# data[].attributes.body
Cloud computing, smartphones, social media platforms, and Internet of Things devices have already transformed how we communicate, work, shop, and socialize. These technologies gather unprecedented data streams leading to formidable challenges around privacy, profiling, manipulation, and personal safety. Oren Etzioni

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cloud computing, smartphones, social media platforms, and Internet of Things devices have already transformed how we communicate, work, shop, and socialize. These technologies gather unprecedented data streams leading to formidable challenges around privacy, profiling, manipulation, and personal safety.

Oren Etzioni

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cloud computing, smartphones, social media platforms, and Internet of Things devices have already transformed how we communicate, work, shop, and socialize. These technologies gather unprecedented data streams leading to formidable challenges around privacy, profiling, manipulation, and personal safety. Oren Etzioni

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There may be times when you're strongly motivated to assist someone who genuinely needs your help. Yet, for whatever reasons, they turn down all your straightforward attempts. Might it then be okay to "manipulate" them into compliance?-that is, for their own good? In fact, if your motives could hardly be described as self-interested, is it even accurate to designate your tactics-however surreptitious, crafty, or devious-as manipulative at all?

Ethically speaking, these questions are unavoidable-and crucial. When in my therapy practice I sometimes suggest to clients how they might subtly "maneuver" a resistant or highly-defended child, parent, friend, or professional associate to accept their well-meaning advice or help, I not infrequently get a negative reaction. Made uneasy by the guile of my suggestion, they respond: "But wouldn't that be manipulation?!" And my reply is that their interest in positively influencing the other person clearly seems heartfelt and sincere. So that if such a "strategic" approach isn't intended for personal gain-doesn't in any way exploit the situation to their advantage-must they really regard it as manipulative (and so reject it out of hand)? In these instances it seems obvious that their acting kindly, generously, or graciously will net them little more than the satisfaction of feeling good about themselves, quite independent of the "expedient contrivance" they may have chosen to facilitate the change desired by the other.

The English lexicon might well profit from adding a new word for characterizing such behavior. One that, at first blush, might sound dishonest or exploitive. But which, ultimately, would have nothing but positive connotations, precisely because the actor's underlying intent was irrefutably benign. That is, the new word would start with the notion of deceit or trickery. But would then amend these negative connotations by emphasizing that such communicative indirection depicted an eleventh-hour, last-ditch, attempt to neutralize the self-defeating tendencies of the help-resistant individual. And the word I'd choose as the closest synonym for such "positive manipulation" would probably be contrivance. For this kind of manipulation is a "construction," "formulation," or "plan" strategically designed to turn antagonism into cooperation, resistance into resolution.

We all know that sometimes getting through to another can be frustratingly difficult. I'm reminded of the expression: "Desperate times call for desperate measures." In this case, the "measure" is expressly crafted to minimize, say, the other's excessive rigidity, need to act autonomously, tendency not to trust others, and so forth. You've already tried, straightforwardly, to convince them of what you thought would best help them. But if all your rational explanations have fallen on deaf ears, then it's only appropriate that (before you give up trying to reach them altogether), you employ communication tactics ranging from the indirect to the downright devious. Remember, your motive isn't to bend them to your will-only to bypass their stubborn, illogical defenses. Here's a hypothetical instance of how such "favorable" manipulation might work:

Say, you've heard from the corporate rumor mill that a friend and professional colleague of yours is at serious risk of being fired. Several months ago his wife left him for another man, and he's yet to come to grips with the abandonment: by turns, afflicted with deep depression and grief, and with feelings of seething anger and resentment. As might be expected, his work performance has deteriorated considerably. Your being aware of how mentally and emotionally unbalanced he's become, you've already pleaded with him to get into therapy, or at least be put on an anti-depressant. But prideful, embittered, and hopeless-and in denial of the seriousness of his situation-he's stubbornly declined both options.

In desperation, the idea comes to you to speak about your beloved son's terrible car accident many years ago: how he ended up in a coma and how it was months before he was finally out of danger. But what you focus on most is how your meeting with a therapist back then, as well as being put on anti-depressants, was invaluable in helping you soldier through this prolonged crisis without completely unraveling. Shaken and taken aback by your apparently heartfelt tale of woe, your friend is so moved-and convinced!-that he tells you that he can begin to see how he, too, might benefit from counseling. You're even able (right on the spot!) to get him to put in a call to his doctor's office to be evaluated for psychiatric medication. . . . But, in fact, your narrative was an "inspired fabrication": your son was never in a coma and you've never been in therapy-or, for that matter, on anti-depressants. Intuitively, however, it struck you that improvising such a calamitous scenario might be exactly what would help him overcome his former refusal to seek professional assistance.

Manipulative? Deceptive? Scheming? Downright dishonest? Well, all of the above. Yet your idea is also clever, creative-and just maybe the single best strategy to get your friend to reevaluate his recalcitrance. So it can hardly be denigrated as simply unprincipled, or immoral. Inasmuch as you perceive your friend as being on a collision course, you're behaving in a way that might best be described as caring and compassionate. Sure, your tactics are devious. Still, your underlying motives are undoubtedly ethical-and highly pragmatic as well.

With a little reflection, I think you, too, could probably come up with a broad range of instances in which purposefully, and imaginatively, deviating from a more traditional approach to promoting another's welfare could substantially increase your odds of "reaching" them and helping them achieve a beneficial outcome. And even though you may not be very familiar with such indirect ways of minimizing another's resistance to behavioral change, I trust that what I've been describing makes some sense to you.

In 1986, I published a book entitled Paradoxical Strategies in Psychotherapy: A Comprehensive Overview and Guidebook, which demonstrated how virtually every major school of therapy included a surprising variety of indirect, noncommonsensical techniques that might be designated paradoxical. Back then, some therapists hesitated to employ such unorthodox methods for fear they might be misunderstood as manipulative. But I came to believe (as I continue to now) that if such devices can assist clients in achieving therapeutic goals, then, if anything, it would be almost unethical not to employ them-particularly when nothing else has succeeded in bringing about the desired change.

Negative, or reverse, psychology works in similar fashion: typically, to minimize a child's resistance by newly allowing it-maybe even demanding it-while simultaneously providing "favorable" reasons for the dysfunctional behavior that (given the child's oppositional thinking) renders their noncompliance no longer tenable. . . . Which, finally, represents the essence of much of what is termed "therapeutic paradox."

NOTE 1: My next post discusses the most ingenious therapeutic paradox I ever devised, which I believed was virtually guaranteed to work-but which, alas, the client declined to fully implement because it just felt "too manipulative" (!). Here's its title and link: "When All Else Fails, Try Reverse Psychology!"

NOTE 2: If you could relate to this post and think others you know might also, kindly forward them its link.

NOTE 3: To check out other posts I've done for Psychology Today online-on a broad variety of psychological topics-click here.

© 2013 Leon F. Seltzer, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved.

---To be notified whenever I post something new, I invite readers to join me on Facebook-as well as on Twitter where, additionally, you can follow my frequently unorthodox psychological and philosophical musings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There may be times when you're strongly motivated to assist someone who genuinely needs your help. Yet, for whatever reasons, they turn down all your straightforward attempts. Might it then be okay to "manipulate" them into compliance?-that is, for their own good?

# data[].attributes.body
We have spent so much time worrying about a 'cyber Pearl Harbor,'' the attack that takes out the power grid, that we have focused far too little on the subtle manipulation of data that can mean that no election, medical record, or self-driving car can be truly trusted.
Read more at:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"We have spent so much time worrying about a 'cyber Pearl Harbor,'' the attack that takes out the power grid, that we have focused far too little on the subtle manipulation of data that can mean that no election, medical record, or self-driving car..." - David E. Sanger

# data[].attributes.body
The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words. Philip K. Dick
Read more at:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." - Philip K. Dick

# data[].attributes.body
When you're surrounded by a world of constant lies, manipulation, and deceit, that dark energy is bound to seep into you eventually.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How President Donald Trump's Team Uses Social Media To Impact The Public | Morning Joe | MSNBC

# data[].attributes.body
this article explains how trump has ways of making people trust him and somewhat manipulating memories.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We like to think of our memories as sepia celluloid snippets of our life upon this Earth.

We think they "reflect us" and remind us of the person we like to be. True, memories can be iffy sometimes. We don't always remember all the details, but mostly our memories are real.

For a long time, scientists backed us up. Early memory researchers thought that most memories retained some connection with reality. To be sure, memories were elaborately constructed in a bubbling and boiling cauldron of expectation, emotion, motivation, personal opinion, prejudice and self-delusion - what we scientists call, in our typically obtuse way, self-induced, systematic distortations. But there would usually be some element of reality.

As it turns out, we are wrong. When it comes to memory, reality need not apply.

Psychologists have demonstrated that a skilled manipulator can create memories out of the fantastical thin air. Psychologist Julia Shaw does this in experiments with students. Using basic psychology, she can convince 70 per cent of her subjects that they committed a crime, when in fact they never did. It is " alarmingly easy " to do, she says.

How does she achieve this remarkable fabrication?

First, she makes people trust her. Second, she establishes her authority. Third, she constructs their new memory by invoking, through image, visualization and narrative, the subject's imagination.

Like a potter at her wheel, she moulds and shapes the memory, layering in detail and reinforcing through repetition. Finally, she fires the new memory in the kiln of social pressure and group membership. Voila, the student is a convicted criminal!

Human survival requires group coherence

It's shocking, but understandable, from an evolutionary perspective. Neurological mechanisms that create malleable memory do not make us sheeple, but they do go a long way towards creating group identification and coherence, an absolute requisite for human survival before advanced civilization.

Malleable memory is an evolutionary thing, and a lot more common than you think.

For better or worse, we're all doing it all the time, unconsciously or consciously.

Even - perhaps especially - Donald Trump.

Like Mickey Mouse in Fantasia, he uses his Twitter magic wand to exploit this "malleable memory effect" to achieve ultra-right economic and social goals.

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Just as Julia Shaw did with her students, Trump establishes trust by saying things like: " Nobody would fight harder for free speech than me," " I will create jobs like no one else," I'm the greater doer of things and suggests I'm a good old down home family boy, just like you.

He establishes authority by saying things like " Nobody knows jobs like I do", by pretending he's the smartest guy in the room and the best man for the job.

Highest IQ?

After all, he's got the highest IQ, and the biggest crowds. He's the highest-rated and the best thing ever. "Believe me," he says, and his followers believe him.

He uses images, visualizations and narratives to create whatever memory and new reality he wants. He does it, as he well knows, with consummate mastery and skill.

He practised these skills when he, and the people who were helping him, took down Hillary Clinton. He portrayed her to the people as a crooked, corrupt, incompetent and dangerous failure who would screw over Americans and take them to war. He reinforced it by naming her Crooked Hillary.

And, finally, he invoked group membership and social pressure to lock it all down. He divides Americans into "winners" and "losers," and invites the winners to stand on his side. They apparently heed his call:

There's no doubt Trump is a skillful manipulator of people's memory system. It explains why people who would never ordinarily have voted for Trump cast their ballots for him anyway. He is not a moron, and he's certainly not crazy.

Addicted to accumulating cash?

He may be heavily addicted to the accumulation of money, to the point where he'd rather invoke nuclear war with Korea than slow its flow, but he's not mad, stupid or crazy, that's for sure.

I imagine he's having a good chuckle. While everybody moralizes and judges, he simply "gets it done." He is making America great again, for the filthy rich. Under the discredited guise of trickle-down economics, he is accused of trouncing on everybody, and possibly taking us all to war, so he and his brethren can legislate their conservative agenda.

The Associated Press

In the interests of the uber-rich, his administration has decimated environmental controls, executed a coup d'état of the American education system and passed into law the "biggest" tax bill and tax cuts in history. The only thing he's failed at so far is wiping out health care for the poor, but he might also get that job done in the future.

So what to do? I suppose that depends on whether you're a fan of trickle-down economics or not, or think Trump's a dangerous traitor or not. Personally, I'm on the side of Will Rogers and the IMF, both of whom say, in their own special way, trickle-down economics is a joke.

If you're not a Trump fan, recognize that tweets about the Access Hollywood tape and other tweet storms are not madness, they are carefully designed mini-memes designed to manipulate mass memory.

Making fun of him and calling him crazy only serves his agenda. I suggest we all quit playing into his hands and instead do what Chelsea Handler did. Start taking his agenda, and his threat, a whole lot more seriously than we are.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump's manipulation of mass consciousness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We like to think of our memories as sepia celluloid snippets of our life upon this Earth. We think they "reflect us" and remind us of the person we like to be. True, memories can be iffy sometimes. We don't always remember all the details, but mostly our memories are real.

# data[].attributes.body
kim jon un is known for manipulating his people to believing he is basically a god, and limiting what they see.

# data[].attributes.body
this is the starting point of the manipulation of humans,