>>{i.e. deception cannot work on the unreasoning [...]
>
>I would differ with that premise.
Why is that?
The way I see it a boulder cannot reason, and so it cannot be deceived.
A computer which can process information, but not reason, cannot be deceived (though the information it is given might indeed be false).
A dog, which does have some little reasoning capability (the towel over the dog-biscuit test, for example, involves reasoning) might be deceived (such as throwing the non-existent stick for him to fetch).
Humans, which are commonly recognized as being creatures-of-reason (though whether or not they commonly EMPLOY reasoning is a different subject), are commonly deceived.
Well, as long as you’re going to make an argument via broad definitions, it seems that “force” falls into your definition of “reason”...as in: “It makes sense to comply than to get hurt by not complying.”