The plight of the misguided humanitarian is the attempt to change that which you cannot control: the choices of others.
Thoughts?
M.
The plight of the misguided humanitarian is the attempt to change that which you cannot control: the choices of others.
Thoughts?
M.
30 Comments
Are you misguided humanitarian or somebody wants to change your choices? Why do you have this thoughts? …we are set of our decisions and if somebody wants to change our choices that means he wants to change us…. Sorry if i didn’t understand your sentence good i am from Russia and don’t no english well
You never give up, Mark, do you?
I don’t know if you’re asking for advice but … let it go.
Life is simple, and some things just never work
there are many things out of our reach and control…think back to the metaphysical worlds of atlantis and mu or lemuria…they had the will power just like we do to make life easier…as for us individuals..we could certainly change our surroundings, and deifinitely change what we feel and view…we coulkde even change a matter of opinion…it’s that god given right…
All any single person can do is the best they can to help out their fellow humans. One cannot change the choices that others make, but one can hope that leading by example and showing others the different choices they have can make a difference. The key is to never give up that hope and to keep striving to make a difference. Even when you think what you are doing makes no difference in the world, somewhere there is a person who was touched by something you did and they are changing the choices they make. The really tough part is that you don’t always get to see the change.
i have this feeling that you might be referring to some of the comments to one of your posts earlier. i might be wrong though ^_~
i have to disagree with you … not everyone who thinks that there is a chance and hope for someone who has chosen to do bad most of his life, is a misguided humanitarian.
i think there is a difference between these two terms: trying to control someone’s choices (or denying the role of his free will), or trying to make him understand and do better. those choices that has been made, certainly cannot be changed, but people can change, no matter how bad they have done, and they do change, although not that often!
one might think i’m an inexperienced too optimistic person living in a peaceful place surrounded by kind people, without the slightest idea about what’s going on in the real world. but that’s not true, because i live in iran.
i was born right after a revolution, i grew up during an 8 years war, and i live in a dictatorship country that the government make the most awful choices every single day. they steel our votes, and then they torture, rape and kill people who only wanted their votes back.
i see these horrible, horrible crimes taking place around me everyday, and i’m sure that people who did those unthinkable things, acted out of their free will, and they should definitely pay for what they’ve done. hatred and anger grows bigger in my heart every day, and i would’ve make them pay if i could have.
but i still believe (and i’ve seen it happen) that no matter how bad has someone done before, he has the chance to choose between good and evil in every second of his life afterwards, and be good from that very moment; and that’s exactly because he has free will (and it goes both ways: good people can choose to become evil every second). and i also believe that trying to help people to understand is gonna help them to choose better and become a better person; and it doesn’t mean that people aren’t responsible for what they do, it just means that everyone has an incredible capability to change and to be good, and love and knowledge are the keys to that.
sorry if i said too much +_+
p.s.: i just can’t get enough of ‘little life’. it’s one of my top 20 songs of all time. really hope to see its music video one day ^^
You cannot control the choices of others, but you can damn well influence them up to a degree where the difference between influence and control becomes nigh nonexistent. Right? Right.
Still, the plight of the misguided humanitarian *is* the attempt to control the choices of others (coupled with the notion that they have the right). It’s the plight of the misguided anyone, really.
>> You cannot control the choices of others, but you can damn well influence them up to a degree where the difference between influence and control becomes nigh nonexistent.
Yeah, it becomes manipulation
>Yeah, it becomes manipulation
Well, yes.
Although, personally, I see nothing wrong with that. In a way, whenever you’re trying to convince someone, you’re trying to manipulate them. Most of the time you can’t even tell in advance, exactly how much influence the things you say will have on another person. I guess it’s all in the ‘how’s and ‘why’s, you never really know what you’ll get ’till you have it.
>> Although, personally, I see nothing wrong with that.
Everybody doesn’t… until being manupulated
>Everybody doesn’t… until being manupulated
Now, that is only true to an extent. Like I said, it’s the how’s and why’s that count. When someone convinces you with arguments they know will work on you, that’s manipulation. And yet, as long as they don’t lie or omit important facts, I doubt you will mind. That is because of the way this manipulation happens. The ‘how’.
If it’s a bother, please delete.
Another example, let’s say fanatics (religious or otherwise) can be manipulated by someone they hold in high regard, yet they will knowingly and willingly allow that person to influence them. This type of manipulation (the ‘how’) will rightly be seen as wrong by society. But then again, imagine that fanatic threatening – believingly – to kill other people. Let’s say you have a way of stopping that person by applying to their willingness to be manipulated. If it’s the only chance to save those people, can you honestly call it wrong?
The end doesn’t always justify the means, but it does sometimes. Hence the ‘why’.
You said in a prior comment that life is simple. It really isn’t. It is, in fact, so complicated, we’ll sometimes want to pretend it’s simple.
Oh, and I do apologise for spamming like this.
> When someone convinces you with arguments they know will work on you, that’s manipulation
“Arguments” are neutral, which means they cannot “work on me”. I can see the arguments and either accept them, or decline being based on my own judgment. Arguments themselves are not manipulation. Manipulation is the way you may try to represent them.
> Another example, let’s say fanatics (religious or otherwise) can be manipulated by someone… imagine that fanatic threatening – believingly – to kill other people. Let’s say you have a way of stopping that person by applying to their willingness to be manipulated. If it’s the only chance to save those people, can you honestly call it wrong?
First, about fanatics. I wouldn’t use the manipulation as a way of stopping fanatics just because it’s *the most* unreliable solution. Too many “if” involved when you deal with fanatics. And there is always another options. If I know about a threat, I’d rather organize evacuation of people who could be hurt by fanatics, or find out other ways.
Second, about your example. That’s a very complicated excuse for manipulation, nothing more
I don’t see you can put yourself as fanatics, ie manipulated someone. You think about yourself like manipulator, at least, in your example. That’s exactly what I wrote before: it may attract you if you like to manipulate
Third, about manipulators. I think you just play evil advocate, because manipulators are poor souls, to be honest. Ask me if you’re interested why I always feel sorry for those who tries manipulate surrounding people
> life is simple. It really isn’t. It is, in fact, so complicated, we’ll sometimes want to pretend it’s simple
Life is simple and it doesn’t care what you think about it.
PS
Mark, tell your technical people that lowercase is **sucks**. Same about the smallest unreadable font size
zakuka: I’m not writing from either point of view, just making outside observations.
But maybe I’m not really getting my point across.
It’s either death of, say, ten people, or an unreliable, as you put it, attempt to save those ten people and if it fails, they die. But if you don’t try, the die, anyway.
When I say “it’s possible to influence people to a very high degree”, that’s a statement of fact.
Calling that manipulation is something of a judgment. I can agree from the standpoint that, when you boil it down to its essence, manipulation *is* an attempt to get someone to do or think something you want them to.
If we put it like that, any attempt at influencing someone else, no matter how small, becomes manipulation. After all, you’re always hoping for success and you never know for sure how successful you’ll be, so it doesn’t matter how much faith you have in your attempt to begin with.
You’re right when you say that facts are neutral, but, the thing is, the moment someone else recites those facts to another, they are presenting them in a subjective way. That doesn’t necessarily have to happen intentionally, it’s just that people see things in different lights and so present them accordingly. It’s not necessarily a lie, it can be an accent, emotional or logical, or an argument the other hadn’t thought of so far, like a possible consequence.
I’ve actually once contributed to getting someone I knew away from marihuana by telling them that it could trigger a psychological condition. Which is the truth, but so is the fact that your health gets compromised by smoking cigarettes, yet, that’s not really stopping a whole lot of people. So, when that school kid got somewhat white in the face and went to make sure I wasn’t lying, the effect wasn’t just triggered by what I said, but also by how I said it. In this particular case, yes, I guess you could say I was the manipulator for making accents and wanting that kid to quit. Do I ever feel guilty about it? Well, no.
In the same fashion, playing a ‘donate for xy’ commercial is manipulation, too. Not only are those commercials calling the attention of people to a certain fact they may already be aware of in order to make that fact more prominent in their minds, humanitarian aid commercials usually have some cute kids or other emotional moments backing their attempt at getting people to open their wallets. Famous people get used for popularity purposes, too. So yeah, it’s manipulation, but I don’t think it’s a bad one, as long as the money really is going where it’s supposed to and people don’t get pulled in so much they seriously harm themselves by donating.
You were cheating, by the way, with my fanatic example – I did say manipulation was your only chance, never did I mention anything about evacuation being an option.
Moving on, in this manner, any time you try to argue a point you are trying to manipulate other people. After all, in order to have an opinion it’s enough to just think it to yourself. Voicing an opinion, whether you realize it or not, is always an attempt to influence your surroundings in some way. Ergo – manipulation as we defined it earlier.
Now, depending on how much sway one person has over others, them voicing their opinion may lead to other people instantly adapting it. Like, say, the Pope. Or high ranking politicians. Or even any random celebrity. Or, hey, parents. Like I said, the moment someone voices their opinion, they are trying to influence their surroundings. So, does the fact, that a person has a lot of influence over others, mean they shouldn’t be voicing their thoughts in the first place?
That is not to say people shouldn’t handle their own statements with responsibility. I guess what I’m trying to convey here is, manipulation, if we’re going to call taking influence manipulation, is neutral.
And yes, the means with which you can influence another person do include – but are not limited to – lies, deception, threats and even violence. Whether or not you are actually using any of those particular means to influence someone else does not necessarily determine your chances of success. Whether or not you can find the right approach, make other people adapt your point of view, is mostly determined by your own verbal aptitude and persuasiveness. That’s why it would be a mistake to consider the act of taking influence in general an “evil” deed.
As for control, you can try to convince someone, baring the right means and motivation, but you cannot expect people to agree with you. No matter what, in the end, the choice is always theirs to make. By thinking otherwise you’re only setting yourself up for disappointment.
And now I think I’ll be bowing out – knowing myself, I’ll still be here next year talking about the same topic, unless I make myself stop at some point. Which I fear would be a little impolite, considering this here is someone else’s blog. *g* But I will be coming back to read your reply and if you want to take this elsewhere, I’ll be happy to oblige.
You people are arguing over semantics. Manipulation typically means to change someone in a deceitful manner, not to convince them in a forthright manner. As for Mark’s statement, all I can say is “huh”? A humanitarian is certainly not misguided if he or she attempts to change the choices of others, especially if those choices are having negative consequences. Of course, no one can “control” the choice of others (barring brainwashing or mind control but that renders the notion of “choice” irrelevant), due to their free will, which is just common sense. One cannot convince others. You can only help them convince themselves.
> it’s possible to influence people to a very high degree
true
> facts are neutral, but, the thing is, the moment someone else recites those facts to another, they are presenting them in a subjective way
false
Example: Am I influenced by the death of beloved one (spouse, friend, parent)? Definitely. Am I manipulated by the pure fact of death? Not for a second
If you still don’t see the difference between discussion, influence and manipulation, just let me know
> You were cheating, by the way, with my fanatic example – I did say manipulation was your only chance
The manipulation is **never** the only option. That’s why I called your example just a complicate excuse for manipulation.
As I’ve answered already, I wouldn’t deal with fanatics. I’d rather think about warning people to be hurt so they would be prepared or shooting some fanatics to minimize the damage they could make
> manipulation, if we’re going to call taking influence manipulation, is neutral.
You’re trying to mix influence and manipulation to prove the point above. But manipulation is *not equal* to influence. It’s only one type of it. Because influence could be neutral, and manipulation not. The difference is that manipulation has fake and destructive origin. Always.
> considering this here is someone else’s blog.
blogs are created for people to write in, I guess we’re within the rules
anonymous: so would you say that inviting a busy friend over for lunch and luring them in with kittens “in a fortright manner” isn’t manipulation?
I know I felt somewhat manipulated *g* not that I minded very much in this case. 
zakuka: fine, but it’s on your head. *g* I suppose this stuff can always be deleted if it gets too much.
)
Even if it would be better if there was no fight in the first place – wait. That goal could be reached through manipulation, too.
The reason I’m throwing together manipulation and influence is your comment above, where you said that when an influence is so strong it doesn’t differ much from actual control, it becomes manipulation. At least, that’s how I read it.
At first, I thought that wasn’t necessarily true – as I have mentioned in an example above, the pope, for instance, knows or at least assumes that his words will have a very strong influence on extremely religious people, but that doesn’t mean he’s actually intending to deceive them. (Well, I suppose we could argue on this one, too, but let’s just assume that he doesn’t.
Then I thought a bit further and came to the conclusion, that, if we stretch the term a little, any type of purposeful influence is manipulation *in a way*, so I decided to give you that. And that, then, is where I’m coming from. Sure, if we assume manipulation is personified by this sinister looking person hunched in a dark corner, rubbing their hands together while cackling evilly, well, that’s another thing entirely.
It would be nice, though, if ‘bad’ intentions or actions could be recognized or defined that easily. Most of the time you cannot just chop it off at some point and say “this here is where ‘forthright’ influence ends and manipulation begins”. Instead, even if there is some deceit mixed into it, I’m sticking with the statement that it’s not always negative. You’d be surprised by how many actions the law will allow you in terms of self defense – and with good reason. So what makes you think manipulation is any different?
Yes, deceit is ‘bad’ and honesty is ‘good’ and ‘fairness’ is even better. But you can’t win a fight by running at someone in a straight line screaming ‘prepare yourself, I’m going to use my left hand and hit your right shoulder’, no, scratch that, instead of running, you’ll want to walk up to them really slowly in order to not confuse them and give them a fair chance to react in time.
In essence, any action is neutral. It is the situation that makes us judge it as ‘good’ or ‘bad’.
> Example: Am I influenced by the death of beloved one (spouse, friend, parent)? Definitely. Am I manipulated by the pure fact of death? Not for a second
We’re talking about the influence of people on other people, not influence in general. And in that sense facts are neutral, because facts do not have the will to influence you, nor are they capable of making accents on certain aspects, but you know I never said that you cannot be influenced by them at all.
The point was: when you’re the one perceiving a fact, the only subjective judgment you get will be through your own perception. The moment someone else is delivering the facts, they are bound to retell them the way they see them. Whether they mean to, or not, they will influence your perception of facts with their own subjective judgment. Consider: whenever someone is trying to convince you of something, even if it is with something they call a fact, they want to get reaction out of you – they want to influence you. And their subjective judgment will always play a role in that, so they are always trying to influence you with their own perception.
Discussion, while not the same as influence, *is* always a means to influence other people in some way, even if it’s just by leaving a print in their minds that may later have some kind of sway in their own thought pattern.
So, if you’re going to say that very strong influence equals manipulation, while the degree of influence isn’t always determined by the means, then it’s only logical to say that any influence equals manipulation. But, if you say it’s not the same thing, then really strong influence isn’t always manipulation. In either case having a strong influence over someone and using it isn’t always a bad thing. And even with the narrower definition of manipulation, there will be situations where it isn’t a ‘bad’ thing.
Oh Mark. Reading some of these comments, I think you may have started a small forest fire with this comment.
Many folks on the planet are followers and some on the planet are leaders.
Leaders lead and they cannot lead unless they have followers.
Some people have the need to control and others need to be controlled. People who need to control others will control them in many different ways, whether they are patrons in their churches, or they’re employees under their supervisors, or they’re subs under their doms. People naturally will seek out these roles to fulfill something that is missing within themselves.
I myself enjoy leading the blind as it gives me a sense of selfworth. But on the other hand I enjoy putting on the blindfold and being lead as I can get a different perspective about the situation and feel comfortably helpless.
On a different note, I have to add, you beat out the scissor sisters on my personal ipod chart last week (and by a landslide) with Siddhartha from your recent album to retain the number one position and I just wanna love someone broke into the top ten. Woohoo.
So your suggestion a few weeks back to purchase your Complex State of Attachment cd worked on me. I was lead to the music. I bought it and now I’m enslaved to the beauty of the music.
Are we misguided because we visit your blog Mark?
Nope just a fan who thinks your blog is pretty slick.
Cheers
Happy belated Canada Day Mark
Most people believe manipulation has a negative connotation to it and entails convincing someone to do something not in their best interest (not your interest whether they coincide or not) by not giving them the true picture in its entirety, which can include either willfully removing facts or not being forthright, something they wouldn’t have done if the latter was not the case.
Like I said, If you’re going to go into some sort essay into various different definitions of manipulation, then you’re simply arguing semantics. It’s pretty simple and it seems like you just want to make it more confusing than it is.
anonymous: Actually, the Oxford dictionary defines the verb to manipulate as “to control or influence sb/sth, often in a dishonest way so that they do not realize it”. The same book describes being manipulative as “skilful at influencing sb or forcing sb to do what you want, often in an unfair way.”
Often doesn’t necessarily mean always. It does mean that the word is leaning toward deception, but there is room for interpretation and by ignoring it we would be killing part of the word’s meaning.
I’m not going to quote any more dictionaries, as I am sure you are capable of doing that on your own, but you will find that they usually say about the same thing.
Again, another thought-provoking post, Mark. Any humanitarian action only make sense when it considers what “the others” want, need or choose; otherwise it is misguided, it becomes a selfish act.
Give me food, but don’t tell me how to eat it.
Give me water, but don’t tell me how to drink it.
Give me shelter but don’t tell me how to use it.
Give me love, but don’t tell me how to return it.
Give me life, but don’t tell me how to spend it.
Oops… I meant “…only makes sense…”
norman,I have to agree with you completely.
We can’t control the choices of others, but we can keep hearth alive with hope for positively influence others. THERE IS STILL HOPE, BECAUSE WE ARE STILL ALIVE…
One of the sayings that I learned the hard way was “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink”. I have two younger half siblings that made some pretty bad choices in their youth. At first, I tried to jump in every time and save them or help them out of the mess they made. That made it worse, because they knew then that if they got into trouble, all they had to do was call me and I’d bail them out. That’s when I learned tough love too. You can try only to a certain point, and then it becomes their responsibility to do better. My siblings were mad at me at first, but once they realized that they had to start cleaning up their own messes, they became responsible adults. I think that we cripple people sometimes by giving them everything so that they don’t have to think or work or do anything else for themselves. What happens to them when you’re not around anymore? They can’t survive, because they never learned to be self sufficient. Also, before anyone gets up in arms, I am not talking about small children, disabled folks or the frail elderly. I am talking about people who are healthy and should be able to take care of themselves. Just my two cents.
Samuel Backett says, “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better”!
Don’t give up to believe humanitarian and human spirit. We must to believe, we need to believe… Try again, again an again Mark…
They may be misguided but at least they are humanitarian. They at least try where others may simply give up. Mark, your statement seems to be set in concrete but over time concrete develops cracks – it is within its nature – and it is when this happens that I, for one, do hope that a misguided humanitarian is standing right there ready to fill the ever widening cracks of weaknesses ,ignorance and meaness with something other than stubbornness and hatred. It may take years – but the other side will never give up, so neither should we. Thank (god, buddha, the universe, mother nature etc)for the crazy ignorant humanitarian – for we never know when we shall be in need of them.
I didn’t read all the posts before i wrote mine – but bloody hell these blogs are fantastic!!! on a persoanl level all my close friends are constantly telling me to not be so sensitive – to not take things so much to heart – to not get so easily upset????? they try and change me because they care – because they see how things hurt me so deeply – how I take peoples pain on board and make it my own -that i am way too sensitvive for my own good – and they worry about how it affects me. my friends, i’m sure would be classified as misguided humanitarians – they can’t change me, alhough they do try – i am who i am – but their hearts are in the right place. Does that make them “fanatics” /”misguided” / “ignorant” – trying to change someone they cannot……no!!!!! it makes them my friends!!!!
i would agree with what i think you’re implying: that any attempt at managing others’ choices and restricting their options should be studiously avoided where possible – as tempting as it can be to impose what we think would be beneficial. it’s problematic thinking and can lead to some of the most serious abuses. part of the argument behind proselytization by force is that one knows what is good for others and should therefore be able to force it down their throats. some of the intentions would even seem on the surface to be consciously very positive. (would you care to share some examples of misguided humanitarianism?)
Wow…you got a lot of thoughts on this one…looooong thoughts.
Having worked in humanitarian relief before, my opinion is that there are instances in which humanitarian aid makes sense and others in which it’s more important to build capacity and then hand off control. Make sure there are some fish in the pond, and then teach them to fish…does that make sense?
But yes, beyond acting with honor and compassion ourselves–our own behavior being firmly within our control, regardless of circumstances–we certainly cannot control other people’s choices, a very frustrating fact. Still, it doesn’t stop the UN from trying. (Because centralized power and bureaucratic control historically improves the character and overall condition of humankind, right?
Post a Comment