Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have never understood, though I have contemplated and read about, any and all kinds of manipulation.
This can be from something really huge, such as murder, or something smaller such as voting, or something really small such as diet.
How can a person who does not actually kill be found responsible for killing? Whether the non-killer, at-fault party actually organizes the killing by hiring someone to do it, or whether they only continue to plant ideas into someone whom they know will eventually "snap" and kill, how and why would they be made the responsible party? Isn't the trigger man capable of saying no?
People were all upset over the infiltration of Facebook and alleged influencing of election. How can someone be influenced? Are people not steadfast in their own beliefs? Not smart enough to fact check? I don't understand why anyone would, or let it phase them, that some stupid feed comes through Facebook, et al, let alone be able to place blame.
Other things that are blamed on "the manipulation of others" are poor decisions on diet or alcohol/drugs or bad activities. I just do not understand this concept. How are people influenced to do anything that they don't want to do, or that they allege they otherwise wouldn't have, but for the manipulation of someone else?
Are people really that weak minded? Really lack free will?
It's not about free will, it's about culpability. Do you really think that someone who orders a hit shouldn't be held responsible for the death? If they're not, then they can essentially kill people whenever they feel like it because there is no consequence for their actions. If someone hadn't ordered the killing, the person would very likely still be alive.
It's the same principle as inciting a riot. Do you think the person who inflames the crowd with rhetoric bears no responsibility for the resulting damage and injury?
It's not about free will, it's about culpability. Do you really think that someone who orders a hit shouldn't be held responsible for the death? If they're not, then they can essentially kill people whenever they feel like it because there is no consequence for their actions. If someone hadn't ordered the killing, the person would very likely still be alive.
It's the same principle as inciting a riot. Do you think the person who inflames the crowd with rhetoric bears no responsibility for the resulting damage and injury?
My question is: HOW does it even happen....ever
I cannot imagine someone asking me to kill and I say yes.....using other forms of manipulation getting me riled up enough to want to kill (or even harm), or vote for someone, or find a different religion, or eat a food I don't want to eat.
It makes no sense to me at all. Because it makes no sense to me, it seems fake.
I want to know psychologically (as in science) if this is a real thing? And how?
Well, money might change hands. Some people would do just about anything for the right amount of money.
But you see manipulation all the time. People get calls trying to get them to buy things, or to believe they owe back taxes, or that a relative is in a foreign jail.
Sometimes someone will guilt someone else into lending money, or doing a favor. Addicts are good at this, especially when they are desperate for their fix.
In terms of murder, I think the manipulation would have to be ongoing, supporting some sort of delusion that convinces a person to murder. I do not know if you have a specific example in mind, but possibly that scenario might work to get a susceptible person to commit murder.
Facebook's own algorithms made it really easy for infiltration and manipulation. Because, no, people do NOT fact check if something agrees with a bias they already have. You can find this going on here on this forum, too.
People post threads that begin with a link to some article they found where it was like, "Yeah, this totally confirms what I think! Proves me right!" and they don't bother to check if the source is really credible or anything. Often those who disagree with them come along and point that out. But there's the question, how the heck can anybody know what's legit? Like I remember in the early 2000's, I read a book by a guy named Jim Marrs. Total tinfoil hat stuff right? But if you wanted to buy in, if you wanted to believe it all, there's just enough plausibility to make it a good story, to be able to feel like it sure explains some things. I remember thinking, "You know, I believe a lot of things I wasn't there first-hand to witness, and if I can't believe the mainstream press, and everyone has something to gain...everything just comes down to the truth being an illusion, it's whatever people have decided and agreed to believe." That was the start of my basic philosophy that objective reality doesn't even exist. Everything is just what people consent to believe either as individuals or in a group agreement. By observing something you influence the result. So if there is a truly true truth, it's maybe one that no one has ever laid eyes on, I guess. Some people get really upset when I talk about this!
But anyhow. Back to social media. So I lean in a certain direction politically. And Facebook just loves to show me lots of stuff that agrees with that lean, and those bits of news and media are often pretty extreme, and if I really get into those things, they have the power to push me even further in that direction. But I don't kid myself. There's more to the big picture, and not everything there is even true. I once asked someone who was on the other side of the political spectrum from me, if I could please look at her Facebook feed for 3 minutes...not comment or like, just scroll and see what was there. She agreed. And her feed...it was like being on a completely different website.
And so we sit there thinking people who disagree with us must be idiots, because we've all seen plenty of convincing evidence that we are right. Who could think anything but what we think, given the reporting that backs up whatever position we've got? Only a fool! Getting people riled up and believing what you want them to, it's the easiest thing in the world. You don't do it by arguing with them. You do it by agreeing with them...validating them...and then influencing them.
Here's example of how easy it is to manipulate people. Good people, by the way.
Also, you live in society where billions are spent on manipulation. Simple example is marketing institutions. Mass media. recall basic example - Iraqi war. When millions were led to believe that Iraq rightfully has to be attacked. Just because some guy shook a small vial with white powder at the UN.
I've always been a little freaked out by the fact that corporations spend millions paying people trained in psychology to sit in think tanks and figure our how to get people to buy their products.
When I read "The Hidden Persuaders" by Vance Packard in high school it knocked me over. It never occurred to me and it still doesn't make sense. I've always preferred to think that I am immune to influence so apparently I've got a blind spot. LOL
It's my understanding nearly everything that happens in consumer trends has been spoon-fed to us.
But I have to admit that I'm still puzzled about how Charles Manson was locked up for murder all those years. He may need to be locked up but certainly not for the murders at the Tate house. Those were committed by other people.
Remember how our teachers use to impress upon us the value of personal agency and responsibility by saying, "If someone told you to go jump in a lake would you do it.? Guess the legal system threw that one right out the window. Do you think any of us could use, "He told me to do it" as a defense?
If hidden persuasion is possible how much control over our lives do we actually have?
I will try to use an analogy to answer the main question.
In order for a person to make a sound decision in their own best interest, they must first know what is in their own best interest. Now... how does a person know this? Often through extensive experience or study.. OR by trusting another person who "claims" to know best.
For instance, if a company is claiming to sell "the healthiest candy bar ever made" how do regular people like us confirm this to be true? We have to trust the labels, trust the company, trust the process that lead that company to sell their product legally, and trust the scientists who did the tests.
If some or all of the entitles behind this "healthiest candy bar ever made" are corrupt or lying to us, it can lead us to buy something that is not as healthy for us as we believe it to be.
Can we expect everyone in the world to become a food scientist before buying a candy bar? Not realistic right?
..."Propaganda", by Edward Bernays...an interesting look into corporate advertising and how it manipulates the masses...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
