Talk:Manipulation (psychology)/Archives/2016

Psychopathic personality is a popular term, not used in clinical psychology
This article is a jumble of pop psych taken from a few popular books. The clinical term is Antisocial personality disorder. Star767 03:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes psychopathy is not in the DSM but it is a robust concept widely studied by academics for many years. Antisocial personality disorder is a relatively recent attempt by the DSM to cover the ground of psychopathy but it isnt the same. You cant possibly dismiss psychopathy gurus such as Robert D. Hare as peddling pop psychology. Apart from academic research, the concept of psychopathy is enshrined in various state criminal and legal contexts.--Penbat (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

undefined 14:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with your sentiments. Psycho'analytic' teachings (often found in "pop psychology") are way past their prime. They belong to the past, just like humorism and phrenology do.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia


 * Agreed. Article should be removed. This is all completely wrong. Psychological manipulation is not inherently evil as this article is written. This article is describing characteristics of Antisocial personality disorder under the guise of a new name to sell some books. Dtgm (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This discussion was started by a discredited and permanently banned sock puppet Star767. Frankly, his contributions are poisonous. It is a nonsense for many reasons to delete this. It is carefully explained in the intro that social influence is not necessarily negative - psychological manipulation just happens to be underhand social influence.--Penbat (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Dang, I miswrote my comment under the wrong subheader. I actually disagree with this subheader "Psychopathic personality is a popular term, not used in clinical psychology". In fact, "Psychopathic manipulation" DOES have a basis in scientific psychology and the article should be renamed to that and not "Psychological manipulation" which is the basis of another issue on this talk page.


 * > psychological manipulation just happens to be underhand social influence


 * No it is not. "Psychological manipulation" in scientific psychology research journals is used in entirely different manner than described in this article. It is used neither positively nor negatively, but a general concept where manipulation occurs of psychological origin. The cited books are proposing a new definition based on various concepts to a general audience. All the journal articles cited in this article do not mention "psychological manipulation" and instead use the term "psychopathic manipulation" wherein it is describing symptoms of antisocial personality disorder.


 * Regardless whether they are a sock puppet or not, they are correct about this being a "jumble of pop psych". I am unfamiliar of your personal vendetta with them, but you are overly defensive of this article for reasons unbeknownst to me. Do you have an affiliation with the authors of that pop psych book? If not, there really is no reason why this article should not be heavily edited to clarify the gross inaccuracies of this article. If you think this concept should be as specified and used in psychology that is fine, but Wikipedia is not the conduit for introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtgm (talk • contribs) 15:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of this article
This article most certainly is psychology and is underpinned in depth by the work of B. F. Skinner on reinforcement. At least one of the refs in this article (Braiker) acknowledges this underpinning.--Penbat (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Penbat
But Skinner was strictly a follower of Behaviorism and Psychological behaviorism.

From Psychology: "Psychology is an academic and applied discipline that involves the scientific study of mental functions and behaviors."

This article should follow WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS if it's on psychology.

The opening sentence of this article is inaccurate: "Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the perception or behavior of others often through underhanded, deceptive, or even abusive tactics." The book you reference is a pop psychology book published in 2004 and is called ''Who's Pulling Your Strings? How to Break The Cycle of Manipulation'', not "psychological manipulation". In fact, none of the references appear to use "psychological manipulation" in their titles. Some use "Psychopathic manipulation", not the same thing.

In fact, this article confuses "psychopathic manipulation" and "psychological manipulation". It quickly diverges into what a psychopath is. A psychopath is a term used for manipulative people, who have traditionally been characterized as having certain traits, per Robert Hare etc. But these are not the "difficult people" we find in everyday life, and their behavior is not synonymous with "psychological manipulation".

George K. Simon, although he may have a PhD in clinical psychology, has no academic credentials per WP:MEDRS which psychology is supposed to follow. Rather, he is "a bestselling author and frequent weblog contributor". Who is Harriet Braiker, and what are her credentials?

Martin Kantor's book is called The Psychopathy of Everyday Life: How Antisocial Personality Disorder Affects All of Us. Now Antisocial personality disorder is a valid clinical diagnosis per DSM, the diagnostic manual. It's not the same as ordinary manipulative persons. A teacher or a parent uses "psychological manipulation" to teach and discipline kids. A man uses "psychological manipulation" when he gives flowers to a woman; a woman uses "psychological manipulation" when she listens to a man talk, etc. etc. When we do things to please others we are using "psychologically manipulation".

Star767 21:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I take issue with your points but it would take a lengthy detailed reply. For now I will just say that it is unacceptable to amend sourced text to your unsourced views. It is already explained in the lead that "Social influence is generally perceived to be harmless when it respects the right of the influenced to accept or reject and is not unduly coercive." Incidentally here is Braikers CV: http://www.harrietbraiker.com/CV.htm --Penbat (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I just did a search for the term "psychological manipulation" in the book you reference, and those words never appear together in her book. A few times in the same sentence, but never together, and more commonly in nearby sentences. Also her CV would probably fail WP:PROF, so she probably hasn't established an academic reputation as an expert in the field of "psychological manipulation". Star767 22:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * p.s. According to The New York Times, "she was a clinical psychologist and self-help author whose books touched on identity, resolving stress and the grief occasioned by the World Trade Center attacks". According to the Los Angeles Times, she was a "psychologist, expert on stress management and best-selling author of self-help books, including The Type E Woman and The September 11 Syndrome. Star767 22:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Jesus you are annoying. Obviously this article is about "manipulation" but it cant be called that as manipulation has all kinds of meanings. The article could just as easily be renamed "manipulation (psychological)" or "manipulation (psychology)".--Penbat (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, can't you think of another name? Manipulation (psychopathic), Psychopathic manipulation, or something? So I can forget about it? Please? Star767 23:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Star767 has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. Discussion closed. Lova Falk    talk   08:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I accidentally wrote a comment in above section that was meant for this section. To summarize here:
 * "Psychological manipulation" is used in scientific psychology research in an entirely different manner than described in this article. In journals, it is used neither positively nor negatively, but a general concept where manipulation occurs of psychological origin. This article appears to be trying to hijack the general concept of "psychological manipulation" into an entirely negative definition according to a couple pop psych books. Being pop psych (intended for digestion of a general audience) I'm guessing she didn't place much thought into the term being picked up as an official scientific concept so I don't understand why editors are trying to make it into one.
 * Also, I agree with Star767 assessment that this article further misappropriates the new defined concept of "psychological manipulation" to encompass "psychopathic manipulation". These are different things and need to be separated. Dtgm (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)