The Art Of Manipulation

This seems broadly to pass the Kant test on morality, so it could be said to be well-grounded.

Something is immoral if it is contradictory when generalised -- that was the gist of Kant's view. And real manipulation and persuasion seem to fail: if everyone is allowed to manipulate everyone else, everyone loses their own control of themselves -- in which case, how can they manipulate someone else? There is a contradiction.

The two basic checks the article proposes -- "Will I use the product myself?" and, "Will the product help users materially improve their lives?" -- are sort-of rough ways of testing for such Kantian contradction.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#ForUniLawNat

Great article! I really liked the manipulation matrix. The author did a great job of impressing upon entrepreneurs like me to create new products that improve lives by facilitating healthful habits. Couple of questions: 1) How does one balance the needs of investors while having a clear conscience to create a product that materially improves users lives but has higher costs or lowers margins? 2) Is there a fundamental behaviors matrix that defines what improves users lives?

Manipulation is wrong if it's truly consensual, and it remains truly consensual after the fact. This is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. The way I sometimes state this, is that, "Not being f#cked with is a basic human right."

If you get consent, but the other party changes their mind and you pressure the other party to remain silent through threats or social pressure, then you don't have true consent. Buyer's remorse notwithstanding -- markets and monetary transactions are a different matter.

I think there is a lot of social and cultural conflict that occurs because of some notion of "implicit consent" or the treatment of certain locations or social contexts in the way we treat a market. I would find that a man who buys a woman dinner and therefore feels entitled to sex is being a jerk. Feeling entitled to sex in almost any context is probably being a jerk. This is another case where one is applying market rules to an interpersonal transaction.

Seems to fall apart at a close look.

Except at the extremes, "materially improves users' lives" seems highly subjective. You can make this fit almost any product with a clear conscience - so no one's going to describe themselves as a Dealer or Entertainer.

Also, creating something you personally would use also seems like an odd and arbitrary distinction. I doubt patio11 is personally running many bingo games - but I'm certainly not going to criticize him for building a product many other people find useful.

I am somewhat disappointed by this text it claims to be on how to manipulate people but is in reality a morality story (which I could have gotten in the local church if I wanted it).

On the other hand, I do enjoy the irony.

This article is great. Can't wait for the next one she publishes so I can read it immediately!