Jim,
Thanks for the reality check. I agree that "in a neutral world"...
"manipulation" would enable us to discriminate more fairly between snakes
and fuzzy rabbits. I was responding to the conceptual context of the term,
not the real one most people use in daily life. I dislike seeing myself as
a "manipulator" because of the way I've been enculturated regarding the
term and role, and because of past experiences where I've been taken
advantage of, but-----there's something enlightening about my admitting to
myself (if not to others) that most of what I do has an intention of
eliciting something from others.
I also grant that "altruistic" behavior wouldn't be considered
"manipulative" in the sense that such behavior (by definition) is
expressed without expectation of reciprocity. Good point.
I liked your suggestion to replace "drive" with "serve" regarding the
unconscious, but after 25 years as a therapist using hypnosis and
unconscious-related techniques, I know that a big piece of behavior IS
directed unconsciously. I think my reflection on your suggestion, however,
leads me to admit that perhaps we aren't talking as much of drivers in
either case, but something of a mutually interactive process.
Thanks for the comments,
Dave
On Tue, 4 Apr 1995 21:30:07 +0059 (EDT, Jim Michmerhuizen wrote:
>On Sun, 2 Apr 1995, david swenson wrote in LO646:
>
>> Replying to LO628 --
>>
>> The "M" word--interesting idea... however, I guess I don't have the same
>> aversion to it. Seems to me that most everything we do is "manipulation"
>> in the sense that we are trying to influence someone to do something--
>[...continuation snipped...]
>
[...more snipped by your host...]
>Is it possible that even in that "neutral" sense, that manipulation isn't
>the whole of our possible interactions? If that turned out to be the
>case, then the answer to your question
[...more snipped by your host...]
David X. Swenson Ph.D. (dswenson@css1.css.edu)
Associate Professor of Management
College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN 55811
(218)723-6476