Manipulation is about trickery. Influence does not have to be manipulation. Persuasion through reason is influence.

I think that’s exactly what they’re saying. Influence doesn’t have to be manipulative, but it sure can be. Here’s the difference:

Influence for influence sake is selfishly motivated. Doing something charitable garners influence. Influence is a side-effect and not the intended goal—unless it is, and then it’s manipulation.

The fact is correct that the word influence is a euphemism for manipulation. The very fact that people are confused about this is case-in-point on the subtlety of the notion.

	▲	dpark 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Influence doesn’t have to be manipulative > influence is a euphemism for manipulation Surely you can see that your statements contradict each other. > Influence for influence sake is selfishly motivated. Hard disagree. It certainly can be, but doesn’t have to be. A person can be a positive influence for no other reason than they feel like it’s a good thing to do. You could influence your coworkers to be better engineers and not gain anything from it. I mean, we could retreat to the “oh you feel good about it, so it’s still selfish” stance, but that’s uninteresting.