Talk:Manipulation

stub

First try and stub for manipulation in a psychological context. Andries 21:37, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

== Maybe transwiki? == Or another Fryzxikls?

Never suggested this before, not too sure about it... but isn't this really a dictionary entry more than one for an encyclopedia?

I don't think so. Manipulation as a psychological fenomenon deserves much more attention. See the article in cs: wiki for inspiration. Egg 12:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Social psychology

Is manipulation good or a bad thing? Instinctively, and rightly so in this contributor's view, most people shirk at the idea of a manipulator 'messing around' with someone else's free will. Yet situations exist where the line isn't that easy to draw. For instance, assuming open persuasion isn't working, wouldn't a little manipulation be a good thing to prevent a youth from dabbling with drugs or roaming the neighbourhood with firearms?

This is an overt NPOV violation. Unless anyone disagrees, I'd like to take it out.--Serf 21:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do they teach how to manipulate in MBA? Unsolicited 11:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it works fairly well, manipulation is a popular and widely-used relational tool - but regardless of the intent or motivation, manipulation is always a form of deceit and therefore dishonest. Opinion: There are many other less intrusive ways to achieve the desired result - say, straightforward conversation . . . 7 November 2006

There are gifted people that are extremely prideful of their ability,welled deserved, that will never listen to you and will never believe what you say. They will keep going straight ahead until they hit a 'wall' of a sort and declared that this is all they amount to. You with the eye to see talent knows that the 'straightforward approach will absolutely fail to reach them because they don't take normal warnings seriously.So you are 'manipulative'and outright,exaggeratedly declare they can't win with their ability and should give up trying and accept reality.A final advise of a sort that is perfectly for average people or old people to get them to accept 'reality' at once.Except they're neither of those and knowing that the statement implies .They'll get mad propel themselves to prove you're wrong and actually try harder instead of being neglected or accepting fate as they're. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.64.198 (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who?

"See Miranda Russo or Lori Hoffere."

What is the purpose of this line? Who are they? why are they here? where do they come from?why do they come here?what will it be? -Dawnshadow

Since a google search of both names reveals no particular connection to manipulation, I'm guessing that this is vandalism, perhaps by a jilted lover. The IP that inserted that line has produced content in the past but has been responsible for nothing but vandalism in recent weeks. Reverted. Miraculouschaos 14:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Control

Abusing Firearms?! Does this sound a little too preferential or what? POV

Text move

There is a debate concerning the use of manipulation. For example, in general it is disturbing to have one's free will tampered with, while on the other hand, it may be desirable to manipulate or intimidate youths into taking a course of action that is alternative to their current course of actions, such

Headline text

as abusing firearms or narcotics.

Who says it's possible to tamper with one's free will? (see mind control controversy)

And WHO sees it is desirable to get youth to change their behavior? Parents, educators, police?

And WHAT constitutes abuse of firearms or narcotics? Any use at all, even carrying a concealed pistol for self-defense? (see John Lott)

I agree that drug abuse is bad for you and society, but NPOV doesn't allow Wikipedia to endorse MY point of view on this. --Uncle Ed 15:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a seperate article on Manipulation

Manipulation - where person A behaves in a 'fictional' way to person B, often to influence person C's view of A or B. As illustrated in for example The Last Seduction. I have experienced manipulation myself when I was at a bad college, where a women in a relationship kept repeatedly flirting with me to, I think, try to make her boyfriend jealous and more interested in her. And a man who was habitually aggressive kept trying unsuccessfully to make me lose my temper so that he would seem to be an innocent victim to those in authority. Manipulation also means where A behaves in a 'fictional' way to B to make B do or not do things, as in a confidence trick or more mundanely. The article on Machiavelianism is more about a personality trait. Google found this webpage: http://www.coping.org/control/manipul.htm which gives detailed lists. 80.2.209.164 08:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

I reverted the article to its shorter form. Much of the text that I removed was unreferenced, in an essay form, and perhaps original research. If I inadvertently removed encyclopaedic content then I apologise. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the primary meaning of the word manipulation is to do with physically handling an object, it seems to me that the primary article here (/dab page) would be Manipulation in its social context, considering aspects of persuasion, rhetoric, propaganda etc., as indicated by the items in the See also list, and previous attempts to expand the article. The material recently added to the Further reading section is relevant to those topics, particularly propaganda, and is worth looking at. Further sections may then be needed for notes and references etc. if there is to be an article here, as well as a dab page. /NewbyG (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be done is to group things into sections and add headings. Some of that is done, but possibly all the links could be distributed and placed under appropriate headings. That would make for a very useful resource, with only the very short introductory text, and then all the article links where people can find more information. It just needs sorting and more headings. -- Fyslee / talk 22:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I just took a look at the article and see that some of this has already been done! Great. If we can get all the links in the "See also" section placed properly and get rid of it, then we'll be done. -- Fyslee / talk 22:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. The items in the See also section should be distributed under appropriate headings? Is that it? In that case, they would mostly go under Socially or Technology? Well, there could also be a heading for the magic and manipulation items, but they could be grouped under Physical. /NewbyG (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming article

Renamed article from "Psychological manipulation" to "Manipulation (psychology)" to be constant with the clinical and common used term for this subject and to follow the Wikipedia naming convention for delineating terms with multiple definitions.

Psychological manipulation is not a thing. It's an obscure term that has somehow made its way into the Wikipedia lexicon and if you Google the term, mostly Wikipedia articles come up. It's a Wiki-word. It's often substituted at Wikipedia for the simple word "manipulation" that appeared in the original citations.

This term is not used in psychology, not generally used in the media, it does not appear in the DSM or or mental health catalogs, it is not in the English dictionaries.

It is occasionally used for it's sensational effect in books like |Mindf_cking, A Critique of Mental Manipulation but these are not considered "reliable resources".

Wiki-psyc (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]