Control

[Autolykos]

When I was growing up, my father taught me some important things. One of them was this: You can't control other people, you can only control yourself. A corollary to this is: No one makes you feel any certain way except yourself. Yet another corollary: Since you can't control other people, you can't change them. But since you do control yourself, you can change yourself. To me now, this all seems intuitive, a part of common sense. The mind wants to rebel against these facts, however. For the mind believes (or, at least, wants to believe) that it can have control over other parts of reality. Thus the difficulty that many, if not most, people have in accepting what my father taught me (including myself).

So my question to you fellow forum-goers is this: Do you agree with what my father taught me? Why or why not?

I look forward to your responses. :)

- Rob

[lsbskins1]

Well, from my evil little perspective I would say that it is a good lesson if you do not distort the lesson.

You can not control other people, so you must not invest your own ego in their outcomes.

That means you can not say, "If I had just tried harder I could have kept Jim from killing himself. I am evil and useless because I failed to save Jim."

Or, you can not say," If no one else cares enough, I can just arm myself to the teeth and overthrow this damned government of ours! I will erradicate the effects of the complacientcy of my fellow citizens through armed revolt! They will appriciate what I have done for them later! They are not using their votes rightly, but I can fix it for them, and they will see the rightness of my actions once it is over!"

But you can say, "Even though Jim is an alchoholic on a self destructive binge, and despite the fact that he is an adult, I CAN make it illegal for him to drive his car while drinking. I may not be able to change him, but when Jim makes that kind of bad choice, he is bound to harm innocent others, and it is good to try to stop forseeable harm.

There is a difference in the two sets of circumstances.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Well, from my evil little perspective I would say that it is a good lesson if you do not distort the lesson.

Okay. Are you saying that I'm distorting "the lesson"? If so, how am I distorting it? And what on Earth is this "lesson" you're talking about???

Quote by: lsbskins1 You can not control other people, so you must not invest your own ego in their outcomes.

Err, no. Whether you invest your own ego in their outcomes or not has nothing to do with the fact that it is impossible to control other people. Am I making myself clear?

Quote by: lsbskins1 That means you can not say, "If I had just tried harder I could have kept Jim from killing himself. I am evil and useless because I failed to save Jim."

Sure you can. :rolleyes:

Quote by: lsbskins1 Or, you can not say," If no one else cares enough, I can just arm myself to the teeth and overthrow this damned government of ours! I will erradicate the effects of the complacientcy of my fellow citizens through armed revolt! They will appriciate what I have done for them later! They are not using their votes rightly, but I can fix it for them, and they will see the rightness of my actions once it is over!"

See above.

Quote by: lsbskins1 But you can say, "Even though Jim is an alchoholic on a self destructive binge, and despite the fact that he is an adult, I CAN make it illegal for him to drive his car while drinking. I may not be able to change him, but when Jim makes that kind of bad choice, he is bound to harm innocent others, and it is good to try to stop forseeable harm. There is a difference in the two sets of circumstances.

Err, one person can make it illegal for everyone else to do something? Try again.

Besides, what does that have to do with the facts as I explained them in my first post? Really, what is your point here?

Notice that I am not mincing words this time. :rolleyes:

- Rob

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Autolykos When I was growing up, my father taught me some important things. One of them was this: You can't control other people, you can only control yourself. A corollary to this is: No one makes you feel any certain way except yourself. Yet another corollary: Since you can't control other people, you can't change them. But since you do control yourself, you can change yourself. To me now, this all seems intuitive, a part of common sense. The mind wants to rebel against these facts, however. For the mind believes (or, at least, wants to believe) that it can have control over other parts of reality. Thus the difficulty that many, if not most, people have in accepting what my father taught me (including myself). So my question to you fellow forum-goers is this: Do you agree with what my father taught me? Why or why not? I look forward to your responses. :) - Rob

I disagree. It is possible for one person to kill another, and that is control. It is possible to influence another person's choices, as a parent, as a teacher, as a member of a society that enacts laws and creates/transmits morals and ethics; influence would be a form of control. One could also argue that the use of non-fatal force, as opposed to simple killing, could be used as a means of control, though there is a question of the victim's ability to resist. Actually, I think we have quite a lot of control over our environment and over other people; but I think we shouldn't exercise that control. Perhaps that was your point, anyway.

[lsbskins1]

So, you were asking this on a completely personal level and had no idea to apply that personal lesson to the greater society around you? Sorry, I just do not believe that.

I mean, are you saying that you believe that there are "great moral truths" that exist only on the micro level? I just assumed (and perhaps assuming can lead to misunderstanding but it is not a given that by assuming I will be incorrect as a matter of course) that you, as an avowed believer in... (well, I have read MANY of your posts and think that I have a fairly good grasp on your basic ideals but hesitate to call them by some "name" you will then reject) were simply trying to extrapolate that lesson your father taught you onto the bigger picture.

So, let's disspence with the trite "So you personally can make something illegal" crap and get down to ideals. Or, do you need to play those kind of silly games to stay in the debate?

So, when I say "You can not say, ' I am evil because I could not save Jim'," I do not mean one is incabable of uttering the words, or having the thought. I meant it would be unproductive and serve no real purpose to try to assume that kind of responsibility for another. Do we reallly need to flip words and play these sort of semantic games? Or is it that you only want to play word games and do not really have any intent on participating in a dialogue?

[Autolykos]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint I disagree. It is possible for one person to kill another, and that is control. It is possible to influence another person's choices, as a parent, as a teacher, as a member of a society that enacts laws and creates/transmits morals and ethics; influence would be a form of control. One could also argue that the use of non-fatal force, as opposed to simple killing, could be used as a means of control, though there is a question of the victim's ability to resist. Actually, I think we have quite a lot of control over our environment and over other people; but I think we shouldn't exercise that control. Perhaps that was your point, anyway.

Interesting. Does killing a person make him do what you want him to do? (I do not consider dying to be an action in the sense of a conscious effort on anyone's part, even in the event of suicide.)

You bring up a good question -- is influence equivalent to control. My answer is no. Influence takes two, an influencer and an influencee. For a person to be influenced by another, he must first allow himself to be influenced in the first place. Really, influence is simply agreement by another name.

The last part of your post comes close to the truth. While we cannot control others directly -- in the sense of living their lives for them or somesuch -- but we can sometimes control, to some extent, the conditions under which they operate. Even so, we cannot control how people respond to those conditions.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: lsbskins1 So, you were asking this on a completely personal level and had no idea to apply that personal lesson to the greater society around you? Sorry, I just do not believe that. I mean, are you saying that you believe that there are "great moral truths" that exist only on the micro level? I just assumed (and perhaps assuming can lead to misunderstanding but it is not a given that by assuming I will be incorrect as a matter of course) that you, as an avowed believer in... (well, I have read MANY of your posts and think that I have a fairly good grasp on your basic ideals but hesitate to call them by some "name" you will then reject) were simply trying to extrapolate that lesson your father taught you onto the bigger picture.

This thread was not intended to be of a political nature. Rather, I presented something that I take as fact. I am curious to see how many other people also do so, and who does not. Particularly for those who do not, I am interested in their reasoning to that effect.

Kindly do not presume to know what I believe in. You really have no idea. Also notice that I do not make such presumptions about you. There is also no reason to get defensive here, although I understand that it's hard for you not to get that way (ever).

Quote by: lsbskins1 So, let's disspence with the trite "So you personally can make something illegal" crap and get down to ideals. Or, do you need to play those kind of silly games to stay in the debate?

Where are the ideals here? I don't see any. :rolleyes:

Please keep in mind that there's a difference between facts and ideals. A very big one, at that. Generally speaking, I do not discuss ideals -- I discuss facts.

Quote by: lsbskins1 So, when I say "You can not say, ' I am evil because I could not save Jim'," I do not mean one is incabable of uttering the words, or having the thought. I meant it would be unproductive and serve no real purpose to try to assume that kind of responsibility for another. Do we reallly need to flip words and play these sort of semantic games? Or is it that you only want to play word games and do not really have any intent on participating in a dialogue?

Yes, we do.

Semantics mean everything in both debate and rhetoric. To me, the word "can" implies ability. It says nothing about productivity or purposefulness. So, I would recommend that instead of saying "You can't say X", you should say "It would be unproductive / serve no real purpose to say X". Doing so would not only render you more semantically accurate, but it would also lessen the likelihood that a listener would think you're engaging in rhetoric rather than debate. (Yes, there is a distinction between the two.)

We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.

- Rob

[lsbskins1]

So, the answer to the question is that you are more interested in word games than positive, productive discussions. And any "value judgement" is not simply a matter of "facts". So either you and your "facts only" self accidentally tread into a very subjective area, or you are simply using that as a weasel.

I posted a response to your question, stating my opinion on a subject that you invited opinions on. Why is it that feel the need to be so god-damn hostile? I have been told that I should begin reporting this kind of behavior rather than allowing myself to get sucked into pissing contests. Is that what you want? Lets look at this response, as an example:

You said - "Err, no. Whether you invest your own ego in their outcomes or not has nothing to do with the fact that it is impossible to control other people. Am I making myself clear?"

Why do you feel the need to add the "Am I making myself clear?" It is just not necessary, unless you mean to imply some lack of ability to understand on my part. It is baiting behavior.

All I ask is that, if you want to be a baiting smart-ass, you refrain from mock indignation over someone else's failure to be perfect in their communication.

If I do not spell out every last concept, it would not be because I am too lax in my process. It would be because I assume that you are not an idiot. Some things, among people with working brains, can be "taken as given".

But, rather than make this a shit throwing contest, I'll just stop posting in this thread. I'm sorry that you need people who do not look forward to the paths a discussion may take, but rather wait for you to lead them by the nose where you think the conversation ought to go. If that is wrong of me, attempting to look ahead at the consequeces of an action, or the possible ways a statement can be twisted out of it's intended meaning, then I'll just have to be wrong.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: lsbskins1 So, the answer to the question is that you are more interested in word games than positive, productive discussions. And any "value judgement" is not simply a matter of "facts". So either you and your "facts only" self accidentally tread into a very subjective area, or you are simply using that as a weasel.

Please point out where I made any value judgement in the opening post of this thread.

Quote by: lsbskins1 I posted a response to your question, stating my opinion on a subject that you invited opinions on. Why is it that feel the need to be so god-damn hostile? I have been told that I should begin reporting this kind of behavior rather than allowing myself to get sucked into pissing contests. Is that what you want? Lets look at this response, as an example:

Heh, I wasn't aware that I was being "god-damn hostile".

Honestly, I don't care what you do. If reporting my "behavior" will make you feel better about yourself (as seems likely), go right ahead.

Quote by: lsbskins1 You said - "Err, no. Whether you invest your own ego in their outcomes or not has nothing to do with the fact that it is impossible to control other people. Am I making myself clear?" Why do you feel the need to add the "Am I making myself clear?" It is just not necessary, unless you mean to imply some lack of ability to understand on my part. It is baiting behavior.

O RLY??? :eek:

In all honesty -- yes, I was implying some lack of ability to understand on your part. To put it bluntly, you seemed to have missed my point.

Quote by: lsbskins1 All I ask is that, if you want to be a baiting smart-ass, you refrain from mock indignation over someone else's failure to be perfect in their communication.

[What follows is me getting personal in response. I apologize in advance if this behavior is considered unwarranted by the moderators.]

Oh, come on, now. You take everything personally. Then, when someone actually bites back, you get defensive. Grow up. And yes, this is coming from a 23-year-old to a 39-year-old. :rolleyes:

Quote by: lsbsins1 If I do not spell out every last concept, it would not be because I am too lax in my process. It would be because I assume that you are not an idiot. Some things, among people with working brains, can be "taken as given".

Specificity, my dear, is very sorely needed. When it comes to discussions such as these, I take very little (if anything) as given. If you don't like it, well, that's your problem.

Quote by: lsbskins1 But, rather than make this a shit throwing contest, I'll just stop posting in this thread. I'm sorry that you need people who do not look forward to the paths a discussion may take, but rather wait for you to lead them by the nose where you think the conversation ought to go. If that is wrong of me, attempting to look ahead at the consequeces of an action, or the possible ways a statement can be twisted out of it's intended meaning, then I'll just have to be wrong.

As Ronald Reagan (of all people!) would say, there you go again.

Is there anything that you don't somehow take offense to? :rolleyes:

- Rob

[lsbskins1]

Look-

I was not pissy to you when you jumped in a thread that was labeled, very specifically I might add, as a discussion between Osborn and Lsbskins. So, I do not take offense at everything ( which, I know , was a sloppy generalization on your part), but rather than demand you prove that there are some, or any or any unspecified, yet vast number of things I take offense at, I will "take it as a given" that you were simply trying to make a point and not implying that I would take offense at you, oh - saying hello - as that would qualify as an "anything".

And what is this "I'm 22 or 23 and you are 39" crap. Are you an adult? I was completely capabable of debating on this level at 16 or 17. Am I supposed to be insulted that I fell into a trap and look stupid because you are younger than me? Do you think you gain IQ points or reasoning ability with each passing year? If you feel you deserve credit for being 23, see if you get it in a prison or court room. Either you are on par with the adults or you are not. Which is it?

But again, I really only wanted to point out that, saying that you can not control other people is not the same as saying you are absolved of any responsibility for others. Nor is my pointing out that humans still bear responsibility to each other to be construed as saying you can make choices for or bear responsibility for the choices of others. I would like for you to explain, specifically, how that was off topic and how that was non-responsive to the posted question? And you tell me who was defensive first? Did you or did you not ask,

"Okay. Are you saying that I'm distorting "the lesson"? If so, how am I distorting it? And what on Earth is this "lesson" you're talking about???"

The lesson, by the way, would be:

"When I was growing up, my father taught me some important things. One of them was this: You can't control other people, you can only control yourself."

That would be the lesson. The distortion of the lesson would be : A belief that not being able to control another in thought, action or deed translated into a lack of responsibility to others. You tell me if you distorted the lesson. All I know and all I said is that it is POSSIBLE to distort the lesson. You were the one who got all DEFENSIVE and felt you were under attack.

Now, again, I would ask you to explain how I misconstrued anything and how I took the discussion off topic. And, given this post, how I was the one who became defensive?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Autolykos Interesting. Does killing a person make him do what you want him to do? (I do not consider dying to be an action in the sense of a conscious effort on anyone's part, even in the event of suicide.)

No, but it would stop him from doing something you don't want him to do. Isn't that control?

Quote by: Autolykos You bring up a good question -- is influence equivalent to control. My answer is no. Influence takes two, an influencer and an influencee. For a person to be influenced by another, he must first allow himself to be influenced in the first place. Really, influence is simply agreement by another name.

I would agree, in most instances. However, your OP brought up the first and most important influence in a person's life: parents. I do not agree that a child is self-aware and self-reliant enough to refuse a parent's guidance before a certain age; therefore, anything a parent says to influence a child before that moment of partial autonomy is automatically "agreed" upon. The child cannot make a choice, and so anything a parent says that sticks with a child is tantamount to control. You yourself had one of your most basic tenets, part of your common sense, created for you/influenced for you by your father. I would submit that creating such an integral part of your worldview is control.

Quote by: Autolykos The last part of your post comes close to the truth. While we cannot control others directly -- in the sense of living their lives for them or somesuch -- but we can sometimes control, to some extent, the conditions under which they operate. Even so, we cannot control how people respond to those conditions. - Rob

It's very nearly the same thing: if one can manipulate the environment enough that a person is left with only one choice -- eliminating suicide as a "choice," as you said -- then that controls how he responds. Take, for instance, a father's control of his children in past societies such as Rome, feudal Europe and Asia, etc. If a father insisted that his daughter marry a certain man, or leave home, is that a choice? Assuming leaving home means death on the streets as a pariah, is that a choice? Especially when a father has been able to influence his daughter to accept his word as law, and all the legal and social institutions support that. I'd say the father can control the daughter, in that situation.

Does that situation translate to the present? That depends on how you view a person's ability to overcome their paradigm, or the influence of their parents.:)

[Fysk]

It's very nearly the same thing: if one can manipulate the environment enough that a person is left with only one choice -- eliminating suicide as a "choice," as you said -- then that controls how he responds.

Does it even need to only leave them with one possible choice, or a choice with one viable option? People can be predictable, expecially if you know them well enough. If you know, or can predict reasonably accurately, how someone will react in a given situation then if you set up that situation to draw the action, have you not controlled them in a way? The best example I can think of off the top of my head is where one person in a relationship doesn't call their partner, because they know that if they wait long enough without doing so their partner will call them. Is that control?

I agree that influence takes two people before it can work, but what if the 'influencee' doesn't consciously realise they're being influenced? Like with subliminal advertising, or people they trust that are just very, very persuasive?

I'd amend the phrase to "You can't control other people if they don't want you to badly enough", which sounds like a useless truism and still only works most of the time (it falls down with "Don't do this or I'll shoot you" if "this" takes more than a split second to do, for example).

[Osborn F Enready]

Autolykos said: So my question to you fellow forum-goers is this: Do you agree with what my father taught me?

I say:
100% in agreement with your pops. Sounds like an honorable, respectful and wise man.
I don't know, but I would bet a self made man also?

Autolykos said: Why or why not?

I say:
Because he is exactly right.( LOL )

To control something is to absolutely, in all manners of our physical world, manipulate something to your desires. Man can control inanimate objects, if it is within his strength to do so, but only if they are simple objects, such as a rock (tangible objects). Also, the rock has no free will. When technology gets involved, control becomes a matter of degrees, though predictable degrees to within a degree of percentage of risk.(tangibles, again) However, the technological object does not have free will.

When man tries to "manipulate" living things however, the level of control changes with the level of intelligence in the thing being "manipulated". When speaking of "controlling" of living things, one must consider the living things ability to use reason, and use logic, which means one must control all aspects of all senses including tangible and intangible, as well as manipulate free-will through sensory information limitation. The power of reason is a solid argument, based on what man can see, feel, smell, hear and taste. This is why man clings to reason and logic to evolve, it provides a stable base for men of like mind to work together on a "standard" measure of viewable repeatability, and it relies heavily on tangible reality. However, man has instinctual emotion, as well as compassion and empathy to some degree. Man is individual, and while the same in biological form in most areas, very diverse in other areas of reason, intellect, emotion and ambition. Objects that are tangible are able to be controlled in all aspects(such as the body) however you can't control the mind(intangible). Living things operate on instinct(intangible), emotion(intangible), logic(intangible process of thought based on tangible reality) and reason to some degree(the attempt to balance logic of the tangible vs the emotion and instinct of the intangible), and they are limited by the physical world also, so we CANNOT control all senses, or literally have "control". Also of course, is the free will issue.

We have the ability to "alter" people, or perhaps to "influence" people, but we cannot control them. We can limit their senses, or broaden them, effecting a manipulation of a sort, but the result is dependent on the application and reception of manipulation and not guaranteed to work, due to free will of the individual and interpreted "force" whatever form it takes when it interferes with the free will of the individual.

It is trial and error that led to logic and reason. This is what allowed man to evolve away from hunter-gatherer to society. The constant threat of survival of natures, NON-emotional, unforgiving force imposes an extremely motivational inspiration when survival is the goal of man, in a world of nature, and he has the unique power to harness reason moreso than any other predators of this world. This brought man together. Mans ability easily surpassed that of simple survival, and has grown to take many shapes, all sizes great and small, societies and governments of all types, ruled by many conglomerations of tangibles and intangibles, from the things that make up man. This is where man falls short. The relationship of tangible and intangible to society and the individuals free will.

Free-will is why we cannot control living things 100%.

Free-will, the ultimate variable.

There is a reason they say you haven't hunted until you have hunted man. It's because there is no other predator like him, and even nature can't take the shapes of force that man has mastered.

Free-will, something we all have but can't explain for "everyone". The fields of psychology, philosophy, and theology have all tried to cater to each respective, subjective theory in their own ways. However, in the sense of free-will there is no necessity of "right or wrong" if all have it, and acknowledge others have it equally.(rights of the individual)


That is my answer, my opinion, and I even gave it of free will.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Look- I was not pissy to you when you jumped in a thread that was labeled, very specifically I might add, as a discussion between Osborn and Lsbskins. So, I do not take offense at everything ( which, I know , was a sloppy generalization on your part), but rather than demand you prove that there are some, or any or any unspecified, yet vast number of things I take offense at, I will "take it as a given" that you were simply trying to make a point and not implying that I would take offense at you, oh - saying hello - as that would qualify as an "anything".

What are you talking about? I never jumped in that thread. You must be confusing me with someone else.

Quote by: lsbskins1 And what is this "I'm 22 or 23 and you are 39" crap. Are you an adult? I was completely capabable of debating on this level at 16 or 17. Am I supposed to be insulted that I fell into a trap and look stupid because you are younger than me? Do you think you gain IQ points or reasoning ability with each passing year? If you feel you deserve credit for being 23, see if you get it in a prison or court room. Either you are on par with the adults or you are not. Which is it?

I figured that you would probably bring up being older than me, as if that could somehow trump me (which, in fact, it couldn't), and I wanted to preempt that.

Quote by: lsbskins1 But again, I really only wanted to point out that, saying that you can not control other people is not the same as saying you are absolved of any responsibility for others. Nor is my pointing out that humans still bear responsibility to each other to be construed as saying you can make choices for or bear responsibility for the choices of others. I would like for you to explain, specifically, how that was off topic and how that was non-responsive to the posted question? And you tell me who was defensive first? Did you or did you not ask,

Here is what I meant: Whether or not one believes that people bear responsibility to each other is very much beside the point right now.

Quote by: lsbskins1 "Okay. Are you saying that I'm distorting "the lesson"? If so, how am I distorting it? And what on Earth is this "lesson" you're talking about???" The lesson, by the way, would be: "When I was growing up, my father taught me some important things. One of them was this: You can't control other people, you can only control yourself." That would be the lesson. The distortion of the lesson would be : A belief that not being able to control another in thought, action or deed translated into a lack of responsibility to others. You tell me if you distorted the lesson. All I know and all I said is that it is POSSIBLE to distort the lesson. You were the one who got all DEFENSIVE and felt you were under attack.

Yes, and in no way did I ever make such a point. You were reading too much into what I was saying.

Quote by: lsbskins1 Now, again, I would ask you to explain how I misconstrued anything and how I took the discussion off topic. And, given this post, how I was the one who became defensive?

See the above. You became defensive after I tried to point out that what you were saying about people having responsibility to each other was beside the point of the discussion.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint No, but it would stop him from doing something you don't want him to do. Isn't that control?

Hmm, I'm not sure. We may have different definitions of "control". I do see the point you're making, though.

[quote=CoffeeSaint]I would agree, in most instances. However, your OP brought up the first and most important influence in a person's life: parents. I do not agree that a child is self-aware and self-reliant enough to refuse a parent's guidance before a certain age; therefore, anything a parent says to influence a child before that moment of partial autonomy is automatically "agreed" upon. The child cannot make a choice, and so anything a parent says that sticks with a child is tantamount to control. You yourself had one of your most basic tenets, part of your common sense, created for you/influenced for you by your father. I would submit that creating such an integral part of your worldview is control.[/qutoe]

Yet when one speaks of "people", he is normally speaking of adults, no? Otherwise, I agree with you here. Children take what their parents say as gospel, at least initially, because they do not know any better.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint It's very nearly the same thing: if one can manipulate the environment enough that a person is left with only one choice -- eliminating suicide as a "choice," as you said -- then that controls how he responds. Take, for instance, a father's control of his children in past societies such as Rome, feudal Europe and Asia, etc. If a father insisted that his daughter marry a certain man, or leave home, is that a choice? Assuming leaving home means death on the streets as a pariah, is that a choice? Especially when a father has been able to influence his daughter to accept his word as law, and all the legal and social institutions support that. I'd say the father can control the daughter, in that situation.

There are always at least two choices: to do something, or to not do it. So I would disagree that the father can control the daughter in that situation. There may be a 99.9999% chance that she will do as her father wishes, but she will still be doing so of her own free will.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Does that situation translate to the present? That depends on how you view a person's ability to overcome their paradigm, or the influence of their parents.:)

I would say that there always exists the possibility, however remote, that a person will overcome his "paradigm".

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Fysk Does it even need to only leave them with one possible choice, or a choice with one viable option? People can be predictable, expecially if you know them well enough. If you know, or can predict reasonably accurately, how someone will react in a given situation then if you set up that situation to draw the action, have you not controlled them in a way? The best example I can think of off the top of my head is where one person in a relationship doesn't call their partner, because they know that if they wait long enough without doing so their partner will call them. Is that control?

I take it as axiomatic that one can never know with 100% certainty (read: predict) another person's future behavior. So no, control does not exist in those situations.

Quote by: Fysk I agree that influence takes two people before it can work, but what if the 'influencee' doesn't consciously realise they're being influenced? Like with subliminal advertising, or people they trust that are just very, very persuasive?

Subliminal advertising does not work unless the person wants it to work. Just like hypnosis.

Persuasion is the same as influence.

Quote by: Fysk I'd amend the phrase to "You can't control other people if they don't want you to badly enough", which sounds like a useless truism and still only works most of the time (it falls down with "Don't do this or I'll shoot you" if "this" takes more than a split second to do, for example).

When someone says to you "Don't do this or I'll shoot you", one still has at least two choices: to do it or to not do it.

- Rob

[lsbskins1]

This is me admitting I was wrong:

You were right. It was not you who jumped into the other thread. I remembered incorrectly and did not not check. My mistake. It was, in fact, Morgan_Freeman.

This is me defending the defensable:

You said:

"Kindly do not presume to know what I believe in. You really have no idea. Also notice that I do not make such presumptions about you."

But then said:

"I figured that you would probably bring up being older than me, as if that could somehow trump me (which, in fact, it couldn't), and I wanted to preempt that."

Now,in the first case, you take exception to the idea that I might anticipate some stance or attitude from you. In the second case, you "figured" ( ie, presumed) I would make a certain argument. Is it or is it not acceptable to presume or anticipate or "figure" a stance or a direction a debate or a debator might take? It can't be bad for me but ok for you. Which standard are we adhereing to in the future? Or are we just going to ignore each other?