Intention, Intention, Intention!

So this is something I've been noshing on for quite a while and I finally feel ready to bang out a post. It seems my focus as of late revolves around communication, and this post is a short little diddy dedicated to the ol' dialogue.  My last post documented the rare existence of the Conversational Assassin.  This post will introduce a new sub-species in the world of talkage: 

The Intentional Manipulator

I've come to the conclusion that, when it comes to communication, there are three levels involved:

 

1.   Speech-- the words that exit your mouth

2.   Conscious Response-- the thoughts that formulate your speech

3.   Intent—the truth and theme of your dialogue

Speech is fairly easy to understand.  It’s the words that people say.  Conscious Response is an accumulation of thoughts that occur in conjunction with those words. Intent is the subtext and true meaning behind a conversation.  It’s the particular message a person would like to express. An Intentional Manipulator is a person who uses Conscious Response to distort and misrepresent what another person is trying to say, i.e. they take that person’s intent, break it up into a bunch of pieces, and reassemble it to support their own conclusions. 

I’ll give you an example.  Let’s say you’re discussing animal rights.  Perhaps you have noted that hunters have begun to target a particular species and that this needs to be regulated before the animals are obliterated from the earth.  An Intentional Manipulator will not hear the point you are trying to make.  Nope, they will only hear what they want to hear, and will take your words and twist them into a warped, misshapen version with the intent of making you look stupid. That way, they win a debate before it even begins. The problem with this is that the person trying to make a point may have some very good ideas, but instead of considering those ideas, an Intentional Manipulator would rather perpetrate their own.  Usually, an Intentional Manipulator is a person who will let you speak for a while, and then sail in with a cutting remark focused on one portion of your dialogue.  It’s usually something that has nothing to do with your intent, and everything to do with theirs. 

It goes a little something like this:

Speaker: “I think the legislature should seriously reconsider the new bill that allows hunters to go after wolves. There are a lot of trophy hunters who have no interest in regulating species population.  They’re only out there for the thrill of the kill and could ultimately wipe out the packs if they aren’t monitored.”

Intentional Manipulator: “Well, wolves go after people and livestock. That’s why people are allowed to hunt. You really don’t have the right to judge how they do it, nor do you have the right to eliminate it...”

Outside looking in, this seems like a legitimate argument that is absolutely connected to the conversation.  However, upon closer inspection, you might see that some mega-shitty subterfuge just went down. The IM (that be short for Intentional Manipulator) actually shifted the conversation away from the point of the speaker’s message, turning it into something completely different. Instead of talking about animal rights, ol’ IM has just accused the speaker of an attack on hunters’ rights!

First of all, the intent of the conversation was wolves and their rights. While hunters may have rights, those rights should not encroach upon a species’ absolutely infallible right to exist. That was the real subtext of the conversation. It was not to eliminate a hunter’s right to hunt, or to eliminate why or how they hunt, but to regulate overhunting of a particular species. If you look really close, you will see that the IM literally placed words in the speaker’s mouth. Not once did the speaker say that they wanted to eliminate a trophy hunter’s right to hunt rather the speaker only said they wanted to protect wolves from hunters who want to kill for sport and nothing more.

And guess what?

A speaker is allowed to have that opinion and should not be ridiculed for it! Just as a hunter has the right to trophy kill, a speaker has a right to disapprove and do whatever possible to protect a family of wolves. This is about balance, not overkill (pun intended, baby). Both have rights. Indeed, if the speaker was silenced, the fate of wolves might be very dire.

I’m sure this post will trigger some interesting political opinions on hunting rights, but again, the example I use is not the point of the post. The point is conversational manipulation. If you are expressing your opinion, be mindful of the Intentional Manipulator. It’s easy to have your point bastardized by people who only listen to the words you say and not to the intent lying within them. Don’t allow an IM to drag your opinions through the mud. Don’t allow them to turn your thoughts into something different. You have a point. You have the right to make it. An Intentional Manipulator has no right to twist that point to serve their own agenda.

So whenever somebody pulls a fast one, remember this mantra before you indulge them:

“I have a point and I’m going to see it through…”

  

 

2.