The person basically said that she didn't like it when people used their skills/people manipulation/rhetoric (though she didn't use that word). She wishes that people would just be honest and basically tell the flat out, unbiased, neutral truth. She was a little appalled that I would intentionally arrange situations to bring people together or keep them apart at a social gathering.
The thing is, I don't believe there is a flat out, unbiased, neutral truth in human communication. By choosing words, gestures, tones of voice, and body language, we choose connotations. It is impossible to strip human communication of connotation. We can't make it neutral because we can't strip the human out of the communication. Even in writing, word choice and syntax carry connotation.
Some people are better at using these forms of rhetoric than others. Some can choose their words and tones and gestures (usually subconsciously, I think) to give their ideas the connotations they intend. Some can smooth social situations so that everyone has a better time by manipulating the situation. Some can make truth easier to hear or easier for a specific person to understand. These people do this by using rhetoric.
Rhetoric does not mean lies. It means constructing the content and form of the communication in the most effective way for both the communicator and the audience. People do use it for bad, lying purposes. But pedophiles lure children into vans with puppies (at least in the movies); that doesn't make puppies deceitful.
I believe that there are two kinds of people: ones who use rhetoric effectively and on purpose and ones who use it accidentally and (usually) ineffectively. It's like Ayn Rand's essay "Philosophy: Who Needs It?"; you can consciously choose your philosophy (and the way you communicate) or you can do it subconsciously. But no one can keep clear of a philosophy, just as no one can tell the flat-out, unbiased, neutral truth. We cannot escape the fact that language is connotative.
It's also my wish that we could get rid of a disdain for socially-skilled people, along with the idea that rhetoric is inherently deceitful. Without the kinds of things these people do--smoothing over awkward social situations, making connections between people who would like each other, seeing that people who dislike each other aren't forced into contact, and cementing groups together by tying themselves to lots of individual members--,social groups wouldn't function nearly so well. Businesses, organizations, teams, and groups of friends would fall into disrepair.
People with really good social skills who work a room or manipulate situations (when they use their powers for good) are not being deceitful or dishonest. They are using rhetoric and making the most of human communication.
