Talk:Psychological manipulation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Marketing & Advertising (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Needs improved references[edit]

The two books used primarily for references are pop psychology books. They are not research-based. Nor do they reflect the opinion of academic and scientific psychology. The article does not fulfill WP:V and WP:RS. Also, the See also section is too long and is misleading as it contains many unrelated or only peripherally related links. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Both main refs are books by qualified and respected practicing psychologists. Braiker in particular identifies in some detail the underlying solid psychological theory which is reinforcement and the work of B. F. Skinner. The problem I have is that the reinforcement article is too technical for a non-academic, although i have made an effort to improve it. But this angle needs to be developed further. Also Psychological manipulation is firmly a type of social influence. I rather resent your homing in on this article when around 30% of Wikipedia psychology articles dont have a single citation of any sort and quite a few more are seriously lacking citations. Also if you start stripping away "pop psychology" citations from Wikipedia psychology articles, even fewer will have citations. I have included some academic references in the Further reading list and in fact both the Simon and Braiker books have some academic citations which i didnt include as i thought it would break the flow up but as you are making such a fuss about it i might as well put them back in. Braiker refers to Burstens work and i list "Bursten, Ben Manipulator: A Psychoanalytic View (1973)" and some academic articles. More are to be found in Google scholar. The work of psychologist David Buss is also cited by Braiker. If some body wants to get hold of the Bursten book etc and develop this article then they are welcome. It is poor me who has done all the work here and i dont see why i should have to do it all. The reinforcement article is clearly too academic and this article (which is closely related) is criticised for being too pop - you just cant win. Wikipedia is seriously short of academic psychology editors. --Penbat (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, reliable sources are important. This article appears to be using primary sources sources, as it seems that the authors of these books collected the information themselves, and the editors of this article have combined the info in the books. This can be seen as original research and synthesis. The goal is no original research using preferably secondary sources. Also, psychology is an empirically-based field, and psychology articles should seek to follow a guide such as WP:MEDRS. There must be scholarly sources on this subject. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Ref "the authors of these books collected the information themselves", isnt that what all authors do ?
I think you were partly misled by the title of one of these books "Whos Pulling Your Strings ? How to Break The Cycle of Manipulation" - only a relatively small part of the book is self-help and advice. I have avoided the self-help and advice aspects of the books and concentrated on the meatier theoretical parts.
The books such as Braiker do a great job at introducing important but complex psychological concepts to a non-academic audience. They are very much rooted in proper established psychology. The core theory behind manipulation is reinforcement - reinforcement explains why manipulation works. The type of reinforcement also provides a useful classification system for individual manipulation techniques (positive, negative, partial and intermittant as per B. F. Skinners work). Other important theoretical aspects are also covered such as locus of control, personality disorders, defense mechanisms, cognitive distortion.
If you were arguing that the theoretical underpinnings of the article were incorrect and could point me to a source that supported that view, then I would have been sympathetic to your view. As previously mentioned, "Bursten, Ben Manipulator: A Psychoanalytic View (1973)" sounds like the best source I know of (and also referenced by the Simon book) but I havent managed to get hold of a copy but I can see no evidence that it would undermine the theoretical basis of the article anyway. I may manage to get hold of a copy one day.
Reinforcement and locus of control presumably conform to WP:MEDRS but they are written at the level of an academic reader. While a non-academic reader should be able to understand psychological manipulation, I think the eyes of most non-academic readers will glaze over if they follow the links from psychological manipulation to reinforcement and locus of control. The Braiker book actually contains a very useful laymans explanation for reinforcement and it would probably be a good idea to use it to provide a non-academic introduction at the start of reinforcement. --Penbat (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, There was information where the citation was needed, so I input the citation for you. More reliable references are needed in the development of expanding the scope of this article. Possibly including sections on how psychological manipulation is used in society from a normal standpoint. Psychological manipulation when pertaining to advertising, politics,etc. Lastly, under Antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders header there is a reference to the DSM-IV-TR, consider updating that information with the DSM-5.Melissa Edwards (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Psychopaths lie[edit]

It is absolutely not true. To lie you need to think very clearly that is the condition for a person to be judged not psycopath. It is logic that: to lie for manipulation you have to think clearly and very cleverly. So if someone lies to manipulate is not psycopath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.55.155.214 (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

What you've said is not the case. Psychopaths are typically habitual liars, who only tell the truth when it suits them. They very often use psychological manipulation to make people do what the psychopath wants. Frequent psychological manipulation is usual with Cluster B people. Psychological manipulation is used by most people sometimes, but psychological manipulation for selfish reasons is habitual in psychopaths/antisocials. Manipulation does not require intelligence, and is not always planned. Threats, violence and lies do not need intelligence. Psychopaths can be of any level of intelligence and education, and vary from chaotic, uneducated, impulsive, reckless, heroin-addicted homeless idiots right up to the high-functioning, cunning, intelligent, well-educated planners. Harold Shipman was an example of the latter. He had a successful career whilst concealing his true self from the world until he was in his fifties. He killed hundreds of his patients during a period of many years until it was discovered that he was a serial killer. Jim Michael (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Psychopaths are frivolous liars... They lie without even rethinking so they give people a perspective of what they want them to see and they are very convincing at it too and lie with so much confidence to show that what they intend on passing across is well sounded...they're not always serial killers but they're very deadly Temple007 (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Psychopathic personality is a popular term, not used in clinical psychology[edit]

This article is a jumble of pop psych taken from a few popular books. The clinical term is Antisocial personality disorder. Star767 03:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes psychopathy is not in the DSM but it is a robust concept widely studied by academics for many years. Antisocial personality disorder is a relatively recent attempt by the DSM to cover the ground of psychopathy but it isnt the same. You cant possibly dismiss psychopathy gurus such as Robert D. Hare as peddling pop psychology. Apart from academic research, the concept of psychopathy is enshrined in various state criminal and legal contexts.--Penbat (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your sentiments. Psycho'analytic' teachings (often found in "pop psychology") are way past their prime. They belong to the past, just like humorism and phrenology do.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk
14:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Article should be removed. This is all completely wrong. Psychological manipulation is not inherently evil as this article is written. This article is describing characteristics of Antisocial personality disorder under the guise of a new name to sell some books. Dtgm (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
This discussion was started by a discredited and permanently banned sock puppet Star767. Frankly, his contributions are poisonous. It is a nonsense for many reasons to delete this. It is carefully explained in the intro that social influence is not necessarily negative - psychological manipulation just happens to be underhand social influence.--Penbat (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Dang, I miswrote my comment under the wrong subheader. I actually disagree with this subheader "Psychopathic personality is a popular term, not used in clinical psychology". In fact, "Psychopathic manipulation" DOES have a basis in scientific psychology and the article should be renamed to that and not "Psychological manipulation" which is the basis of another issue on this talk page.
> psychological manipulation just happens to be underhand social influence
No it is not. "Psychological manipulation" in scientific psychology research journals is used in entirely different manner than described in this article. It is used neither positively nor negatively, but a general concept where manipulation occurs of psychological origin. The cited books are proposing a new definition based on various concepts to a general audience. All the journal articles cited in this article do not mention "psychological manipulation" and instead use the term "psychopathic manipulation" wherein it is describing symptoms of antisocial personality disorder.
Regardless whether they are a sock puppet or not, they are correct about this being a "jumble of pop psych". I am unfamiliar of your personal vendetta with them, but you are overly defensive of this article for reasons unbeknownst to me. Do you have an affiliation with the authors of that pop psych book? If not, there really is no reason why this article should not be heavily edited to clarify the gross inaccuracies of this article. If you think this concept should be as specified and used in psychology that is fine, but Wikipedia is not the conduit for introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtgm (talkcontribs) 15:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of this article[edit]

This article most certainly is psychology and is underpinned in depth by the work of B. F. Skinner on reinforcement. At least one of the refs in this article (Braiker) acknowledges this underpinning.--Penbat (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Penbat[edit]

But Skinner was strictly a follower of Behaviorism and Psychological behaviorism.

From Psychology:

Psychology is an academic and applied discipline that involves the scientific study of mental functions and behaviors.

This article should follow WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS if it's on psychology.

The opening sentence of this article is inaccurate:

Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the perception or behavior of others often through underhanded, deceptive, or even abusive tactics.

The book you reference is a pop psychology book published in 2004 and is called Who's Pulling Your Strings? How to Break The Cycle of Manipulation, not "psychological manipulation". In fact, none of the references appear to use "psychological manipulation" in their titles. Some use "Psychopathic manipulation", not the same thing.

In fact, this article confuses "psychopathic manipulation" and "psychological manipulation". It quickly diverges into what a psychopath is. A psychopath is a term used for manipulative people, who have traditionally been characterized as having certain traits, per Robert Hare etc. But these are not the "difficult people" we find in everyday life, and their behavior is not synonymous with "psychological manipulation".

George K. Simon, although he may have a PhD in clinical psychology, has no academic credentials per WP:MEDRS which psychology is supposed to follow. Rather, he is "a bestselling author and frequent weblog contributor". Who is Harriet Braiker, and what are her credentials?

Martin Kantor's book is called The Psychopathy of Everyday Life: How Antisocial Personality Disorder Affects All of Us. Now Antisocial personality disorder is a valid clinical diagnosis per DSM, the diagnostic manual. It's not the same as ordinary manipulative persons. A teacher or a parent uses "psychological manipulation" to teach and discipline kids. A man uses "psychological manipulation" when he gives flowers to a woman; a woman uses "psychological manipulation" when she listens to a man talk, etc. etc. When we do things to please others we are using "psychologically manipulation".

Star767 21:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I take issue with your points but it would take a lengthy detailed reply. For now I will just say that it is unacceptable to amend sourced text to your unsourced views. It is already explained in the lead that "Social influence is generally perceived to be harmless when it respects the right of the influenced to accept or reject and is not unduly coercive." Incidentally here is Braikers CV: http://www.harrietbraiker.com/CV.htm --Penbat (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I just did a search for the term "psychological manipulation" in the book you reference, and those words never appear together in her book. A few times in the same sentence, but never together, and more commonly in nearby sentences. Also her CV would probably fail WP:PROF, so she probably hasn't established an academic reputation as an expert in the field of "psychological manipulation". Star767 22:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
p.s. According to The New York Times, "she was a clinical psychologist and self-help author whose books touched on identity, resolving stress and the grief occasioned by the World Trade Center attacks".[1] According to the Los Angeles Times, she was a "psychologist, expert on stress management and best-selling author of self-help books, including The Type E Woman and The September 11 Syndrome.[2] Star767 22:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Jesus you are annoying. Obviously this article is about "manipulation" but it cant be called that as manipulation has all kinds of meanings. The article could just as easily be renamed "manipulation (psychological)" or "manipulation (psychology)".--Penbat (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, can't you think of another name? Manipulation (psychopathic), Psychopathic manipulation, or something? So I can forget about it? Please? Star767 23:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Star767 has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. Discussion closed. Lova Falk talk 08:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I accidentally wrote a comment in above section that was meant for this section. To summarize here:
"Psychological manipulation" is used in scientific psychology research in an entirely different manner than described in this article. In journals, it is used neither positively nor negatively, but a general concept where manipulation occurs of psychological origin. This article appears to be trying to hijack the general concept of "psychological manipulation" into an entirely negative definition according to a couple pop psych books. Being pop psych (intended for digestion of a general audience) I'm guessing she didn't place much thought into the term being picked up as an official scientific concept so I don't understand why editors are trying to make it into one.
Also, I agree with Star767 assessment that this article further misappropriates the new defined concept of "psychological manipulation" to encompass "psychopathic manipulation". These are different things and need to be separated. Dtgm (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

So, how to deal with psychological manipulators?[edit]

This article describes (quite well) the techniques used by psychological manipulators and the definition of this, but it doesn't include any information about how to counter, how to deal with, or how to treat people that are psychological manipulators. --Waqqashanafi (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

How to deal with psychological manipulators

Given that such a section would be most helpful - is anyone interested in writing it? For there could be advice on how to spot, deal with and counter manipulators at home, work and in government. And, if that was not enough to start with, there could also be sections on the press, TV and the internet. Might not a sub-section on the impact of blog sites (say, Giving the game away) led to a few interesting comments? 84.13.11.184 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Remember that Wikipedia is not a guide, a forum or a vehicle for original research.--Charles (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

No original research or no new stuff. But what if someone is able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of dealing with psychological manipulators? 78.147.83.151 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I agree that if someone is willing to research reliable, published sources having a section on how to deal or work with psychological manipulators would be beneficial. Melissa Edwards (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's Play "Who's the Psychopath?"[edit]

I hate to tell you, but this page is going to be EPIC trollbait. Here's why. If you're one of the EVIL people out there in Meatspaceland, you used to have it pretty good. You, as an authority figure, a psychopath, anyone with a quota to fill out, whatever, there was always someone out there completely ignorant of the crap you were pulling. Hell, sometimes, you could get away with MURDER! And then the damn Interwebs came along, and some people started getting wise. Then they had a lifeline call or twelve by the name of Facebook. And there's Google, and Wikipedia, and etc. etc. etc.

Now those evil people are f***ing screwed, aren't they? So when a page like this comes along, they have to fight the good fight (!) to keep it from being written. So, those of you who are legitimately criticizing the page and are not ACTUALLY evil: back the F--K off. The crazy evil people will be challenge enough, thanks.

Now, having said that, if you'd like to contribute to the article by adding more and better material, from arguably firmer sources, by all means, do that. The framework that has been provided, however, is not that bad, and might do someone a world of good. Again, thank you. -- TheLastWordSword (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Psychopaths and how to deal with psychological manipulators in blog space - would not that make a telling and interesting section? 84.13.11.184 (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Everybody does it![edit]

But some people are definitely better at it than others. P:D
http://phillipabatz.wikia.com/wiki/Dominate_the_Scene
From the sharpest kidney-daggers on the planet.
-- TheLastWordSword (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Everybody does it, constantly. 154.20.88.158 (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Emotional tyranny[edit]

I suggest that this article, which has been proposed for deletion, instead be merged into its parent article, Psychological manipulation. It's not inherently notable, and is really just a form or type of the same thing. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I dont agree with merge. Not sure why you think Psychological manipulation is its parent article, I cant see the connection. Surely more relevant to Emotions in the workplace. I dont have strong feelings either way if Emotional tyranny is deleted or not.--Penbat (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Article needs to be rewritten[edit]

Hello all,

I've tagged this article that it may be in need of being rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines. Here's the reasoning behind the tagging of the article.

  1. The article reads like a list in several sections.
  2. It reads in some areas like a how-to of how to preform psychological manipulation.
  3. It lists some people as if their opinions and thoughts are the ones which are most important.
  4. It fails to list and document the types of psychological manipulation which exist and instead focuses on vulnerabilities and what are the requirements for it to work.

FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)