Comment by heisenzombie | Hacker News Reader

Comment by heisenzombie | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think your reaction is common, your mindset is one that I recognize in myself and causes me many insecurities in relationships both personal and professional.

However, it's worth saying that: Being intentional about relationships is not manipulation.

If I decide "I want to be a better husband" and then spend time noticing and writing down a list of things that my wife says bother her or would make her happy or she thinks would be romantic, and then I go through and choose some of them and set myself reminders in my calendar to do them... Am I "manipulating" my wife into "thinking" I'm a better husband? Or am I just plain being a better husband?

Would it be worse if I got the idea from a book titled Would it be better if, instead of being so intentional, I just let my passions and romance sweep me into doing romantic things without any conscious thought? Why?

To make my point clear: Being very intentional about relationships (how others perceive and feel about you — and what actions you take to make them feel and perceive you that way) is not manipulation. If I act in a way that makes my coworkers think that I'm a good coworker, then I AM a good coworker! The fact that it was on purpose and not accidental is...?

Manipulation happens when you develop your "be-a-good-coworker" skills (which is good) and then use those skills in a way that intentionally hurts your coworkers or makes them act against their interests (which is bad).

I see evidence in the article of the first but not the second.

It's a fine line. Maybe it isn't necessarily manipulation, but it does come off as disingenuous to me.

To take your marriage example. The genuine motivation would be: "I acknowledge my flaws and I'm willing to put in the effort to change myself for the benefit of my wife". If the motivation is to just tweak your wife's views of you, that may not be manipulation but it's not very loving either.

People will be able to sniff out if the goal of his behaviour is to have people think of him a certain way, versus having the goal of wanting to bring beneficial change and helping a team out. The behaviour may be the same on the surface, but the intent is very different. I would be very wary of judging people's motivations, but the fact that the author explicitly mentions it bothers me.

You say the genuine motivation would be: "I acknowledge my flaws and I'm willing to put in the effort to change myself for the benefit of my wife"

But... How do I know which actions will "benefit" my wife? I argue that one of the best ways to know is to ask myself: "Will this action make her feel positively about me?". That way, I'm not going to do things that are important to me but not her, or that I think she SHOULD appreciate but she doesn't actually care about, or whatever.

Of course, to answer that question accurately requires plenty of listening, understanding and empathy.

In the past, I thought more like you. But I think it harmed me. Ultimately I came to the conclusion that intentionally doing things so that other people like to be around you isn't "disingenuous", it's a wonderful thing to work towards!

The Turing test for husbands: determine if your husband is actually a good person or if he is acting like a good person so that you will love and appreciate him.

For some this might have a bit of sociopathic creepiness to it which even seems more apparent in that marriage context than it does in the original article of an "deeply" structured coder.

Of course control might be a valid goal, and controlling your need to control might be a good meta step, too, in a professional environment. The issue of the line between caring and controlling just seems not been discussed enough. And not seeing and mentioning that obvious emotional aspect might already make it look a bit weird.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com