> I'm reshaping my speech to achieve a certain goal, rather than to convey facts.

When communicating, you don't simply recite every datum you know. You edit, you choose facts to communicate a specific set of points. Those points themselves are not random; they are in service of helping you achieve some goal (to get someone to laugh, or to get someone to do/not do something, or to change someone's opinion of you, to make someone feel comfortable, to get a person to bond with you, or whatever).

> am I serving the other person's actual interests

This is the key.

> would I be fine with them seeing exactly what I'm doing

See my first paragraph. Nobody thinks you are reciting facts at random when you talk to them. QED to the extent anyone thinks about it, they understand that you are trying to advance some agenda (drop the connotation on that word). Because this is how human communication works.

Many people, especially in the tech field, have false perceptions about the inner workings of the human brain. We aren't rational automatons receiving exactly the data that has been sent out by the other automatons. That's for a multitude of reasons, the most obvious of that is the fact that only a very miniscule part of our thought is conscious (about 2% is the last number I've read about it). Even the fundamental inner workings of the brain differ from the idea you alluded to. Our brain isn't just a parser interpreting the data we receive - instead it is a black box constantly predicting what happens next, and only uses sensory input, both from the outside and from the inside of the body, to validate or falsify the prediction [1]. One of the obvious side effects if this is for example our tendency to ignore facts that don't fit to our current worldview.

So if I know that these things are as they are, and use them to communicate more successfully, is that manipulation? Then it would also be learning manipulation if kids are sent to school to learn how to write well, or how to do a presentation.

I had a situation with my kid a while ago. They were already tired, but had to take a shower. When I proposed that verbally, they denied. Then I showed them the warm water coming out of the showerhead, and they instantly agreed. So I got what I wanted (the kid getting clean), because I knew how to communicate successfully. But that isn't manipulation: I didn't lie, I didn't have a personal advantage at their cost etc. I just made it easier for them to anticipate what taking a shower would feel like.

So perhaps the distinction should be: If I can honestly and wholeheartedly argue to myself that my intentions are to the best of all participants, then that is communication. If I only care about my outcome, or even want to have adverserial outcome for the others, then that is manipulation.

But we can't use "not noticing" some mode of communication as part of the definition of manipulation simply because we all notice almost nothing consciously, compared to the sensory input we get every second of our lifes.

[1] A pretty approachable book about that, written from a researcher: How emotions are made, from Lisa Feldman Barret

At their core all these self help books are not teaching you how to reshape your speech, but emotional intelligence. They are teaching better understanding of other and yourself. You can then use this understanding to have more fulfilling relations, or more easily manipulate others if you are less well intentioned. The line is very easy to draw, being honest is natural, you say the truth and are open to genuinely understand and build on the other person responses. On the other hand manipulating takes a very different mindset of faking being open to what others are saying.

I think you’re on the right track. Manipulation is overriding someone’s will in service of your motives. Persuasion is offering new information, while respecting their autonomy to make their own choice. So you are right that intention matters a lot. And the reason it matters is that your commitment to their wellbeing is an investment in the relationship which is a mutual interaction over time not a single event.

That’s also why authenticity and honesty matter. If you lie to your children or spouse or colleague they might do what you want one time but over time not trust you. If you are inauthentic they will also learn that you have ulterior motives and become distrustful.

The last thing I’ll say is it’s not always a negotiation. With young kids or direct reports there is elevation in the relationship, meaning one person gets to make the decision and the other gets to follow the instructions. So when a toddler is saying I don’t want to brush my teeth if you treat it like a negotiation you actually make them less secure about their place in the world because they aren’t ready to make every decision for themself. One good technique I learned is to simply present two choices. “You can brush your teeth or let me brush your teeth”. That’s very different than “let’s go brush your teeth” which can be answered yes or no. So it’s not always necessary to engage in persuasion. Sometimes framing is all you need.

I've often felt the same way; I've read some of these and (think I) can spot people using those learned things a mile away, and it immediately raises my hackles up. Management and sales people especially. Touch my shoulder or try to shake my hand palm-down just raise alarm bells.

But that's the other side of these books, understanding "the other side" of people.

I like to believe it all adds up to a big pile of knowledge that finds its place in one's personality / outwards behaviour. But to more observant, introspective, overthinking, possibly neurodiverse people, it just adds to a giant pile of social behaviours that some people seem to have naturally while others have learned / are forcing them.

Doing them costs me energy and makes me feel underhanded / ungenuine. At the same time maybe doing it more often will make them feel natural? I have no idea.

> but at the end of the day, I'm reshaping my speech to achieve a certain goal, rather than to convey facts.

The idea that the only goal of communication is to convey facts is (charitably) a pretty autistic view of interpersonal relationships.

There are many situations where conveying facts is not the primary goal, and there's a world of difference just in how facts are conveyed. Facts probably aren't going to stop your toddler screaming for ice cream. Telling your wife that dress makes her look fat likely isn't going to help either one of you. Calling out a coworker when they are wrong isn't going to improve your working relationship. And so on...

I’ve genuinely read only Never Split the Difference from your list, and it’s kind of the opposite from manipulation.

The book teaches how to actually hear people even in the very emotionally charged situations, how to properly ask them questions to understand their point of view and their needs.

If I understand my son’s needs and can give him what he wants in exchange of him giving me what I want, how is that a manipulation? I can yell at him, impose sanctions (eg no minecraft for two days) and we both will be greatly dissatisfied. Or we can both get what we want, which is a win-win.

I have read How to Win friends and Influence People and I haven't felt like its manipulation.

[I can be wrong and I usually am ;)] but the book teaches just some way to better re-phrase your best intentions and I have started to think the phrases in my head...

Just be honest with people is what that book taught me. I highly recommend people reading it.

Now I will be honest that reading the book itself isn't gonna give you something. It depends highly on variety of factors. For example, the book also teaches to listen more often and I genuinely try to do it as well but I sometimes fail to do that as I am a bit expressive/talkative

I think it also depends on who you are and how the book reinforces some particular topics. You dont have to completely do everything the book says to have meaningful impact as then it would feel manipulative to other person, yea.

And at the very least, reading this books makes you aware of some logic behind what he's saying (for example. I speak a lot but I should listen more, because people like me are so many and everyone likes to speak and be heard but people who actually listen are rare)

and then I can realize that I am speaking too much and so I think that I am more aware.

More Awareness of a topic doesn't mean complete and utter mastery of it but long term persistence of that awareness helps out meaningfully.

TLDR: Just be yourself and see if something sticks from the books and to implement it slowly and the way you like. There isn't one perfect way (not one even in the books) to living life. At best, its collection of what other successful people are doing. I wouldn't suggest (completely) living off the books because you have your own life and way of living it and you should be honest about it to yourself as well.

Thank you for proving Tim Ferris right and showing that AI actually degrades the knowledge adding a second order harm to human society.

The tactics themselves are morally neutral. They can be used to manipulate or elevate another person whose well being you are deeply committed to, the intention behind the tactics are what determines if it is manipulation or connection/persuasion.

Please read the actual book, it’s kind of the opposite from manipulation. You can read more detailed answers in the near branch of comments.