They treat all communication as an exercise in extracting benefits from (or causing harm to) other people.
is the core of the problem.
Everyone uses communication to extract some benefit.
The dishonest one is to say whatever is necessary to obtain your goal with no regard for what you actually believe.
And your example, is exactly that, someone saying a specific set of words to accomplish their goal. In either scenario, the words spoken and the outcome, whatever it is, are identical. The buyer manipulated the seller.
You seem to have some distinction between good manipulation and bad manipulation where there is only just manipulation. It is a tool like any other.
As for trust, you can only have a high trust society when it is in others self interest to see you succeed. Your success contributes to their DNA being passed on, either because you have the same ancestors and thus DNA, or because you will in the future help them (enlightened self interest). Anytime either of those preconditions are violated, no matter how communication occurs, you will have a low trust society. In a low trust society communication doesn't matter because the niggers are just gonna steal everything anyways.
His original statement, that I have a problem with was:
I had no idea how many people - consciously or otherwise - view language entirely as transactional.
At the same time he implies that this is somehow wrong.
If we continue the gun metaphor, it is equivalent to saying:
I had no idea how many people - consciously or otherwise view guns entirely as tools to kill people.
Not good people or bad people, just people. Now in the case of guns there are other uses, namely hunting and pest control. In the case of communication, I cannot come up with any purpose other than changing something or someone.
We were criticizing how people use it. And you were claiming that all uses were equivalent.
I am claiming that everyone uses it transactionally. For good or bad every time someone says something they expect someone else to change something.
Maybe some examples will make this clearer.
When someone standing in the elevator with someone else says "How about that storm last week?" or "How about them Red Sox?", they are attempting to change how the other person views them, by reducing awkwardness and building rapport. When someone asks someone to turn down the AC they expect the other to do so. When someone tells someone else how to change a sparkplug they expect the other person to subsequently know how to change a spark plug. When someone tells a story they expect the others to enjoy it, or learn from it, or contemplate it. This entire conversation is me trying to change your thoughts, and you trying to change my thoughts.
In every instance the speaker expects someone else to change, either their thoughts, or something around them.
Ch's statement:
Everyone uses communication to extract some benefit.
And your example, is exactly that, someone saying a specific set of words to accomplish their goal. In either scenario, the words spoken and the outcome, whatever it is, are identical. The buyer manipulated the seller.
You seem to have some distinction between good manipulation and bad manipulation where there is only just manipulation. It is a tool like any other.
As for trust, you can only have a high trust society when it is in others self interest to see you succeed. Your success contributes to their DNA being passed on, either because you have the same ancestors and thus DNA, or because you will in the future help them (enlightened self interest). Anytime either of those preconditions are violated, no matter how communication occurs, you will have a low trust society. In a low trust society communication doesn't matter because the niggers are just gonna steal everything anyways.
Do you want to ban guns? They can, after all, be used to kill good people.
His original statement, that I have a problem with was:
At the same time he implies that this is somehow wrong.
If we continue the gun metaphor, it is equivalent to saying:
Not good people or bad people, just people. Now in the case of guns there are other uses, namely hunting and pest control. In the case of communication, I cannot come up with any purpose other than changing something or someone.
I am claiming that everyone uses it transactionally. For good or bad every time someone says something they expect someone else to change something.
Maybe some examples will make this clearer.
When someone standing in the elevator with someone else says "How about that storm last week?" or "How about them Red Sox?", they are attempting to change how the other person views them, by reducing awkwardness and building rapport. When someone asks someone to turn down the AC they expect the other to do so. When someone tells someone else how to change a sparkplug they expect the other person to subsequently know how to change a spark plug. When someone tells a story they expect the others to enjoy it, or learn from it, or contemplate it. This entire conversation is me trying to change your thoughts, and you trying to change my thoughts.
In every instance the speaker expects someone else to change, either their thoughts, or something around them.
Manipulation requires intent.