From our point of view, manipulation modes of a human were created by nature as the only way of effective, constructive, non-deforming, and secure communication.
Based on that application of natural manipulation modes in communication with any person always exceptionally favorable affects his psychophysiology (and not on the basis of the meanings of what manipulation is usually considered)—these modes were named manipulation modes. Contrary to the belief, which is popular both in psychology and in everyday life that manipulation is always a process with a negative connotation, we consider manipulation based on other meanings from dictionaries. We consider manipulation to be any purposeful action with a subject (refer to a dictionary).
From our perspective, communicative impact that leads to actualization of quite specific motivational states in a subject, and makes him behave in a certain way, should not necessarily be beneficial to the manipulator and not beneficial to the subject of manipulation.
From our point of view, this directly depends on ethical and moral qualities of a person applying manipulation modes towards another person. Just like a knife cannot be regarded only as a murder weapon. A knife as a tool can also be used for cooking, as a scalpel in the hands of a surgeon, and so forth.
Of course, being very powerful, this purely natural mechanism can be used by some to have the other person submit, in order to use him for some purposes. Indeed, when personal manipulation modes are applied to a human, he or she forms a complete willingness to do anything for the manipulator. However, we consider use of natural manipulation modes with immoral goals—inhumane, immoral, and contrary to nature.
Whether someone likes the fact that any person has a natural mechanism called “manipulation modes” or not—it exists anyway. And, the important thing is that this is how nature arranged it. Therefore, in the absence of the Catalog of human population it is, of course, possible to continue to treat Homo sapiens like an animal, while discussing humanism, goodness, morality and other things unrelated to this process. This is widely practiced in this society. Consider a method that in the case of animals is called training, and in the case of a human for some reason is referred to by different words: upbringing, re-education, etc. Zoopsychologists are very well familiar with this method as the “method of positive and negative reinforcement;” animals are trained using with method.
However, unlike subtype programs of animals, in which only instincts and primitive reflexes are recorded, human programs consist of much more than that. From our point of view, Pavlov’s (a Russian researcher, who was involved in elaboration of certain reflexes in dogs) method that has become popular worldwide should not be practically the only available method of influence on a human being in the XXI century. Influence of a human must be based on more complex principles than induction of salivation.
Our studies have shown that human manipulation modes are a subtype’s peculiar language. If a person is not spoken to in this “language,” then he practically does not hear his interlocutor, does not want to understand him, does not accept or simply rejects him. Our research of Shan Hai Jing showed a firm link between this “subtype language” and individual subtype program, meaning—human soul. Therefore, knowledge and use of natural “language of the soul,” meaning manipulation modes of a person, allows to not degrade him by treating him like an animal. And, this makes the use of violence against a person in order to motivate him to some actions or psychophysiological states unnecessary. A human does not need to be forced, it is not necessary to demand something from him—all that is necessary is to communicate with him using his “subtype language,” which is the language of his natural program and manipulation modes.