Consider the following theory about human interaction: There are three ways to get what you want from other people, and the appropriate strategy depends on the power dynamic.
- If you are much stronger than another person (or wealthier, more productive, etc.), you dominate them — “give me what I want, or I will use force to get it.”
- If you are roughly equal in strength or status, you cooperate (i.e., mutually beneficial exchange) — “give me what I want, and I’ll give you what you want.”
- If you are much weaker, you manipulate — “give me what I want, or I will make you feel terrible.”
The model is kind of useful, but it soon breaks down. Dominate and manipulate (as I have defined them here) both kind of seem like threats. The difference doesn’t seem to be so much about power in the abstract as it is about what type of power is being used. To dominate implies something concrete, like physical, or maybe economic force. To manipulate implies using emotional force, like guilt. But aren’t these just two different types of force?
Another problem is that manipulation isn’t just about making emotional threats. For example, I consider enthusiasm to be a strategy for manipulation. So maybe our threesome should become a quartet:
In any case, there are different ways to get what you want. And, as I discussed here in the context of neuroticism (threat-sensitivity), the fact that women carry babies means that they need to be able to survive during periods when they can’t physically produce as much (i.e., their ability to dominate or cooperate is diminished). Thus, evolution has made women more likely to adopt strategies based on emotion. So it should be no surprise that in addition to neuroticism (associated with negative emotions), women are also more likely to be agreeable (associated with positive emotions).
Ok, so is it ever appropriate to use the dark side of the force? In other words, should we ever use fear and guilt to get what we want, or should we just stick to mutually beneficial exchange? I recently argued that neuroticism (threat-sensitivity) is not really a bad thing, but maybe you should only use positive emotions to manipulate people?
I don’t think this is realistic, especially on the emotional side. If you are afraid or anxious about something, it just seems unnatural to turn around and try to resolve your fears using enthusiasm and persuasion.
So here’s an analogy to electromagnetic force that may not resonate with everyone…but I’m gonna try. A positive charge pushes (another positive charge) away, while a negative charge will pull in. If you get pulled in, there is really only one place to end up: at the very center. If you get pushed away you can end up anywhere, just as long as it is far from the source of the charge.
So it is with fear and desire. A desire has a very specific target, so it is like a pull. A fear has a bunch of acceptable end states, just as long as you can get as far away as possible from the thing you are afraid of, so it is a push.
Perhaps emotional strategies should be consistent with the geometry of the desired end state. So, for example, if you are a threat sensitive person, and you are afraid that your spouse is going to get fired, the use of negative emotion might be appropriate so that your spouse also associates that outcome with some additional fear. However, if you want your spouse to buy you a new car, there is a more specific end state, so the geometry of the situation may be more conducive to persuasion and encouragement.
To summarize in a few points:
- power differentials exist
- emotional strategies, like asymmetric warfare, are appropriate when there is a power differential
- our objectives have different “geometries” — they are either a push or a pull
- negative strategies (e.g., fear and guilt) are appropriate to achieve push type objectives
