Tweet
Well, manipulation is the name of the game.
What I'd like to get from this thread is,well introduce a topic and hopefully someone gets some new ideas for themselves, but also to get few examples that I can't think of right now.
So let me give you the layout, I'm studying a bit of things that has to do with manipulation, that is, to get you do what I want (for example give me your password, or other kind of access).
Now that's a huge and wide field, but I'll focus on creating frameworks. What I mean by creating a framework is, that what the current studies show, we can't really make people do what they don't want to do, against their will. YES we can force them, but it will be against their natural will. However, you can create a framework for the person, to function in the boundaries of that framework you kind of.. superimpose, and you get your way.
The idea is to eliminate the option of personal desire. SO that the question 'what do I want' is simply not an issue. That is, we force you to think this way, so you will comply and think you did it because you wanted to, not against your will necessarily.
In other words, we force the settings in which the subject has to act in, but we don't force the subject directly, just the framework, so the desires or will of the subject is eliminated from the picture.
Example:
I will establish authority over the subject not necessarily via my position (because I might not have the position in real life), by claiming expertise over the issue. If I come to help fix the network that crashed, I'm establishing authority by expertise. I want access to certain areas, I'm the expert, the subject doesn't knwo about networks so he/she must comply in order for me to fix the network. Even though I might be ranking lower than the subject, I'm establishing authority.
Authority is important when getting people to comply. We know this trhough Milgram experiments and other studies, it's huge. You still remember the people who made the girl do jumping jacks naked in that fast food restaurant, because someone called over the phone and told they were cops and this is what they must do? Basically that was based on establishing authority, even faked one.
Now, this is pretty simple, but there are many examples of manipulating the framework for the subject to become compliant without "force".
It's always a word play. So, words of dominance. For example, this is a classic one: "You have two choices".
By claiming someone has two choices, you are establishing authority once again, even if you are not entiteld to it by rank or anything else. The subject might think that he/She has other options, but you can always argue that they have two choices and that's it. You do not have to explain yourself further.
Those two choices of course are in favor of you, both of them. Third option is not an option and by saying so, you are claiming your authority and force the other one to work within the framework you created.
Now, the subject is thinking about the choices. Which one is the least harmful to them? You gave options, so you are not unreasonable. You gave them freedom by giving options. In reality, you limited all options to favor you though.
But the "you have two options" is basically words of dominance and establishing authority through words.
What kind of other examples are there for similar effect?
What I'd like to get from this thread is,well introduce a topic and hopefully someone gets some new ideas for themselves, but also to get few examples that I can't think of right now.
So let me give you the layout, I'm studying a bit of things that has to do with manipulation, that is, to get you do what I want (for example give me your password, or other kind of access).
Now that's a huge and wide field, but I'll focus on creating frameworks. What I mean by creating a framework is, that what the current studies show, we can't really make people do what they don't want to do, against their will. YES we can force them, but it will be against their natural will. However, you can create a framework for the person, to function in the boundaries of that framework you kind of.. superimpose, and you get your way.
The idea is to eliminate the option of personal desire. SO that the question 'what do I want' is simply not an issue. That is, we force you to think this way, so you will comply and think you did it because you wanted to, not against your will necessarily.
In other words, we force the settings in which the subject has to act in, but we don't force the subject directly, just the framework, so the desires or will of the subject is eliminated from the picture.
Example:
I will establish authority over the subject not necessarily via my position (because I might not have the position in real life), by claiming expertise over the issue. If I come to help fix the network that crashed, I'm establishing authority by expertise. I want access to certain areas, I'm the expert, the subject doesn't knwo about networks so he/she must comply in order for me to fix the network. Even though I might be ranking lower than the subject, I'm establishing authority.
Authority is important when getting people to comply. We know this trhough Milgram experiments and other studies, it's huge. You still remember the people who made the girl do jumping jacks naked in that fast food restaurant, because someone called over the phone and told they were cops and this is what they must do? Basically that was based on establishing authority, even faked one.
Now, this is pretty simple, but there are many examples of manipulating the framework for the subject to become compliant without "force".
It's always a word play. So, words of dominance. For example, this is a classic one: "You have two choices".
By claiming someone has two choices, you are establishing authority once again, even if you are not entiteld to it by rank or anything else. The subject might think that he/She has other options, but you can always argue that they have two choices and that's it. You do not have to explain yourself further.
Those two choices of course are in favor of you, both of them. Third option is not an option and by saying so, you are claiming your authority and force the other one to work within the framework you created.
Now, the subject is thinking about the choices. Which one is the least harmful to them? You gave options, so you are not unreasonable. You gave them freedom by giving options. In reality, you limited all options to favor you though.
But the "you have two options" is basically words of dominance and establishing authority through words.
What kind of other examples are there for similar effect?
Comment