Thought Manipulation: The Use and Abuse of Psychological Trickery (2 page)

5. I focus mainly on Friedman, R. & M. (1979),
Free to Choose: A Personal Statement
(New York and London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich); Hayek, F. A. (1944),
The Road to Serfdom
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press); Hayek, F. A. (1945), “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” American Economic Review xxxv, No. 4: 519–530; Hayek, F. A. (1960),
The Constitution of Liberty
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press); Hayek, F. A. [1973] (1993a),
Rules and Order, Volume 1 of Law, Legislation and Liberty
(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul); Hayek, F. A. [1979] (1993b),
The Political Order of a Free People, Volume 3 of Law, Legislation and Liberty
(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul).

CHAPTER 1

The Manipulation Phenomenon: An Overview

INTRODUCTION

Manipulation is an interesting motivating action. It is not exactly coercion, not precisely persuasion, and not entirely similar to deception. It is a widespread phenomenon that occurs in almost all walks of life: politics, art, education, and even interpersonal relations. Yet, the professional literature that attempts to cope with the challenge of systematically characterizing and analyzing the very essence of the phenomenon remains insufficient.

Very little academic work has been done to explore, investigate, and explain the fundamental nature of manipulation and its uniqueness relative to other motivating actions. Most of the work that attempts to face this challenge assembles and summarizes the phenomenon into one conclusive definition. I would like to open my own discussion of manipulation by presenting three definitions that have helped me greatly in understanding the important aspects of manipulation, especially in exploring the uniqueness of the phenomenon and the secrets behind its powerful influence.

Joel Rudinow, in a discussion about the unique characteristics of manipulation, observes that “most people...would distinguish manipulation from persuasion, on one hand, and from coercion, on the other.” He emphasizes the sophistication of the phenomenon and proposes the following complicated definition: “A attempts to manipulate S if A attempts the complex motivation of S’s behavior by means of deception or by playing on a supposed weakness of S.” Robert Goodin, who is interested in the ethical aspects of manipulatory politics, regards manipulative behavior as an exercise of power. He emphasizes the trickery-based features of manipulation and proposes a friendlier definition than Rodinow’s: “One person manipulates another when he deceptively influences him, causing the other to act contrary to his putative will.”4 Michael J. Philips, who explores the ethical aspects of manipulation in advertising, emphasizes the irrational motifs inherent in the phenomenon. He clearly understands that manipulation is neither persuasion nor deception and proposes the following sophisticated definition to manipulative advertising: “...we might first describe it as advertising involving efforts to nonpersuasively alter consumers’ perceptions of products by means other than deception.”

Each of these thinkers emphasizes different important aspects and elements of manipulation, including sophistication (Rudinow), trickery (Goodin), and irrational motifs (Phillips). These differences help to concretize the impossibility of assembling and summarizing the very essence of manipulation in one clear and conclusive definition. There will always be important examples of manipulations (or, more precisely, what we intuitively categorize as manipulative behavior) that contradict each definition or, at least, are not included under the umbrella of that definition.

In this book, which focuses on manipulation in a very broad sense, I intend to use a different methodology. Like Rudinow, Goodin, and Phillips, I will propose my own definition of manipulation. Unlike these thinkers, however, my proposal is much more humble and not as ambitious. I will offer a broad and general definition only as a point of departure and as an introduction to my main analysis. The main focus will turn to a sketch of the landscape of manipulation through a systematic analysis of the unique characteristics of the phenomenon and the necessary conditions for it to occur (an overview that definition alone cannot provide).

I will begin by asking the questions: What does a rational human being, who wishes to be manipulative, have to do? Which effect does he desire to create? What motivates him to employ manipulative tricks? Taking up these questions is intended to facilitate our preliminary discussion. Exploring the issue from this point of view is helpful in forming a better understanding of the unique characteristics of manipulation and allows us to avoid struggling with trickery questions that cannot be satisfactorily answered. (For example, how could we identify manipulative interaction?) I will simply try to examine a manipulative interface as it is designed in the laboratory of a rational manipulator.

Of course, to remain exclusively in the laboratory of a rational manipulator seems to evade the very challenge of coming to grips with manipulative behavior. The reason is that almost every rational plan of manipulative strategy sooner or later must contend with dynamic interaction that is likely to yield unexpected results. The next chapters, which include many real-life examples, are conducted on the theoretical-practical axis. I begin with a rational motivator planning his moves; different possible outcomes of his strategy are the very stuff of actual political problems, ethical dilemmas, and intellectual challenges.

In conclusion, this introductory chapter is designed to sketch the landscape of our discussion, provoke critical thinking, and prepare the ground for understanding the challenges that the manipulation phenomenon presents to passionate advocates of liberty, autonomy, and the open society.

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

This chapter intends to feature the unique characteristics of manipulation in an analytical form and present typical characteristics of a manipulative interaction. For this purpose, I found it useful and efficient to employ certain basic assumptions that are usable in economic analysis. This kind of move is consistent with the methodology known as Economic Imperialism.

Our basic assumptions, which are based on simple common sense, are intended to facilitate our discussion. As our journey progresses, I will need to deviate from basic assumptions and even cast doubts upon their validity. The following chapters include many practical examples. As sophisticated and logical as our assumptions may sound, reality has its own rules of conduct. Real-life situations are not necessarily conducted according to our basic assumptions, to say the very least. This is especially true of manipulative interactions that contain elements that we tend to understand as irrational.

This book describes manipulative situations as a type of interaction that occurs between human beings. The analysis focuses on agents that hold “standard” human characteristics: conscience, preferences, will, and so on. The discussion is limited to conscious behavior (as much as possible).

As already stated, the book explores the unique characteristics of manipulation and presents the ethical challenges that the phenomenon raises. For this purpose, I wish to examine what leads a person to be manipulative, the method by which he chooses his actions, and the secrets behind the possible impacts of manipulative behavior. Accordingly, I will use standard rational assumptions to investigate the motivations of each agent. I will assume that every participant in the interaction is an autonomic agent that wishes to improve his conditions (to maximize his preferences) while, at the same time, he shies away from activity that might worsen his situation (to minimize his risk). One of the practical implications of this assumption is that every agent is risk averse and will prefer to stay in a current situation rather than make a change that might weaken his position.

It is important to emphasize that any political-ethical discussion on manipulative behavior, at least from a liberal perspective, presupposes that the environment offers the individual various options and does not restrict his activities to one definite possibility.

MANIPULATION AS A MOTIVATING ACTION

Manipulation is a motivating action. It is an attempt by one person to maneuver his fellow to act in a certain manner and/or for a specific goal. The choice to manipulate (maneuvering) and not employ a more direct approach indicates that the participants in the interaction hold contrasting positions. Robert Goodin, in his book
Manipulatory Politics
, presents and criticizes a neo-Marxist view that indicates the contradiction results from different interests: “...manipulation necessarily works against the interests of those being manipulated.” From this point of view it is implicit that any motivating action that is employed for the benefit of the target could never be considered manipulation. In other words, the neo-Marxist claim omits an entire area of positive and half-positive manipulations that are directed to advance the target’s interests. Goodin, who tries to propose an improved approach to the study of manipulative behavior, claims that the contradiction is driven by different wills and not necessarily by opposing interests; that it is “one person . . . causing the other to act contrary to his putative will.”

Goodin’s definition, which focuses on contradictory wills, presupposes that the target’s will, or at least his putative will, is always clear to the manipulator. Often enough, however, human beings tend to speak in different and contradictory voices simultaneously, which makes it almost impossible to understand what they really want. Does it mean that they cannot be manipulated?

Take, for example, the wealthy housewife who constantly complains that the maintenance housework (cleaning, cooking, and shopping) causes her unhappiness, misery, and frustration, but, on the other hand, she persistently refuses to hire any help. How could we forget the miserable Don Juan, who wishes to get married, but, systematically, has love affairs only with married women? And, of course, there is the tragic case of the wonderful musician who devoted most of her life to studying the art of opera, but constantly avoids precious opportunities to audition in front of famous conductors who might be able to help her develop a professional career.

Our three tragic heroes—the frustrated house wife, the miserable Don Juan, and the desperate musician—provide concrete example that, many times, ambiguity regarding a person’s will results from the fact that he himself is confused and cannot make up his mind. Ironically, even paradoxically, manipulative interference might be useful in helping the struggler realize his will and reach a decision. Indeed, many techniques in education and psychotherapy are designed to help a confused individual discover his will and decide what to do with it. Goodin’s definition also seems problematic in situations where the manipulator and the target seem to share the same objectives. In those interactions, the motivation to employ a manipulative strategy can be driven by different perspectives on opportunities to satisfy the will, such as in cases where the target is desperate to satisfy his will and achieve his goals.

Accordingly, I propose to expand Goodin’s definition and to see manipulation “as an indirect motivating action that is employed out of fear that a more direct and explicit approach will face resistance.” However, even this preliminary broad definition requires much care. In certain cases the decision to manipulate is based purely on efficiency whereby the manipulator strives to avoid long, tiring explanations and save time and effort. An extreme example is the leader who forecasts a political crisis that requires a quick response. He assumes that explaining the situation to his colleagues is a waste of a precious time and chooses to manipulate them instead.

MANIPULATION CREATES AN ILLUSION OF FREE CHOICE

Manipulation is geared toward influencing the target to operate in a direction that under normal circumstances he would probably resist. Moreover, many manipulative strategies are designed to lead the target to act in a way that is not consistent with his intentions, motivations, and best interests.

This characteristic of manipulative behavior sounds somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand, leading someone to act against his preferences and priorities indicates that manipulation contains compelling elements. On the other hand, the term manipulation itself, which is associated with an elusive concept such as “maneuvering,” indicates that the target does have some judgment and consideration while he operates. This tension can be resolved by adding to our description of manipulative interaction the element of “illusory free choice.”

In general, the sophisticated manipulator strives to intrude, interfere, and influence the decision-making process of the target by giving him the impression that he (the target) chooses his actions freely and independently. To achieve this effect, the manipulator attempts to maneuver the target to perceive the “intentional action” (i.e., the manipulator’s goal) as the best available option in the current situation. Following our basic assumptions, especially those of maximizing preferences and minimizing risk, the target is obligated to take the best available action according to his understanding of the situation. The practical meaning is that the target, who is subject to a hidden influence, believes that his choices are made freely and independently. Hiding relevant information in order to create a desired decision exemplifies the idea of “illusory free choice” in a manipulative interaction. The target, who believes that he chooses the best available option freely and independently, is actually subject to invisible interference in his judgment and critical thinking.

Unfortunately, it is not difficult to imagine opposite situations where a person is convinced that he is on the right track, making the best decisions and not willing to consider other options. Ironically, and even paradoxically, helping him to discover the value of other possibilities requires the application of the unconventional methods of influence that certain manipulative strategies can offer.

In the most difficult cases, the individual is trapped in a biased conception of reality that he is not willing to examine critically. There are many classic examples: the ambitious young gentleman who is determined to become a great musician even though he lacks any sense of rhythm; the brave general who refuses to accept the fact that the enemy is going to attack; the diligent manufacturer who spends most of his money, time, and effort improving the quality of goods that are no longer in demand.