Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Cultures with less manipulation/narcissism?
Different geo-areas also present different levels of sociopathy / psychopathy, albeit drawing the line between cultures / genes can be difficult.
But since sociopathy is about the genes/environment interaction, then I think it's safe to say that different cultures/environments can predispose, as well as "activate" genes for sociopathy / psychopathy.
Great point. Interaction.
So that leads to the third point: manipulation.
I've never read anything about manipulation being more or less present in different areas -also because it's tough to define and measure concept, and nobody has set out to defined / measure it.
Thanks for this idea. Here is another one that I'm sure you know: we can only manage what we measure. Well, what you're saying coupled with idea means that once we have a metric for manipulation, then we can measure it and compare it. We can find the factors affecting it as we attempted in this thread and diminish its impact on society. By addressing what manipulation does out of a better option (sorry for the syntax). What I mean is that manipulation is a cheap and dirty alternative to cooperation. "I'll get what I want even if you don't get what you want". The value imbalance is right there. "I can win and you cannot win". This mindset as you all guys know is very destructive: see Trump again in his latest pardon of all his criminal friends. I'm not being political, these are facts.
So, as everything, manipulation is a tool. But a tool that has a price when being used. I'm going to be a bit woo-woo, but there are facts to back this up:
You get what you give
It's a simple principle which I found to be true. That is why I removed this behavior from my Life. Because I think it's a shit behavior. However, it's a shit behavior that has its time and place. And sometimes you have to fight shit with some shit. But you'll stay in the shit if you do. If you see what I mean. Emotionally speaking. You'll stay in this quagmire and swamp of incertitude, doubt and projections. Also it's something that is bound to happen. We will manipulate at some point. It's just a matter of minimizing this behavior. It's important to accept that if we do it, we should not be ashamed of it. Because otherwise, according to Jung, if you don't integrate your shadow, it will rule your life. I found it to be true. You go: I did this. Ok. I won't do it again. And then we do our best not do it again.
I did the same with gossiping. I don't gossip. Or very rarely to be more accurate. It's a behavior that is destructive. It looks harmless but it's everything but harmless. I have other behaviors I want to remove/replace. These are two on top of my head.
Should we define manipulation as convincing someone at his/her expense for your own benefit in the short-term or long-term?
Asia has less manipulation for being more collective: not sure
I agree that it is not clear.
Collectivism means that the social norm drives towards looking out for others and the community.
That does not mean it changes the inherent nature of human selfishness.
It may even drive a wedge between people's external and internal images.
Which may cause more self-manipulation and virtue-signaling.
I wrongly assumed that collectivism means more selflessness for others.
And further assumed that this selflessness would discourage manipulation.
Hard to even say if Western or Asian countries are more manipulative.
The leaders at the top preach different values.
Which arguably is a form of manipulation of society-wide manipulation.
American leaders preach the American dream.
Asian leaders preach contributing back to society like caring for the elderly, being respectful to others, etc.
Small groups less manipulation: not sure
This is interesting.
The nature of the small environments in high school may be why people fight so much for status in the small pond.
Maybe for larger groups, there is larger entity-level manipulation by the people with power, but less among the people in the middle and bottom.
Resource-abundant places have less manipulations: probably
Maybe we should take a look at developing vs developed countries.
I think it's hard to compare because of so many confounding variables for all 3 cases.
How to Analyse How Culture Affects Manipulation?
There are many types of manipulation that make it hard to define in entirety.
We could break down manipulation into the different types of manipulation such as
- Virtue signalling
- Social scalping
- Guilt-tripping
This article on the website provides a solid overview of the various types of manipulation which I listed some above.
I'm not sure there is a link between individualism/collectivism, and manipulation, I haven't made up my mind on it, but I can't see an obvious reason why collectivist cultures should have less manipulation.
I share your POV.
When the need for good reputation increases, so do the advantages of effective manipulation.
I don't understand. Could you explain?
I think it's hard to compare because of so many confounding variables for all 3 cases.
Yeah, exactly.
This is a case where more discussion might not necessarily lead to better representations of reality. But as we get more and more into the analysis, we move more into philosophy and farther away from science / experience (philosopher's circle).
We're smart folks and quite advanced here, so I don't see any downside to this discussion (and it can actually increase knowledge and effectiveness).
But, in my opinion, this is a case where it can be confusing for some less advanced folks to talk at the higher level of abstraction (the general culture) since what matters most are the specific environments (work / family / dating, etc.), the specific interaction (he said, I replied), or the specific individual (this person has this mindset / often repeats this behavior.. )
This is one of the reasons why I often avoid talking in terms of "men are / women are". Not because it's not useful, there are important differences, both in genders and cultures, but people then often forget that the specific situation and specific individual matter as much, if not more, than the general tendencies.
When the need for good reputation increases, so do the advantages of effective manipulation.
I don't understand. Could you explain?
My interpretation of Lucio's statement.
When having a good reputation brings about tangible social benefits, people will be more willing to use deception and value-taking behaviour to boost their perception in front of others.
For example, if reputation is important in the workplace, one can expect more coworkers to suck up to their bosses.
Whereas, if competence is measured objectively without past history, people would play less games and focus more on results.
John: can you explain the "Â When the need for good reputation increases, so do the advantages of effective manipulation."
Big cities tend to be more impersonal.
In a big city, you don't know the people who walk around you. So you're freer to be more "you" (= less manipulation). If you're feeling downtrodden, you don't need to force yourself to put up a chirper facade.
And if you're happy because, say, you won the lottery, you don't need to hide it and can jump around and sing your favorite song.
You're also freer to be more aggressive (or submissive).
If you're angry at the clerk that you will never see again, you have less of a need of being covertly-aggressive, and you can yell at his face and you don't necessarily make an important enemy, because you won't see him again.
In a smaller place where everyone knows everyone, you're more guarded about the image you're portraying.
And you're far more concerned about rumors, gossiping, who is allied with whom, and who is enemy of whom.
Of course, that changes in big cities the moment you enter your social circle, your workplace, your club, etc. etc., but the reason why it changes, is because you're moving away from "big city mode" and re-entering that "smaller environment dynamics", recreating our old habitat of "everyone knows everyone".
Pardon me Lucio, I didn't see your latest response as I typed out a response to John's reply.
This is a case where more discussion might not necessarily lead to better representations of reality. But as we get more and more into the analysis, we move more into philosophy and farther away from science / experience (philosopher's circle).
This makes sense.
I feel that I am moving more into opinions rather than experiences and facts grounded in reality.
And I may be making up lots of possible directions to move into for the sake of moving the discussion forward.
Which might not be necessarily productive if it is not contained.
That being said, I did take away a few things from this thread, which I can take note of for other threads on more specific topics later on.
As follows from what Lucio mentions that we can actually increase knowledge and effectiveness.
This is a case where more discussion might not necessarily lead to better representations of reality. But as we get more and more into the analysis, we move more into philosophy and farther away from science / experience (philosopher's circle).
That is the downside. On these kind of topics where facts are missing: I think that the best way is to share ideas, explore them for a while and leave it open.
If you're angry at the clerk that you will never see again, you have less of a need of being covertly-aggressive, and you can yell at his face and you don't necessarily make an important enemy, because you won't see him again.
True.
And you're far more concerned about rumors, gossiping, who is allied with whom, and who is enemy of whom.
True.
Of course, that changes in big cities the moment you enter your social circle, your workplace, your club, etc. etc., but the reason why it changes, is because you're moving away from "big city mode" and re-entering that "smaller environment dynamics", recreating our old habitat of "everyone knows everyone".
That being said, I did take away a few things from this thread, which I can take note of for other threads on more specific topics later on.
I thought about what you said, Lucio. I agree. I think it's an important point.
This led me to differentiate the issue:
- Micro-manipulation: at the individual level
- Macro-manipulation: at the group/nation level.
So on the micro-manipulation domain: a small population would encourage manipulation due to the importance of reputation (village mentality). That resembles my experience. Thank you for pointing that out!
I think that in such small populations, the price of being found out when manipulating is higher though. For the same reason (importance of reputation). So it's a high-cost, high-reward strategy in these environments I believe. High-cost, high-reward on the long term. Low-cost high reward on the short term.
Once again, I'm aware this is a very theoretical discussion. I'm ok with it.
Is the dark side stronger?
