At What Point is Manipulation Mind-Control?

[lemurien]

My four years in a theocracy (KSA) gave me an idea about what mind control can mean.
We in the West are whining for nothing at all.

 

[Dancing David]

The Man



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

I think the (derail, overgeneralization, strawman, non sequiter)/word ratio is very high in this sentence.

In fact it may be a record.

 

[INRM]

Dancing David

No it isn't, you said what "is" is what "ought to be". So I hypothetically asked if this applied under all circumstances?

 

[Dancing David]

Dancing David

No it isn't, you said what "is" is what "ought to be". So I hypothetically asked if this applied under all circumstances?

Now you can't even keep your posters straight from one another, want to play again?

This is what I posted:

The Man



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

I think the (derail, overgeneralization, strawman, non sequiter)/word ratio is very high in this sentence.

In fact it may be a record.

In response to:

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?

Which sort of quotes this:

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".

Now from reading what JoeyMcGee said and what The Man said, to what you said and the mistakenly attributted it to me is still wrong.

You did overgeneralize from The Man's response
You did set up a false dichotomy
You derailed from the comment that The Man made in its context

And your statement is a non-sequitur:

Non sequitur (pronounced /nɒnˈsɛkwɪtər/) is Latin for "it does not follow."

Your statement has little if any relevance to the statement made by The Man

Now if you really want I can explain to you how in that single sentence you met the criteria for each
overgeneralize
flase dichotomy
and non sequitur

 

[MatildaGage]

When there is coercion.

 

[INRM]

Dancing David

Oh, I'm sorry that I mistook you for The Man. I forgot which one of you said it. Still, I think what he said was incorrect.


lemurien

What's KSA?

 

[Joey McGee]

KSA is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

That statement is only incorrect if you interpret it incorrectly. What is true about reality is the only guide to what we should do. If we are spiritual beings that fell from grace and experience perfect karma or if we are naturalistic materialistic entities that evolved is a scientific question and the answer has obvious inferences to the scientific question of what are the the most objectively moral thoughts, philosophies, laws, techniques, etc ad infinitum.

 

[lemurien]

Robert Cialdini decribes in his book "Influence" numerous techniques of exercising power over you peers. He goes to the details of brainwashing as well, as used by the Chinese to make American POWs talk to the media as Chairman Mao wanted them to.

In religious sects you can see these techniques taken advantege of also.

-Sleep deprivation
-Isolation from support groups, friends, relatives (if not sect members)
-Forced reading of statements in front of an audience
-"Moderated" discussion groups
-Sessions of "self critique"
-Dress code
-Skinnerian programming with repeated rewards and punishments

I had the pleasure to meet some salesmen who had undergone Cialdini's training.
Probably had I not read the book, I could have fallen for them. As it was, it made me chuckle...

 

[lemurien]

There is the mythological side to the mind control as well.

The first part of it is that 'we' are special, selected group of people who are entitled to things others aren't. Becoming a part requires self denial and sacrifice. This again might be something to do with food or sex, and absolutely something irrational. 'We' have always been harassed by the Enemy or his affiliates which is why 'we' have never gained our rightful position in the world.

The second point is that the Leader is enlightened, one with a mission and a message, whose wisdom has no rational boundaries. He knows what is good for 'us', in fact he defines it. He defines history and 'our' place in it. He is the embodiment or 'our' mutual unconscious, the Archetype Father.

The third is the Enemy. He does not have to exist but still he is guilty of all the accidents that have happened in the history and all the consequences we draw upon us with our incompetence and stupidity...this is no exaggeration.

And there you go...and money will follow.

 

[JFrankA]

I haven't read all the posts carefully, so if I repeat something already brought up, please forgive me.

It looks like you are looking for the "hard line" between manipulation and mind control.

Manipulation is something we all do to each other every day. In fact, this entire thread is an example of that, each one of us is trying to understand other people's ideas and push their own. The words we use, the emotions behind them, etc, is a form of manipulation.

The brainwashing techniques that Lemurien posted are accurate and are very close to mind control without placing implants into a living brain. Brainwashing, I should add, is very different than "regular" manipulation.

In order for brainwashing to take place, it has to include not only mental manipulation but physical and environmental changes that are going on 24/7. Sleep deprivation, changes in diet to make the body weaker, constant, and I mean constant and consistent reward/punishment system has to be in place as well as what Lemurien has already posted in order for Brainwashing to work. It's a lot of things to do, it's not just repeating a commercial over and over.

But and this is my opinion now, so go ahead and disagree all these things don't work, or don't stick if there is one key element missing: the wants and desires of the person being manipulated or brainwashed. If any manipulation doesn't play upon someone's desire, for any reason, then that manipulation would be viewed by that person as annoying. If a someone does not voluntarily go into a situation based on their wants and desires and brainwashing techniques are applied to that person the techniques will not stick as strongly as someone who has.

True mind control, IMHO, will change those wants and desires in a person permanently no matter what they are and who they are.

 

[The Man]

As a number of recent posts revolve around one particular issue, I'll response to them all in this one post.

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.

Yes, from my understanding morality is simply a human concept, much like written language. So its meaning depends on how we choose to define it.

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.

Exactly, the only difference between a basic "ought" (just a prescriptive statement) and a 'moral ought' (a morally prescriptive statement) is the concept of morality. Where one has to define what is considered moral in order to give that 'moral ought' expression any relevant meaning. Scientifically morality is just what some group or population defines as being moral or not moral for whatever reasons.

For a society that doesn't consider genocide to be immoral and in fact might consider it a moral obligation, it is what morally ought to be for them. I doubt you will find an example of intentional genocide where the perpetrators didn't feel morally justified in that action. Peoples expectations vary as do their morality and morality is essentially just an expression of peoples expectations of what should be considered moral. So if your going to consider genocide to be immoral and enforce that restriction then you are going to have to control those who might feel genocide as some moral obligation.

 

[INRM]

Joey McGee

That statement is only incorrect if you interpret it incorrectly.

Your statement was wrong because it was articulated wrong -- it's not that big a deal as I can be inarticulate at times. Regardless, when the statement is dragged out to it's conclusion, that is a possibility that such an argument could be advanced and would be accepted.

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.

The problem is with Sam Harris's argument is that it's based on the concept of utilitarianism which has a number of flaws.

To determine what ought to be, one does have to determine what is; one also has to determine what possibilities there are in the future and pick the one that is morally best for mankind and has a chance of working properly.

For a society that doesn't consider genocide to be immoral and in fact might consider it a moral obligation

Your views of morality are too fuzzy. The problem with moral fuzziness is that the lines become so blurred that you effectively end up with no sense of morals or ethics.


WhatRoughBeast

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."

At least you have your head screwed on right enough to agree that Genocide should be prevented.


JFrankA

It looks like you are looking for the "hard line" between manipulation and mind control.

Of course. If we can't find a hard line, at least some line.

The brainwashing techniques that Lemurien posted are accurate and are very close to mind control without placing implants into a living brain. Brainwashing, I should add, is very different than "regular" manipulation.

Agreed, but the question then is -- is there any difference between military training, and brainwashing?

In order for brainwashing to take place, it has to include not only mental manipulation but physical and environmental changes that are going on 24/7. Sleep deprivation, changes in diet to make the body weaker, constant, and I mean constant and consistent reward/punishment system has to be in place as well as what Lemurien has already posted in order for Brainwashing to work. It's a lot of things to do, it's not just repeating a commercial over and over.

Generally true

True mind control, IMHO, will change those wants and desires in a person permanently no matter what they are and who they are.

Not necessarily. If I was able to manipulate a person's brain activity to make them do what I want, regardless of what it was; that's mind-control. If I decided to temporarily stop for a few hours, then resume, it wouldn't make it less mind-control.

I think factors that would divide the line from manipulation to mind-control would be

1.) The degree of resistance a person has to it
2.) The ability to make a person do things beyond what they would normally want to do
3.) The ability to for a person to realize that they are acting out of character, or to realize that they are being manipulated

The less resistance a person has to it; the greater the ability to make a person do things they normally wouldn't want to do, and do things out of character; the smaller the persons ability to be aware that they are being manipulated or are simply acting unusual -- the greater the extent of the control.


INRM
"In closing, I want to remind you all that no matter how I die, it was murder"
SNL Parody of Julian Assange

 

[Joey McGee]

Joey McGee

The problem is with Sam Harris's argument is that it's based on the concept of utilitarianism which has a number of flaws.

A common misinterpretation read his rebuttals.

To determine what ought to be, one does have to determine what is; one also has to determine what possibilities there are in the future and pick the one that is morally best for mankind and has a chance of working properly.

This is something that science, in a broad definition, can absolutely help us with. Most criticisms come into play when there are multiple or competing possibilities, but this isn't a problem for science in other uncertain areas, ranges are perfectly acceptable for applied science elsewhere.

Your views of morality are too fuzzy. The problem with moral fuzziness is that the lines become so blurred that you effectively end up with no sense of morals or ethics.

I didn't say this "Quote:
For a society that doesn't consider genocide to be immoral and in fact might consider it a moral obligation" You've misquoted me.

 

[INRM]

Joey McGee

A common misinterpretation read his rebuttals.

And where would I find his rebuttals?

For a society that doesn't consider genocide to be immoral and in fact might consider it a moral obligation" You've misquoted me.

Regardless, a society that considers genocide to be a moral obligation is extremely dangerous...

 

[Joey McGee]

Joey McGee



And where would I find his rebuttals?

Here and here

 

[lemurien]

INRM: Agreed, but the question then is -- is there any difference between military training, and brainwashing?

I am talking about my own experience (11 months service in the Finnish Army) only: None. Cold, hunger, exhaustion, humiliation, depersonification...and we are quite a moderate and liberal country.

I cannot imagine what the 3 years obligatory in the Red Army would do to you.
Nor would I want to have a problem with a team of Navy Marine Mammals.

 

[INRM]

lemurien

I am talking about my own experience (11 months service in the Finnish Army) only: None. Cold, hunger, exhaustion, humiliation, depersonification...and we are quite a moderate and liberal country.

So, do you think that level of control should be illegal? If not what level of manipulation should be illegal

So far we have drawn up some rules of thumb on this forum over the past two pages.

 

[lemurien]

No, I do not think so. We live in a world where you have armies all over the place. If it is not your army, it is somebody else's marching down the street.
An army is no good unless the soldiers can stay alive and kill.
And to teach them that, you need to use something else than just homework.
I do not like mind control but I cannot see how else things could be done.

 

[INRM]

lemurien

I agree that the military is necessary as well. Still, I think there needs to be some level of mind-control or manipulation that needs to be illegal for obvious reasons.

The capability might not exist yet, but it eventually will.

 

[lemurien]

True. Possibly something could be learned form the problems the veterans are having in the 'normal' society after the service. My parents' generation went to war but nobody was talking about psychological war traumas at the time. How much did it have to do with training, how much with the constant threat of getting killed, hunger, cold and exhaustion.

One would think that the real action boggled the minds much more than any peacetime training might have.

At least, the mind control should remain exclusively in the hands of a democratically elected government...?