15 KiB
[Q] Why are the good guys so easy to manipulate?
-
Author: u/jayhalk1 *
-
URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/5deumi/q_why_are_the_good_guys_so_easy_to_manipulate/
-
Score: 12
-
Created: 2016-11-17T08:58:02
Post:
I just finished the latest episode of a popular TV (Designated Survivor if you're wondering) show and I was looking for a community here on Reddit that could answer my lifelong question. Why are the good guys so easy to manipulate? Capture someone they love, threaten to kill them and the bad guys got the good guys in their pockets! I hate it and don't think its good fiction. What are some alternatives? Couldn't the good guys just play it like normal? Let a few people die but save millions in the process and getting rid of bad guys more easily? Tell me what you think and let's get a good discussion going.
Comments:
u/CeruleanTresses [+43] (25 minutes later)
I don't think there's anything, like...unrealistic or unreasonable about a protagonist being successfully coerced with threats to a loved one. Humans are humans, not emotionless utility maximizers. Most people would go to extraordinary lengths to save the life of someone they genuinely loved. While it's frustrating when protagonists go so far as to risk many other lives to save their loved one, that is "playing it like normal"--it's what humans do.
Protagonists willing to sacrifice their loved ones for the greater good can be fun, but it's not bad fiction to have an antagonist successfully exploit the protagonist's realistic vulnerability.
u/Bowbreaker [+2] Solitary Locust (7 days later)
Maybe what would make it more interesting is if it isn't only the protagonists who fall into this dilemma. I have read/watched a few stories in which the villain gets blackmailed too, often in retaliation to them doing it first.
u/TennisMaster2 [+17] (2 hours later)
Hermione memory wipes her parents and sends them to Australia so she can't be manipulated, since she's traveling with everyone else she cares about. Part of her distress from Ron leaving was probably related to him becoming a weakness if targeted or captured.
A rational character who's aware of the danger of threats to their loved ones will take steps to protect against that weakness, be it through misdirection, obfuscation, protection, avoidance, and/or tactics and strategy in the event of contact with the enemy.
I can perhaps see a naive rational character not conceiving that an enemy would target non-combatants, and leaving that flank exposed, but for most cautious rational characters they'll consider their weaknesses and take steps to mitigate them.
If caught unawares, and a loved one is captured, then any protagonist will probably try to save their loved one at the cost of finishing other highly prioritized tasks, e.g. killing the bad guy. Perhaps in rational fiction they'll risk the life of their loved one if the loved one has a short life expectancy and no more secrets or pearls of wisdom to share. Otherwise, like the Tropical Sea-Haired One said, humans are humans.
u/Kishoto [+4] (17 hours later)
Hermione memory wipes her parents and sends them to Australia so she can't be manipulated
Errr...false. It was more so that they would be safe since, as unconnected Muggles, they didn't exactly have a wealth of options to defend themselves with. Other people had relatives, magical hideouts, fidelius charms...Hermione's parents didn't have any of those options. Not to mention, it's rational that Voldemort would have trouble tracking them down if they left the country as he's not very connected with the Muggle side of the world. Sending them away made the most sense.
Note: I'm not saying securing your loved ones isn't an effective tactic to prevent manipulation; I'm saying it's made explicitly clear in the HP series that this is NOT the main reason Hermione does this.
u/TennisMaster2 [+2] (17 hours later)
[I]t's made explicitly clear in the HP series that this is NOT the main reason Hermione does this.
Rather, the reasons she gives are as you say. Those reasons don't preclude other considerations, which I'm ascribing to her as a canny and intelligent person about whose internal world we really know very little.
u/Kishoto [+4] (18 hours later)
I'm ascribing to her as a canny and intelligent person about whose internal world we really know very little.
Translation: There's no evidence of this in the source material so I'm going to make an assumption and say she probably thought about it and just didn't say it.
u/TennisMaster2 [+8] (18 hours later)
You're reading with the hermeneutic of faith, whereas I, for purposes of making an argument from a well known example, employed the hermeneutic of doubt.
You're being needlessly antagonistic, Kishoto.
u/SimonSim211 [+11] (an hour later)
I think you are forgetting the other side, bad guys might actually be easier to manipulate, greed is the easiest lever... But if your question is how can you "build" a good person so that they are difficult to manipulate (which I think is the more interesting question), then I can't really help you.
u/thrawnca [+9] Carbon-based biped (17 hours later)
how can you "build" a good person so that they are difficult to manipulate
I saw the tail end of a Star Trek episode recently where Ambassador Spock refused to bow to pressure from terrorists, since he expected them to kill him regardless. Making that simple "they'll kill me anyway" connection should be on the list of Top 100 Things I'd Do if I Ever Became a Hero, because lots of them foolishly ignore it. Seriously, you put your gun down and expect your nemesis not to shoot you? That's a blatant appeal to the scriptwriters.
u/MagicWeasel [+5] Cheela Astronaut (6 days later)
I remember reading some advice of "what to do if someone tries to kidnap you", and it's all basically "scream, yell, kick, run, do whatever you can to get attention".
They might have a gun to your back, or a knife on your throat, and say if you make a noise they'll shoot you, or stab you, or whatever, but if they're willing to shoot/stab you in public, who the hell knows what they're willing to do with you when they get to where they want you.
So I think the "they'll kill me anyway" thing is, indeed, a really important connection that isn't made enough in fiction.
u/jayhalk1 [+5] (an hour later)
how can you "build" a good person so that they are difficult to manipulate (which I think is the more interesting question)
Yes. Exactly the words I was looking for!
u/SimonSim211 [+9] (3 hours later)
Ok, I will try:
Social connections i.e. friends and close acquaintances are good as they ground the person and give additional options, though they should be gotten in a way that the opponents don't know who they are (don't leave meta data).
Should be used to public hate (if talking fiction let the person be a child of a minor politician or having attempted to ban drinking on Fridays etc.), this means that if the opponents use slander tactics they will be resistant.
Ideally don't reveal the goals until completion (mysterious beats sneaky)
Asexual (or some other difficult to attack orientation)
Hard to manipulate hobbies e.g. wood carving
Having "Blue and Orange Morality" might help if the opponents can't guess...
u/buckykat [+2] (10 hours later)
Short answer:Batman
u/Kishoto [+9] (17 hours later)
Eh. Idk. He's pretty much cookie cutter good guy, as far as how to control him. Put a gun to a random innocent bystander's head and he'll willingly do anything you said that didn't involve killing more innocents. And he's proven unwilling to kill you so you get multiple tries.
J: Lay facedown and spreadeagled on the floor or I blow little miss...excuse me dear what's your name? Mary? Or I blow little miss Mary's brains all over the pavement.
B: Grrr. Alright Joker. Don't do anything rash. Gets on floor
J: Alright henchmen armed with sub machine guns. Lay into him. And Bats, if you dodge, little miss...gosh darn it, what is your name woman? Oh yes Mary! Mary gets it.
And....Batman dies. Assuming the author doesn't have a very convenient deus ex machina placed to save the day. Which he will. Because even authors can't kill the fucking BATMAN.
u/buckykat [+4] (19 hours later)
Hmm, you're right. Malcolm Reynolds?
Joker starts his hostage situation and just gets shot in the face and dumped.
u/Kishoto [+3] (19 hours later)
Joker starts his hostage situation and just gets shot in the face and dumped.
Yea. That's what someone should've done forever ago. But ya know...good guys...>_>
u/eaglejarl [+1] (5 days later)
Batman's primary power is his mind. He tends to look for, and find, a third option when given binary choices like that.
u/Kishoto [+1] (5 days later)
I get that; I understand Batman's main "power" is his remarkable intelligence (and it's becoming increasingly more difficult for me to accept that someone so hyper intelligent's answer to a crime ridden city is run around and beat up thugs, supervillains not withstanding, considering Joe Chill wasn't anything special)
But still, I feel like it's fairly simple to force his hand with something like that. He's a hero. He's given himself up for hostages before (I believe anyway, I'm not a comic book guy really)
u/TimTravel [+1] (6 days later)
And also standard issue strength, durability, and reaction time beyond what real world humans have even among olympic athletes.
u/Kishoto [+1] (17 hours later)
Eh. Idk. He's pretty much cookie cutter good guy, as far as how to control him. Put a gun to a random innocent bystander's head and he'll willingly do anything you said that didn't involve killing more innocents. And he's proven unwilling to kill you so you get multiple tries.
J: Lay facedown and spreadeagled on the floor or I blow little miss...excuse me dear what's your name? Mary? Or I blow little miss Mary's brains all over the pavement.
B: Grrr. Alright Joker. Don't do anything rash. Gets on floor
J: Alright henchmen armed with sub machine guns. Lay into him. And Bats, if you dodge, little miss...gosh darn it, what is your name woman? Oh yes Mary! Mary gets it.
And....Batman dies. Assuming the author doesn't have a very convenient deus ex machina placed to save the day. Which he will. Because even authors can't kill the fucking BATMAN.
u/ZeroNihilist [+10] (an hour later)
I think any non-stereotypical evil character would be equally easy to coerce. "Evil" doesn't necessarily mean "perfectly selfish"; even Hitler loved his mother (to the extent that he was incredibly grateful to the Jewish doctor that administered her palliative care), Eva Braun, and probably others.
This is a classic technique in fiction to give the hero a reason they can't just save the day easily. Superman could stop the crashing airplane, but can he also save Lois? Spoiler: yes, he can, but for a moment you think he can't.
u/MineDogger [+10] (3 hours later)
Direct answer: Society's definition of "good" is pretty synonymous with "predictable". A "good" character is usually someone dependable, who always does what he's supposed to, he may need some encouragement to get the ball rolling, but he'll eventually follow the pattern that the baddies set up for him and attempt to rescue the girl/kid/stop the nefarious plan, because that's what "good guys" do...
The other side of this is that often, in order to overcome the enemy, the good guy has to break out of his good guy stereotype to finish the job. Either by a sudden burst of creativity, or even dirty-deeding the dirty dealers themselves because they'll never see it coming... Works every time.
u/eaglejarl [+5] (5 hours later)
People are easy to manipulate if you understand their goals and values; if you know what is important to someone then you can leverage that knowledge to motivate them.
"Society" is a single word that means (very approximately) "an agreed-upon set of goals and values designed to let humans live and work together." Those goals and values are things like "value other people's lives", "treat other people respectfully", "don't steal", "defend other people's property and life", and so on.
The word "good" means (very approximately) "someone who conforms closely to idealized versions of the societally-defined goals and values." If someone is good then by definition they are conforming to a well-known set of goals and values, which makes them predictable.
u/clawclawbite [+4] (10 hours later)
Proactive people can research opposition, cover their own weaknesses, and prepare to threaten the weaknesses of others.
In a story with a stable positive status quo, 'good guys' tend to be reactive, and this is a way they are disadvantaged.
This is played with in the Super Heros with secret identities plots.
u/creatureofthewood [+3] (10 hours later)
More often than not, it is the audiences emotions which are being manipulated
u/Izeinwinter [+2] (4 hours later)
Because plot, mainly. Screenwriters find it hard to write a scene where The authorities just go "No" and kick in the doors and keep the audience sympathetic to those authorities. So they rarely write that plot. Not never, but it is rare.
u/Nepene [+2] (7 days later)
Let's contrast the hostage negotiation standards of two groups of people- those in Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, two Brazilian cities with a great deal of poverty and gangs that support kidnapping.
Kidnapping is extremely common in Sao Paulo. The rich drive around with body guards and armored vehicles, the poor are often grabbed by roaming gangs of criminals. The middle class who can't afford more expensive security measures have their gated communities and barred apartment buildings broken into.
Rio de Janeiro has much less of a kidnapping policy. Why? They instituted a no hostage payments strategy, actively trained people in anti kidnapping work, and had an internal intelligence agency to root out corruption.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/13/world/sao-paulo-becomes-the-kidnapping-capital-of-brazil.html
Being not easy to manipulate is great. It massively reduces your crime and danger rate. But it takes effort and a coordinate social response. It's not something a hero can do generally. They're more individual.
It's much less common in