Value-manipulation:

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

What I mean by manipulation in this case is controlling and altering something.
I’ll give an example.

A random person on the street asks you for a few dollars. You could give them it, then they would possibly say thank you or that you are a good person. When they do that, they are giving you something like a fantasy reward or a moral reward, for your self esteme and self image. This is a form of value manipulation. Now on the other hand, you may not give this person on the street a few dollars, and they might even say you are an ass hole. That is again value manipulation, but this time they try to subtract your value. There is another example of value manipulation. You’re born, but the religious figure may say you are sinful, so they can subtract a value in a way, if they want, or when you pray, follow rules, and give money to the church, they say you are a good person, and assign value to you, as a reward. There is an exchange today between money value, work value, and moral/fantasy value of our self image. One gets exchanged for another. Sometimes the trade is fair, sometimes it isn’t. It’s all an example of value manipulation. A generous soul gives much value to many things, but an anti-generous soul will refuse to give things value, or even subtract the value that exists in someone’s self-image. The critic subtracts, the generous soul adds. Myself I think I need to be generous in some ways, but also critical and subtractive. I could use some more meaning though. If you are not careful, people can use morality to manipulate your life. Religion has done it for a long time now. Even though we are in some ways in a non religious age, especially in canada.

[krossie]

but also critical and subtractive.

This is the interesting one I guess.

Sticking with the homeless guy the ‘classical’ counter arguement to you and he feeling better is that he’ll spend your few dollars on T Bird wine or buckfast (what is the gut rot in Canada?!?!) and thereby your immediate addition to your value makes you feel like a nice person but does him no good.
So in sum the general value in the world is decreased (I suppose I’m going utilitarian there)

I suppose the question for this system is the same as most moral systems how do you seperate imeediate feel good from long term harm or good or is it ever possible?
(probably not, or at least, your ethical computer would have to be absolutely vast…)

Kp

[James_S_Saint]

So the only possible reason for thanking anyone is to manipulate them???
…can you spell “paranoid”?

[Diekon]

James, ever seen parents praise there kids for doing things that aren’t all that praiseworthy to adults standards. They do that to encourage them, to motivate them to keep trying things… Manipulation doesn’t have to be bad. Dan~ even clearly defined how he was using it. If you want to do philosophy it might be a good idea to get over any negative or positive connotation words might have in common usage.

[Orbie]

Unfortunately, and this is not meant as an example of relying on data, but the homeless state of mind has more affinity to paranoid or not.

The reason is, that they are more likely then not, to see themselves as victims, than not.

In addition their social context frequently leads to a distrust of other homeless, who very frequently prey on them and rob or hurt them.

Their thank you then really, does is not value enhancing, they are actually automatic responses. The homeless’ thank you, has no meaning other than an acknowledgment of expected response. I have given frequently, and found this to be the case.

The giver may want to believe it otherwise, and think himself as value enhanced, but sorrily, more often then not this is not the case.

As a result, the value is manipulated, as it always is, to a degree, in any interpersonal negotiation, but there is a reversal in this example. The manipulator becomes the giver of the alms, it is he who is convinced that his own esteem will be enhanced by giving, by denying any non-altruistic motive to this action. The receiver, the homeless, is keen on this by now, and knows how to make the act of giving a sense of esteem enhancement.

But this enhancement is not real, and if the homeless has been on the street long enough, he knows, that the giver is the one giving, to make himself feel better by enhancing his self esteem.

So its a play of conscious/subconscious elements, where these contents have become embedded into a bargaining within a silent language.

Because this exchange is on this level of entropic, minimum meaning, it is very poor in content. This content begs for elaboration, hence hello paranoia.

The way the homeless becomes manipulated, is, that the giving, rather than enhancing the giver, further subtracts from the receiver’s self esteem.

[finishedman]

@krossie

but also critical and subtractive.

This is the interesting one I guess.

Sticking with the homeless guy the ‘classical’ counter arguement to you and he feeling better is that he’ll spend your few dollars on T Bird wine or buckfast (what is the gut rot in Canada?!?!) and thereby your immediate addition to your value makes you feel like a nice person but does him no good.
So in sum the general value in the world is decreased (I suppose I’m going utilitarian there)

I suppose the question for this system is the same as most moral systems how do you seperate imeediate feel good from long term harm or good or is it ever possible?
(probably not, or at least, your ethical computer would have to be absolutely vast…)

Kp

If the one asking for money is suffering badly from delirium tremens would you give it to him knowing he needs a drink to calm down now? That would be an immediate solution to his pain. Or would you walk away thinking he needs to experience such pain in order to want to put an end to it and seek out a detoxification process? What if he pleads that for the moment he needs alcohol to ease the pain and afterwards will go and find long term help?

[Orbie]

Would in every day life, coming in contact with the homeless to make an on sight evaluation on individual basis, or even general basis probable? The answer is yes, if you were to get to know the person by repeated interaction. After a while, you may be able to get to have a feeling from where the homeless is coming from.

But that is a big if, because it’s exceptional when an ordinary man on the street would be willing to get to know a homeless in order to be able to evaluate him.

Usually social workers, psychologists are more motivated and qualified to make such an assessment.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@obe

Unfortunately, and this is not meant as an example of relying on data, but the homeless state of mind has more affinity to paranoid or not.

The reason is, that they are more likely then not, to see themselves as victims, than not.

In addition their social context frequently leads to a distrust of other homeless, who very frequently prey on them and rob or hurt them.

Their thank you then really, does is not value enhancing, they are actually automatic responses. The homeless’ thank you, has no meaning other than an acknowledgment of expected response. I have given frequently, and found this to be the case.

The giver may want to believe it otherwise, and think himself as value enhanced, but sorrily, more often then not this is not the case.

As a result, the value is manipulated, as it always is, to a degree, in any interpersonal negotiation, but there is a reversal in this example. The manipulator becomes the giver of the alms, it is he who is convinced that his own esteem will be enhanced by giving, by denying any non-altruistic motive to this action. The receiver, the homeless, is keen on this by now, and knows how to make the act of giving a sense of esteem enhancement.

But this enhancement is not real, and if the homeless has been on the street long enough, he knows, that the giver is the one giving, to make himself feel better by enhancing his self esteem.

So its a play of conscious/subconscious elements, where these contents have become embedded into a bargaining within a silent language.

Because this exchange is on this level of entropic, minimum meaning, it is very poor in content. This content begs for elaboration, hence hello paranoia.

The way the homeless becomes manipulated, is, that the giving, rather than enhancing the giver, further subtracts from the receiver’s self esteem.

It’s true that the giver is also manipulating value.
My main point is that humans manipulate value and meaning all the time, and if you’re not careful, you’ll get manipulated yourself.

[Orbie]

@Dan~

@obe

Unfortunately, and this is not meant as an example of relying on data, but the homeless state of mind has more affinity to paranoid or not.

.

As in the case of the guy giving charity, having long ago convinced himself that his act was meant to enhance the homeless’ condition. (Incidentally this may be, I am not saying that no giving has an altruistic base). I am just saying, that in order to base an evaluation on motives, it’s hard to discount these motives which have become intrinsically opposite from their intended ones)
The reason is, that they are more likely then not, to see themselves as victims, than not.

In addition their social context frequently leads to a distrust of other homeless, who very frequently prey on them and rob or hurt them.

Their thank you then really, does is not value enhancing, they are actually automatic responses. The homeless’ thank you, has no meaning other than an acknowledgment of expected response. I have given frequently, and found this to be the case.

The giver may want to believe it otherwise, and think himself as value enhanced, but sorrily, more often then not this is not the case.

As a result, the value is manipulated, as it always is, to a degree, in any interpersonal negotiation, but there is a reversal in this example. The manipulator becomes the giver of the alms, it is he who is convinced that his own esteem will be enhanced by giving, by denying any non-altruistic motive to this action. The receiver, the homeless, is keen on this by now, and knows how to make the act of giving a sense of esteem enhancement.

But this enhancement is not real, and if the homeless has been on the street long enough, he knows, that the giver is the one giving, to make himself feel better by enhancing his self esteem.

So its a play of conscious/subconscious elements, where these contents have become embedded into a bargaining within a silent language.

Because this exchange is on this level of entropic, minimum meaning, it is very poor in content. This content begs for elaboration, hence hello paranoia.

The way the homeless becomes manipulated, is, that the giving, rather than enhancing the giver, further subtracts from the receiver’s self esteem.

It’s true that the giver is also manipulating value.
My main point is that humans manipulate value and meaning all the time, and if you’re not careful, you’ll get manipulated yourself.

    Yes, exept where both giving and receiving is altruistic and of good faith.(Reminds me of the prisoners' dilemma)

[Moreno]

@Dan~

It’s true that the giver is also manipulating value.
My main point is that humans manipulate value and meaning all the time, and if you’re not careful, you’ll get manipulated yourself.

To me manipulation means there is an intent to control. So I read your concern as: you can be controlled by people, even when they react positively or pleasantly to go for a more value neutral term. In the homeless scenario, one is open to manipulation, if one really doesn’t want to give money, but does, because one expects a kind of contract to be fulfilled, either by the other person or by oneself. One of you after the act of giving will regard you positively. But then it is a kind of exchange and you got what you wanted. If it wasn’t what you wanted and you had no other desire to give, then you would not have done it. Unless you were allaying guilt, which is in you.

Part of what I am emphasizing is that you are responsible, in that situation, for what contracts you choose to participate in - if you have no urge to give otherwise - and for your own guilt and not letting it control you, or even exist.

The part is that, given the analysis, it is a kind of sales/barter situation. So in a way this thread - beyond the issue of guilt and value awareness - is suggesting the consumer be careful. The homeless guy as a kind of used car salesman.

But it is such a limited interaction - compare the complexity of the interaction to an encounter with a used car salesmen where so much manipulation (active) is possible - AND the non-homeless person has so much more power, I question the use of the term manipulation.

The guys who move through subway cars and begin with a whole spiel before doing one on one interations, there manipulation seems like an appropriate term, or potential term.

I suppose I see it as key to eliminate manipulation in relation to those with more power than us. That this is much more critical. Certainly there are those who set us up to give when we do not want to and some of these have more power. But that is where the manipulation takes place, in the encounter with the homeless person and well before that encounter. All we see in that encounter is aftermath of the value manipulation not done by the homeless person him/herself.

[Arcturus_Descending]

@Diekon

James, ever seen parents praise there kids for doing things that aren’t all that praiseworthy to adults standards. They do that to encourage them, to motivate them to keep trying things… Manipulation doesn’t have to be bad. Dan~ even clearly defined how he was using it. If you want to do philosophy it might be a good idea to get over any negative or positive connotation words might have in common usage.

Yes, but manipulation can be considered to be of a negative connotation, don’t you think? Wouldn’t you say that to have the best meaning, one word ought to be better used over another? After all, there are so very many for us to use.

For instance, a parent praising his/her child does not necessarily think in terms of “manipulation” - I rather think that it comes down to “intent” but there ~ the intent is to affirm and to influence in a positive way…not to manipulate nor control. And influencing doesn’t have to be about control but rather guiding one to grow into maturity…as a good parent will try with the child.

Words DO matter.

[Kriswest]

In my work with different species of animals I would say we are no different than animals. Varieties of manipulation is the norm not the exception. Gratitude is manipulation but a positive form.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

Manipulation can be good or bad, but what happens when there is too much manipulation? What happens when people are too human?

[Diekon]

@Arcturus Descending

@Diekon

James, ever seen parents praise there kids for doing things that aren’t all that praiseworthy to adults standards. They do that to encourage them, to motivate them to keep trying things… Manipulation doesn’t have to be bad. Dan~ even clearly defined how he was using it. If you want to do philosophy it might be a good idea to get over any negative or positive connotation words might have in common usage.

Yes, but manipulation can be considered to be of a negative connotation, don’t you think? Wouldn’t you say that to have the best meaning, one word ought to be better used over another? After all, there are so very many for us to use.

For instance, a parent praising his/her child does not necessarily think in terms of “manipulation” - I rather think that it comes down to “intent” but there ~ the intent is to affirm and to influence in a positive way…not to manipulate nor control. And influencing doesn’t have to be about control but rather guiding one to grow into maturity…as a good parent will try with the child.

Words DO matter.

It really doesn’t matter in what terms the parent is thinking if the actions and consequences are exactly the same. At that point you are just juggling with labels. Words don’t inherently have a negative connotation, in fact they have no meaning at all inherently. Words can have different meanings depending on the context that they are being used in. I can manipulate people to do my bidding or i can manipulate a piece of wood to create whatever, etc… In this case Dan~ stipulated the meaning he intented to convey with the word manipulation, and it’s not necessarily negative.

But, yeah, words do matter, in the sense that there are agreed upon meanings, and that people in a certain group will generally understand them in a particular way. They have a ‘connotation’ if you will… so using them will get you certain responses. If you want to communicate effectively it seems like a good idea to take into account what the people you’re communicating to will understand a word to mean. But this doesn’t mean that those meanings have to be fixed or set in stone. For philosophical purposes it can be a good idea to define words in another way, if the subject matter requires a more specific meaning for example… i think that’s perfectly fine.

[Kriswest]

@Dan~

Manipulation can be good or bad, but what happens when there is too much manipulation? What happens when people are too human?

Things alter then. The coolest part of life on this world is that so muc life is adaptable that includes minds.

[Arcturus_Descending]

@Kriswest

In my work with different species of animals I would say we are no different than animals. Varieties of manipulation is the norm not the exception. Gratitude is manipulation but a positive form.

Krissy - how is gratitude manipulation? This is not a challenge I would really like to know.
Gratiitude imo only becomes manipulation when it is simply a facade, a dishonest show of appreciation. Then it never was gratitude.
Real gratitude comes from the heart, not from a need to control or manipulate. It’s the end of the road - not the beginning of it ~ in a matter of speaking.

It is so hot and muggy here, I want to scream bloody murder. Help!!!

[Orbie]

@Kriswest

@Dan~

Manipulation can be good or bad, but what happens when there is too much manipulation? What happens when people are too human?

Things alter then. The coolest part of life on this world is that so muc life is adaptable that includes minds.

 Or, at the absolute limit, people may either become violent, or, they can go off the deep end.



  Arcturus:  a facade among so called experts is incredibly hard to differentiate from the real thing.

Even well intentioned people carry a facade as a mask of insurance against misrepresentation. True heartless gratitude is something so rare and hidden as a diamond in the rough. And it is as all totally true things, totally useless. It’s usually understood without expression. If it’s useful, then it’s calculatingly so.

[Kriswest]

My friend, it is a positive one because we want the other person to be pleased and happy at helping us. At its core it is manipulation of emotion, positive because it is reciprocity for good.
Obe, death of loved ones can do that, or stubbing your toe. Change occurs. Violence and out of control are generally temporary, it takes too much physical energy. It is not normally sustained.Adrenaline lasts only so long.

[Arcturus_Descending]

Obe wrote:

Arcturus: a facade among so called experts is incredibly hard to differentiate from the real thing.

I kind of feel that one’s deeds would be the thing which would differentiate the facade from the real thing, don’t you? Actions do speak louder than words.

Even well intentioned people carry a facade as a mask of insurance against misrepresentation.

But what’s the worst that can happen if one is misunderstood? They step out and explain themselves. As that naive?

True heartless gratitude is something so rare and hidden as a diamond in the rough.

You meant “heartflet” gratitude?

And it is as all totally true things, totally useless

.
Gratitude is useless? Tell that to the human being who’s heart is soaring out of gratitude because something has been said or done toward them and they feel loved or wanted or affirmed by someone - gratitude doesn’t necessarily end only in awareness or a positive emotion - it is capable of stirring the person on to do positive humane things one otherwise might not have done. It’s kind of like the pebble that is thrown into the pond - it causes and then creates ripples that extend outward and onward, it creates circles and more circles which reach out and touch many because of that gratitude. We don’t always see its utilitarian nature but it can be there - in leaps and bounds. But it isn’t deliberate or calculating. It simply exists and flows. Perhaps a geiser would be a good example.

It’s usually understood without expression. If it’s useful, then it’s calculatingly so.

Oh, Obe, you are the color of jade.
If it’s calculatingly so, can it be true gratitude? Then it is only stupid political correctness.

[brevel_monkey]

An interesting term.

When you take away values formed by what you call ‘value manipulation’, would there be anything left that could still be called ‘values’?

And should the enlightened soul be trying to avoid ‘value manipulation’, or to use it to his advantage?