Doing marketing is not about convincing.

Convincing means presenting elements and arguing in a relevant way without distorting perceptions, and without influencing or manipulating communication.
This is, of course, a quick summary, as there is an entire book by Philippe Breton, one of the leading specialists in communication, titled Convaincre sans manipuler, apprendre à argumenter, which I highly recommend.

If we want to talk about ethics in marketing, we can simplify the issue with one fundamental principle:
If what you present is true and free of tactics used without the knowledge of the audience, you are engaging in persuasion, not manipulation.

Marketing and neuropsychology are not intrinsically manipulative.

It is the use that is generally made of them, as seen in most recommendations designed to drive sales.

Marketing could simply be used to structure an offer.
Neuropsychology serves to better understand human attention.

However, this mastery and understanding inevitably serve certain interests and are used to manipulate attention and prompt action.

In marketing and neuropsychology, we talk about KPIs, scarcity, social proof, likability, commitment, authority, etc.
These are elements that an individual or a business—whether in a commercial context or not—projects about themselves, their activity, and their success.

It is the construction and projection of a representation, whatever the object or objective.

But the problem with certain marketing techniques is that they play on perceptions and use tricks based on psychological mechanisms, some of which were discovered in neuropsychology, to bypass free will and encourage adherence or purchase.

Ethically or not, they often go far beyond the simple act of convincing.

The same applies to neuropsychology, as soon as you transform a neutral slogan like "Here is my offer" into "Buy my program now—it closes at midnight tonight!"

I have already proposed a philosophical essay on the blog discussing the difference between influence and manipulation.
In my view, there is no real difference between the two, except in how these terms are perceived in popular culture.

From this comes the following idea:

Influence is, in the collective imagination, a softened or "acceptable" version of manipulation.

And everything supposedly depends on the intention:
Influence would start from a good intention.
Manipulation would stem from a bad intention.

This is oversimplified and does not hold up to scrutiny.

The only way to distinguish them would be to evaluate ethics through an analysis of intention.
And yet, intention cannot be separated from its long-term effects.
This makes one impossible to measure and the other entirely subjective.

An influence may be well-intentioned but produce negative effects.
Example: A parent who pushes their child toward a "stable" career thinks they are helping, but might actually be limiting their child's fulfillment.

A manipulation may seem malicious but ultimately be beneficial.
Example: A doctor who reassures a patient by minimizing a risk to prevent unnecessary stress.

Yes, it’s enough to make you question everything...

Thus, it is impossible to determine where influence stops and manipulation begins—whether by intention or effects—if we accept the need to differentiate the two.

Even the degree of control held by the person being influenced and their awareness of the mechanisms at play cannot truly define the boundary.

The only truly ethical form of influence would be one that provides others with the tools to resist influence... but even that is uncertain.

If we accept a distinction and admit that influence is merely soft manipulation,
then the real question is no longer "Am I manipulating?" but rather "To what degree and for what purpose?"

Even when acting with the best intentions, we can never be certain that the effects will be beneficial.

Ultimately, neuropsychology and marketing refine manipulation techniques to shape perceptions and trigger action.

And no matter how much we try to dress it up as something pure and ethical, it doesn't change the underlying intention.

At the end of the day, this entire conversation about influence and manipulation has nothing to do with true persuasion.
It boils down to one fundamental truth:

We all play a game where everyone tries to shape the perception of others.

Perhaps the only real difference between a manipulator and an influencer is not their intention, but rather their ability to make their influence appear acceptable.

Why do women end up in "care and education" while men become CEOs? This is not a coincidence. Let’s explore the well-oiled mechanism of gendered career guidance...

Science shows that the tests, which serve as the foundation for career transition or professional guidance services such as competency assessments, are gendered.

The personality tests precede competency assessments or career (re)orientation advice. They form the basis of the entire process, the foundation upon which everything is built and from which all decisions flow.

Yet, these tests are not neutral: they are gendered. This is not their only limitation, as I explore in my book on career guidance methods, but I had not specifically emphasized this point, which now seems equally important. Psychological research has demonstrated this, and the consequences on professional orientation are real.

The personality tests are unfortunately used for career guidance to help individuals make career choices.

A bit of history: since when do we know that these tests are biased?

The criticism of gender bias in career guidance dates back to the 1970s, when early studies on gendered education highlighted a tendency for schools and psychometric tests to reinforce traditional social roles (Eccles, 1994).

Research from the 1990s and 2000s confirmed that some personality and career orientation tests reinforced these biases, either by suggesting stereotypical professions or by influencing candidates' self-perception (Lent, Brown & Hackett, 1994).

All tests are concerned? Differences between MBTI, Big Five, RIASEC, etc.

Not all tests are biased in the same way. Some psychometric tests have a more scientific approach, while others rely more on subjective models influenced by cultural representations.

Let’s take a closer look.

• MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator): Highly popular but often criticized for its lack of scientific validation. The questions are self-evaluative, which can reinforce unconscious biases in participants. A woman who perceives herself as empathetic will be more oriented towards social professions, even if she has engineering skills.
• Big Five (Five-Factor Model): Somewhat more scientifically validated, but studies have shown that traits of warmth and social openness are often overrepresented in women, reinforcing gendered career orientations.
• RIASEC (Holland's Model): One of the most widely used in professional orientation. It classifies individuals into six personality types (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional).

A study highlights significant gender differences in RIASEC scores, in the journal L'Orientation Scolaire et Professionnelle revealed the following findings :

• Realistic Type: Boys scored an average of 9.15 (SD = 7.11), while girls scored 4.41 (SD = 3.86).
• Artistic Type: Girls scored an average of 15.30 (SD = 7.60), compared to 10.45 (SD = 7.46) for boys.
• Social Type: Girls scored an average of 18.58 (SD = 7.79), while boys scored 11.78 (SD = 6.85).

Bibliography

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social Role Theory. In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (pp. 458–476). Sage.
This theory explains that gender stereotypes stem from the traditional social roles assigned to men and women. Societal expectations influence career choices and perceptions of competence, often reinforcing unconscious biases.

Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women's educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(4), 585–609.
This study highlights the social, cultural, and psychological factors that shape women’s educational and career choices. Gendered expectations and the lack of female role models influence these decisions.

Guichard, J., & Huteau, M. (2007). Psychologie de l’orientation. Dunod.
This book explores the psychology of career guidance, showing how tests and decision-making processes can reflect social stereotypes, affecting how individuals perceive their career options.

Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657–674.
This research reveals how gender stereotypes impact women’s career progression, particularly when they are perceived as less competent in male-dominated fields.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122.
This model highlights the influence of environmental and personal factors on career choices, emphasizing that gender stereotypes can limit aspirations.

Pazy, A., & Oron, I. (2001). Sex proportion and performance evaluation among high-ranking military officers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(6), 689–702.
This study demonstrates that the underrepresentation of women in leadership roles affects performance evaluations, which are often biased due to stereotypical perceptions.

Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18(4), 510–531.
This article explores how gender beliefs influence social relationships and reinforce inequalities in education and professional spheres.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629.
The stereotype threat reduces individuals’ performance when they are confronted with negative expectations related to their gender or background.

Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 859–884.
This meta-analysis reveals that differences in interests between men and women are partly influenced by cultural stereotypes, reinforcing gendered career choices.

Guglielmi, D., Fraccaroli, F., & Pombeni, M. L. (2004). Les intérêts professionnels selon le modèle hexagonal de Holland: Structures et différences de genre. L'Orientation Scolaire et Professionnelle, 33(3), 409-427.
This study analyzes the structures of professional interests according to Holland’s RIASEC model and examines gender differences in these structures.

Super, D. E. (1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16(3), 282–298.
Super proposes a comprehensive approach to career development, showing how social roles and life experiences shape professional aspirations, often influenced by gender norms.

Courses ❌ Are Not a Reflection of a Career.

Choosing a path means choosing subjects to study.

The daily reality of studying, the nature of the courses, and what you have to learn to enter a profession do not reflect the actual practice of that profession.

A path is the training that leads to professions.
A profession is a broader, real-world activity within a specific field.

👉 You must separate the concept of a profession from that of an academic path. Let’s break it down.

The Major Mistake Everyone Pushes You to Make

Schools, teachers, career advisors, tests, and assessments all push you to choose a path instead of a profession.

Why? Because choosing a profession requires time, introspection, and deep reflection. Only after this process can you make a truly informed choice.

⚠️ Choosing a path is NOT the same as choosing a profession. It does not have the same impact.

This is why so many students lose motivation when they don’t enjoy the subjects in their training program.

I have already explained in a previous article that the first visible effect of rushed, poor career guidance is a lack of interest in courses, leading students to quit or switch programs.

Separating Path and Profession is Crucial

Let’s push this distinction even further by breaking it into three layers:

• Studies.
• Profession.
• Final professional activity.

Example: Journalism

1️⃣ Studies in Journalism → Require acquiring broad knowledge and skills.
2️⃣ Profession of Journalist → Applying those skills, with diverse career options (e.g., political reporter, tech journalist).
3️⃣ Final professional activity → The actual tasks performed, which may not align with what was learned in school and evolve with experience.

Let’s go even deeper…

A political journalist does not do the same work as a tech journalist—their activities and expertise are vastly different.

But beyond that, a journalist can become a writer or copywriter. The gap between academic training and real-world activities becomes even wider.

Yet, they all started with the same studies.

The Right Approach to Career Choice

Choosing a career should mean choosing a professional activity.

This should be your goal.

Any process that suggests another goal is superficial (there are different levels of depth).

Failing to take this into account can lead to career misalignment, contributing to the 37% reorientation rate among students.

Why You Must Choose a Profession, Not a Path

To make the right choice, you need:

• Self-awareness – Understanding what you truly love and want.
• Introspection – Digging deep into your motivations.
• Curiosity – Exploring the world of work beyond school subjects.
• Critical thinking – Making a decision based on what fits YOU.

Your career choice should be your own, not just a selection of academic subjects.

This article is an AI format of my original article in French and the content reflects my words entirely.

This version, is the one without AI formatting so you can see the difference, I thought it was interesting (January 2025) :

Let me explain why they find themselves in this situation.

Did they choose a field or a profession? Did they really think it through or not?

The official (french) statistic is undeniable (check yours): 37% of students drop out after two years of post-secondary education.

Why?

No one can say if 100% of these students fit into what I’m about to explain.

But there is a strong indicator that all parents can observe.

Many students start by complaining about their courses.

They don’t enjoy the field they chose.

The courses don’t interest them, etc.

These students made the mistake of choosing a path instead of a goal.

Let me clarify.

They have a short-term vision.

They focus on subjects and classes.

Does a student who has a clear career goal complain about their courses?
Sometimes, but it doesn’t stop them.

Does a medical student complain about studying the nervous system in detail?
Maybe, but they know it’s necessary, and they knew it before starting.

When students complain about their courses without having chosen a career path, they assess everything in the short term. It’s logical.

They judge whether they enjoy studying each subject.

And since they lack deep motivation, they can’t sustain the effort. And so, they switch fields. Ouch.

What they lack is a long-term vision.

They don’t see their different courses as necessary steps toward achieving a goal. And that’s what sets them apart from other students.

That goal is to practice the profession they have chosen.

How does this factor into your thoughts about pursuing a new professional adventure?

You dream of starting your own business, but how do you envision managing work-life balance in this new system?

Sometimes, the root of the problem seems obvious, and we stop there because it feels comfortable.

A simple explanation is enough.

We don’t feel the need to dig deeper.

That’s sufficient to fuel us.

But when we haven’t truly analyzed what fuel needs the engine (the problem), how can we know if we need premium or diesel (the solution)?

The problem you’ve identified is rarely the only one, the real one, or even the most important one.

Embarking on a journey of change without understanding this, is skipping the most critical step: self-reflection.

And for that, you need a coach or a therapist, not a career assessment.

Her invention serves as the foundation for modern telecommunications, such as Wi-Fi.

Because yes, behind this revolutionary invention is... a glamorous actress from the 1940s.

In the 1930s and 40s, society had a very clear idea of what women’s destinies should look like: be beautiful, be muses, and perhaps, stay silent. But Hedy had other ambitions.
An Austrian actress at the height of Hollywood fame for a time, she could have been content with her successful roles and starlet status.

But she had a talent that was far less marketable and "recognizable" at the time: a brilliant scientific mind.

With her co-inventor George Antheil, Hedy developed a frequency-hopping communication system designed to prevent interference and secure military transmissions. It was revolutionary. But what did the U.S. military say about this invention from a woman (and an actress, no less)?

According to some sources, Hedy Lamarr was told she could contribute more effectively to the war effort by using her image... which she did, and successfully. This perfectly illustrates how her role as a glamorous actress was prioritized over her role as a scientist.

And yet, if the 20th century has taught us anything, it is that women have often managed to rise above such stereotypes. From Marie Curie to Katherine Johnson, from Rosalind Franklin to Hedy Lamarr, women in science have had to juggle prejudice, invisibility, and a fair share of dismissiveness.

Thanks to them, and so many others, today the idea that a woman can become an engineer, researcher, or astronaut is (finally) normalized.

Let’s continue working toward non-gendered career guidance.

But this shouldn’t just mean promoting science to balance the scales.

I’m not in favor of messages like, “Today, encouraging girls into STEM careers is a duty.”

The real duty is to avoid creating "ideal careers." It is to inspire young people by showcasing the accomplishments of figures like Hedy Lamarr and introducing them to science, alongside other subjects, in an open and accessible way.

So that ambitions and choices arise from flexible, barrier-free thinking.

And most of all, this starts at home.

The next technological revolution might come from a young woman with a vivid imagination. And this time, she won’t need glitter to shine.

Thank you, Hedy, for the lesson.

To promote talent, vision, and ideas, gendered career guidance has no place.