At What Point is Manipulation Mind-Control?

[INRM]

Joey McGee,

I don't really understand memes really beyond the concept of a contagious idea or thought to be absolutely honest.

 

[Joey McGee]

Joey McGee,

I don't really understand memes really beyond the concept of a contagious idea or thought to be absolutely honest.

Imagine memes like replicators that compete against and cooperate with each other in a menome, like genes in a genome. Metaphysical organisms are created, like conspiracy theories, they spread for a variety of reasons, they just naturally evolve over time because the hits all add together. You know how, conspiracy theorists weave pseudofacts together into an insane narrative.

Really it's good to understand the selfish gene. There is an entire field called memetics to look into.

 

[INRM]

Joey McGee

Thinking about Invasiveness/Detectability/Resistibility as the qualities of a memetic virus would be most helpful. Actually, the metaphor of a virus is limited, it is more like bacteria in some cases, with some good and some bad effects on the host. We could categorize different kinds of manipulation the same way we classify what is good/bad bacteria. By no means a simple black and white method, but there is at least some clear guidelines.

I disagree, under your attitude a conspiracy theory could be labeled as a form of mind-control. Secondly, I believe the good/bad bacteria model is flawed. I believe that potentially any manipulation that has a sufficiently high degree of invasiveness, and a sufficiently low degree of detectability and resistibility is dangerous. Of course the degree of what kind of manipulation isn't acceptable has to be determined by that model, plus what can be reasonably enforced. After all, the last thing I would want, or any decent person would want is for something like this to be used to form the basis for some kind of "thought police"; the level of intrusiveness is just too extreme.

 

[Joey McGee]

Joey McGee


I disagree, under your attitude a conspiracy theory could be labeled as a form of mind-control.

A conspiracy theory could be true and still be used in a cult-like manner by "activists". Plus, insane conspiracy theories are commonly used by cults as part of installing phobias. The Jewish conspiracy is used for racist cults and for example.

Secondly, I believe the good/bad bacteria model is flawed.Is it? I suggest you read what Susan Blackmore and others have have to say on the field of memetics, perhaps read the updated "The Selfish Gene" as well.

I believe that potentially any manipulation that has a sufficiently high degree of invasiveness, and a sufficiently low degree of detectability and resistibility is dangerous.

You could be describing any influence on babies by their parents, which is indeed a great power.

Of course the degree of what kind of manipulation isn't acceptable has to be determined by that model, plus what can be reasonably enforced. After all, the last thing I would want, or any decent person would want is for something like this to be used to form the basis for some kind of "thought police"; the level of intrusiveness is just too extreme.

If it were objectively true that engaging in invasive but painless mind control would bring about world peace and enlightenment would you do it? If I invented a nanorobot army that could reprogram the brains of every antisocial person in the world to be a compassionate humanist, would you want me to bury the invention for the sake of freedom? The fact that the world is a naturalistic place has implications for these kinds of thought experiments.

 

[INRM]

Joey McGee

A conspiracy theory could be true and still be used in a cult-like manner by "activists"

The problem is if conspiracy theories could be criminalized, they would be even if they were true or not. That's not a good thing and could endanger the 1st Amendment.

Is it? I suggest you read what Susan Blackmore and others have have to say on the field of memetics, perhaps read the updated "The Selfish Gene" as well.

I read her article, though I still maintain that that potentially any manipulation that has a sufficiently high degree of invasiveness, a sufficiently ow degree of detectability and resistability is extremely dangerous

You could be describing any influence on babies by their parents, which is indeed a great power.

True, but that baby grows up and eventually outside the influence of his/her parents. It would be wrong of course for a parent to hold their kid captive to wield absolute power over his/her every thought.

If it were objectively true that engaging in invasive but painless mind control would bring about world peace and enlightenment would you do it?

No, I believe it to be morally wrong to take away from a person the basic right to think and feel as they wish; furthermore how "enlightened" is this form of enlightenment if it's brought about though mind-control?

If I invented a nanorobot army that could reprogram the brains of every antisocial person in the world to be a compassionate humanist, would you want me to bury the invention for the sake of freedom?

Actually, yes. I'm not saying I like anti-social people, or that I wouldn't mind seeing more secular humanists; I just believe it's immoral to do it using methods like this.

 

[Joey McGee]

Joey McGee

The problem is if conspiracy theories could be criminalized, they would be even if they were true or not. That's not a good thing and could endanger the 1st Amendment.

Destructive cults should be criminalized for engaging in mind control. It's pathetic how religious freedom has been used as a shield against this. As long as we keep our sanity we won't make being stupid illegal, this is about "situational ethics" or whatever.

I read her article, though I still maintain that that potentially any manipulation that has a sufficiently high degree of invasiveness, a sufficiently ow degree of detectability and resistability is extremely dangerous

Of course it is we should inoculate children against cults and brainwashing by sharing the fruits psychological science with them.

True, but that baby grows up and eventually outside the influence of his/her parents. It would be wrong of course for a parent to hold their kid captive to wield absolute power over his/her every thought.

Everyone wants to be free. If I notice someone abducting my neighbour physically I'm morally compelled to call the police or physically prevent the abduction. But if a cult member shows up to their door and uses advanced brainwashing to bilk them out of their savings and devote their energy to the cult that's something I should just let go to preserve the idea of free speech? Nope, brainwashing is assault whether the cult is deluded or a con.

No, I believe it to be morally wrong to take away from a person the basic right to think and feel as they wish; furthermore how "enlightened" is this form of enlightenment if it's brought about though mind-control?

It's just a thought experiment, the point is that manipulation can be ethical in some situations.

Actually, yes. I'm not saying I like anti-social people, or that I wouldn't mind seeing more secular humanists; I just believe it's immoral to do it using methods like this.

Let me make the thought experiment simpler, you can flick a switch and bring about world peace and all happy people, everything will be the same except for this one attitude change, why won't you flip it? Of course you would, every peace-loving person in the world would. The point is that it can be moral to manipulate others.

 

[INRM]

Joey McGee

Destructive cults should be criminalized for engaging in mind control. It's pathetic how religious freedom has been used as a shield against this.

It sounds so reasonable, but the question is -- who decides what constitutes a cult from a religion? Who scrutinizes them to determine if they are crossing the line into mind-control? It's important to avoid going against things like the 4th Amendment here...

Of course it is we should inoculate children against cults and brainwashing by sharing the fruits psychological science with them.

It's good for children to be made aware of the ways they can be manipulated so they can defend against them. You'd have to be careful though as children could use these very insights to manipulate their parents which would not be a good thing.

But if a cult member shows up to their door and uses advanced brainwashing to bilk them out of their savings and devote their energy to the cult that's something I should just let go to preserve the idea of free speech? Nope, brainwashing is assault whether the cult is deluded or a con.

I never said that I wanted cults to be able to manipulate people in all sorts of horrific ways, but a reasonable method of enforcement (which has to conform to the Constitution) and punishment needs to exist.

As long as we keep our sanity

Big presumption lol

It's just a thought experiment, the point is that manipulation can be ethical in some situations.

Well, I still think it's wrong. This would be the greatest violation of a person -- taking away their ability to make their own decisions.

Let me make the thought experiment simpler, you can flick a switch and bring about world peace and all happy people, everything will be the same except for this one attitude change, why won't you flip it?

Because I believe people fundamentally should have the right to think what they want, hold their own views, and make up their own minds. By making them think what we want we are depriving them of the basic right to freedom of thought.

The point is that it can be moral to manipulate others.

I understand the point, and sometimes I agree; I don't agree in this case.

 

[Joey McGee]

Joey McGee

It sounds so reasonable, but the question is -- who decides what constitutes a cult from a religion?

Relgions are cults. We grade them on harm. Obama's religion seems relatively harmless to himself and the world, different than Bush's who used it to restrict stem-cell research and teach abstinence.

Who scrutinizes them to determine if they are crossing the line into mind-control? It's important to avoid going against things like the 4th Amendment here...

Who watches the watchmen? Scientists have been fighting over this viciously for years and it's only getting more intense. The whole "Gnu atheists" vs. "The accommodationists" is an incarnation of this.

It's good for children to be made aware of the ways they can be manipulated so they can defend against them. You'd have to be careful though as children could use these very insights to manipulate their parents which would not be a good thing.

I think you could innoculate people against mind control without encouraging them to use it on others if you were careful. Inoculating the parents and teaching them about influence and encouraging to share this with their children is even more important. lol you sure do worry about everything though, I'll give you that.

I never said that I wanted cults to be able to manipulate people in all sorts of horrific ways, but a reasonable method of enforcement (which has to conform to the Constitution) and punishment needs to exist.

Sorry but screw the Constitution. As George Bush supposedly said "It's just a goddamned piece of paper." Anything in there is up for grabs, it was written hundreds of years ago FFS. If the thing caught on fire and we'd all forgotten it I think we'd be able to write something better down at this point. But whatever.

Just because something is hard to do or impossible to classify without a range doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't bother.

Well, I still think it's wrong. This would be the greatest violation of a person -- taking away their ability to make their own decisions.

So you'd trade world peace for a philosophical aesthetic?

Because I believe people fundamentally should have the right to think what they want, hold their own views, and make up their own minds. By making them think what we want we are depriving them of the basic right to freedom of thought.

I'm not saying turn off their freedom of thought, I'm saying make all of these people want to get along peacefully, end all wars. If you could bomb those Pakistani provinces that harbour the Taliban with love drugs that made everyone want to stop fighting, renounce their cult beliefs and get along, you'd do it. There's no moral argument against that, just an aesthetic, philosophical one.

It's like the difference between the naturalists and the new agers. The new agers say "Everything happens for a reason and you can't get involved with other people's karma" Naturalists say "things just happen and we are morally obligated to shape events so we have the most well-being for all" We are morally obligated to engineer the world, screw the rights of people to not be manipulated, it's for their own good.

It sounds elitist, it sounds conspiratorial, but it's common sense. You're not taking away people's freedom, you're giving them the chance to be truly free in a world without memetic cancers and autoimmune diseases.

 

[The Man]

Relgions are cults. We grade them on harm. Obama's religion seems relatively harmless to himself and the world, different than Bush's who used it to restrict stem-cell research and teach abstinence.

Who watches the watchmen? Scientists have been fighting over this viciously for years and it's only getting more intense. The whole "Gnu atheists" vs. "The accommodationists" is an incarnation of this.
I think you could innoculate people against mind control without encouraging them to use it on others if you were careful. Inoculating the parents and teaching them about influence and encouraging to share this with their children is even more important. lol you sure do worry about everything though, I'll give you that.
Sorry but screw the Constitution. As George Bush supposedly said "It's just a goddamned piece of paper." Anything in there is up for grabs, it was written hundreds of years ago FFS. If the thing caught on fire and we'd all forgotten it I think we'd be able to write something better down at this point. But whatever.

Just because something is hard to do or impossible to classify without a range doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't bother.


So you'd trade world peace for a philosophical aesthetic?

I'm not saying turn off their freedom of thought, I'm saying make all of these people want to get along peacefully, end all wars. If you could bomb those Pakistani provinces that harbour the Taliban with love drugs that made everyone want to stop fighting, renounce their cult beliefs and get along, you'd do it. There's no moral argument against that, just an aesthetic, philosophical one.

It's like the difference between the naturalists and the new agers. The new agers say "Everything happens for a reason and you can't get involved with other people's karma" Naturalists say "things just happen and we are morally obligated to shape events so we have the most well-being for all" We are morally obligated to engineer the world, screw the rights of people to not be manipulated, it's for their own good.

It sounds elitist, it sounds conspiratorial, but it's common sense. You're not taking away people's freedom, you're giving them the chance to be truly free in a world without memetic cancers and autoimmune diseases.

Yep, though I might disagree with you on the constitution there Joey McGee, it is a document with its own rewriting ability built in (though the current and previous authors of such rewriting might be somewhat undesirable).

Societies limit certain freedoms, that is their intent. Yet by doing so they grant people freedom in other regards by specifically limiting the incursions of others.

Again, in order to have freedom of thought you first have to be able to free yourself of your own thoughts (and feelings). To do this you have to understand why you think and/or feel something (biochemistry and neurology are a good place to start). Once you've done that you can start thinking things that never would have occurred to you before and then critically examine them as they are no longer so inherently attached to your own thoughts of yourself. Putting yourself in another's shoes (even just mentally) can help to understand and better address their position, needs and perhaps opposition.

There is no right to a lack of manipulation. Manipulation of the physical environment and the mental environment of others is how things get done that one couldn't do ones self. Unless you're just going to go live in a cave and try to manipulate your physical environment with the limited tools that just you have, or some relatively small group has (that's about all we could really do several thousands of years ago).

A true understanding of the human mind (not to mention biochemistry, neurology and technology), for the type of manipulation that INMR is apparently trying to prepare to prevent, is decades or centuries away, if even that. In addition it is adaptability that is the vanguard of our survivability (at least up till now). So as long as we continue to learn and adapt there is no problem, once we stop then we're probably done anyway (at least as the dominate species).

 

[Joey McGee]

Yep, though I might disagree with you on the constitution there Joey McGee, it is a document with its own rewriting ability built in (though the current and previous authors of such rewriting might be somewhat undesirable).

It's true, I just think there's a subconscious urge to use the document as kind of a trump card or an argument beyond reproach. Obviously a problem for uberconservatives but we also see it coming from general paranoid conspiracists. Circular logic, the constitution is wise/divine and it's in the constitution so...

Societies limit certain freedoms, that is their intent. Yet by doing so they grant people freedom in other regards by specifically limiting the incursions of others.

Again, in order to have freedom of thought you first have to be able to free yourself of your own thoughts (and feelings). To do this you have to understand why you think and/or feel something (biochemistry and neurology are a good place to start).

Evolutionary psychology/biology is where it's at, I'd argue the only place to finish (unless you include the theory of everything)

Once you've done that you can start thinking things that never would have occurred to you before and then critically examine them as they are no longer so inherently attached to your own thoughts of yourself. Putting yourself in another's shoes (even just mentally) can help to understand and better address their position, needs and perhaps opposition.

It is a good point, we aren't really naturally "free" until we are aware of what makes us what we are by some objective measure.

There is no right to a lack of manipulation. Manipulation of the physical environment and the mental environment of others is how things get done that one couldn't do ones self. Unless you're just going to go live in a cave and try to manipulate your physical environment with the limited tools that just you have, or some relatively small group has (that's about all we could really do several centuries ago).

A true understanding of the human mind (not to mention biochemistry, neurology and technology), for the type of manipulation that INMR is apparently trying to prepare to prevent, is decades or centuries away, if even that. In addition it is adaptability that is the vanguard of our survivability (at least up till now). So as long as we continue to learn and adapt there is no problem, once we stop then we're probably done anyway (at least as the dominate species).

Right, as a species we are going to win the war for mental freedom, freedom of information is too vast already, anything of real importance gets exposed eventually. Underneath this spring of freedom we have several large, contentious fronts to do battle with. Business, cults and radical political groups come to mind. Unfortunately they tend to have a lot of money and have been way ahead of the public with their manipulation technology for a long time. If we are to be worried about mind control we should be trying to figure out how to counter these people right now, we could save millions of lives from being ruined.

I think if we initiated a mental inoculation program with the same rigour we initiate vaccine programs with we could save trillions of dollars in wasted effort over the next generation it is so bad out there.

 

[The Man]

It's true, I just think there's a subconscious urge to use the document as kind of a trump card or an argument beyond reproach. Obviously a problem for uberconservatives but we also see it coming from general paranoid conspiracists. Circular logic, the constitution is wise/divine and it's in the constitution so...

Oh, I think it is quite conscious and harkens back to the McCarthy era.

"Are you now or have you ever been...

anti-constitutional?"

Talk about attempted manipulation!!!

Evolutionary psychology/biology is where it's at, I'd argue the only place to finish (unless you include the theory of everything)

You're right and I was thinking about that after the post what would be an easier place for most to start. Biochemistry and neurology is just what got me started, dang, guess I need to go back for that free yourself from yourself refresher course (but it was just such a pain the first 30 times through).

It is a good point, we aren't really naturally "free" until we are aware of what makes us what we are by some objective measure.

Thanks and yep, measuring yourself against yourself aien't likely to get you anywhere other than where you already are .

Right, as a species we are going to win the war for mental freedom, freedom of information is too vast already, anything of real importance gets exposed eventually. Underneath this spring of freedom we have several large, contentious fronts to do battle with. Business, cults and radical political groups come to mind. Unfortunately they tend to have a lot of money and have been way ahead of the public with their manipulation technology for a long time. If we are to be worried about mind control we should be trying to figure out how to counter these people right now, we could save millions of lives from being ruined.

Indeed (got tiered of typing "yep"), such an amazing time we live in now. Information spanning all endeavors is more readily available to more people than anytime before in our history. Yet each of us knowing at first just ourselves strangely seems still so far away.

I think if we initiated a mental inoculation program with the same rigour we initiate vaccine programs with we could save trillions of dollars in wasted effort over the next generation it is so bad out there.

Unfortunately, Joey McGee, that's an injunctive injection that one can only give to themselves and some evidently still can't even find the hypodermic let alone the vein.

 

[000063]

Steve Hassan is maybe the most successful cult expert and deprogrammer in the world. I highly recommend this summary and this lecture/q&a on his approach.

He has an ideal forumula for determining when "manipulation" is mind control, the BITE model.

I. Behavior Control
II. Information Control
III. Thought Control
IV. Emotional Control

It's just a very straightforward summary of the essential ways it is done. Consider it his response to the OP.

eta: And here's him talking about how he formed it and how it works on youtube

Good job, mate.

#000063bookmark

 

[INRM]

Joey McGee

Who watches the watchmen?

Exactly

The whole "Gnu atheists" vs. "The accommodationists" is an incarnation of this.

What's a Gnu Atheist, and an Accommodationist?

I think you could innoculate people against mind control without encouraging them to use it on others if you were careful.

Yes, if you were careful

Inoculating the parents and teaching them about influence and encouraging to share this with their children is even more important.

That I can agree with

lol you sure do worry about everything though, I'll give you that.

Thanks, I think...

Sorry but screw the Constitution. As George Bush supposedly said "It's just a goddamned piece of paper."

I don't know if you'd want to use George W. Bush as an example...

Anything in there is up for grabs, it was written hundreds of years ago FFS. If the thing caught on fire and we'd all forgotten it I think we'd be able to write something better down at this point. But whatever.

It's important to have a document that imposes legal limits on what the government can and cannot do.

Just because something is hard to do or impossible to classify without a range doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't bother.

True, but a "screw the constitution approach" could easily end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It could have serious dangers to freedom of speech, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizures.

So you'd trade world peace for a philosophical aesthetic?

I'm not opposed to world peace, but I'm opposed to imposing it that way.

I'm not saying turn off their freedom of thought

But you are actually...

It sounds elitist, it sounds conspiratorial, but it's common sense. You're not taking away people's freedom, you're giving them the chance to be truly free in a world without memetic cancers and autoimmune diseases.

You know, while I find undue manipulation to be very dangerous, and I think there need to be rules to deal with the most extreme levels of manipulation. Regardless, I think it's very dangerous to "screw the Constitution" in order to combat these extreme levels of manipulation.

I think it's important to work within the bounds of the Constitution. And for the record, I don't believe the Constitution is the Bible. But I do think people should have elaborate freedom of speech rights, elaborate rights to be free from unreasonable government search and seizure, the right to due process of law.

 

[Joey McGee]

Joey McGee
What's a Gnu Atheist, and an Accommodationist?

You'll be sad you asked, a most distasteful, boring but necessary debate.

It's important to have a document that imposes legal limits on what the government can and cannot do.

Yeah but "it's in the constitution" and "well we'd have to change the constitution" aren't arguments against anything, especially when you are suggesting barriers in the document could prevent us from fighting cults.

I'm not opposed to world peace, but I'm opposed to imposing it that way.

Why? You're flipping a magic switch to make everyone good people, not controlling them, just reprogramming them to be not irrationally violent or insane. The only people who think that everything happens for a reason and that we have to learn these lessons and that there is value in this "soul journey" are the crackpot new agers. There's no reason for these people to be such scumbags, it's just the naturalistic universe at work. Whatever we can do to change this is good times.

You know, while I find undue manipulation to be very dangerous, and I think there need to be rules to deal with the most extreme levels of manipulation. Regardless, I think it's very dangerous to "screw the Constitution" in order to combat these extreme levels of manipulation.

I think it's important to work within the bounds of the Constitution. And for the record, I don't believe the Constitution is the Bible. But I do think people should have elaborate freedom of speech rights, elaborate rights to be free from unreasonable government search and seizure, the right to due process of law.

I don't think we'd have to change the constitution to fight cults and mind control more effectively, really wasn't my point, it was basically an out of place, poorly related to the OP rant against that fallacy. But I haven't been fighting cults for my whole life maybe Steve Hassan or Rick Ross have opinions on this.

 

[MikeSun5]

Such a device is so far off that it is solely imaginary.

Not so fast, my friend...

I recently watched a program that dealt with exactly such a device.

Now the technology is obviously quite young, but can you imagine the implications of a device that can not only manipulate your motor function, but also the morality center of your brain?

I can see how "mind control" can help someone with depression or addiction issues, but MAN did that thing gave me the creeps. Especially the part where the magnetic gun/wand thing messed up the guy's speech. I do not like mind control, Sam I Am. Not in a box, not with a fox.

 

[Joey McGee]

Oh, I think it is quite conscious and harkens back to the McCarthy era.

"Are you now or have you ever been...

anti-constitutional?"

Talk about attempted manipulation!!!

Gawd that whole part of history is so creepy.

You're right and I was thinking about that after the post what would be an easier place for most to start. Biochemistry and neurology is just what got me started, dang, guess I need to go back for that free yourself from yourself refresher course (but it was just such a pain the first 30 times through).

Free yourself from yourself, that's what I'll call my new self-published eBook. Really though this is extremely important because if we're talking about bringing people out of cults, you really should do it gently as possible and try to replace it with something else. I've talked some people out of some pretty whacked out stuff online and a couple of times they seemed so depressed after I felt extremely guilty, I'd convinced them that they were the people I thought they were! That sucked. Hassan talks about this and it's part of the justification for his "Strategic Interaction Approach".

I really found the four horseman, especially Dawkins because of his support and promotion of EP, extremely helpful as resources if you study their actual bodies of work. Once I started paying attention to stuff like evolutionary medicine and Nesse the pieces were really starting to fit together. If you have any ideas about what allowed you to free yourself from yourself please share because I'm building a website that contains every good link and idea I know of.

Unfortunately, Joey McGee, that's an injunctive injection that one can only give to themselves and some evidently still can't even find the hypodermic let alone the vein.

In one sense I agree, in another sense I think this is a self-assurance in the face of a great challenge. It sucks that we convince few of the anti-vaxxers and truthers, but I don't think people know much about what they are doing, and are most doing the wrong thing, which is what Hassan says.

He gave a speech @Harvard to the humanists in 94 criticizing the government's handling of Waco. (transcript,youtube) He has a lot of ideas about teaching children to be good thinkers. In a lot of ways this is the future but it's just ages ahead of the public zeitgeist.

Our psychology really screws up the progression of psychology. People honestly have a problem with the idea that evolution shaped our psychology and make hilarious and brutal statements about EP that have been debunked for decades, despite supposedly being biologists. I think that's generally what's holding this back, people don't want to give up a lot of stuff that's built on myth or delusion. My answer to that is hey, you can create and live in whatever reality you want, you can choose to be monogamous, you can choose to be non-competitive, you just can't deny the process we took to get here.

It's kind of like the idea that "Hey you can have all of the stuff you think you like about free will, naturalism doesn't destroy that, your free will just can't be the only thing in the universe that is contra-causal (without cause, I've been reading naturalism.org, it is a good site, the Center for Naturalism is a great organization, I would join it)

So really I think that the difficulty in working on this subject seems like it dissuades the average person from trying to reach the hardest cases but I think this intuition is dead wrong and we're missing an enormous opportunity to put it to use.

 

[The Man]

Gawd that whole part of history is so creepy.

Yeah but something we should always keep in mind as falling back into it (under a different context) is never far away.

Free yourself from yourself, that's what I'll call my new self-published eBook. Really though this is extremely important because if we're talking about bringing people out of cults, you really should do it gently as possible and try to replace it with something else. I've talked some people out of some pretty whacked out stuff online and a couple of times they seemed so depressed after I felt extremely guilty, I'd convinced them that they were the people I thought they were! That sucked. Hassan talks about this and it's part of the justification for his "Strategic Interaction Approach".

I really found the four horseman, especially Dawkins because of his support and promotion of EP, extremely helpful as resources if you study their actual bodies of work. Once I started paying attention to stuff like evolutionary medicine and Nesse the pieces were really starting to fit together. If you have any ideas about what allowed you to free yourself from yourself please share because I'm building a website that contains every good link and idea I know of.

Sounds interesting I'll have to check them out later, thanks

In one sense I agree, in another sense I think this is a self-assurance in the face of a great challenge. It sucks that we convince few of the anti-vaxxers and truthers, but I don't think people know much about what they are doing, and are most doing the wrong thing, which is what Hassan says.

He gave a speech @Harvard to the humanists in 94 criticizing the government's handling of Waco. (transcript,youtube) He has a lot of ideas about teaching children to be good thinkers. In a lot of ways this is the future but it's just ages ahead of the public zeitgeist.

Our psychology really screws up the progression of psychology. People honestly have a problem with the idea that evolution shaped our psychology and make hilarious and brutal statements about EP that have been debunked for decades, despite supposedly being biologists. I think that's generally what's holding this back, people don't want to give up a lot of stuff that's built on myth or delusion. My answer to that is hey, you can create and live in whatever reality you want, you can choose to be monogamous, you can choose to be non-competitive, you just can't deny the process we took to get here.

It's kind of like the idea that "Hey you can have all of the stuff you think you like about free will, naturalism doesn't destroy that, your free will just can't be the only thing in the universe that is contra-causal (without cause, I've been reading naturalism.org, it is a good site, the Center for Naturalism is a great organization, I would join it)

So really I think that the difficulty in working on this subject seems like it dissuades the average person from trying to reach the hardest cases but I think this intuition is dead wrong and we're missing an enormous opportunity to put it to use.

Certainly there should be no dissuasion from trying to show someone the door, but they have to walk through it themselves. Dragging them kicking and screaming (or just leading them) really just asserts another external control (what your trying to get them away from) and does not establish the internal controls.

I'll have to check out those other links later as well, thanks.

It just seems so strange to me that someone could assert that evolution hasn't shaped our psychology. Though a lot of things people assert seem strange to me.

 

[The Man]

Not so fast, my friend...

I recently watched a program that dealt with exactly such a device.

Now the technology is obviously quite young, but can you imagine the implications of a device that can not only manipulate your motor function, but also the morality center of your brain?

I can see how "mind control" can help someone with depression or addiction issues, but MAN did that thing gave me the creeps. Especially the part where the magnetic gun/wand thing messed up the guy's speech. I do not like mind control, Sam I Am. Not in a box, not with a fox.

Not really that young, but still developing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulation

Looks like they've already got some safety guidelines in place.

http://www.icts.uci.edu/neuroimaging/Wassermann_rTMS_Safety1998.pdf


Haven't had a chance to watch the whole show yet but it looks intriguing, thanks

 

[INRM]

Joey McGee

You'll be sad you asked, a most distasteful, boring but necessary debate.

Okay so Gnu atheists are the angry, bitter, intolerant atheists who go around calling anybody with an inkling of religiosity as being stupid, ignorant, mentally ill, weak-minded, delusional, brain damaged idiots and so forth?

Yeah but "it's in the constitution" and "well we'd have to change the constitution" aren't arguments against anything, especially when you are suggesting barriers in the document could prevent us from fighting cults.

Yeah, but where does it end? Your zeal in wanting to fight cults and so forth is blinding you to the basic reason the Constitution (and in fact rule of law) exists -- freedom.

It's important to have the right to speak your mind without fear of punishment from the government, the right to not be spied on routinely unless there is probable cause that you have committed, or are in the process of committing a criminal act.

Why? You're flipping a magic switch to make everyone good people, not controlling them, just reprogramming them to be not irrationally violent or insane.

Reprogramming a person is a form of control.

I don't think we'd have to change the constitution to fight cults and mind control more effectively, really wasn't my point, it was basically an out of place, poorly related to the OP rant against that fallacy.

But it isn't exactly out of place -- there is a very serious danger if you start taking away crucial freedoms to deal with a threat to one's freedom. Can't you see the irony in that -- taking away one's freedom to avoid people taking away one's freedom?

You have to take a step back sometimes, look at the big picture...


MikeSun5

Not so fast, my friend...

I recently watched a program that dealt with exactly such a device.

Now the technology is obviously quite young, but can you imagine the implications of a device that can not only manipulate your motor function, but also the morality center of your brain?[/quote]

Yeah, it could make for an excellent mind-control tool.

I can see how "mind control" can help someone with depression or addiction issues, but MAN did that thing gave me the creeps.

I agree with you completely.

I do not like mind control, Sam I Am. Not in a box, not with a fox.

That's my view "Just say no to mind control". Any benefits it may bring would be totally out of proportion with the degree of harm it would cause.


To Everyone

Okay, here's a question. Does neuromarketing cross the line into mind-control?

Some consumer advocate organizations have expressed worry on this as it can be quite invasive and subtle as it effectively involves using neuroscience to defeat the defense mechanisms that most people use to rationally scrutinize advertising.

Theoretically, neuromarketing could be used to help political candidates manipulate voters during elections.


INRM
"In closing, I want to remind everybody that no matter how I die, it was murder"

 

[Joey McGee]

Certainly there should be no dissuasion from trying to show someone the door, but they have to walk through it themselves.

But once you get so good at persuasion and influence it really puts the ball more and more in your court. Suddenly you choose how well you are reframing someone by how hard you work, and how much you practice. They have to make the choice themselves, but then people are having decisions made for them a million different ways by society all of the time, their free will is an illusion in some senses, while there is that element there, it's almost incidental in certain cases. If everyone's parents could afford Rick Ross and there were thousands of him all over the place, there would be a lot less cult members out there.

Dragging them kicking and screaming (or just leading them) really just asserts another external control (what your trying to get them away from) and does not establish the internal controls.

Absolutely, how do you encourage their real identity while collapsing their cult identity?

It just seems so strange to me that someone could assert that evolution hasn't shaped our psychology. Though a lot of things people assert seem strange to me

When I explain evo psych I always tell them to read the criticisms AND the rebuttals because honestly they will screw up your mind and waste your time. That interview with Dawkins and Buss they run through all of the groups of people that do and say stupid stuff about EP, it's kind of funny actually. They are especially unkind to Gould who tried to debunk EP in a wholly ridiculous way, "strawmandering" as Tricky Dick calls it which led to whole swaths of the population mistakenly believing it's been "disproven", the whole thing is just a joke. And don't get me started on the anti-selfish gene model people!