>>132463I think this is understandable, words have meanings and diluting their meaning reduces their utility and can devalue the associated thing the word exists to describe. I think you can distinguish "interpersonal manipulation," which to me seems to be the prior definition I gave and what your image describes from the rhetorical manipulation the video title uses. The root is the same, in the sense that a person is trying to manipulate context and perception to achieve a desired outcome, but one is diffuse and not targeted whereas the other involves direct interference with the victim by the manipulater. Interpersonal manipulation seems to me to be a more significant, damaging, and reprehensible act whereas manipulative rhetoric, while potentially damaging, is not as "personal" or insidious.
I think there are basically common techniques that can be applied across context, medium, and purpose but it's the social distance between victim and perpetrator that seems to be what I'm pulling at.
I do feel I am contradicting myself, however, because you could argue it's not distance but intent. Someone is projecting by accusing someone of doing something they are doing with the intent to truly confound and sow doubt within the victim, whereas a false accusation may simply be to quiet them. Still, both of these FEEL like the end result is manipulation meant to gain some positional leverage over the victim. Is that not manipulation?
The behaviorists liked using rats not just because they were easy to keep and kept the costs and controversies associated with experiments low, but also because they are presumed to be free of contamination by language.
