Lulu Cypher a écrit : 07 mars 2018, 16:49
En fait tu es rendue là ou je souhaitais aller
Analyser les propos pour en extraire de possibles biais cognitifs ... OK ... mais ensuite ?
L'expression de ce biais peut-être inconsciemment utilisé ... mais qu'est ce qui empêche un pervers narcissique de se servir explicitement, consciemment d'un biais cognitifs pour satisfaire ses besoins de manipulation ?
Nous sommes très loin d'être en désaccord.
Je ne crois pas du tout qu'une pathologie quelconque soit le moteur de l'immense majorité des "zozos" venant sur des forums tels que celui-ci professer avec véhémence leurs croyances (religieuses ou autres) et vilipender scientifiques, sceptiques, rationalistes et autres contempteurs de la foi aveugle.
A moins évidemment qu'on ne considère comme pathologique l'impolitesse généralisée, l'absence de scrupules, l'aveuglement volontaire, bref, le comportement de sociopathes affiché par la majorité d'entre eux
C'est pour cela que, depuis longtemps déjà, je ne me concentre que rarement sur le sujet de la discussion, préférant examiner et commenter le comportement de ceux qui usent et abusent de ce que l'on qualifie de "biais cognitifs", et que je considère de plus en plus comme des tactiques manipulatrices.
J'avais été frappée, il y a quelques années déjà, par l'analyse d'un membre (depuis banni) du forum JREF (ex Randi), qui dans une discussion vouée aux stupidités "Bigfootiennes" relevait la manoeuvre que tu évoques :
The rules of civility are a wonderful framework to use in exploiting conscientious people. What that does is create an infinite set of opportunities for what the science calls the "double bind".
I had no appreciation for how important the double bind was for manipulative personalities until gradually I began to see it played so incessantly. The double bind is where the manipulator places you in a lose-lose situation.
In the discussion board iteration of this play, they say something so idiotic that letting them "get away with it" is something you don't want to do. You feel that you lose if their comment goes without a response. But on the other hand, responding to them is also a losing proposition.
On a discussion board it is a repeated play game theory context. If you respond to them then they simply repeat the play again with another idiotic statement. The game will continue in perpetuity so long as you keep responding to the chain-yanking.
Lying is not against the rules nor is playing dumb, selective attention, and most of the other manipulative tactics. But all of these work on the emotions of conscientious people, which is the intent of the double bind. Conscientious people recognize all of these tactics as dirty, underhanded and unfair play. But for most people it is at the subconscious level. They feel it inside of them but are confused about it intellectually because they are working from the wrong premise: that they are dealing with a conscientious person like themselves who would not do such things.
The Holy Grail for the manipulator is to keep pressing the emotional buttons until the target explodes and breaks the forum rules by correctly calling the manipulator an A-hole. Although it is a correct assessment, it is against the rules. If they could get any of us banned it would be a huge victory.
A disordered personality or character is not crazy. It is not a mental illness. The primary feature is lacking a conscience. They use your conscientiousness against you while having none themselves. They view others as stupid for being conscientious.
Unbeknownst to you, if the manipulator has chosen you as a specific target he is watching very carefully for how you respond to various plays. These plays are emotional, not intellectual. So they may be working guilt, anger, flattery or whatever and can figure out how to push that specific emotional button in almost any context.
They catalogue you, for example, not by your height if you are short, but instead whether you are insecure about it and will respond defensively to being called short. Being short is not relevant to them if it has no manipulative use.
You are at a huge disadvantage if you think that they are playing with you on the level of biological sciences.
By the way, the authors do say that one of the best means of dealing with them is to indicate that you know exactly what they are up to. Like "you want me to be angry", or "you want me to feel guilty", or the statements made in this thread to the OP. They will try to play dumb like they don't know what you mean - in which case you call them on playing dumb. It is no fun for them being exposed like that. They will also exit the game when they have said too many contradictory things or have gotten so bizarre that it is pretty clear anyway that they are just chain-yanking.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken
Denis
Je rigole. Les raisons sont évidentes. 
