[oneiftwo]

I absolutely agree with this sentiment. It's why I had difficulty reading "how to win friends and influence people" despite how frequently and casually lauded it is.

It's literally an instruction manual for using indirect methods of communication and influence to get people to do what you want. It's practically adtech for the self.

Ignoring the dangers of having charismatic power over people, I don't know under what circumstances it is ethical to manipulate someone, and I certainly wouldn't brag openly about it.

[skybrian]

It seems like the same action can be taken differently depending on intent. For example, one of the things Dale Carnegie emphasized is the importance of remembering people's names.

If you try to remember people's names is that manipulative? If so, why do we apologize for forgetting people's names? If we write down the names of people we meet, is that manipulative or is it just being organized?

If you do it badly, yeah that's weird.

[bladegash]

Very good points! Intent can be tricky, since good intentions quite often go badly. Defining "badly" even becomes problematic as well (badly for who - me? them? the collective?). I think one of the problems with manipulation, is the intent is inherently selfish (to achieve your own goals/agenda), with the target's well being/free agency being a secondary consideration. However, it is definitely challenging to find the line between persuasion, cultural norms/good manners (e.g., remembering someone's name, making eye contact, etc.), and manipulation.

[gowld]

I don't see why people are intuitively manipulative deserve it more than people who study. Manipulation is a tool. How it is used it was matter.

[runawaybottle]

So let’s discuss how manipulation was used:

> Declare that there are too many admins and that there needs to be a stricter policy to define who can be an admin.

> Take it on yourself to define (or redefine) that policy and present it to the system owner in your organization. Make sure you fit the new definition and make sure that staple admins are also included.

> No one remembers why you’re admin, but you’re setting the rules now so no one can dispute it. Victory!

What are we even discussing here? This is such a indicator of bad character.

[mehrdadn]

I think some of it was tongue-in-cheek...

[pdonis]

It might be, but it might not. The author has left it ambiguous.

[mehrdadn]

> No one remembers why you’re admin, but you’re setting the rules now so no one can dispute it. Victory!

I really don't think this is ambiguous. It's very clearly meant to be funny rather than serious.

[pdonis]

> I really don't think this is ambiguous. It's very clearly meant to be funny rather than serious.

Taking individual sentences in isolation is one thing.

Taking them in the context of the entire post is another. In the context of the entire post, I see plenty of ambiguity in this sentence.

[SirSavary]

Although I'm sure the author had no malicious intent, I'm reminded of certain subcultures disguising not-so-great behavior behind comedy so they can claim it isn't serious when criticized.

Edit: and I've just now remembered what a great laugh I had reading some of the language in "The Anarchist Cookbook" even though all those non-traditional fire recipes were certainly meant to be used for some kind of malicious act :)

[runawaybottle]

Ah ok, well now I feel like a dumbass.

But hey you never know, some sociopaths will totally write something like this.