I had a better way of articulating it, but I went with that.
So for the longest time I felt like I shouldn’t give people reasons behind an answer because you can put in the reasons behind it can sway their decisions. Also I know that I had incomplete data set. Humans do lean on each other to think and you can inject what idea and have it spread.
To attempt something more coherent. You can do propaganda when you try to reason. It’s just natural to talk as if they know and just bridge the gaps in their knowledge with any old phrase
I disagree with this, it’s overly broadening the definition. If you’re upfront and clear with someone, for example saying “your partner is abusive, with these exact examples”, that’s not manipulation because it’s not underhanded or subtle. It’s just trying to help. I don’t think we have a good word in English for “changing someone’s mind or behaviour” in a neutral or positive way. At least I’m not remembering it right now. Maybe persuade?
For it to be manipulation you would have to be sneaky about it. I’m not a manipulative person so it’s hard to think of examples but something like, making it seem like their current partner is cheating on them via clever wordplay and deliberate clues left lying around “by accident”. Even if the end goal is good, the method is manipulative and clandestine. Honesty is the difference here. In the first example we were upfront and clear with our intentions and beliefs.
I get where you’re coming from:
I gave the foundational definition of “manipulation” - as in “manipulate the lever”, to change the state of something - The reason I started with it is simple: I don’t want readers to assume the choice is between “not manipulating” by not interacting. Remember that the OP used “manipulation m” and “altering perspective” basically synonymous in their post - that’s why it was important to me to relate to that part.
In another context I’d start closer to what you’ve described! :)
Oh yeah I see what you mean now. My bad for misreading it