At What Point is Manipulation Mind-Control?

[The Man]

Okay, this is not meant to be a far fetched discussion.

There are a lot of things that allow a person to manipulate another person. Whether it be a variety of advertising methods, persuasiveness, fear-mongering, intimidation, use of smells, sounds, sights, chemicals, medicines and so forth.

The question is at what point does manipulation cross the line into mind-control? I think we could all agree that if had a device that could take control of your brain, and make it operate in such a way to allow me to control every aspect of your behavior; make you do what I want to without you even being aware of the fact that you were being manipulated (you either had no memory of it, or simply felt it was your own decision)?

Do you control your own mind INRM or does your mind control you? If you say yes to the former than what aspect of you can assert such intentional control other than your mind? If you say yes to the latter then your mind must still control itself as it is still a part of you. Certainly you can give such control over to external influences and it is probably impossible (except for perhaps some extreme catatonic or persistent vegetative state) for you to be completely devoid of such influences. The line you seem to be trying to draw appears to be one of invasive intent. That I deliberately do something to you that has some intentional influence upon your thoughts or actions. However, just hiring you could do the same. I have now interjected my job requirements into your life and have taken (to varying degrees of willingness) over a significant portion of your time (unless you are specifically requiring some clandestine and nefarious surgical procedure to cross your line).

 

[icerat]

Short of implants "mind-control" doesn't exist. The CIA pretty much made it up as a PR excuse for why American prisoners of war were saying, and apparently believing, various things against the US. Once the were freed it became obvious that "mind control" was little more than "we'll give you a pack of cigarettes if you say this" or "say this and we'll stop torturing you"

So people would say it. Doesn't mean they believed it.

In the modern world the concept of mind-control is primarily promoted by a bunch of folk who make their living out of offering "deprogramming" services to families who object to someone wandering off and deciding to join what they consider a cult.

Even things like Jonestown are well explained by relatively normal "influence", ie the stuff we're subjected to everyday from peers and from advertising.

 

[OldBloke]

Old Bloke
No it would be controlling your mind too. If I made it extremely pleasurable to run off a cliff and jump -- how is that not mind-control?

I can resist the temptation of even extreme pleasures that could be bad for me, dangerous, possibly fatal, etc. I mean in my real experience I know I can.
I'm not sure about your hypothetical implant though. If it's irresistable, then you can call it control.

Like I said this thread is just semantics rather than having scientifically right or wrong answers. I was just trying to suggest definitions for these words and phrases, "manipulation" "mind control" "behaviour control", which make them useful - i.e. different in meaning from each other and close to common usage.

To me, manipulation means the victim cannot see clearly how the perpetrator is affecting him. So it's different from an overt threat, or a simple offer of reward, both of which try to affect my behaviour.

So you're saying if I could make you do anything I wanted and you weren't aware that I was affecting what you think, you didn't know how it was achieved, and you even felt as if the decisions you were making was yours, that this would still cross the line into mind-control?

Not that's not what I'm saying. You can see what I'm saying by scrolling up to my post instead of paraphrasing it inaccurately.

What you wrote sounds to me like an unrealsitic hypothetical science fiction story, and not very useful. But yes of course if you could do all those things to me, you could call it mind control as well as behaviour control.

In your inaccurate paraphrase of what I'm saying... you start by mentioning making me do something (i.e. behaviour control) then you end with mentioning mind control.
Not all behaviour control is mind control or manipulation, if the stick or carrot used are clearly visible. For example, if you threaten me with a gun, I might choose to obey you but my mind is free to hate you for it and you haven't changed my opinions or feelings without me being aware of how you achieved that.

 

[Pup]

What you wrote sounds to me like an unrealsitic hypothetical science fiction story, and not very useful. But yes of course if you could do all those things to me, you could call it mind control as well as behaviour control.

Either a science fiction story, or trivially easy. For example, I could do this to several people at once, within a minute:

In one case, when the stimulation was applied to a human subject, he got up and began looking around. When asked why he did it, he believed it was the result of his own will and accord though clearly it was not

I'd walk into a waiting room and say, with sincere-sounding panic, "Oh no, the diamond set is gone from my ring. I know it was there when I came into the building. It must have either fallen out here or down the hall. I'll check there first and then come back and look here."

What do you want to bet that after I leave, several people will get up and begin looking around, sincerely believing it's the result of their own will. In reality, of course, I applied a stimulus to deliberately cause them to exhibit specific behavior.

 

[INRM]

Ladewig

Yes, there are people who want that power and would unhesitatingly use it

And you're telling me that that is not worrisome in and of itself? Forget about whether it can or can't be done.


Dancing David

And the fact that there has been plenty of well researched neurology since then and it does not anywhere replicate his sepcious and poorly designed study, say more.

How was his study specious and poorly designed?

So InRM, where is the source for the bolded part?

I don't know. You could probably find a bit of information on Jose Delgado on a google search. I haven't read the article that had discussed this in a long time.


The Man

The line you seem to be trying to draw appears to be one of invasive intent. That I deliberately do something to you that has some intentional influence upon your thoughts or actions.

Yes, however there are degrees of invasive intent.

However, just hiring you could do the same. I have now interjected my job requirements into your life and have taken (to varying degrees of willingness) over a significant portion of your time (unless you are specifically requiring some clandestine and nefarious surgical procedure to cross your line).

Again, there are degrees of invasive intent. If you made a person physically incapable of resisting you (and I don't necessarily mean because they'd be punished or even killed, I just mean they did not have the ability to resist you -- they either are made incapable of wanting to resist you, or are just incapable of resisting period), this would clearly cross the line.

Also if I was able to take control of a person's brain and do so in a way as to make them do things either without their knowledge, or in such a way that they would believe that they were acting on their own accord and that these were their desires, not yours; that would clearly be classic mind-control.

 

[The Man]

Also if I was able to take control of a person's brain and do so in a way as to make them do things either without their knowledge, or in such a way that they would believe that they were acting on their own accord and that these were their desires, not yours; that would clearly be classic mind-control.

As Roboramma has already pointed out that is just one of the ways that we interact as social animals. Though the manipulator may not be aware of what they are doing either. Some people as con-artists make a career out of such intentional manipulation where the mark acts under their own volition to further the con. So the question remains where do you think the line should be drawn (other than just this side of some surgical procedure or clandestine technology)?

 

[INRM]

The Man

As Roboramma has already pointed out that is just one of the ways that we interact as social animals.

Still there are extremes that are dangerous and are not acceptable.

Though the manipulator may not be aware of what they are doing either.

How could a person control a person to the degree I'm describing without knowing they're doing it? Or at least not realize they have an unusual ability to get people to do what they want?

So the question remains where do you think the line should be drawn (other than just this side of some surgical procedure or clandestine technology)?

I don't know entirely. That's why I started this discussion.


There are circumstances that would obviously cross a line: If one was able to make a person physically incapable of resisting (not because they'd be punished or even killed; they either are made incapable of wanting to resist, or are just incapable of resisting period); or take control of a person's brain and do so in a way as to make them do things either without their knowledge, or in such a way that they would believe that they were acting on their own accord and that these were their desires, not the controllers

 

[Wowbagger]

From experience with LARPs, I could give a possible framework for thinking about this answer:

When it becomes undignifed, to either party. That is not a precise answer, but it's about as close to a serious one as I can get.

A little manipulation is always part of human communication, in any job, in any quest for just about anything. But, when that manipulation takes on a character that, to the eyes of others, violates the dignity of someone: the victim, the manipulator, or both, or anyone else for that matter - THAT is when you start to get into the realm of evil. That is when you are controlling someone beyond anything they would willingly do on their own.

Although not precise, it might be more measurable than figuring out which point the person would be "incapable of resisting".

Witnessing others play the "role" of a supernatural mind controller, for role-playing games, is how I came to this conclusion. There are... rules... in these games to prevent people from crossing certain lines.

 

[The Man]

The Man



Still there are extremes that are dangerous and are not acceptable.

Still there are extremes of just about everything and dangerous doesn’t always mean not acceptable.

Though I do take your point.

How could a person control a person to the degree I'm describing without knowing they're doing it? Or at least not realize they have an unusual ability to get people to do what they want?

One of your requirements is that the person being controlled doesn’t know its being done to them. So if it is imperceptible to the person being controlled it can be equally imperceptible to the person providing said control. You’d be surprised at what people just don’t realize. Heck a person might not even want to be in such control and can’t figure out why people just seem to want to do things for them. Also as in some sports and muscle memory type reflexive actions or responses over thinking can be a problem. If you try to actively think about what you’re doing and how you’re doing it your performance can suffer. Yet if you let the training, experience and developed reflexes execute unconsciously you can be at peak performance. Knowing and being cognoscente of exactly what you’re doing doesn’t always help you do it better and in some cases can actually hinder performance.

I don't know entirely. That's why I started this discussion.


There are circumstances that would obviously cross a line: If one was able to make a person physically incapable of resisting (not because they'd be punished or even killed; they either are made incapable of wanting to resist, or are just incapable of resisting period); or take control of a person's brain and do so in a way as to make them do things either without their knowledge, or in such a way that they would believe that they were acting on their own accord and that these were their desires, not the controllers

Well that’s the problem I don’t think there really is or can be a specific line but just perhaps some due process, informed consent and in the most extreme cases considerable review and justification. People seek external control for those undesirable aspects of themselves that they can not control themselves and have been doing so for quite some time. So instead of trying to draw some line, perhaps we should focus on the checks, balances and procedural aspects for the increasing capability in this regard (whether it be psychological, sociological, chemical or by instrumentality).


I’d just like to point out that I tend to agree with Woowbagger’s pervious post. Undignified might not be a very precise constraint but neither are a lot of other constraints that we deliberately leave up to the judgment of our peers.

 

[INRM]

The Man

Still there are extremes of just about everything and dangerous doesn’t always mean not acceptable.

Though I do take your point.

Yeah. Mind-control would be considered both dangerous and unacceptable by anybody who believes in any reasonable semblance of freedom.

One of your requirements is that the person being controlled doesn’t know its being done to them.

That would be the most clear-cut example, but if a person knew yet would be physically able to resist could also qualify as it would clearly cross a line.

So if it is imperceptible to the person being controlled it can be equally imperceptible to the person providing said control.

While I understand your point, from the moral standpoint, I tend to be more concerned with the manipulated over the manipulator.

You’d be surprised at what people just don’t realize. Heck a person might not even want to be in such control and can’t figure out why people just seem to want to do things for them.

While possibly true, there are at least as many if not more who would be more than happy with the control they possessed.

Also as in some sports and muscle memory type reflexive actions or responses over thinking can be a problem. If you try to actively think about what you’re doing and how you’re doing it your performance can suffer.

It can

Yet if you let the training, experience and developed reflexes execute unconsciously you can be at peak performance.

Yes, but complex tasks while they may become automatic with time often are skills that have to be learned step by step, then repeated over and over again until they become automatic.

You could also manipulate a person by teaching them beliefs to the point that they go from unconscious and at which point they become more influential than when they were beliefs that had to be consciously thought about. Look at religion and indoctrination if you don't believe me.

Well that’s the problem I don’t think there really is or can be a specific line but just perhaps some due process, informed consent and in the most extreme cases considerable review and justification.

It's important to have at least some rules of thumb set up, if not a range of boundaries that can be established that makes it clear when a line is being crossed. If the lines are too blurry, or are not clearly understood; a person could hypothetically argue that they're not exerting a dangerous and unacceptable influence, but instead just 'persuading' them.

People seek external control for those undesirable aspects of themselves that they can not control themselves and have been doing so for quite some time.

It's more than just controlling undesirable aspects of themselves -- sometimes it's just about controlling things other than themselves period.

The fact is that the more control an entity (I say entity because this does not intrinsically specify a human) has over it's surroundings, the greater it's prospects for survival are, as well as the greater the quality of their life is (Humans are the most intelligent organisms on earth and can take this to a greater level as a result). This can be dangerous when taken too far, and while some people have a reasonable desire for power; there are others who have an insatiable appetite for it; they want power simply for it's sake, and will never be happy until they have god-like control over everything.

So instead of trying to draw some line, perhaps we should focus on the checks, balances and procedural aspects for the increasing capability in this regard (whether it be psychological, sociological, chemical or by instrumentality).

And what do you propose? Even if you were going to propose checks and balances those would come in the form of laws, regulations, treaties, and so forth. You have to draw a line as to what crosses the figurative line.

 

[Dancing David]

Dancing David[/b]



How was his study specious and poorly designed?



I don't know. You could probably find a bit of information on Jose Delgado on a google search. I haven't read the article that had discussed this in a long time.

Show me the study, I doubt there were any controls in place, or that you read someone elses interpretation of something he did.

You made the claim, you support it. That he did the research that an electrode was implaned and then somebody got up and walked around. Give the study.

I did a Google search, it came up null. You try now.

 

[The Man]

The Man



Yeah. Mind-control would be considered both dangerous and unacceptable by anybody who believes in any reasonable semblance of freedom.

If you can't control just your own mind (just a network of electrochemical impulses) how can you be free of any, perhaps external, influence that affects your mind?

That would be the most clear-cut example, but if a person knew yet would be physically able to resist could also qualify as it would clearly cross a line.

Some people know yet can't resist their own impulses, if the control isn't definitively yours it's going to be from someone or somewhere else. Try to know why you do things or think things.

While I understand your point, from the moral standpoint, I tend to be more concerned with the manipulated over the manipulator.

You're the best and most effective manipulator of your own mind, concern yourself with that.

While possibly true, there are at least as many if not more who would be more than happy with the control they possessed.

Well, I guess we need to control them or at least, failing in that, ourselves

It can

It does, your mind ain't always the best thing you got going, sometimes you just have to ignore it, as your body sometimes does (reflexes).

Yes, but complex tasks while they may become automatic with time often are skills that have to be learned step by step, then repeated over and over again until they become automatic.


You could also manipulate a person by teaching them beliefs to the point that they go from unconscious and at which point they become more influential than when they were beliefs that had to be consciously thought about. Look at religion and indoctrination if you don't believe me.

That's often referred to a conditioning. See Pavov's dogs and a conditioned response

It's important to have at least some rules of thumb set up, if not a range of boundaries that can be established that makes it clear when a line is being crossed. If the lines are too blurry, or are not clearly understood; a person could hypothetically argue that they're not exerting a dangerous and unacceptable influence, but instead just 'persuading' them.

Arguments are the basis of justification which determines the conditions under which "rules of thumb" and a "line" can be (and based on peer determination) should be crossed.

It's more than just controlling undesirable aspects of themselves -- sometimes it's just about controlling things other than themselves period.

That was just an example and to further it let's consider impulse control. An aspect that generally develops later in life. When such internal control is failing, external control becomes the only option possible. Were we to implant an impulse control mechanism into someone that they control themselves, well the lack of impulse control might mean that they never trigger the control or do so far too often. So it must be involuntary to actually control the undesired aspect.

The fact is that the more control an entity (I say entity because this does not intrinsically specify a human) has over it's surroundings, the greater it's prospects for survival are, as well as the greater the quality of their life is (Humans are the most intelligent organisms on earth and can take this to a greater level as a result). This can be dangerous when taken too far, and while some people have a reasonable desire for power; there are others who have an insatiable appetite for it; they want power simply for it's sake, and will never be happy until they have god-like control over everything.

If you can't control what is inside of you, control of what is outside is going to be haphazard at best. If you can control yourself then external influences, once internalized, are subject to the same controls.

And what do you propose? Even if you were going to propose checks and balances those would come in the form of laws, regulations, treaties, and so forth. You have to draw a line as to what crosses the figurative line.

Such things are interpreted and applied by people, that hopefully can control themselves to at least some degree.

 

[Joey McGee]

I cannot help but think of the battle between cooperation and manipulation in terms of the selfish gene. It we borrow the metaphor of memes or replicators there is a stready struggle going on for social success and personal survival on a myriad of levels. Each aspect of manipulation that is harmful balances with the positive aspect. Personal knowledge is ideal but not always feasible. I would say that you must judge the difference between optimally idealistic ethical influence and evil manipulation by some kind of scientific meter. But you could rarely get an "is from an ought" because it would be no precise science in all likelihood.

I would say that if you are intentionally triggering mechanisms that are both shaped by evolution and learned in life you are controlling someone's mind because you are literally triggering a biological event. With enough precise knowledge of these mechanisms you might be able to set up real world events to manipulate a person into extremely uncharacteristic behavior. But you could use the same knowledge to mobillize an entire population in order to avert a total disaster.

This is work I've been meaning to get into, papers by Richard Dawkins and David Buss on manipulation.

 

[The Man]

I cannot help but think of the battle between cooperation and manipulation in terms of the selfish gene. It we borrow the metaphor of memes or replicators there is a stready struggle going on for social success and personal survival on a myriad of levels. Each aspect of manipulation that is harmful balances with the positive aspect. Personal knowledge is ideal but not always feasible. I would say that you must judge the difference between optimally idealistic ethical influence and evil manipulation by some kind of scientific meter. But you could rarely get an "is from an ought" because it would be no precise science in all likelihood.

I would say that if you are intentionally triggering mechanisms that are both shaped by evolution and learned in life you are controlling someone's mind because you are literally triggering a biological event. With enough precise knowledge of these mechanisms you might be able to set up real world events to manipulate a person into extremely uncharacteristic behavior. But you could use the same knowledge to mobillize an entire population in order to avert a total disaster.

This is work I've been meaning to get into, papers by Richard Dawkins and David Buss on manipulation.

Why not? Scientifically what "is", is what ought to be. The perceived disparity between "is" and "ought" only comes from our own expectations of "ought" which far too often (and for good reasons) can simply have little, if any, basis from what "is".

 

[Joey McGee]

Why not? Scientifically what "is", is what ought to be. The perceived disparity between "is" and "ought" only comes from our own expectations of "ought" which far too often (and for good reasons) can simply have little, if any, basis from what "is".

Yeah I would agree with you, and I agree in many respects with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris (a recent event on science and morality) on a lot of these outlooks. In my estimation, because these replicators do work on their own without our interference, in many cases it might be too chaotic like trying to figure out the genome or predicting the weather. In many cases it's completely cut and dried, but because human interaction is such a subtle thing I think we might have to settle for more general approximations in some cases. I think Sam talked about that there too. So really we will always be improving morally because our grasp of the facts about reality will improve. Objective moral values come from objective knowledge. Truth is love, as they like to say.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

I think that would best be described as coercion wouldn't it?
I don't exactly understand how equivocation works so I couldn't tell you?

From wiktionary, definition of coercion

1. (not countable) Actual or threatened force for the purpose of compelling action by another person; the act of coercing.
2. (law, not countable) Use of physical or moral force to compel a person to do something, or to abstain from doing something, thereby depriving that person of the exercise of free will

Equivocation is me "forcing" your choice to be a specific result. Please note the quotes. Let me give you an example of equivocation. I have 3 flash cards one with a blue circle, a red triangle, and an orange square. I ask you to pick one. If you pick the blue circle, I could say, "What is both a round fruit and a color?" and then pick the orange square. If you pick the red triangle, I could say, "Red has three letters, so let's pick the third card". I don't have to do anything if you picked the orange square since that is the card that I wanted you to pick anyways.

But all these examples are moot until you define mind control and manipulation.

 

[Wowbagger]

I cannot help but think of the battle between cooperation and manipulation in terms of the selfish gene.

I thought about answering under these terms. But, I figured my LARP-based experience was easier to explain.

An awful lot of manipulation goes on, "by the genes", for their own replication and survival. Much more than I think most people would want to hear about. From a certain point of view, the entire field of sexual reproduction can be seen as almost entirely about such manipulation. Memes could be seen as a genetically-induced engine for mind control.

 

[Joey McGee]

I thought about answering under these terms. But, I figured my LARP-based experience was easier to explain.

Actually your post made me think of this theory the most

An awful lot of manipulation goes on, "by the genes", for their own replication and survival. Much more than I think most people would want to hear about. From a certain point of view, the entire field of sexual reproduction can be seen as almost entirely about such manipulation. Memes could be seen as a genetically-induced engine for mind control.

Yes. I also think it's potent because of how much of the genome or "menome" is actually junk or balancers or copies of genes that are "selfishly competing" to be there and only a certain percentage are the core blueprint and mechanisms. There's a lot of stuff humans do that only make sense in light of that.

 

[INRM]

The Man

Why not? Scientifically what "is", is what ought to be.

So you're saying if a genocide is what's happening; it's what ought to be?

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

The Man



So you're saying if a genocide is what's happening; it's what ought to be?

INRM-

Please, let's not get wrapped around the axle here. "Ought" has several meanings. The Man was using the sense of "expected to happen due to the effect of natural laws", as in "If I drop an object at sea level, it ought to accelerate downwards at 9.8 m/sec/sec. "Ought" also has the meaning of "morally desireable or enforceable", as in "Children ought not to be sold as sex slaves." Or, for that matter, "Genocide ought to be prevented."

Sheesh.