文案与商业写作2018aeon.co编辑精选
如何分辨说服与操纵
How to tell the difference between persuasion and manipulation
导读
这篇文章讨论“说服”与“操纵”的界线：关键不只在表达技巧，而在影响者的意图——是否试图让对象在认知、感受、怀疑或注意力上犯错，是否削弱其决策能力。写作者每天都在影响读者，因此值得读，用来反省自己的论证伦理，也用来识别他人如何影响我们。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
动笔前先问意图：我是在帮读者更准确地判断，还是在利用其盲点、情绪或注意力弱点让他得出我想要的结论。
- 02
把新信息、新视角和盲点提醒摆到明处，让读者自己参与判断，这是更接近“赋权式说服”的写法。
- 03
不要只用“我喜欢就叫影响、不喜欢就叫操纵”来判断，要看信息源的利益和议程是否与读者一致。
- 04
尊重读者的认知过程：用他们事后也能认可的方式论证，而不只是自认真诚、自认正确。
HN 评论精选
区分操纵要看是否诱导对方在认知上犯错；更严的标准是尊重并参与对方的认知过程。
文章的关键句是：“操纵与非操纵性影响的区别，取决于影响者是否试图让某人在其思考、感受、怀疑或关注的内容上犯某种错误。”我个人标准更严：如果我要说服别人，按我的道德准则，我必须尊重对方的认知过程，并以对方也会认可的方式参与其中。这比只是真诚地相信自己是对的、或只是不打算让对方犯错要难得多。
pmichaud查看英文原文
The money shot: "The distinction between manipulation and non-manipulative influence depends on whether the influencer is trying to get someone to make some sort of mistake in what he thinks, feels, doubts or pays attention to." I have stricter criteria, personally. If I am to persuade someone then according to my moral compass I have to respect their epistemic process, and participate in it in a way they would endorse. This is much harder to do than just being sincere and believing you're right / not trying to cause a mistake.
操纵的本质是削弱他人决策质量，说服则应增强其决策能力。
有人用引文总结过，但我认为这句最有力：“正是降低他人决策质量的意图，构成了操纵的本质，也构成其根本的不道德。”邪教领袖未必觉得自己在让你犯错，因为他们只想着自己，但他们确实在削弱你的决策能力。反过来，说服可以看作增强你的决策能力：提供新信息、新视角、照亮盲点、讲解谬误等。这个说法不完美，但更接近。
RangerScience查看英文原文
A few others have summarized via quote, but I think this one is the most effective: "For it is the intention to degrade another person’s decision-making situation that is both the essence and the essential immorality of manipulation." A cult leader may not be thinking that they're getting you to make a mistake, because they're only thinking of themselves. But they are trying to degrade your decision-making. Conversely, persuasion could be considered an attempt to empower your decision making: with new information, new perspectives, lights in blindspots, education on fallacies, etc. Doesn't feel quite right, but closer.
与其纠结定义，不如分析影响者的议程和利益是否与读者一致，并追问信息源的所有权。
这两个概念很难区分。更有用的做法是理解说服者的议程：他们的利益和你一致吗？他们想达成什么？这有助于判断自己是否正被“操纵”去做不利的事。正因为信息源的议程关键，了解你获取信息的媒体由谁拥有和管理就极其重要；在当今新闻盈利模式变化、财务独立媒体减少的情况下，弄清新闻来源的所有权、管理层和资助者议程至关重要。
mhneu查看英文原文
It can be very hard to distinguish these two concepts. Instead, it is more useful to understand the agenda of the person doing persuasion. Do their interests align with yours? What are they trying to achieve? That's a good way to get insight into whether you're being 'manipulated' to do things that are not in your interest. Because the agenda of an information source is key, that makes it vitally important to understand who owns and manages the outlets you get information from. In today's world, because of changes in news profitability and thus the number of financially-independent news outlets, knowing the agendas of ownership, management, and funders of news sources is absolutely critical.
日常用法里，影响与操纵的标签常取决于我们是否喜欢它，提醒写作者警惕双重标准。
我喜欢它时，叫“影响”；我不喜欢它时，叫“操纵”。至少，这似乎是常见的用法。
unit91查看英文原文
When I like it, it's called "influence". When I don't like it, it's called "manipulation". At least, this seems to be the way it's commonly used.
同类还值得读
好文笔是一种商业优势
Good writing is a business advantage
这是广告人 George Tannenbaum 的一篇博客短文，主张清晰的写作在商业中是实打实的竞争优势——能把事情说明白的人，在会议、邮件、提案里就已经赢了一半。
文案与商业写作2020 · 449 分 · 198 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何为落地页撰写文案
Writing copy for landing pages
这是 Stripe Atlas 关于落地页文案的写作指南，核心是把文案当成回答读者疑问的工具，而不是自我表达。
文案与商业写作2018 · 416 分 · 84 评4 条写作要点编辑精选我曾是扎克伯格的演讲稿撰写人
I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter
这篇是第一人称回忆：作者曾为扎克伯格写演讲稿，借此复盘在剑桥分析丑闻前后，科技巨头的公开表达如何被构思、修饰和交付。
文案与商业写作2018 · 347 分 · 254 评4 条写作要点编辑精选一句话产品描述写作的艺术
The Art of Writing One-Sentence Product Descriptions
这篇文章讨论如何为产品写一句话描述，核心是把复杂产品压缩成一个能打动人的句子。
文案与商业写作2017 · 335 分 · 57 评4 条写作要点编辑精选Ask HN：为技术岗位写求职信
Ask HN: Writing cover letters for tech jobs
这篇 HN 讨论科技岗位是否需要写求职信、写给谁看、用什么语气和格式。
文案与商业写作2017 · 265 分 · 123 评4 条写作要点编辑精选