Influencers

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But in general - and specifically in the video - critical thinking is not an issue when it comes to being influenced.  It's a demonstration of how we can't help being influenced. No one sees an ice cube tray and employs critical thinking to avoid taking a selfie with an ice cube tray. It's not really a higher brain function.

Boru

I'd call that manipulation. Given how we can be affected by environment via osmosis, then yes, you can manipulate people by induction (indirectly), which is what he does in the vid. Is that really thinking about it though?

Of course it’s manipulation - all influencing is manipulation to a greater or lesser extent.

But my point that influence isn’t an area that involves critical thinking at all. People aren’t subject to influence on a level that requires thinking about it. If it did, you’d have to critically analyze literally every experience you ever have to determine if it has influenced you. No one does that, because no one CAN do that. 

So, it’s a mistake to imply that people who are influence can’t think critically.

Boru

[Porcupine]

Of course it’s manipulation - all influencing is manipulation to a greater or lesser extent.

Manipulating somebody is just, like, a negative version of intentionally trying to change somebody's life for the better and succeeding.

Intentionally trying to change somebody's life for the better and succeeding is just, like, a positive version of manipulating somebody.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Of course it’s manipulation - all influencing is manipulation to a greater or lesser extent.

Manipulating somebody is just, like, a negative version of intentionally trying to change somebody's life for the better and succeeding.

Intentionally trying to change somebody's life for the better and succeeding is just, like, a positive version of manipulating somebody.

So, manipulation can be either positive or negative?  I agree. But how can there be a negative version of succeeding at changing someone's life for the better?

If I successfully manipulate someone  into quitting smoking, for example, how does labelling it 'manipulation' make it a negative?

Boru

[Porcupine]

Manipulating somebody is just, like, a negative version of intentionally trying to change somebody's life for the better and succeeding.

Intentionally trying to change somebody's life for the better and succeeding is just, like, a positive version of manipulating somebody.

So, manipulation can be either positive or negative?  I agree. But how can there be a negative version of succeeding at changing someone's life for the better?

If I successfully manipulate someone  into quitting smoking, for example, how does labelling it 'manipulation' make it a negative?

Boru

Well, if manipulation isn't necessarily bad then who is to say that success and bettering somebody's life is necessarily not negative?

These words are tricky. I perhaps explained myself badly. The idea is that good and bad manipulation are two sides of the same coin but it may not be appropriate to call one side of that coin manipulation. But I agree with you that if one side of the coin is changing somebody's life for the better then it isn't negative. But I meant that the one side of the coin can be negative and manipulation and the other side of the coin can be positive and life-bettering.

Words are tricky.

---

If I successfully manipulate someone  into quitting smoking, for example, how does labelling it 'manipulation' make it a negative?

The badness is in its connotation rather than its denotation and that is demonstrated by how if you seriously come somebody manipulative after they have helped you, and they don't think you are joking, they may take it as insult rather than a thank you.