ( obviously).
I have described myself as manipulative and been corrected. Manipulation was described as influencing. I don’t much see the difference.
I do think women manipulate more than men. Just looking at my two kids I can see that. My daughter can manipulate her dad and brother but not me. I see it straight away. She was in full flow with her dad the other day until I turned and gave her ‘the look’. She laughed and said “What?!” So I responded,” Stop manipulating your dad it’s not fair.” Haha! My son tries to manipulate occasionally but he’s awful at it. I honestly think women manipulate more to balance out the physical disadvantage of being smaller, physically less strong etc. We manipulate more often so we are better at it but often we manipulate just to get things done I think.
Do you think women manipulate more than men Athena?
I would disagree with you because you only had your son and daughter and it would be required a bigger database to extract conclusions, but I remember reading in a book ("Getting More" by Stuart Diamond if I recall correctly) that women and children negotiate better than men because they are usually the weaker party and thus rely on negotiation to get what they want. According to the book negotiation is everywhere and it even mentions "emotional pay", like asking nicely to increase the chances the other side will help you with something. That for me is manipulation written in different words.
I'm gonna add that charismatic people are better at manipulation. Some are born with charismatic traits, others learn it. I saw a video of a very young child, maybe a toddler, calling his mother a "bitch" but because he had an adorably smile she just laughed and let it pass. Had he said with an angry face the outcome would be very different...
This is everywhere. I found out usually charismatic men say the most polemic opinions without facing backlash because as long as everybody is laughing they let it slide. Why men and not women? The women are more subtle and they avoid saying those things out loud. That is my experience after living 4 years In a boarding school with +1600 people.
Absolutely agree, anecdotal evidence doesn’t make the rule but it is quite striking to watch. My two aren’t twins but they are only 13 months apart. Same parents, same family life experiences, same schools, same teachers etc. so other than the influence of friends ( which is a significant factor I’ll admit) their starting point is similar. I would estimate my daughters ability to manipulate has come through observation likely by observing me. My son has had similar observations but doesn’t notice manipulations and rarely uses them. His is a very straightforward request. My daughter scene sets and goes for the manipulation almost every time. The other thing to consider is that females tend to be more verbally dexterous at a younger age, so that might also impact what I’m seeing. My experience on the whole though, children aside, is that women do manipulate more. There’s the text and then there’s the subtext!
Ooh yes, boarding school would be an excellent testing ground wouldn’t it? Charisma is huge too I agree. Charisma distracts and is a useful tool for gaining power and influence over the group. Far tougher to question the actions of a charismatic person in my view. Charisma almost acts as a smoke screen.
Perhaps this happens because women are more inclined towards social child's play? Such as play house, doll play, tea party... I believe our brain is wired to be more social, as it is essential for taking care of children and ensuring the survival of the species.
Another theory is that children are born with traces of personality. Some will be more social and others will be recluse. Hippocrates proposed the four temperaments theory (sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric and melancholic) and people are often a mixture of two. Is very interesting but it would be too much to add here. I'm just going to say I am melancholic and choleric, the two most difficult temperaments to deal in a child. As a child I sucked at manipulation and took words too literal to influence people.
And yeah, charisma allows one to say strong opinions without facing backlash. The downside is that when you have fewer people to contradict your opinions, it may limit your opportunity for improvement.
Semantics aside, the word psychopath to describe some neurodivergent people must be reconsidered. It means sickness of the mind. This is a negative, unwarranted label to describe people who are different, but are undeserving of this horrible label. Instead of convincing people that psychopaths can be okay too, maybe start a movement to reconsider the label. Distinguish it from ASPD and the human monsters portrayed in the movies. Eliminate the term or leave it to the movie makers. Say you have Diminished Innate Affectivity or DIA. Not an expert so I don't know if that adequately describes your neurodivergency, but you understand. Not psychopath, not movie monster, just different.
Aye, such ideas have been expressed here previously, but I think your term+ acronym is so far the best, at least I remember not reacting with "that's neat" to what came up earlier. But the memory si not fresh.
You know, it's possible the issues you're describing here tie to the broader issue of psychological splitting.
Simply put, it's a chronic aversion to nuance- and an outright inability to hold positives and negatives in mind at the same time.
I do agree with your take. I regard positive manipulation as influence ( and negative iinfluence as manipulation). It's ultimately just a tool. So is selfishness. So is tribalism. Tools are neutral, in themselves.
Tools are like shoes, quite useful to protect our feet, but quite unpleasant for someone else if we step on someone's toes - especially if they're barefoot.
I think that it is interesting that the exact same process requires a different word in order for people not to bristle at its mention.
There needs to be some way to distinguish whether it is or isn't predatory. As in, yes, of course you want something from someone, but do you want the other person to be worse off or not, how likely they are to later go "I regret it." or "this is not the result I agreed to". Both punch and carress are a touch, but they are touches with very different outcomes. It comes down to avoidance of harm. And possibly to collective experience with people rationalizing awful things to crowds. And we are still prone to it, but we also hold in our minds those times when clever talking led to trouble.
I agree with this. Granted, I suspect many people using the world haven't sat down quietly and examined the word and its implications in fine detail. But I agree that the term 'manipulation,' as used by most people, tends to imply a lack of informed consent, benefit, or comfort on the part of the person being manipulated.
That doesn't make it a bad thing, however. I have no need of affection or emotional interaction with other people, for instance, but this is standard for most people. It doesn't seem like something that they think needs consent, benefit, or comfort when it comes to dealing with me, they still expect it from me. I don't benefit from it, I didn't volunteer for it, and I didn't consent to it either, but if it is not provided then I am the bad guy in the situation. Just because most humans need these things to survive, doesn't mean that the pursuit of these things is any less manipulative.
People manipulate everyone they know for those emotional wants and needs, but give themselves a pass assuming that it's just "normal". It isn't to everyone, but the expectation remains the same.
Well, as you say, 'manipulation' is a loaded term for many people, though I can appreciate you using it as a broader category encompassing positive and negative social interactions.
Here's a quick Google search for the definitions of "emotional labor":
-----------------------------
1. The mental activity required to manage or perform the routine tasks necessary for maintaining relationships and ensuring smooth running of a household or process, typically regarded as an unappreciated or unacknowledged burden borne disproportionately by women.
"she wondered what would happen in a household where nobody did the emotional labor"
2. The management of one's emotions in order to present oneself and interact with other people in a certain way while doing a job.
"in the airline industry emotional labor is vital to the success of the product"
-----------------------------
Perhaps that term is more loaded in the direction that you want?
No. I find "emotional labor" to be a meaningless term that is used by people that want something to complain about.
If they are a part of a relationship there are requirements that are a part of that. when people say that they do all the "emotional labor" they are often discounting the aspects of the relationships that they don't have to manage. If they have a bad partner that doesn't do their part, leave. Otherwise, then need to keep up their end of the bargain.
As for business, that isn't "emotional labor" it's trying to rehabilitate manipulation by using a buzz word to try and sound better because people will somehow believe that "emotional labor" is a softer word that people will like better. Using it is literally manipulation with the intent to deceive.
Manipulation is the clay human relationships are sculpted in It is how people interact, it is how they relate, and it is how they survive.
I’d like to hear you discuss the concept of kindness versus chronic ‘niceness’ as you’ve seen it applied by people you’ve observed. Do you agree with the notion that turning the other cheek with friends and others that one might care about is a weakness or a character flaw, or even another form of manipulation? Have you observed Toxic Niceness in people - if there is indeed such a thing? i apologize if this sounds like a vagu topic, but if it sparks any thoughts in you it might be something you could address in a future post.
Toxic niceness is a thing. It is the person that buys other people's friendships, or at least they try. They buy things or do things for others with the assumption that they are now "owed" friendship from that person. When they don't get what they assume that they are owed they consider themselves to be, and present themselves as a victim and the other person is accused of taking advantage of them.
The idea that only psychopaths can be altruistic is interesting to me, but it might be right. I've never done anything without a payoff, as much as I want to think of myself as a good person. That said, I would experience disproportionate consequences to stay in alignment with my sense of self. For example, I would put myself in harm's way to help someone, but I would also feel good about myself as I walked away and I would have gained courage that would benefit me in life. That all adds to my sense of self, which is a good thing. If you hadn't said "selfishness" is a good word, I was definitely going to.
Manipulation as a positive is interesting. I hadn't thought of that word, but isn't it interesting that we think of "influence" as a positive, but that is just a synonym for manipulation. Even this human desire to make a difference in the world is all just another way to say "influence" or "manipulation". What an interesting thought!
I always wondered why "tolerance" was considered a value. It's suggesting that we should grit our teeth and bear the differences of others and suffer through them. Gross. How about we learn from each other's differences to expand our world and openly embrace them as something that can actually bring us joy. Yet, whenever society wants to humanize a person (who is already human, btw), they talk in terms of sameness and the best they can come up with is that we all bleed the same color. Neurotypical humanity is gross if we could really see ourselves.
I also stopped seeing loyalty or commitment as values. Those words go back to some of the stuff you said about tribalism. Loyalty creates a bias in favor of those in our social circle instead of offering fairness. Commitment means that there will be a time in that relationship when we need to deploy tolerance and grit our teeth and bear the person who is supposed to be there to enrich our lives simply because we are committed, but there is no way we'd love them enough to choose them in this moment. Walking away from people who no longer enrich my life has left me with open spaces to upgrade and then I have overflow to do so much more in the world instead of hanging out with emotional vampires who always leave me half-empty. That brings us back to the value of selfishness. Nobody gets to take from my cup. They get the overflow. My selfishness leaves me with plenty of overflow.
Signed,
A person who's learned a lot of valuable lessons from betrayal from neurotypicals and from a bestie whose brain is genetically wired like a psychopath's. Her morality is higher.
Ah yes. I can think of many terms which are neutral in original definition and are now loaded with unwarranted inferences and/or implications.
There are a series of novels from the author Jack Vance which play with terms and their connotations in the interactions. "His behavior is most remarkable," was an oft-repeated sentence from novel to novel, and it rarely meant remarkably good, merely worthy of remark.
MEA CULPA, in a letter I prepared for my boss at the time and for the head of the government branch that funded his program, I used "exceptional decorum" as a compliment for two flight attendants that redused to serve an obviously inebriated passenger with alcoholic beverages. Exceptional means somewhere in statistically significant outllier performance, either unbelievably dismal, or "things were run wrong before they showed up" context, and decorum is simply a cotainer for the sort of behavior observed, and is dependent on the tribal observers for its adherence to norms or mores.
And I HAVE KNOWN that everything I did is selffish for a long time. Accepting that required shrinking my head a bit, but then I started with an inflated self-view since my birthday is December 24, and I grew up think I was special because everyone around me was celebrating on my birthday. So I am selfish, so what? At the end of each day, I review my actions and bring myself to account. My lifelong objetive started out that I would leave the world a but better than I ffound it. Now my objecrive has shrunk a bit, but I hope to set up a survial enclave with a good chance to weather the fall of civilization and the sixth major extinction event and to emerge with DNA sequences and high technology in a few thousand years to build back because we will not have the energy stores to make the climb to our current tech a second time. That accomplishment would make me feel at peace to discover whatever awaits the end of my life.
Negative neutral words... Hmm, try checking the early definitions of "egregious". From outstandingly good to horribly bad in a few short centuries is a most remarkable journey.
As much as I am capable of loving anything, I love your efforts to raise awareness of critical thinking. This particular article touched a trigger for me. \o/
Also awful used to mean "inspiring awe".
Excellent, and I quite liked your examples.
Yes, I talked about this already this week. Not on substack but elsewhere.
It's like the second thought on masking for me. The first level is that people have emotional connection to other people and even the theory of other people. So they get upset when things they perceive as negative go towards them. This is a primary object. The second is that they put different emotional weights on different words. This is part of what clues them into people not being NT. Or rather, it is one of the things that means they do not like others. Also, it is why they do not like the disabled. Since they assign a certain emotional meaning to a word or set of words or concepts and if someone else does not validate that then they decide the person does not fit with them. Because NT's automatically know which words are emotionally relevant.
I have always noticed that NT's don't get on so well if someone has really been through something. The example I am thinking of is fleeing a tyrannical government but this could also be disability or other things. Including pressure from intelligence.
I think this is because they ascribe a lot of significance to things that people that have really been through something do not think is so relevant. Gossip and such. Or the emotional to's and fro's of the most narcissistic members.
This is also why NT's don't like certain questions. Because NT's know what the good thinking will be in any situation without taking thought. To question the apparent good thinking reveals that you are not connected to their emotion religion.
So obviously this is very relevant to understanding the social scene and masking.
Yes, I have seen this with the survivors of abuse that my friend works with. Its interesting, but people will complain about their lot in life and whatever suffering that they have gone through, but when they are introduced to someone who's own suffering far outstrips theirs they don't know how to handle it, and tend to not want to deal with that individual. It's really fascinating.
That is ... morally bankrupt. But then no surprises there.
I suspect it is part of how a lot of NT's relate often in normal life. Always holding some sort of reason why they are a victim (I work long hours etc.) and resenting anyone stealing their thunder by being more, or more provably, a victim.
Indeed, it is quite interesting to see
Alternate take - they feel helpless in the face of a problem outside their scope, they feel also threathened by this being suddenly very real thing and like "it should be resolved, thatđ' how world is supposed to work" and the immediate clean resolution is nowhere to be seen, there is burden to be carried, a burden they are not trained for and so they drop the burden by removing its source from their attention, getting away from distress generating sight.
I find this cowardice/haplessness more likely than "How dare they make me look less victimized?!".
Also... You know how people have visceral reactions to sickness, rot, waste, scenes of murder, injuries etc. It is a reaction mobilizing them to get from the source of danger. Away from where a predator could be still lurking, away from where infection could spread. Nevermind mirror neurons, this double-edged sword, screaming an echo of the harm at them. Psychically damaged person is comparable to a person sick with plague. Very roughly. It is not always the best suited mechanism.
That was a very interesting post. I can't be massively sure on the motivations if I'm honest but that is another thing to consider. Fear and overwhelm are a constant with neurotypicals... With everyone perhaps in this society at the moment.
Mmmm…safety. 😍🙌🏼🥰
I loved this post, it was very informative.
I’ve had some thoughts for awhile about psychopaths being more altruistic than the rest of society. This is proving to be correct in my eyes.
Learning that the empaths will only help you when there is some emotional pay off for them in the end, and telling them facts, which freaks them out, makes them run the other way, or block you for calling them out on their crap, when they are doing the same thing to others…I don’t understand that. Why are they scared of their own truths, especially when they constantly truth bash others? It sounds contradictory to me. The empaths manipulate a lot more than the psychopaths do, for more selfish reasons I think, but that’s just my personal perspective on the matter lol.
Turns out telling humans the truth can either do nothing, be beneficial, or extremely dangerous.
I have no issue with telling humans the truth, but it sure gets me into some weird situations, and sometimes dangerous ones if I’m not careful.
Unfortunately, since most don’t understand my nature, I have to lie a lot to stay safe.
I’m exhausted most of the time. 🙄🥱😴
One of the things that I tend to point out to people that insist that neurotypicals aren't manipulative and psychopaths, of course, are is this:
Psychopaths are born and live in a word surrounded by neurotypicals, and manipulation is a learned behavior, who do you think we learn to do it from? Psychopathy is rare, and yet we are surrounded by manipulative people all the time.
Yeah, but a person can learn something even by themselves, by experimenting, being inventive. You don't neccesarily need to see other people do it, only need to observe results of your actions. By which I do not deny that people are manipulative.
You are better at spotting that mechanism than the rest of the population and not vulnerable to it unlike the rest of population, so that advantage is pegged down as big potential danger.
And I think there is also this, hmm, let's call it proneness to conviction/conclussion by NT folks, that your outlook is missing some important elements, like when a person is partially colourblind, or some level of sound escapes them and so what you put out is distorted version of that on which the rest of people runs and that sort of influence is not compatible with the environment they create among themselves. That if they let your kind to build the world in your likeness, it would be a world in which they, NTs, would have harder times, or even an actually collapsing unsustainable structure. This in fact might be the reason why some guy told you, that he would barr psychopaths from entering governing posts, because they lack empathy. I've heard occasionally similar statement about tech gigants and autism. It was not meant in the sense of them being evil and malicious (at least not neccesarily) but that what seems perfect in their mind is out of sync with human reality.
With all this complementarity can a bit difficult aim, but worthwhile all the same.
Manipulation is taught, not self learned. You have to have the basics before you can experiment with your own actions. Children have no ability to predict cause and effect, which is why they will lie about the most silly things imaginable. They cannot see that their tall tales are clearly that. To them, the world is defined by imagination. What actually works is learned through observation of adults and older kids.
I find it fascinating that neurotypicals have a notion that psychopaths are interested in reshaping the world in any way. We just want to be left to ourselves without being considered serial killers for existing.
Yeah, I agree with this, we don't want to give anyone above IQ 100 a chance at influencing anything, because NT's are doing so well handling everything.
🤣🤣🤣 no, Neurotypicals suck at handling most things, and most all think you are evil or dangerous for being extremely different from them, when you are just existing. 🙄
🥸😅
As the world enters a fresh new war that could easily escalate to WW3. I think you are being too hard on NT's!
As things move forward some people are going to realize how much they had taken for granted in their lives.
Neurotypicals are manipulative to get their way, not to fit in.
Psychopaths are manipulative more so to fit in, than to get their way, and getting their way is usually just an easy plus.
My perspective is higher emotions are way more dangerous than lower muted emotions, unfortunately most won’t believe me.
I agree in many regards
I think that in people's mind manipulation is linked together with lie. Not the whole root, but part of the issue of aversion.
And it has just sprung into my mind - controlling, making someone into an automaton. You do not give them a choice, where they can consider their options and pick something, instead you steal their autonomy from them, puppet them and what's worse often to their lack of awareness. It is viral, it is cordiceps. I think that is the impression that comes to mind when word "manipulation" is dropped.
Huh, today I am really deep in pathogenic and violent mind-place.
Just because people have an emotional response to a word doesn't mean that response is warranted or based in fact.
Agreed. Understanding where they are coming from can aid in bridging the differences, addressing concerns behind blunt refusal. I just cannot tell how relevant was this particular vision I've painted.
Semantics. Language is not static. It evolves. Sterile definitions are often ignored in favor of idiomatic language. If you had to explain the definition of a word every you use it, you'd never get your point across. So some words have taken on negative connotations. So what? Poor words, I feel sorry for them. Manipulation is a bad word. If you want a more positive connotation, use a different word. A thesaurus might help.
The last time I consciously manipulated someone was when I was friends with a suicidal person and I kept manipulating her not to commit suicide. She was very good at being subtly hostile towards people so I just pushed through that and became deliberately "cute" and perhaps a bit clingy, I never let the hostility get to me I just carried on being affectionate. While she knew me she just wasn't able to do it. She told me once that I had stopped her.
Good example.
I disagree. Manipulation is simply what it is. Deciding that it is negative because it soothes or bolsters an emotional part of an individual's worldview doesn't change that reality. It simply means that there is a level of denial that is being entertained.
The word “ engagement” might be a less provocative word for NTs who bristle at the thought that they manipulate. I see no harm in someone saying they want to engage someone in order to gain an end rather than “manipulate” them, if their intent is to declare their goal as mutually beneficial with that choice of word - as long as they’re acknowledging that it is still a means to an end that they themselves want. A ‘Win-Win’ with the condition that the ‘engager’ is looking for something he or she has decided is desirable for them to start as a requirement. If someone approached me and in the course of the conversation it became obvious that they are out to get something from me - with no benefit (and possibly even a negative effect) for me - then that’s clearly selfish manipulation. If - on the other hand - they declare their intent for mutual benefit and take the time to explain the process (some closed-end process that only harvests the described outcome, and no other surprises tag along) then that would be ‘engagement’ for me. That would help to clarify the situation as non-toxic or unselfish manipulation. I myself would prefer that clarification if people who know me were to characterize me to others.
Using the word "engagement", instead of "manipulate" is manipulating them into being more receptive of the fact that they are manipulative. Seems a bit cyclical to me.
No. The idea is that the ‘engager’ is initiating the situation as mutually beneficial from the start, and that entails the prerequisite that mutual trust is fundamental. You can say that trust can be betrayed and therefore should be earned first, and I won’t argue with you on that. I’m describing an agreement between two or more people who engage with the understanding that they’re going to play by the golden rule. Things could very well go sideways, and the agreement is predicated on this rule. It may not work out, but the honest one in the party can at least walk away with the knowledge that their intentions were above board, that they wanted to ‘engage’ and with their integrity is intact. From your perspective we’re talking semantics, I suppose, but the choice of word at the start defines intent for the initiator. And any betrayal reflects on the one doing it. The point is intent. This is important to people like me. I’m sure you roll your eyes at the foolish idea of granting trust before garnering evidence that it is well-placed, but a consistent attitude of mistrust is toxic to NTs. Being very selective with whom you enter into this type of agreement is vital. Those people have to constantly look over their shoulders. Just ask Putin or Kim Jong 2.0. But a rose by any other name. We can use our own words. Thanks again for another engaging post.
How do you rate persuasion, act of convincing. It means one wants to make someone agree with what one proposes, but it carries notion of transparency, that manipulation does not. Influence might be regarded similarly to persuasion. Engagement seems too loose to me, engagement is even waving at each other without saying "hello", it does not say anything about accomplishment of anything, whereas persuasion, influence and manipulation do.
All this aside, I do agree it is vital to note that word manipulation does describe what we do. I attended a lecture focused on teaching and we did run int that term and also into term "ideology" and just yeah. There needs to be some ideology, some kind of outlook and principles of conduct. And kids literally need some clear boundarries as they grow up. The problems arise when we cannot modify it to better fit new information or specific situations.
This is interesting. I agree manipulation is a neutral word with negative connotations. It suggests a ‘doer’ and a ‘done to’ with the ‘done to’ being far worse off thanks to the manipulator. For me I think I’d look at the motivation behind the manipulation. Is the intent to do harm? ( Negative form of manipulation) Is the intent simply personal gain without severe loss to the other? ( neutral / common form) is the intent to benefit the other person as well as yourself ( positive form).
I manipulate a lot. I don’t cause harm, honestly I do it most often to save time, speed things along a bit. I would never manipulate someone to the point where they suffered a real loss or I upset them. Unless the person is an ass, then the ‘fair game’ principle applies ( obviously).
I have described myself as manipulative and been corrected. Manipulation was described as influencing. I don’t much see the difference.
I do think women manipulate more than men. Just looking at my two kids I can see that. My daughter can manipulate her dad and brother but not me. I see it straight away. She was in full flow with her dad the other day until I turned and gave her ‘the look’. She laughed and said “What?!” So I responded,” Stop manipulating your dad it’s not fair.” Haha! My son tries to manipulate occasionally but he’s awful at it. I honestly think women manipulate more to balance out the physical disadvantage of being smaller, physically less strong etc. We manipulate more often so we are better at it but often we manipulate just to get things done I think.
Do you think women manipulate more than men Athena?
I would disagree with you because you only had your son and daughter and it would be required a bigger database to extract conclusions, but I remember reading in a book ("Getting More" by Stuart Diamond if I recall correctly) that women and children negotiate better than men because they are usually the weaker party and thus rely on negotiation to get what they want. According to the book negotiation is everywhere and it even mentions "emotional pay", like asking nicely to increase the chances the other side will help you with something. That for me is manipulation written in different words.
I'm gonna add that charismatic people are better at manipulation. Some are born with charismatic traits, others learn it. I saw a video of a very young child, maybe a toddler, calling his mother a "bitch" but because he had an adorably smile she just laughed and let it pass. Had he said with an angry face the outcome would be very different...
This is everywhere. I found out usually charismatic men say the most polemic opinions without facing backlash because as long as everybody is laughing they let it slide. Why men and not women? The women are more subtle and they avoid saying those things out loud. That is my experience after living 4 years In a boarding school with +1600 people.
Hi Fabiana,
Absolutely agree, anecdotal evidence doesn’t make the rule but it is quite striking to watch. My two aren’t twins but they are only 13 months apart. Same parents, same family life experiences, same schools, same teachers etc. so other than the influence of friends ( which is a significant factor I’ll admit) their starting point is similar. I would estimate my daughters ability to manipulate has come through observation likely by observing me. My son has had similar observations but doesn’t notice manipulations and rarely uses them. His is a very straightforward request. My daughter scene sets and goes for the manipulation almost every time. The other thing to consider is that females tend to be more verbally dexterous at a younger age, so that might also impact what I’m seeing. My experience on the whole though, children aside, is that women do manipulate more. There’s the text and then there’s the subtext!
Ooh yes, boarding school would be an excellent testing ground wouldn’t it? Charisma is huge too I agree. Charisma distracts and is a useful tool for gaining power and influence over the group. Far tougher to question the actions of a charismatic person in my view. Charisma almost acts as a smoke screen.
Perhaps this happens because women are more inclined towards social child's play? Such as play house, doll play, tea party... I believe our brain is wired to be more social, as it is essential for taking care of children and ensuring the survival of the species.
Another theory is that children are born with traces of personality. Some will be more social and others will be recluse. Hippocrates proposed the four temperaments theory (sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric and melancholic) and people are often a mixture of two. Is very interesting but it would be too much to add here. I'm just going to say I am melancholic and choleric, the two most difficult temperaments to deal in a child. As a child I sucked at manipulation and took words too literal to influence people.
And yeah, charisma allows one to say strong opinions without facing backlash. The downside is that when you have fewer people to contradict your opinions, it may limit your opportunity for improvement.