I agree that it's a nontrivial difference, but I don't know if one approach is better than the other. It's something that has been on my mind a lot.
I studied marketing (among other things), and it's essentially the study of manipulating people to achieve a desired effect. And while I noticed that knowledge about manipulation doesn't automatically translate to a practice of manipulation/persuasion (in the same way that knowing a lot about addiction might not shield you from being an addict), having this knowledge, at least for me, feels like an uncomfortable responsibility.
Take approaching a potential romantic interest. There are some very effective techniques to increase your chances of 'success' (however you would define it). We generally frown upon doing this (too) explicitly; it very quickly seems sleazy. And yet 'womanizers' (or the opposite equivalent) apply these techniques without really thinking about it and we don't judge these people as strongly.
Is this unfair? If someone who is naturally less skilled at flirting uses 'techniques' to do better, is that worse than someone who does this naturally, assuming that in both individuals have the same 'pure' (or 'impure') goals? Or is it perhaps better because the individual in question is at least conscious of his persuasion or manipulation, and can question his motives?
I think about that a lot, and I haven't found an answer yet.
For me personally, I'm lucky, in a way, that I feel guilty very quickly. I simply cannot lie very well, for example, not because I cannot lie, but because I have trouble facing myself when I do so. So I try not be too conscious about manipulation and persuasion. And yet I know that applying well-tested techniques is very effective.
If anyone here can point me to literature on this subject (I suppose it's a matter of ethics), I'd greatly enjoy exploring that.
Yes, I see your point. Or at least, this made me re-think things that I've also been considering, namely: this kind of 'shunning'/etc. of explicit techniques is a biased selector of certain kinds of people (natural womanizers, whoever.) Hence the resulting ethical framework is not as egalitarian as it may appear to be on first glance.
> Or is it perhaps better because the individual in question is at least conscious of his persuasion or manipulation, and can question his motives?
That's also a fair point, it makes a certain amount of sense.
Again and again I wonder how much of our ethics is derived from 'folk psychology' which is itself biased towards 'intuitive' behaviours (whatever they may be; but in this case it would e.g. include unconscious/natural flirting, whatnot), and is biased against 'uncanny valley' reflexive mindstates (e.g. "i am aware `(that she is aware that i am aware)^n` that i am currently deliberately employing subtext in the current dialogue", etc.)
..and this could simply be a kind of aesthetic bias (that might make sense for us, humans), but whether it says anything about ethics is a wholly different question, say.
..this might have been a bit of a ramble. Interested in pointers towards literature, too.
> ..and this could simply be a kind of aesthetic bias (that might make sense for us, humans)
I think that sounds very plausible. We generally don't seem to like it when someone 'pulls aside the curtain' when it comes to things that feel hard to control or define.
For example, the best way to escalate a fight is to say something like "are you on your period?" or "did you not get enoug sleep last night?" They are perfectly valid questions in themselves, but asking them (assuming you mean well, of course) is not a good idea.
It makes sense that our minds don't like being treated like the often irrational, physical organs that they really are.
For example, while I feel perfectly comfortable treating a 'physical' headache with pills, I feel much less comfortable taking medication that alters my mood (although doing so for fun, and being 'in control' makes it significantly more acceptable).
Yes indeed, and now I recall my curiosity about the fact that kissing with our eyes open doesn't really work (in most cases / as a rule, etc.) You can't really explain it away by saying that 'one needs to divert (cognitive, whatever) resources from the eyes / visual stimuli': there's a specific kind of eeriness that is sometimes present, etc. Very interesting.
I studied marketing (among other things), and it's essentially the study of manipulating people to achieve a desired effect. And while I noticed that knowledge about manipulation doesn't automatically translate to a practice of manipulation/persuasion (in the same way that knowing a lot about addiction might not shield you from being an addict), having this knowledge, at least for me, feels like an uncomfortable responsibility.
Take approaching a potential romantic interest. There are some very effective techniques to increase your chances of 'success' (however you would define it). We generally frown upon doing this (too) explicitly; it very quickly seems sleazy. And yet 'womanizers' (or the opposite equivalent) apply these techniques without really thinking about it and we don't judge these people as strongly.
Is this unfair? If someone who is naturally less skilled at flirting uses 'techniques' to do better, is that worse than someone who does this naturally, assuming that in both individuals have the same 'pure' (or 'impure') goals? Or is it perhaps better because the individual in question is at least conscious of his persuasion or manipulation, and can question his motives?
I think about that a lot, and I haven't found an answer yet.
For me personally, I'm lucky, in a way, that I feel guilty very quickly. I simply cannot lie very well, for example, not because I cannot lie, but because I have trouble facing myself when I do so. So I try not be too conscious about manipulation and persuasion. And yet I know that applying well-tested techniques is very effective.
If anyone here can point me to literature on this subject (I suppose it's a matter of ethics), I'd greatly enjoy exploring that.