"Sarah, put on the green coat or the red sweater. We're going to go out, okay?" Choice among humans increases the likelihood of compliance. And choice isn't important, it's the appearance of choice that's important. Having real choice is not the issue, humans don't feel too strongly about that, but having the feeling that you have a choice makes a difference.
This was the main take away for me. It seems like it might be useful for managing employees / colleagues too.
Anytime someone does "choice framing" (or other "persuasion techniques") on me, they have automatically placed themselves on thin ice.
Most of the time, I will ignore it because it isn't important enough for me. If I know you are a "sales/marketing" type, I may simply ignore this part of your personality because I realize you can't turn it off.
If I think it's important, I will call you out on it. I will inform you quite strongly that I will come to my own conclusions after I have considered my options. If you want my support, present me with your evidence and arguments.
If this is a business power play, I'm going to call one or two other people over who will want the choice to go different directions, sit back, and watch everything melt down into a gigantic argument.
Don't manipulate people around you to do things they don't want to do. Align your goals and tasks so that people want to do the thing you want them to do. Otherwise, you'll get a reputation for "playing poker" all them time, and then people will start avoiding you.
Or worse, they'll start sending someone like me over to deal with you. And they'll laugh as you get increasingly frustrated that you are interacting with someone you can't manipulate. (Yes, I'm speaking from both personal and business experience).
I don't understand how people think this is honest. You're clearly using your cognitive advantage (or in the case of a boss, usually an organizational info advantage) to trick the other person. I remember as I grew up noticing when adults were doing this, and I resented them for it. Why would I want my kids to feel that way about me?
It's not "tricking", unless you're letting your toddler dictate whether you should leave the house. Toddlers don't have a choice over that; instead, you're giving the toddler a choice appropriate to their level. That helps build their cognitive abilities and takes the focus away from whether they want to leave the house (a choice they shouldn't make), to whether they want the sweater or coat (a choice reasonable for them).
You're using a cognitive advantage to distract them from expressing displeasure about something they reasonably don't like. Just because the toddler doesn't have a say over whether you're leaving the house doesn't mean you're not tricking him.
If two people are dating, the boyfriend is well within his rights to unilaterally break off the relationship. But if he broached the issue with his girlfriend by saying "Would you rather be just friends or simply not see each other any more?" in order to distract her from the breakup, she would rightfully be resentful. (That example is extreme to illustrate the point, but the idea is the same.)
Are you suggesting 4-year-old children are emotionally mature enough to properly express their displeasure with something in a productive manner? Maybe some are, but others are very hair triggered with their emotions and interpret not getting their way as if they were being murdered. Perhaps working around these fatal emotion exceptions is better than running into them every day, at least until the child's brain has had time for a few major revisions.
In your second paragraph, are you suggesting there is no such thing as an amicable breakup? One where exes can still be friends? The "I don't have romantic feelings for you, but would like to remain friends" tactic is quite popular. Obviously the recipient of that message will interpret it in a variety of ways depending on their investment in the relationship. If the person has a negative reaction to it, they likely wouldn't have responded any better to "I am leaving you, goodbye" either.
> Perhaps working around these fatal emotion exceptions is better than running into them every day, at least until the child's brain has had time for a few major revisions.
Perhaps. Parenting is complicated. But we shouldn't pretend it's not a trick, and that we aren't doing something the child may rightfully resent.
> In your second paragraph, are you suggesting...
No.
> If the person has a negative reaction to it, they likely wouldn't have responded any better to "I am leaving you, goodbye" either.
The point of being honest is not necessarily because it secures the best response.
If the goal of the parent is "get child to grandmas, so I can go to work to continue to take care of this child", while the child's goal is "I want to continue to watch cartoons in this very spot and not move, and I'll have a tantrum if I am told to move due to poor impulse/emotional controls in my under-developed brain, unless I am 'tricked'", then who's goals are more important? If the child resents such a "trick" later in life, then the child is still showing traits of emotional immaturity, and a lack of understanding on how the world operates.
Also don't put honesty on too high a pedestal. Being honest about every single thing can have very damaging effects and negative consequences. Having no social tact so you can ride an honesty high horse is not necessarily superior to little white lies and/or trickery.
> If the goal of the parent is "get child to grandmas"
> while the child's goal is "I want to continue to watch cartoons"
> who's goals are more important?
At what point/age is it OK to control someone, and when/why does that stop?
As an adult, if I want to spend the day on the sofa watching cartoons, who has the right to stop me, and drag me off somewhere else?
> At what point/age is it OK to control someone, and when/why does that stop?
When they have not established an ability to control their life or take care of themselves? See how long the infant or toddler lasts without supervision. See the teenager make the best choices for their lives without the ability to earn a living(although technically I moved out at 17).
When they can afford their own self determination as defined by the society they live in?
Parental control is more of a gradient that should ease as the child gets closer to adulthood. The goal of the parent should be to make a self-sufficient independent individual. That's not always their goal though.
>As an adult, if I want to spend the day on the sofa watching cartoons, who has the right to stop me, and drag me off somewhere else?
Your landlord, mortgage company, local tax auditor would have the legal right to evict you if you failed to make good on earlier promises to pay rent, mortgage, taxes. If you're living with someone else who is paying for your ability to watch cartoons then they could probably kick you out whenever they felt like it.
In my experience it works very well. I've had people say that to me, and I've said that to other people, and I'm relatively happy on both ends of it. In fact, I'm currently in a very healthy relationship with someone who I've said that to several years ago. So it "works" however you want to measure it. The trick is not to be 15 years old.
> the boyfriend is well within his rights to unilaterally break off the relationship.
> But if he broached the issue with his girlfriend by saying
> "Would you rather be just friends or simply not see each other any more?"
> in order to distract her from the breakup, she would rightfully be resentful.
That's a tricky one, because, as you say, he can unilaterally break off the relationship.
By providing options going forward, most people would see that as looking for the most positive way to move on. Who would resent that?
Unless he deliberately did that to distract from the breakup…but even then, it doesn't exactly seem all that negative. Having made the decision to break off the relationship, providing options to deal with that and offer positive ways forward doesn't seem all that bad.
For me, I'm struggling to see how the example fits. Sure, she may be upset at the breakup of the relationship, but providing options for responding to that seems more positive than negative.
I don't disagree with the principle, but the example: a relationship is based on mutual consent, and withdrawal of that consent isn't a trick or unacceptable.
It's clearly not a fair comparison. At some point you need to introduce an age of determination or at least a grade to have a reasonable conversation about the ethics of parenting. Parents are required to do all sorts of things in their kids' best interest that wouldn't otherwise be reasonable / appropriate.
The point of the example was not that it was a perfect analogy, it was merely to rebut the idea that a parent's prerogative to choose destination doesn't mean there's no transgression.
I already addressed the child's-interest defense in another comment. Yes, there are of course cases where parents transgressions may be justified (and required) in order to help the child, but we shouldn't pretend there is no transgression, in particular because we should always try to secure the good outcome for the child without the transgression.
The assumption implicit in your argument is that the relationship is equal (as in the case of a boyfriend/girlfriend). I'm not sure that same assumption holds for a parent and a child, as much as the media tells you otherwise.
The point of the example was merely to rebut the idea that a parent's prerogative to choose destination doesn't mean there's no transgression. Finding some way that it differs from the parent-child relationship isn't relevant unless you explain why the asymmetry would imply there was no transgression.
Children learn their own forms of manipulative behavior at an early age(e.g. cry to get attention or what you want), but with less logical understanding of their own wants/needs. Put children on the same level, and hold the child to the same moral standard you're trying to hold parents to and they fail completely at it. It's not a matter of the parent manipulating the innocent child, but rather the parent diverting around the child's own manipulative behaviors. Perhaps no one should be manipulative ever, but go ahead and try explaining that to someone with the cognitive and emotional maturity of a 4 year old.
In an adult-adult relationship, the two parties should be equals, with similar cognitive and emotional maturity. They should treat each other as such. This isn't always the case. Even loving seemingly healthy relationships may involve some form of manipulative behavior on both sides.
Transgressions occur all the time, in all relationships, you have you to use judgement to figure out which ones get a pass, and which ones don't.
Any cognitive advantage that is abused will be seen as manipulative, absolutely. The way to make "the illusion of choice" work is to be selective about it. You start out by giving the 4 year old the illusion of choice (the jacket or the sweater), but what you're really doing is coaching the child to make appropriate decisions. After a few times, you won't have to give the child the choice anymore, because they will know the parameters of the choices for the challenge facing them. You could simply say "let's get ready to go out."
Same thing with a boss. (S)he can use this cognitive tool to coach good decisions. People like choice and they like being right. Using this method allows for both.
You're justifying it as being in the child's (or employee's) interest, but you're not actually denying the transgression.
Lying becomes less worse when you lie for someone else's benefit but (1) that doesn't make it not lying, (2) the other person can still rightfully resent it, (3) you generally shouldn't trust yourself to only lie in another's interest. Regarding the last one: I often see normal, reasonably good parents lie to their children just to get relief, and I'm sure they can justify it to themselves as in the child's interest, but it's really just self-serving.
(You can replace "lie" with "white lie", "trick", or whatever euphemism you want for this mild, but real, transgression.)
I think one good check on this is whether the child would be OK with it after-the-fact, assuming some hypothetical wisdom and hindsight (like becoming an adult). If they aren't OK with it, then you probably shouldn't do it. And I'm telling you right now: as an adult, I don't like the fact that adults did this to me when I was a child.
> I don't like the fact that adults did this to me when I was a child.
I'm curious to know more about this. Was it cases like "the jacket or the sweater" or was it something more serious?
If your parent distracted you from not getting ice cream by giving you a toy, would you be OK with that? Basically you are distracting them because they don't yet have the cognitive awareness to distract themselves.
I got downvoted for making essentially the same point (elsewhere in this same discussion). I think you are 100% correct, but are not likely to win the argument. People don't like having it pointed out that what is convenient for them is not actually ethical, even if that isn't how you are framing it. They will defend to their death their right to claim "well, it is in the best interest of (the child, employee, whomever)" and ignore the larger point.
The irony is this is being suggested by an article that posits we should be nicer to our kids and not punish them. But deception and manipulation, that's apparently totes okay! It is so much nicer!
I don't believe in a punishment model. I also did not lie to my kids, nor deceive them nor manipulate them. I have a great relationship with my now adult sons who know they can trust me because I don't pull any of that bullshit. And that's what really matters to me. I sometimes wish I could figure out to share that information effectively to help other parents, but people who justify their shitty behavior don't actually want to be helped. They want the rest of the world to be nicer to benefit themselves, but they don't want to have to deal with the man in the mirror. He's fine. It's everyone else that is bad.
It goes both ways. If a boss says "do X" you may not have a gracefull opportunity to respond. But if a boss says "wold you rather do X or Y" you are more likely to be able to say "how about Z because...".
Granted, in a healthy relationship neither party has must resort to such tricks.
The other important thing is to recognise that children can't plan. If you're in a hot room and ask a child to put some warm clothing on they're not going to be able to plan for the cold weather outside, and they'll reject the clothing because they're warm.
At that point you can turn it into a huge thing, or you can just take the coat with you until you get outside and they get cold. At which point you let them put it on. And if they still don't want it, well, most children aren't going to let themselves get hypothermic.
What I find fascinating is that it seems that it's (maybe I'm wrong) a very recent development in child psychology, but it's used against us by the marketing departments many times every day.
This was the main take away for me. It seems like it might be useful for managing employees / colleagues too.