i wonder how many people have 'ultimate goals'? a handful of psychopaths perhaps. for the rest of us, well, we might have the immediate goal of getting a sandwich?Adam Elkus:
> Broadly speaking, Alice ideally must first be sphinxlike in character to pull any of this off. She must foster [[ambiguity]] about what her ultimate goals are in order to have an advantage over those around her. This style of behavior is called “robust action” in sociology. For Alice to be an ideal manipulator, her actions must be interpretable from multiple perspectives at once, potentially function as moves in multiple [[concepts/games|games]] at once, and conceal her public and private motivations. This maintains her flexibility and discretion and thwarts attempts by rivals to narrow her space of choices. Forced clarification of her [[commitment|commitments]] and lock-in to hard goals only gives Bob an ability to constrain her.
I understand that tonally calling a joke manipulation is jarringi think that these models for understanding human behaviour are not very good really. you can, i suppose, say that someone making a joke for example is trying to 'manipulate' his audience into laughing, or that by making them laugh is trying to 'manipulate' them into liking him, but it doesnt seem very satisfactory. reductive and misanthropic, to coin a phrase.