Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumPublic Forum: Power DynamicsOn the spectrum of manipulation: …

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

On the spectrum of manipulation: "0 to 100" vs "straight or manipulative"

#1 · August 5, 2023, 3:12 pm

Quote from B on August 5, 2023, 3:12 pm
Hi Guys!
This is spurred by the discussion in Power Duck's thread here.
While the topic of "how manipulators think" is very interesting, I find the concept of the "spectrum of manipulation" even more interesting.
My thoughts on this topic are basically these:
While it's certainly true that there is a spectrum of manipulative behaviors in people out there (meaning that any person one can encounter can go from "0" to "100" in manipulation), for practical life purposes it's best to simplify and (at least initially) just distinguish "mostly straight people" from "mostly manipulative people" .
This is because, while all people can behave manipulatively given the circumstances, there is a recognizable difference between:
people with empathy and conscience, who are likely to feel guilt after behaving manipulatively (and thus are likely both to work on removing their manipulative behavior after adopting it and feeling guilt, and to not be highly manipulative in the first place); and
people without empathy and conscience, who are NOT likely to feel guilt after behaving manipulatively (and thus are likely to concentrate only on behaving more manipulatively after being found out, to lower the chances they may be found out again and continue doing what they are doing).
This binary mode of seeing the world is, IMO, encoded in the human mind in any case, and it is very useful here for practical purposes.
It has parallels, for example, in how people usually find members of the opposite sex either attractive or not attractive.
One could argue that there are infinite variables within each of the two realms, and that learning to recognize them (ie distinguishing a very attractive person vs a slightly attractive person) is useful. It certainly is, but to me it comes after being able to distinguish between "yes or no".
That's why, when I wrote my off topic about how manipulators think, I was referring to people without empathy and conscience. They to me are the only "manipulative personalities" in the true sense.
Normal people who may behave manipulatively are likely to tone down their manipulations, and also to feel guilt when they power move on unaware people.
Advantages of adopting this "straight vs manipulative" reading mode
The advantages of adopting this binary, simplified "reading mode" are:
it allows one to know which people should be given "second and third chances", and which people one is best not giving "second and third chances" to;
it allows one to minimize damage. Manipulative personalities (in the sense I discussed above) are likely to, yes, provide some benefits to their acquaintances, but those benefits are never going to offset the extreme damage they are also likely to bring to one's family, work, friends circle, community, precisely because in reality they are only focused on themselves and maximising their gains. They do not really "care" about anyone other then them, and any benefit they provide is "reluctantly and fakely given", and also likely to be taken away later;
it allows one to understand to which bitter end the "manipulative people" are likely to go if one does not get distance - and the bitter end is really, really extreme, because they do not care in the slightest if they destroy everything around them for their self-serving benefit;
it allows one to understand with which people is assertiveness best used (ie with "mostly straight people"), and with which people it is best avoided (ie "mostly manipulative people");
it allows one to focus his or her defenses on the "most dangerous people". Yes, everyone can power move, but only the "manipulative people" are likely to destroy your life and business by doing so.
Drawbacks
Now, one could also argue that the binary reading mode I am expounding here is flawed, in that it brings the definite possibility of false positives and false negatives.
That's certainly true.
But:
a false positive is better than a false negative. If you mistake a manipulative person for a mostly straight person, you are making a mistake that is going to cost you dearly. If you make the reverse mistake, you are just going to lose a potential opportunity and acquaintance;
we reason in this binary way unconsciously anyway. Even if we don't want to admit it, we all slot people into two categories: those we wish to get to know, and those we wish to stay far away from. Why not focus part of this mechanism into whether the other is "mostly manipulative" or not?
How to distinguish one category from the other
My point is that all truly manipulative people (ie those belonging to the "without empathy and conscience" category) are recognizable because they always, without fail, bring their manipulative thinking and behavior:
to the extreme;
for an endless period of time;
in all areas and facets of their life.
These are the three points which one must learn to recognize to distinguish "mostly straight vs. mostly manipulative".
First, manipulative people always bring their manipulative behavior to the extreme:
They are incapable of stopping, precisely because they have no empathy. They only know how to "fake having stopped". But for some reason they never seem to "learn", and the "problems" continue.
If they break the self-esteem of a person, they continue with further breaking. They take it as a sign it's working.
Normal people instead do the opposite: when they see the other person crying, they back down.
Second, they continue their manipulative behavior for an endless period of time.
Normal people can manipulate and "behave badly" for a long time, for example if they've been abused. They can "take revenge on the world" for a long time.
But they will pay a (personal and internal) price. And the price will, without fail, bring their behavior to a stop, eventually.
Manipulative people, in contrast, pay no personal internal price. They, by definition, will continue to manipulate forever.
Third, manipulative people manipulate in all areas and facets of their life.
Normal people who have been burned may behave manipulatively in the specific area of their life in which they've been burned.
But only manipulators show a pattern of behaving manipulatively in all areas of their life. Precisely because they are incapable of seeing and feeling any personal bond.
"How manipulators think" is, thus, one way to recognize the signs that a person belongs to the "manipulative" category.
There are countless others, each probably worthy of a topic:
not backing down if caught manipulating, but doubling down on it with further, more elaborated and more covert manipulation;
masking their manipulative behavior behind "personal low self-esteem problems", which of course are never resolved (while normal, straight people are usually keeping the two separate, ie they don't tie their manipulation to they having "self-esteem problems", if nothing else because they, by definition, don't really see the unconscious link);
the effect of their repeated behavior being "driving away good people" from the family, work, community (which is a form of isolation, and is intentional);
they being overly concerned with "status" and "power" over anything else, and thus likely - for example - to either never apologize, or to use fake apologies;
highly out of context behaviors (which are "mask slips");
gaslighting behaviors (which are, by definition and because they are a pattern of behaviors, intentional) meant to brainwash the mark into believing he or she has a "personality or self-esteem problem that needs resolution";
showing a tendency to want to control how others think and behave, ie not liking others to have personal agency.
Overlap with good vs. evil
The dichotomy overlaps with the distinction between "good" and "evil". According to author Martha Stout, "evil" is just the absence of empathy and conscience, and masking it beneath a veneer of "fake pro-sociality". I agree wholeheartedly.
The true "evil" people are those who belong to the category of people without empathy and conscience, and who are never capable of regaining it, and perfectly content with how they are - even though they may blame everything and everyone else as being the cause of their problems, and may even fake being on a "path to better themselves" to gaslight their victims.
One could argue that normal people can also develop circumstances where they are abused, broken, and driven to having less empathy, to protect themselves. True, but I still find there are the above definite - and discernable - differences between those who had their empathy reduced to a slight small flame, and behaved "badly" for some time, in some area, without taking it to the extreme - and those who never had the flame in any case.
And, one can increase the capability to recognize the difference. By studying manipulation, and recognizing the pervasivity and continuance of the manipulative behaviors.

Hi Guys!

This is spurred by the discussion in Power Duck's thread here.

While the topic of "how manipulators think" is very interesting, I find the concept of the "spectrum of manipulation" even more interesting.

My thoughts on this topic are basically these:

While it's certainly true that there is a spectrum of manipulative behaviors in people out there (meaning that any person one can encounter can go from "0" to "100" in manipulation), for practical life purposes it's best to simplify and (at least initially) just distinguish "mostly straight people" from "mostly manipulative people" .

This is because, while all people can behave manipulatively given the circumstances, there is a recognizable difference between:

people with empathy and conscience, who are likely to feel guilt after behaving manipulatively (and thus are likely both to work on removing their manipulative behavior after adopting it and feeling guilt, and to not be highly manipulative in the first place); and
people without empathy and conscience, who are NOT likely to feel guilt after behaving manipulatively (and thus are likely to concentrate only on behaving more manipulatively after being found out, to lower the chances they may be found out again and continue doing what they are doing).

This binary mode of seeing the world is, IMO, encoded in the human mind in any case, and it is very useful here for practical purposes.

It has parallels, for example, in how people usually find members of the opposite sex either attractive or not attractive.

One could argue that there are infinite variables within each of the two realms, and that learning to recognize them (ie distinguishing a very attractive person vs a slightly attractive person) is useful. It certainly is, but to me it comes after being able to distinguish between "yes or no".

That's why, when I wrote my off topic about how manipulators think, I was referring to people without empathy and conscience. They to me are the only "manipulative personalities" in the true sense.

Normal people who may behave manipulatively are likely to tone down their manipulations, and also to feel guilt when they power move on unaware people.

Advantages of adopting this "straight vs manipulative" reading mode

The advantages of adopting this binary, simplified "reading mode" are:

it allows one to know which people should be given "second and third chances", and which people one is best not giving "second and third chances" to;
it allows one to minimize damage. Manipulative personalities (in the sense I discussed above) are likely to, yes, provide some benefits to their acquaintances, but those benefits are never going to offset the extreme damage they are also likely to bring to one's family, work, friends circle, community, precisely because in reality they are only focused on themselves and maximising their gains. They do not really "care" about anyone other then them, and any benefit they provide is "reluctantly and fakely given", and also likely to be taken away later;
it allows one to understand to which bitter end the "manipulative people" are likely to go if one does not get distance - and the bitter end is really, really extreme, because they do not care in the slightest if they destroy everything around them for their self-serving benefit;
it allows one to understand with which people is assertiveness best used (ie with "mostly straight people"), and with which people it is best avoided (ie "mostly manipulative people");
it allows one to focus his or her defenses on the "most dangerous people". Yes, everyone can power move, but only the "manipulative people" are likely to destroy your life and business by doing so.

Drawbacks

Now, one could also argue that the binary reading mode I am expounding here is flawed, in that it brings the definite possibility of false positives and false negatives.

That's certainly true.

But:

a false positive is better than a false negative. If you mistake a manipulative person for a mostly straight person, you are making a mistake that is going to cost you dearly. If you make the reverse mistake, you are just going to lose a potential opportunity and acquaintance;
we reason in this binary way unconsciously anyway. Even if we don't want to admit it, we all slot people into two categories: those we wish to get to know, and those we wish to stay far away from. Why not focus part of this mechanism into whether the other is "mostly manipulative" or not?

How to distinguish one category from the other

My point is that all truly manipulative people (ie those belonging to the "without empathy and conscience" category) are recognizable because they always, without fail, bring their manipulative thinking and behavior:

to the extreme;
for an endless period of time;
in all areas and facets of their life.

These are the three points which one must learn to recognize to distinguish "mostly straight vs. mostly manipulative".

First, manipulative people always bring their manipulative behavior to the extreme:

They are incapable of stopping, precisely because they have no empathy. They only know how to "fake having stopped". But for some reason they never seem to "learn", and the "problems" continue.

If they break the self-esteem of a person, they continue with further breaking. They take it as a sign it's working.

Normal people instead do the opposite: when they see the other person crying, they back down.

Second, they continue their manipulative behavior for an endless period of time.

Normal people can manipulate and "behave badly" for a long time, for example if they've been abused. They can "take revenge on the world" for a long time.

But they will pay a (personal and internal) price. And the price will, without fail, bring their behavior to a stop, eventually.

Manipulative people, in contrast, pay no personal internal price. They, by definition, will continue to manipulate forever.

Third, manipulative people manipulate in all areas and facets of their life.

Normal people who have been burned may behave manipulatively in the specific area of their life in which they've been burned.

But only manipulators show a pattern of behaving manipulatively in all areas of their life. Precisely because they are incapable of seeing and feeling any personal bond.

"How manipulators think" is, thus, one way to recognize the signs that a person belongs to the "manipulative" category.

There are countless others, each probably worthy of a topic:

not backing down if caught manipulating, but doubling down on it with further, more elaborated and more covert manipulation;
masking their manipulative behavior behind "personal low self-esteem problems", which of course are never resolved (while normal, straight people are usually keeping the two separate, ie they don't tie their manipulation to they having "self-esteem problems", if nothing else because they, by definition, don't really see the unconscious link);
the effect of their repeated behavior being "driving away good people" from the family, work, community (which is a form of isolation, and is intentional);
they being overly concerned with "status" and "power" over anything else, and thus likely - for example - to either never apologize, or to use fake apologies;
highly out of context behaviors (which are "mask slips");
gaslighting behaviors (which are, by definition and because they are a pattern of behaviors, intentional) meant to brainwash the mark into believing he or she has a "personality or self-esteem problem that needs resolution";
showing a tendency to want to control how others think and behave, ie not liking others to have personal agency.

Overlap with good vs. evil

The dichotomy overlaps with the distinction between "good" and "evil". According to author Martha Stout, "evil" is just the absence of empathy and conscience, and masking it beneath a veneer of "fake pro-sociality". I agree wholeheartedly.

The true "evil" people are those who belong to the category of people without empathy and conscience, and who are never capable of regaining it, and perfectly content with how they are - even though they may blame everything and everyone else as being the cause of their problems, and may even fake being on a "path to better themselves" to gaslight their victims.

One could argue that normal people can also develop circumstances where they are abused, broken, and driven to having less empathy, to protect themselves. True, but I still find there are the above definite - and discernable - differences between those who had their empathy reduced to a slight small flame, and behaved "badly" for some time, in some area, without taking it to the extreme - and those who never had the flame in any case.

And, one can increase the capability to recognize the difference. By studying manipulation, and recognizing the pervasivity and continuance of the manipulative behaviors.

Lucio Buffalmano, John Freeman and 2 other users have reacted to this post.

#2 · August 5, 2023, 5:09 pm

Thanks Bel!

IMO a very value adding post. I do agree that understanding the whole spectrum of manipulation is way more useful than understanding the thought patterns of a manipulator. After all as you point out normal people can indeed develop manipulative behaviours (so it could be a lost opportunity to make an ally if you decide to cut ties with this person).

From personal experience I've found that normal (I think that by normal you're referring to those who aren't high in dark triad traits) people that have more value taking forms of manipulation have developed certain thought patterns/behaviours so they feel justified for doing what they do (they can know or not that they're using manipulation):

Self aggrandizing thoughts, entitlement, and the belief that people are better off if they do what they want as the manipulator knows better.
Fear of the people around them leaving them, not because of a drive to overpowering others but because of genuine feelings.

(By the way you probably know this but this is pretty common in the red pill)

Of course there's no need to go to such extremes. Some other normal people can use manipulation because they're angry and aren't aware of using manipulation. There's also the "mental gymnastics" as I like to call it, that people who manipulate use to not feel bad for their deeds.

Cheers.

P.S:

I usually get to this conclusions mostly out of behaviours/thoughts seen in myself as well as things I recall from yt videos so I could be getting something wrong or leaving things out of the table.

And yes I could've been a manipulator in my red pill phase. Thank god no woman had to deal with my issues.

Lucio Buffalmano, B and 3 other users have reacted to this post.

#3 · August 5, 2023, 7:17 pm

Yep, great points Bel.

I'd also draw the main line between conscience / no-conscience (@Power Duck, I think Bel referred as "normal" to people with a conscience).

Albeit that line doesn't necessarily mean that "conscience" can't act "evil" since one can either find creative ways to demonize others, or one can be an extremist and believe that someone else must be destroyed in the name of some higher (good) cause.

There are other important distinctions and "lines", but conscience / no conscience may indeed be the main one.

OFF-TOPIC

Personally, I'm not convinced that no conscience "without fail" does what you list and that may simply be a case of biased sample.

OFF-TOPIC

B, Roberto and Power Duck have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#4 · August 5, 2023, 10:04 pm

Yes, I agree that "people with conscience" can act "evil".

But I suppose, since they do have a conscience that guides their action, that they may act "evil" for a limited time with people who acted themselves "evil" toward them or toward their acquaintances.

While they may frown upon acting "evil" with people who gave no cause for that - and prefer win/win in that case.

Could their conscience be thwarted, for instance by someone having manipulated them to make them see an enemy where none exists?

Sure. But they will pay a price in this case in their self-image, and with accumulated guilt. Thus there is, at the very least, a higher likelihood their evil deeds may stop, or that they will seek a "cure", or that they will self-isolate, or that they will harm or numb themselves to stop the cognitive dissonance.

No likelihood of such an internal limit for "no conscience" people.

Lucio Buffalmano, Roberto and Power Duck have reacted to this post.

#5 · August 6, 2023, 7:10 am

Quote from Gguwad on August 6, 2023, 7:10 am
Quote from Bel on August 5, 2023, 3:12 pm
Normal people who may behave manipulatively are likely to tone down their manipulations, and also to feel guilt when they power move on unaware people.
I can't agree with that, they are still assholes in the world who have empathy, and they still for whatever reason will makes jokes on you, disempower you and in some cases, also manipulate you.
I had few people in my lives who manipulated others, while one of them could potentially lack empathy ( I went with them to school for few years, didn't see like a guy who cared much about others feelings ), the other one was my family and I actually saw them become a manipulator over time, and I know for sure they have empathy from their reactions and their experiences. Yet they started to try to gaslight and disempower constantly.
And another example also from my life when someone uses manipulation often to win arguments and to make himself look good ( while making others look bad ).
people with empathy and conscience, who are likely to feel guilt after behaving manipulatively (and thus are likely both to work on removing their manipulative behavior after adopting it and feeling guilt, and to not be highly manipulative in the first place);
I still agree though that their actions while making sense in their mind, they can't truly accept what they are doing.
As you said, if they have empathy, it will become unbearable to do the action while knowing what they are doing.
So for people with strong conscience, it will be unconscious manipulation.
But they still may not recognize or refuse to recognize what they are doing, justifying it in their heads with "I am only joking, if they are getting angry they are thin-skinned", by finding people that fall for manipulation worth getting manipulation, having rough life and not caring about others. Through history people with empathy found a justifications for killing others, they will be even more likely to find them for manipulation.
On the other hand people with no conscience may see what they are doing and keep on doing it anyway.
That's why, when I wrote my off topic about how manipulators think, I was referring to people without empathy and conscience. They to me are the only "manipulative personalities" in the true sense.
But this I don't see as true, because lack of empathy doesn't mean you will manipulate. One may be a very straight person, even seeing gaslighting on his own family as unnecessary and below them. If most people don't manipulate, it has to be useful in some way ( and is for making long and stable relationships ), and if it is, there is no reason for people that lack conscience to not go for looking good and have a rule to never manipulate their spouse or kids.
I am not a psychologist neither I am a person "without empathy and conscience" so take what I say with grain of salt.
The dichotomy overlaps with the distinction between "good" and "evil". According to author Martha Stout, "evil" is just the absence of empathy and conscience, and masking it beneath a veneer of "fake pro-sociality". I agree wholeheartedly.
In the end it's not possible to say that those who manipulate are "lacking empathy and conscience" and those that don't have it. A empathetical person may manipulate for various reasons while admitedly not truly understanding ( or undestanding but having some justification for it ). On the other hand while not finding it wrong, person lacking above attributes may have never manipulated.
So even with taking definition of "good" and "evil" that society will mostly agree with, absence of empathy doesn't make you "evil" and having it doesn't make you "good".

Quote from Bel on August 5, 2023, 3:12 pm
Normal people who may behave manipulatively are likely to tone down their manipulations, and also to feel guilt when they power move on unaware people.

I can't agree with that, they are still assholes in the world who have empathy, and they still for whatever reason will makes jokes on you, disempower you and in some cases, also manipulate you.
I had few people in my lives who manipulated others, while one of them could potentially lack empathy ( I went with them to school for few years, didn't see like a guy who cared much about others feelings ), the other one was my family and I actually saw them become a manipulator over time, and I know for sure they have empathy from their reactions and their experiences. Yet they started to try to gaslight and disempower constantly.

And another example also from my life when someone uses manipulation often to win arguments and to make himself look good ( while making others look bad ).

people with empathy and conscience, who are likely to feel guilt after behaving manipulatively (and thus are likely both to work on removing their manipulative behavior after adopting it and feeling guilt, and to not be highly manipulative in the first place);

I still agree though that their actions while making sense in their mind, they can't truly accept what they are doing.
As you said, if they have empathy, it will become unbearable to do the action while knowing what they are doing.

So for people with strong conscience, it will be unconscious manipulation.

But they still may not recognize or refuse to recognize what they are doing, justifying it in their heads with "I am only joking, if they are getting angry they are thin-skinned", by finding people that fall for manipulation worth getting manipulation, having rough life and not caring about others. Through history people with empathy found a justifications for killing others, they will be even more likely to find them for manipulation.

On the other hand people with no conscience may see what they are doing and keep on doing it anyway.

That's why, when I wrote my off topic about how manipulators think, I was referring to people without empathy and conscience. They to me are the only "manipulative personalities" in the true sense.

But this I don't see as true, because lack of empathy doesn't mean you will manipulate. One may be a very straight person, even seeing gaslighting on his own family as unnecessary and below them. If most people don't manipulate, it has to be useful in some way ( and is for making long and stable relationships ), and if it is, there is no reason for people that lack conscience to not go for looking good and have a rule to never manipulate their spouse or kids.

I am not a psychologist neither I am a person "without empathy and conscience" so take what I say with grain of salt.

The dichotomy overlaps with the distinction between "good" and "evil". According to author Martha Stout, "evil" is just the absence of empathy and conscience, and masking it beneath a veneer of "fake pro-sociality". I agree wholeheartedly.

In the end it's not possible to say that those who manipulate are "lacking empathy and conscience" and those that don't have it. A empathetical person may manipulate for various reasons while admitedly not truly understanding ( or undestanding but having some justification for it ). On the other hand while not finding it wrong, person lacking above attributes may have never manipulated.

So even with taking definition of "good" and "evil" that society will mostly agree with, absence of empathy doesn't make you "evil" and having it doesn't make you "good".

Lucio Buffalmano and Roberto have reacted to this post.

#6 · August 6, 2023, 11:11 am

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 6, 2023, 11:11 am
Quote from DGX37 on August 6, 2023, 7:10 am
In the end it's not possible to say that those who manipulate are "lacking empathy and conscience" and those that don't have it. A empathetical person may manipulate for various reasons while admitedly not truly understanding ( or undestanding but having some justification for it ). On the other hand while not finding it wrong, person lacking above attributes may have never manipulated.
So even with taking definition of "good" and "evil" that society will mostly agree with, absence of empathy doesn't make you "evil" and having it doesn't make you "good".
It's not indeed, but I don't think anyone said that.
Bel said, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, that those who lack a conscience manipulate more, more frequently, differently (more extreme, often).
And it's not a speculative assumption, it seems to be a well-proven point.
Quote from DGX37 on August 6, 2023, 7:10 am
So even with taking definition of "good" and "evil" that society will mostly agree with, absence of empathy doesn't make you "evil" and having it doesn't make you "good".
True, and yet again, I don't think anyone said that a conscience necessarily makes anyone good.
Also, this relativism is also true, but only at an individual level.
If you look at trends, averages, grops, and just simple odds of what individuals are likely to be, things changes.
It's very simple to show that:
Take 1.000 people without a conscience.
Take 1.000 people with a conscience.
Then measure the differences for pretty much any indicator of "evil" you wish, either:
Harm to others
Stealing
Taking (far) more than giviging (or at least, trying so)
Manipulating
Levels of that manipulation
Incarceration levels for criminal / antisocial activities
Again, this seems to be well-proven (especially the last one that's been proven over and over).
COMPARISON: SEXUAL DIFFERENCES
This is the exact same as asying:
"men are stronger than women" and one replies "Y chromosome doesn't make you strong, and 2 X chromosome doesn't make you weak".
It's most certainly true.
You can't say that an individual man is stronger than a woman (and I can't even stand all those fragile red pill egos who need to always remind left and rigth that men are stronger than women, as if it was so important, or as if it made any difference to them as individuals).
But still...
Take 1.000 men and 1.000 women, and chances are very, very high that the group of men will be, on average, stronger (and by an important margin).

Quote from DGX37 on August 6, 2023, 7:10 am
In the end it's not possible to say that those who manipulate are "lacking empathy and conscience" and those that don't have it. A empathetical person may manipulate for various reasons while admitedly not truly understanding ( or undestanding but having some justification for it ). On the other hand while not finding it wrong, person lacking above attributes may have never manipulated.
So even with taking definition of "good" and "evil" that society will mostly agree with, absence of empathy doesn't make you "evil" and having it doesn't make you "good".

It's not indeed, but I don't think anyone said that.

Bel said, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, that those who lack a conscience manipulate more, more frequently, differently (more extreme, often).

And it's not a speculative assumption, it seems to be a well-proven point.

Quote from DGX37 on August 6, 2023, 7:10 am
So even with taking definition of "good" and "evil" that society will mostly agree with, absence of empathy doesn't make you "evil" and having it doesn't make you "good".

True, and yet again, I don't think anyone said that a conscience necessarily makes anyone good.

Also, this relativism is also true, but only at an individual level.

If you look at trends, averages, grops, and just simple odds of what individuals are likely to be, things changes.

It's very simple to show that:

Take 1.000 people without a conscience.
Take 1.000 people with a conscience.

Then measure the differences for pretty much any indicator of "evil" you wish, either:

Harm to others
Stealing
Taking (far) more than giviging (or at least, trying so)
Manipulating
- Levels of that manipulation
Incarceration levels for criminal / antisocial activities

Again, this seems to be well-proven (especially the last one that's been proven over and over).

COMPARISON: SEXUAL DIFFERENCES

This is the exact same as asying:

"men are stronger than women" and one replies "Y chromosome doesn't make you strong, and 2 X chromosome doesn't make you weak".

It's most certainly true.
You can't say that an individual man is stronger than a woman (and I can't even stand all those fragile red pill egos who need to always remind left and rigth that men are stronger than women, as if it was so important, or as if it made any difference to them as individuals).

But still...

Take 1.000 men and 1.000 women, and chances are very, very high that the group of men will be, on average, stronger (and by an important margin).

B, Roberto and 2 other users have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#7 · August 7, 2023, 3:59 am

Quote from B on August 7, 2023, 3:59 am
Quote from DGX37 on August 6, 2023, 7:10 am
Quote from Bel on August 5, 2023, 3:12 pm
Normal people who may behave manipulatively are likely to tone down their manipulations, and also to feel guilt when they power move on unaware people.
I can't agree with that, they are still assholes in the world who have empathy, and they still for whatever reason will makes jokes on you, disempower you and in some cases, also manipulate you.
I had few people in my lives who manipulated others, while one of them could potentially lack empathy ( I went with them to school for few years, didn't see like a guy who cared much about others feelings ), the other one was my family and I actually saw them become a manipulator over time, and I know for sure they have empathy from their reactions and their experiences. Yet they started to try to gaslight and disempower constantly.
And another example also from my life when someone uses manipulation often to win arguments and to make himself look good ( while making others look bad ).
Yes, I agree that having empathy does not mean one won’t manipulate.
But, on average, I believe the empathetic person will be less manipulative than the person void of empathy and conscience.
people with empathy and conscience, who are likely to feel guilt after behaving manipulatively (and thus are likely both to work on removing their manipulative behavior after adopting it and feeling guilt, and to not be highly manipulative in the first place);
I still agree though that their actions while making sense in their mind, they can't truly accept what they are doing.
As you said, if they have empathy, it will become unbearable to do the action while knowing what they are doing.
So for people with strong conscience, it will be unconscious manipulation.
But they still may not recognize or refuse to recognize what they are doing, justifying it in their heads with "I am only joking, if they are getting angry they are thin-skinned", by finding people that fall for manipulation worth getting manipulation, having rough life and not caring about others. Through history people with empathy found a justifications for killing others, they will be even more likely to find them for manipulation.
On the other hand people with no conscience may see what they are doing and keep on doing it anyway.
I agree.
But I would also add that the manipulation of which an empathetic person is capable is definitely lower-level than those of which a non-empathetic person is capable.
I believe that while the manipulation of which empathetic people are capable can certainly harm others even seriously, the manipulation of non-empathetic people has a distinct quality, most often aimed at changing most of the beliefs and thought patterns of the mark at a subconscious level.
They try to “break” people.
That's why, when I wrote my off topic about how manipulators think, I was referring to people without empathy and conscience. They to me are the only "manipulative personalities" in the true sense.
But this I don't see as true, because lack of empathy doesn't mean you will manipulate. One may be a very straight person, even seeing gaslighting on his own family as unnecessary and below them. If most people don't manipulate, it has to be useful in some way ( and is for making long and stable relationships ), and if it is, there is no reason for people that lack conscience to not go for looking good and have a rule to never manipulate their spouse or kids.
I am not a psychologist neither I am a person "without empathy and conscience" so take what I say with grain of salt.
Yes, I admit I can’t rule out that possibility, that they may have a “rule” limiting manipulation for certain people.
But, if they lack empathy and therefore by definition are incapable of seeing the personal and social bonds, what way do they have to “influence their world” if they don’t manipulate?
My point is: an empathetic person can ask his son politely, and accept a yes or no.
A non-empathetic person, who is himself likely to say “yes” when he really means “no”, won’t likely even think of “asking” his son.
He’ll just manipulate him.
And even if he asks, and his son says “yes dad”, will he remember it the next time his son says “no dad, this time I can’t?”.
Considering that it’s empathy that makes real gratitude possible, I doubt it.
And when the stakes are higher (for example in a conflict, or for some “important thing), the manipulative approach will be even more likely.
When push comes to shove, an empathetic person will give an “unquestionable order” to his son, and explain why.
This is still a non-manipulative approach.
But when push comes to shove, a non-empathetic person won’t give an “order” to his son.
Heck, he himself flouted his father’s “orders” all the time!
What other way to be sure that his son does as he wants, if not manipulating him?
But let’s assume the non-empathetic person has a rule limiting manipulation for certain people: then the other people, by definition, won’t be exempt.
The dichotomy overlaps with the distinction between "good" and "evil". According to author Martha Stout, "evil" is just the absence of empathy and conscience, and masking it beneath a veneer of "fake pro-sociality". I agree wholeheartedly.
In the end it's not possible to say that those who manipulate are "lacking empathy and conscience" and those that don't have it. A empathetical person may manipulate for various reasons while admitedly not truly understanding ( or undestanding but having some justification for it ). On the other hand while not finding it wrong, person lacking above attributes may have never manipulated.
So even with taking definition of "good" and "evil" that society will mostly agree with, absence of empathy doesn't make you "evil" and having it doesn't make you "good".
I would say that lacking empathy doesn’t make people guilty under the law, because no one is guilty unless he or she commits a crime.
But as to “evil” and “good”, assuming one believes in these concepts, I would answer that while empathy for sure doesn’t assure one is good, its absence unfortunately makes it more likely that one will behave in ways that are commonly described as “evil”.

Quote from DGX37 on August 6, 2023, 7:10 am
Quote from Bel on August 5, 2023, 3:12 pm
Normal people who may behave manipulatively are likely to tone down their manipulations, and also to feel guilt when they power move on unaware people.
I can't agree with that, they are still assholes in the world who have empathy, and they still for whatever reason will makes jokes on you, disempower you and in some cases, also manipulate you.
I had few people in my lives who manipulated others, while one of them could potentially lack empathy ( I went with them to school for few years, didn't see like a guy who cared much about others feelings ), the other one was my family and I actually saw them become a manipulator over time, and I know for sure they have empathy from their reactions and their experiences. Yet they started to try to gaslight and disempower constantly.
And another example also from my life when someone uses manipulation often to win arguments and to make himself look good ( while making others look bad ).

Yes, I agree that having empathy does not mean one won’t manipulate.

But, on average, I believe the empathetic person will be less manipulative than the person void of empathy and conscience.

people with empathy and conscience, who are likely to feel guilt after behaving manipulatively (and thus are likely both to work on removing their manipulative behavior after adopting it and feeling guilt, and to not be highly manipulative in the first place);
I still agree though that their actions while making sense in their mind, they can't truly accept what they are doing.
As you said, if they have empathy, it will become unbearable to do the action while knowing what they are doing.
So for people with strong conscience, it will be unconscious manipulation.
But they still may not recognize or refuse to recognize what they are doing, justifying it in their heads with "I am only joking, if they are getting angry they are thin-skinned", by finding people that fall for manipulation worth getting manipulation, having rough life and not caring about others. Through history people with empathy found a justifications for killing others, they will be even more likely to find them for manipulation.
On the other hand people with no conscience may see what they are doing and keep on doing it anyway.

I agree.

But I would also add that the manipulation of which an empathetic person is capable is definitely lower-level than those of which a non-empathetic person is capable.

I believe that while the manipulation of which empathetic people are capable can certainly harm others even seriously, the manipulation of non-empathetic people has a distinct quality, most often aimed at changing most of the beliefs and thought patterns of the mark at a subconscious level.

They try to “break” people.

That's why, when I wrote my off topic about how manipulators think, I was referring to people without empathy and conscience. They to me are the only "manipulative personalities" in the true sense.
But this I don't see as true, because lack of empathy doesn't mean you will manipulate. One may be a very straight person, even seeing gaslighting on his own family as unnecessary and below them. If most people don't manipulate, it has to be useful in some way ( and is for making long and stable relationships ), and if it is, there is no reason for people that lack conscience to not go for looking good and have a rule to never manipulate their spouse or kids.
I am not a psychologist neither I am a person "without empathy and conscience" so take what I say with grain of salt.

Yes, I admit I can’t rule out that possibility, that they may have a “rule” limiting manipulation for certain people.

But, if they lack empathy and therefore by definition are incapable of seeing the personal and social bonds, what way do they have to “influence their world” if they don’t manipulate?

My point is: an empathetic person can ask his son politely, and accept a yes or no.

A non-empathetic person, who is himself likely to say “yes” when he really means “no”, won’t likely even think of “asking” his son.

He’ll just manipulate him.

And even if he asks, and his son says “yes dad”, will he remember it the next time his son says “no dad, this time I can’t?”.

Considering that it’s empathy that makes real gratitude possible, I doubt it.

And when the stakes are higher (for example in a conflict, or for some “important thing), the manipulative approach will be even more likely.

When push comes to shove, an empathetic person will give an “unquestionable order” to his son, and explain why.

This is still a non-manipulative approach.

But when push comes to shove, a non-empathetic person won’t give an “order” to his son.
Heck, he himself flouted his father’s “orders” all the time!

What other way to be sure that his son does as he wants, if not manipulating him?

But let’s assume the non-empathetic person has a rule limiting manipulation for certain people: then the other people, by definition, won’t be exempt.

The dichotomy overlaps with the distinction between "good" and "evil". According to author Martha Stout, "evil" is just the absence of empathy and conscience, and masking it beneath a veneer of "fake pro-sociality". I agree wholeheartedly.
In the end it's not possible to say that those who manipulate are "lacking empathy and conscience" and those that don't have it. A empathetical person may manipulate for various reasons while admitedly not truly understanding ( or undestanding but having some justification for it ). On the other hand while not finding it wrong, person lacking above attributes may have never manipulated.
So even with taking definition of "good" and "evil" that society will mostly agree with, absence of empathy doesn't make you "evil" and having it doesn't make you "good".

I would say that lacking empathy doesn’t make people guilty under the law, because no one is guilty unless he or she commits a crime.

But as to “evil” and “good”, assuming one believes in these concepts, I would answer that while empathy for sure doesn’t assure one is good, its absence unfortunately makes it more likely that one will behave in ways that are commonly described as “evil”.

Lucio Buffalmano, Roberto and Power Duck have reacted to this post.

#8 · August 7, 2023, 4:09 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 6, 2023, 11:11 am
It's not indeed, but I don't think anyone said that.

Not gonna argue about who said what, not productive.

message was about

Quote from Bel on August 5, 2023, 3:12 pm
According to author Martha Stout, "evil is just the absence of empathy and conscience, and masking it beneath a veneer of "fake pro-sociality".

Which says that evil is from lack of empathy implying therefore that empathy is what makes you good, if we agree that empathy doesn't make you good, then that's great, no problem here.

This is the exact same as saying:
"men are stronger than women"

Not really, would be the case if the quote was "emphathetic people are better than people that lack empathy", which I never said they aren't.

This quote in your analogy is more like " weakness is just absence of being a man ", which I don't think anyone would agree with.

In the end we agree that not having empathy makes you more likely to manipulate but it also doesn't make you manipulate for sure.
I saw few parts that looked like black and white thinking, the quote being one of them.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.

#9 · August 7, 2023, 4:37 pm

Quote from Bel on August 7, 2023, 3:59 am
Yes, I admit I can’t rule out that possibility, that they may have a “rule” limiting manipulation for certain people.
But, if they lack empathy and therefore by definition are incapable of seeing the personal and social bonds, what way do they have to “influence their world” if they don’t manipulate?

Why only certain people? Why not everyone?

They probably see the bonds, they just don't feel anything about them, what does it have to do with lacking other options of influencing the world?

But when push comes to shove, a non-empathetic person won’t give an “order” to his son.
Heck, he himself flouted his father’s “orders” all the time!

Why wouldn't they be able to give an order to their son? It's not like lack of empathy = lack of honesty.
And why would he flout his father's orders all the time? It's not like antisocial people are against orders, they don't respect them if the rules are not useful in achieving their goals ( aren't most children like that though? ), would still have to listen to his parents orders if not listening will be detrimental to him ( well, that depends on what kind of person he is, there is great variety in people, antisocial people too. )

What other way to be sure that his son does as he wants, if not manipulating him?

Give him an order, why not?

But let’s assume the non-empathetic person has a rule limiting manipulation for certain people: then the other people, by definition, won’t be exempt.

If he sees that manipulation makes it harder to achieve his goals ( and with high quality people, it will make it hard), and there's a better way ( maybe even win-win ), then why would he manipulate anyone.

I agree with pretty much everything else you said.

#10 · August 7, 2023, 8:01 pm

Great post, thank you Bel.

I agree: some people (manipulative or not) are capable of shame, guilt and introspection. Some other people cannot. And for "normal" people it's quite difficult to imagine how these people think.

I agree 100% that it's important to detect who's who. In my experience the best test is in time of conflict. It's when people cannot get their way or cannot get what they want that you see how they react: empathize, apologize, reflect, become aggressive, start to guilt, shame the other person or any other reaction. That gives us a lot of insight in their character.

There is a saying: "you don't know people until you fought them" or something like that. I find it to be quite true.

Lucio Buffalmano, Roberto and Power Duck have reacted to this post.