are relationships based on manipulation?

some

>>17506577
how do you differentiate relationships that are based on manipulation and those that are not?

They shouldn't be. The ones that are, are the toxic ones.

Having said that, there is much middle ground, subtelity and graduality. For example, wanting your partner to change for better and making him/her do that would be considered by some as manipulation but I think everyone thinking straight would say that it is possitive.

Yes, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Also read Good Old Neon

>>17506717
Not the one you are asking but if you let me try to answer that. I would say there is a lot that could differantiate the two but good indications would be if there is lying, lack of sinserity, omiting information, suriveilance, isolating from friends/family/hobbies, trying to change partner in not a constructive way.

It's hard to spot a manipulative fucks, because they are usually deceitful ones also. They get pretty well in hiding abuse that they do in time.

>>17506726
>don't let anyone tell you otherwise
Found the manipulative fuck or the "perfect victim"!

>>17506717
Do you manipulate at the expense of your partner?

File: 74524351234.png (253KB, 496x496px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 496x496px

>>17506737
Nah, I've never really been in a serious relationship with anyone, I'm not joking, but I'm also not referring to manipulation in the primarily negative sense. As human beings it is impossible to not be manipulative, the ego is something that causes us all to be, if only, paradoxically selfish. I'm serious about reading Good Old Neon (It's only a short story), you'll understand what I'm getting at if you give it a shot

>>17506744
>tfw no gf

>>17506563
all the successful ones are

>>17506563

it depends on how solid your "frame" is whether you get manipulated or not. Because in a relationship, it's a battle of frames. You're going to do it her way or your way, don't do anything you don't want and always be willing to walk. How much you take is up to you, but always be willing to walk. Always protect your sanity.

>>17506753
First of all if you never ever been in a serious relationship, then how dare you be so sure and firm in your statement:
>don't let anyone tell you otherwise
? It's a dick move to tell people that may well be unwilings, uneducated victims of psychopath to just accept their abuse.

Secondly, you should also know that in social manipulation is always negative by psychological definition and if you've been in many relationships you may stumble into one that would let you know why. The manipulation is NEVER positive, human things. And some fiction short story (that I will read) is not a valid source of life knowledge, show actual human emotions and interactions, you need to realize that author of said short story would not even know HIMSELF fully (as I would say no human being does). So one short story won't make me throw away all those non-fiction psychiatric books that I read.

>>17506757
It was a rhetorical question.

>>17506563
Well women manipulate men by default with their looks they evolve to be cute to seem less of a threat and you are more likely to take care of them.

All communication is basically manipulation.

File: 1446161243282.png (317KB, 451x420px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 451x420px

>>17506787
It's philosophy kiddo. Manipulation is always an attempt, you are attempting to manipulate people right now with whatever the fuck you just wrote. Anything that involves rhetoric or language is a form of manipulation. I'm not referring to your pseudo-scientific definition, also let me know when neuroscience has a definition for manipulation
>inb4 psych is "deeply" rooted in neuroscience

>>17506795
>you are more likely to take care of them
Or rape them. It may go either way, depending on culture, morals and local rule of law.

>>17506802
No, they are not. Read about definition of manipulation. Manipulation always includes some form of abuse, deception or other unfair means to achieve goals of manipulator in the expense of victim.

>>17506563

The toxic kinds of relationship Yes.

Healthy ones are based on trust, friendship, common goals and communication.

Every love situation starts with friendship.

At least that's

>>17506814
fuck off with your pseudo-science

>>17506806
>I'm not referring to your pseudo-scientific definition
My god, you are retarded. You are the one that has some "fairy tale, personal fucking, kiddie defintion of manipulation". While it is for almost hundred years very well established what a psychological manipulation is and only someone not educated in subject will try to "reinvenet the well" for a thousand time because he is too retarded to read a fucking book.

That's why I hate you philosphies children murking a well established definition. You never worked with a abuse victims. You are enabling abusers by making the manipulation seem acceptable.

Your childhish view of reality is NOT a philosophy, kiddo.

>>17506823
>pseudo-science
Fuck off, with your NON-science. Just because modern psychology often take a bad turns doesn't mean we should just say. HURRR DURRR everyone just call everything in psychology whatever they like.

>>17506814
Does it always though?

Speaking as a marketer, you are always being manipulated. The only way to not be manipulated is to avoid all contact with other living beings.

To imply only bad people manipulate is ironically very manipulative.

I'll let the philosophy guy debate with you though, you little dummy you.

File: 623462435243.jpg (21KB, 305x399px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 305x399px

>>17506831
>>17506839
>reality
I'm sorry man, I trust that you are well educated in this subject, probably a lot more than I. I'll do some more research on psychology shit from now on, do you have any recommended readings/starts for cognitive sciences? I plan to read some Milton Erickson, Daniel Kahneman, and Malcom Gladwell

>>17506847
Manipulation involves deception, abuse, lack of honesty, omiting information and so on. Normal social interactions are not manipulations, they are that, they are persuasion, influence and so on. A two consenting adults making educated deal about (let's say for example) selling/buying car would not be manipulation. But if one of the dealers (seller for example) lie about condition of car, ommits that car is broken and present him as a fully working vehicle, it would be manipulation. Basically when in psychology we talk about manipulation we are ALMOST (there are some special cases) always talking about negative because manipulation is negative by definition. So when one of your closed ones, your sister, friend comes from psychiatrist and tell you, that his/her spouse is manipulating them according to psychiatrist, you should not try to whitewash it ("manipulation is natural, friend, hurr durr") you should become really worried.

>>17506851
Wow! I am actually in much awe for you man now. Am not used to seeing that kind of maturity on internet (or anywhere else) in the matter. I think I will be of little help for you though, because I am not from english sphere and most of books I read are students textbooks that are conglomerate of ideas mostly.

If I could give my view of psychology, to be cautios, because many psychologists and scientist have very differing opinion on everything. I tend to stick to medical definitions and try to build my own way of thinking (which ironically in a many years if I start to publish will make just one more different view).

File: 634452345.png (462KB, 651x475px) Image search: [Google]

462KB, 651x475px

>>17506903
>Wow! I am actually in much awe for you man now. Am not used to seeing that kind of maturity on internet (or anywhere else) in the matter.

I'm really sorry, but please take a step back and realize that in showing you a form of manipulation (my last post demonstrated a pivot that was seemingly sincere), I have just laid the concrete of my point, and in doing so, won the so called "argument" we were having over manipulation, just let it dry.

That doesn't mean I don't feel bad because you are not a native English speaker.

Please do consider reading Good Old Neon, it will teach you a lot, I'm not being condescending I just want you to understand this perspective.

>>17506786
simple but kinda true.

>>17506933
>wining internet argument
Wow, man, can I be your friend now?

And what ever you thought you proved? You proved only that manipulation exist! WHAT a revelation! OMG. Ofcourse it exists, you dense twat. We are just arguing it's definition, because you know we need definition in language to know what we are even talking about. Because when I say car and you say cat on the same object what would it be? What would third person know about it? That's why we have definition, and we HAVE definition of manipulation. It's funny that only because the thing we are discusing is just one step harder to name from an actual material object you are already lost in the definition. On your place I would research topic of "mental retardation".
Also funny that you post images of someone who couldn't actually deal with reality and commited suicide. I would think that view of reality and life of someone who had to commit suicide is a "bit" warped.

>>17506786
Manipulation is when someone is lying to you, abusing you, use your insecurities to "push their frame". Manipulation is always wrong and negative.

File: 1459712008268.jpg (30KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x333px

>>17506966
You need to learn more about other perspectives anon, I know it's probably hard for someone who is still learning English, but it will really help form you as an individual. I don't give a shit about "winning" anything, I was just hoping that you could understand that manipulation is something inherent to all forms of communication positive and negative. I'm really sorry that it has taken this long for you to become aware of this possibility but you have to start sometime.

>Also funny that you post images of someone who couldn't actually deal with reality and commited suicide.

Please take that back, as it is very inconsiderate. You don't understand anything about humans if you think that way with regards to Wallace. And this makes me feel bad for you because you seem very stubborn in trying to learn about them in a way that is formally subjective (the only true way that we can learn).

Again, I can't say it enough, so please be a little bit more open to other perspectives, you only have things to gain from it, you may not agree but you have to understand that it is a valid way of thinking.


This thread has derailed on my part so I'd like to hear the OP's thoughts on it all

>>17506999
Someone got ofended. Oh, you will cry now?

You said:
>I have just laid the concrete of my point, and in doing so, won the so called "argument"
You retard, you brought the topic of "winning". And now you try to back off. What a faggot.


Just because something is inherent doesn't mean it's positive or acceptable. It's like saying that murders are positive in society because in every society there are murders, so murders are inherent to society.

Manipulation should never be acceptable. Just because many people abuse, lie, try to force they way doesn't mean it's good, acceptable or that we should allow it.


And what do you know about suicide? Shit. Let me tell you. If someone is not suicidal because of immeanse, superficially "irrational" pain like neuralgia then suicidal tendencies steam from abuse, unresolved issues that people are runing from.

Wallace took a mix of anti-depressants for more than a 20 years. He took them since he was 26. He couldn't deal with reality, his problems and he just run from them. Listening to someone like that is like following person that is runing straight down the cliff with their eyes closed. Maybe you have something to add on the matter?

File: 23462433453.png (161KB, 469x282px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 469x282px

>>17507044
You might not understand, but yes, the type of person you are can make the type of person I am actually cry.

I said:
>so called "argument"
In English, this heavily implies that I don't think the word "argument" or the act of winning has any meaning.

I'm really sorry that you are so stubborn. And it pains me to read what you write about Wallace wondering if you have ever read a single word written by him. And your views on suicide are very ignorant.

I don't have anything to add, as it won't be productive with someone so obstinate.

>>17507080
>In English, this heavily implies that I don't think the word "argument" or the act of winning has any meaning.
Ahahaha. You are funny, weak person. You put "argument" is a brackets not the word "winning". Ahaha. It's obvious that you meant that this whole conversation is not an "argument" for you, it did not change the fact that you thought that winning in it was important, even as a way to explain your point. Still while you used "winning" as a way to make your argument clearer, it was obvious that you actually belive in a win/loss scenario, because if you did not it would not dawn on you to use it in first place.

It's funny how you try to slither your way out of it. Yea, you didn't had anything constructive to add to this thread from the start. From the first post that was only childhish babble and you kid-like inmature ideas ("philosphy" lol!).

I'm disapointed yet, because for a second there I thought you actually had some intelligence in there. Go on, continue listening to advice and view of life that get's you killed, when you acutally will do it nothing of value will be lost.

>>17506786
THIS!7