On "Manipulation" and Evil

[Marcus]

On 4/7/2016 at 0:16 AM, KorbenDallas said:

Marcus,

In the act of defiance, the defier is giving the manipulator(s) information.  It's just something to think about.

Manipulators--to do the manipulating--are taking advantage of some virtue(s) in their target.  This is always the case, and identifying which one(s) is necessary.  It could be the virtue of rationality itself--for a logician's need to conclude things, manipulators might want to leave things undone, in disarray--or it could be a virtue of resiliency--where others might fold, a person with high resiliency might stay in the fight--or it could be the virtue of justice--a righteous person seeking rectitude in the world he lives in.  (If some of these words sound like Nathaniel Branden's, you would be right.)

Many of Rand's heroes would walk away from situations, but I don't think this is an act of defiance--I think it is an expression of liberty, of freedom.  Unfortunately, in a reoccurring situation this might not be possible, ie. an office environment.

One thing is for sure, these (adult) manipulators have done this before, to other people.

 

 

If the manipulator has acquired some position of power whether social or political, "walking away" may not be a viable option. To go against his/her wishes would then be defiance. It is possible for them to gain enough power to hurt or damage the virtuous, the good, but only if the good is compliant.

Also, manipulation does not require virtue, it preys upon some vice (such as emotionalism or evasion) of other men. To make manipulators the rulers of virtuous men would mean the virtuous are impotent. In reality, it's the opposite. Manipulators "feed on sores" as Rand would put it.

(Interestingly, she portrayed her villains just as they are often portrayed in popular fiction, i.e. sickly, gangly, sniveling, conniving little busybodies, but ultimately, foiled by the hero)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 4/9/2016 at 5:51 PM, Brant Gaede said:

If you drop the impotency of evil, but keep not sanctioning evil, it seems more workable.

Brant,

I agree with this.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

19 hours ago, Marcus said:

Also, manipulation does not require virtue, it preys upon some vice (such as emotionalism or evasion) of other men.

Marcus,

It can, but it does not necessarily do so.

The brain is far more complex than is presented in O-Land. The video below is some food for thought for you. A brain scientist (Jill Bolte Taylor) had a stroke that destroyed a good chunk of her left hemisphere. As you will see, most rational thought occurs in the left hemisphere. But note, the left, when engaged, does not erase the right. The two always work together, so there is always an emotional context when we think, even in the most logical terms. 

To be really, really oversimplified (and technically incorrect, but useful for understanding the concept), you can say covert manipulation addresses the right hemisphere of the brain, not the left. That the right is more vulnerable to covert cues than the left.

In the right hemisphere, abstractions like emotionalism and evasion have no meaning. They only have meaning in relation to rational thought, which is more linear.

(I really like Taylor's metaphor that the right brain is like a parallel processor and the left like a serial processor. I also like the way she says the right hemisphere deals with the present, whereas the left with the past and future and pegs the present to both.)

We exist mentally in waves, not straight lines. The most basic is awake and asleep. When awake there is another kind of wave: sometimes our right hemisphere is more prominent and sometimes the left. Think of it like a pair of stereo speakers where you can have one louder than the other and back and forth.

Covert manipulation works when the manipulator entices the right hemisphere to become prominent, then slips in his techniques. 

But I'll not comment more right now. The video below is enough for this post. It should blow your mind. It did mine.  

Michael

[moralist]

On ‎4‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 4:08 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Greg,

There's that, too. And I have little doubt it was only the stupid ones.

It's what happens when people get so entangled in their core story, they feel no need to turn their brains on to evaluate any feedback that challenges it. They'll use their brains for anything and everything else, but not that.

I don't think Nazism would have been anything without the teutonic mythology, a definition of Satan everyone could believe in to blame for everything bad ("inferior" races and bloodlines), a clear morality of obedience to a single authority, a messianic figure like Hitler to worship, and socialist political ideas.

Put that on top of legitimate grievances about harsh economic conditions left over from WWI and you have one powerful brain-killing core story.

In fact, when evil manages to get expressed in such a well-constructed core story and served up at the right time in the right place to the right people, it becomes potent as all hell. It reproduces easily and spreads destruction in its wake.

Michael

Evil has value in that it's appeal reveals the corresponding weakness in us to which it is appealing. If that weakness is not in us, there is nothing to find it appealing. So the Nazi story was only potent because it was met with a corresponding weakness in the people.

 

"Among the people there are killers who have not yet shed blood, and thieves who have stolen nothing and liars who have so far told the truth."

 

--Kahlil Gibran

[Brant Gaede]

5 minutes ago, moralist said:

"Among the people there are killers who have not yet shed blood, and thieves who have stolen nothing and liars who have so far told the truth."

Greg, that's unmitigated crap. It's moral equivalency and might as well be original sin.

--Brant

killer, thief and liar

[moralist]

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

Michael

Excellent video, Michael!

What Jill described so well is a state of being experienced while meditating. It is accessible to anyone who can sit still and be with themselves long enough without falling asleep or getting up and running away.

 

"ALL of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone."

--Blaise Pascal

 

Greg

[moralist]

24 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Greg, that's unmitigated crap. It's moral equivalency and might as well be original sin.

--Brant

killer, thief and liar

Brant, that quote does NOT even imply the moral equivalent lie that everyone is a murderer.

Even killers were at one time babies who had not killed yet. That's all it means.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

7 hours ago, moralist said:

"Among the people there are killers who have not yet shed blood, and thieves who have stolen nothing and liars who have so far told the truth."

If you haven't killed you aren't a killer. Etc. That's a fact. Our author has made no factually true statement. Our can't-be-stupid? author is a liar.

--Brant

[moralist]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

If you haven't killed you aren't a killer.

That quote was to make you aware of the fact that a killer always resides within you, Brant. Self awareness is the only weapon you have to subject it to your reason. Morality is a lifelong challenge.

Greg

[RobinReborn]

Manipulation is a loaded term.

 

Most human beings are full of contradictions.  Thus you can work with them on pursuing some common goal, achieve it, then have them realize that the goal you achieved with them contradicted some principle they held.  They'll probably say that you manipulated them, even if you weren't aware of all their principles.

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, moralist said:

That quote was to make you aware of the fact that a killer always resides within you, Brant. Self awareness is the only weapon you have to subject it to your reason. Morality is a lifelong challenge.

Greg

I suppose that has value to people who are adolescents. The adults should know this by their adulthood.

--Brant

[moralist]

9 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

I suppose that has value to people who are adolescents. The adults should know this by their adulthood.

--Brant

Then there's nothing to disagree with, Brant.

Many adults obviously don't know because prisons are chock full of them.

 

Greg

[KorbenDallas]

On 4/10/2016 at 0:34 AM, Marcus said:

If the manipulator has acquired some position of power whether social or political, "walking away" may not be a viable option. To go against his/her wishes would then be defiance. It is possible for them to gain enough power to hurt or damage the virtuous, the good, but only if the good is compliant.

True, walking away might not be an immediately viable option--but it is always an option in a free society.  Unfortunately if one has to continue to be in an environment with manipulators, the good ends up with more damage than the wicked.  I haven't known a manipulator yet who has stopped.

 

On 4/10/2016 at 0:34 AM, Marcus said:

Also, manipulation does not require virtue, it preys upon some vice (such as emotionalism or evasion) of other men. To make manipulators the rulers of virtuous men would mean the virtuous are impotent. In reality, it's the opposite. Manipulators "feed on sores" as Rand would put it.

Manipulators manipulate each other all the time, and that doesn't require virtue, but my previous comments were toward manipulation and the good.  Saying manipulation preys upon some vice is a premise that can be dangerous psycho-epistemologically, as this often is what the manipulators want their targets to believe--that the person has some vice that is being exposed.  But what if he doesn't?  Nathaniel Branden said in his lecture series that the good person gets taken advantage of because it is some virtue that is being taken advantage of, but which one(s) he hasn't identified yet (and I would add, or knows to).  It is my belief that once the person can be considered good by Objectivist standards (ie. fixing emotionalism or evasion problems, etc.), then it is some virtue within him that is being taken advantage of.

 

[Marcus]

6 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

  It is my belief that once the person can be considered good by Objectivist standards (ie. fixing emotionalism or evasion problems, etc.), then it is some virtue within him that is being taken advantage of.

 

I quote:

Quote

If and when a man's honesty can becomes a weapon that kidnappers or other wielders of force can use to harm him, then the normal context is reversed; his virtue would then become a means serving the ends of evil. In such a case, the victim has not only the right but also the obligation to lie and to do it proudly. The man who tells a lie in this context is not endorsing any anti-reality principle. On the contrary, he is now representative of the good and the true.

- OPAR, p. 275

Objectivism apparently solves this problem by reducing virtues to vices when others use your virtues against you. In which case then, it becomes a virtue to deny evil the values it seeks. Thus like in my "tax manipulation" example, his "productiveness" is being used against him (he has to pay more taxes), thus he finds a way to deny the government tax revenue through clever use of the tax code.

This goes back to defiance as a tool for Objectivists to "stick it to the man" so to speak ("The Man" usually being the government in some capacity).

[KorbenDallas]

From pg 275

Quote

Another example here pertains to the virtue of integrity.  A man is obliged to practice what he preaches--when he has the political freedom to do it.  But he has no obligation to preach or practice any idea that would invite the attention, say, of the Gestapo or the IRS.

If the act of defiance would bring immediate or delayed harm on the defier, then perhaps a different approach is warranted...

Not saying defiance doesn't work, it might, there are many variables