Sure. I am sort of a control freak, but I have strong rules for myself against manipulating people. I like to have a plan for everything and if I'm not sure others will go along, I plan on needing to act absolutely independantly.
Manipulators, on the other hand, sometimes don't act at ALL, except to try getting others to do their bidding.
Control freaks might be straightforward about what they want (good thing). They might shout and bully to get what they want (bad thing). But it will tend to be clear what it is they *do* want and that they're setting out to get it.
Manipulative people might or might not reveal what they want, but will typically achieve their ends in ways that are underhand, passive aggressive or otherwise "hidden".
Similar, but not quite the same. And not really a good thing on either extreme. It also depends on what your definition is for control freak. Is it making plans and they have to be "just so", or is it that everyone around you needs to do what you think they should do?
Wikipedia to the rescue for good definitions:
Manipulative: ...aims to change the perception or behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive, or even abusive tactics.
Control Freak: ...a derogatory term for a person who attempts to dictate how everything around them is done
I was thinking more like the difference between calm understanding (control) and panic attack (lack of control). Only in this case I'm referencing someone who is obsessed with keeping and maintaining that control out of fear of the lack of control. It's not necessarily someone who gets off on dictating to others, like a micro-manager, although I understand that my description is the base reasoning behind the micro-manager personality type.
That distinction kind of answers my own question. A control freak in this instance is reaching and grasping for a particular state of mind. Manipulation, then, would just be a possible means to an end compared to other ways and means of reaching that same end.
A friend of mine is a Hyno-therapist and a masseuse. We recently got into a discussion on the term "manipulation." It's not inherently bad. His work, for example, manipulates people's mind and body on a regular basis. There is no negative connotation to this form of manipulation. If fact, people pay him for the service and come back for more. But that's not what your asking...
They are the same in that both a manipulator and a control freak believe that they are right and others should conform to their point of view. They are different in the way they go about it. A control freak is more upfront and possibly self contained in their antics, while a manipulator uses subterfuge towards others.
From my Tao readings, I'm beginning to think the only time someone is not being manipulative (positively or negatively) is when they throw something out into the universe and let the universe handle it. Truly letting the universe handle it. Like, if I throw a picture onto my blog in the expectation that even one person will see it, then I'm being manipulative in some form or fashion. If I put up a picture without any expectations what-so-ever, then I'm not being manipulative.
All that being said, that would have to be one seriously strong mindset to truly do things without having any expectations attached. Guileless comes to mind.
If manipulating, in it's vaguest sense is the act of changing or influencing something, intent is not needed. You had no intent to manipulate, but your action did change or influence something.
What Toaism is probably hitting on is that we do not function in a vacuum. That we should be aware of, and when possible choose, how we affect the world around us. Choosing a life of action not reaction, as it were.
I think I see where you are going with that, but 'acting to do something' still involves intent. I think what you are trying to say is that manipulation requires a specific type of intent in order to exist. I had to think of an example for this to make sense to me.
If I am sitting on the sidewalk, minding my own business, I have intent to sit and mind my own business, but I do not have intent to sway someone else's thoughts or otherwise get them to pay any attention to me. If someone looks over at me as they are driving by and thinks, "Wow, that's a great idea; maybe I'll have a picnic this weekend," then I have swayed them, but without intent. In this case I would say that I was not acting manipulatively.
However, if I specifically sat down with the idea in my mind that I would like others to see me and maybe they will think about having a picnic this weekend, then my intention is both to sit, but also to sway others. In this case, I am being manipulative.
I think manipulation requires the specific intent to sway in some form or fashion in order to exist regardless of other intentions. Unless you were to ask me or I otherwise announced it, you wouldn't know my intentions, and therefore you wouldn't know if I was being manipulative in my actions or not. You might could say I'm being manipulative, but you wouldn't know for sure if I am intending to do so.
Does that make sense? This is a fun little philosophical discussion.
I think I see where you are going with that, but 'acting to do something' still involves intent. I think what you are trying to say is that manipulation requires a specific type of intent in order to exist.
No, you've entirely missed it.
Manipulation has three modes. Intent to change: an abstract concept or thought Act of change: a physical action Influence of the change: how the action is interpreted by the environment.
None of these are dependent upon another. The formula should have a simple linear progression: Intent > Action > Influence
Seems like it'd be easy. But it's really an acquired skill.
We've already discussed that the brain sometimes fibs and makes up a rationalization for an action after the fact. So you can have an action with no intent (or no discernible intent at the time of action). But your action will still influence the environment. At which point you may very well make up a plausible reason for your action.
Taoism accepts that all actions influence the environment. It aims to create that linear progression. That you first formulate an intent, create an action and it then has the desired influence on the environment.
I could expound on this more but the muscle relaxers are kicking in and it's getting a bit hard to type, let alone think in any coherent fashion.
Okay, now that makes much more sense, especially what we've discussed about rationalization occurring after the action. Yes, holding an action until the mind settles on that being a good decision is a learned skill - this is what I need to practice on.
You've actually hit on my reason for posting this question in the first place.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trickykitty
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-30 05:24 pm (UTC)Manipulators, on the other hand, sometimes don't act at ALL, except to try getting others to do their bidding.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-30 05:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-30 07:03 pm (UTC)Control freaks might be straightforward about what they want (good thing). They might shout and bully to get what they want (bad thing). But it will tend to be clear what it is they *do* want and that they're setting out to get it.
Manipulative people might or might not reveal what they want, but will typically achieve their ends in ways that are underhand, passive aggressive or otherwise "hidden".
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-30 05:42 pm (UTC)Wikipedia to the rescue for good definitions:
Manipulative: ...aims to change the perception or behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive, or even abusive tactics.
Control Freak: ...a derogatory term for a person who attempts to dictate how everything around them is done
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-30 06:16 pm (UTC)I was thinking more like the difference between calm understanding (control) and panic attack (lack of control). Only in this case I'm referencing someone who is obsessed with keeping and maintaining that control out of fear of the lack of control. It's not necessarily someone who gets off on dictating to others, like a micro-manager, although I understand that my description is the base reasoning behind the micro-manager personality type.
That distinction kind of answers my own question. A control freak in this instance is reaching and grasping for a particular state of mind. Manipulation, then, would just be a possible means to an end compared to other ways and means of reaching that same end.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-30 06:00 pm (UTC)We recently got into a discussion on the term "manipulation." It's not inherently bad. His work, for example, manipulates people's mind and body on a regular basis. There is no negative connotation to this form of manipulation. If fact, people pay him for the service and come back for more.
But that's not what your asking...
They are the same in that both a manipulator and a control freak believe that they are right and others should conform to their point of view.
They are different in the way they go about it. A control freak is more upfront and possibly self contained in their antics, while a manipulator uses subterfuge towards others.
At least that's my take on it.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-30 06:24 pm (UTC)See my self-correction regarding terminology.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-30 06:43 pm (UTC)All that being said, that would have to be one seriously strong mindset to truly do things without having any expectations attached. Guileless comes to mind.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-30 07:24 pm (UTC)You had no intent to manipulate, but your action did change or influence something.
What Toaism is probably hitting on is that we do not function in a vacuum. That we should be aware of, and when possible choose, how we affect the world around us. Choosing a life of action not reaction, as it were.
As much as I hate English, I love discussing semantics.
Date: 2011-08-30 08:55 pm (UTC)If I am sitting on the sidewalk, minding my own business, I have intent to sit and mind my own business, but I do not have intent to sway someone else's thoughts or otherwise get them to pay any attention to me. If someone looks over at me as they are driving by and thinks, "Wow, that's a great idea; maybe I'll have a picnic this weekend," then I have swayed them, but without intent. In this case I would say that I was not acting manipulatively.
However, if I specifically sat down with the idea in my mind that I would like others to see me and maybe they will think about having a picnic this weekend, then my intention is both to sit, but also to sway others. In this case, I am being manipulative.
I think manipulation requires the specific intent to sway in some form or fashion in order to exist regardless of other intentions. Unless you were to ask me or I otherwise announced it, you wouldn't know my intentions, and therefore you wouldn't know if I was being manipulative in my actions or not. You might could say I'm being manipulative, but you wouldn't know for sure if I am intending to do so.
Does that make sense? This is a fun little philosophical discussion.
Re: As much as I hate English, I love discussing semantics.
Date: 2011-08-31 01:37 am (UTC)No, you've entirely missed it.
Manipulation has three modes.
Intent to change: an abstract concept or thought
Act of change: a physical action
Influence of the change: how the action is interpreted by the environment.
None of these are dependent upon another.
The formula should have a simple linear progression: Intent > Action > Influence
Seems like it'd be easy. But it's really an acquired skill.
We've already discussed that the brain sometimes fibs and makes up a rationalization for an action after the fact.
So you can have an action with no intent (or no discernible intent at the time of action). But your action will still influence the environment. At which point you may very well make up a plausible reason for your action.
Taoism accepts that all actions influence the environment. It aims to create that linear progression. That you first formulate an intent, create an action and it then has the desired influence on the environment.
I could expound on this more but the muscle relaxers are kicking in and it's getting a bit hard to type, let alone think in any coherent fashion.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-31 02:31 am (UTC)You've actually hit on my reason for posting this question in the first place.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-30 06:10 pm (UTC)