The reason for this is that the most important element of persuasion is Ethos, or your perceived character. This is much more important than Logos (logical appeal) or Pathos (emotional appeal).
Suits have no credibility to teenagers so they cannot be persuasive. Cool kids have a ton of credibility and thus are very persuasive.
I have found, repeatedly, that the way to get people to change is to make them think it was their idea. So you manipulate them, but in such a fashion that they do not realise they are being manipulated. For instance, I got my kid sister to quit smoking by taking up smoking and encouraging her to smoke more and more until she smelt like an ashtray and had a wallet as light as a feather - and then she decided that this was stupid, and quit. I then claimed to take inspiration from her and followed suit.
Of course, this doesn’t work en masse without essentially going into conspiratorial psyops on the population, but on an individual or small group basis, people can be given a set of precepts and ideas that lead them to an almost inevitable conclusion - and because it was their idea, it’s precious. You can then really cement it by trying to get them to drop the idea, and convince them that the thing that you wanted them to think is wrong.
Contrary creatures, we.
I find myself constantly wondering how people can be so gullible as to buy the drivel they're being fed.
No one is trying to change these people's behaviors. They are feeding them what they already want; reinforcing negative behaviors. That has always been very easy.
The relationship to today's political theatre is related to this discussion by comparing it to how easy it was to get everyone to smoke in the 1950's
This seems flat out wrong to me given how extremely difficult it is for most people to change themselves. I guess on some level you could argue that people are "manipulating" themselves, but that seems a bit silly to me given how you are using the word manipulation.
It's hard to change people because humans are actually great at multiple forms of homeostasis. All research I've read has said that people's personalities are basically solidified from early childhood (i.e. age 5-6).
That is, you're basically asserting "If you try to change your behavior, but can't, it's because your explicit beliefs have been manipulated into thinking something that your body won't go along with." Well, how do you know? Seems like you're saying "Because your body would go along with it if your brain wasn't being manipulated."
Just look at the millions of people who have tried for decades to lose weight. You can call it "manipulation" or whatever, but I think a poor quality of life, shortened life span, etc. are plenty real, valid, "non-manipulative" reasons on their own for obese people to want to lose weight even if you ignore the societal implications. And does taking semaglutide somehow magically make it not "manipulation" anymore by your definition?