EPTThe mind and brainwashing - Page 2
| Blogs > LuckyFool |
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
| ||
|
Treehead
999 Posts
What's the difference, you ask? The difference is that the first image is someone who has done nothing wrong himself, but suddenly and completely outside his own control, he is bent to the will of another. This is what people are afraid of. The second is more like the reason so many people listen to politicians and political pundits rather than ask their own questions and get their own answers. People often presume that others have a better grasp on reality than they do, and this is not unhealthy provided proper critical thinking capacity. It's the critical thinking capacity that many people lack in this second instance, but that's easily remedied for anyone who wishes it so. The first image, on the other hand, reminds us more of something like a puppet - you can cut the strings, but that doesn't mean the puppet will know what to do once it's freed. A big problem with social control in general is that language can so easily be twisted to have the same content but mean contradictory things in subtext (e.g. "this war is a bold step towards freedom abroad" vs. "this war is a vicious assault on the power structure and way of life for people abroad") leads to divided opinions over whether something is good or bad. The fact that there is division is not necessarily bad - but the extent of the division, and the polarity of the language being used that can be used to preclude any form of discussion other than "well obviously x is good" vs. "well obviously x is bad" makes complicated issues our society needs to analyze into simple issues a person needs only hear "the one true argument about" to be convinced of its inherent correctness. Lack of education and intelligence makes people unable to interpret complex thought, which leaves them sheep to those who can. I don't consider this "brainwashing" and neither should you (because of the polarity of the division between the words "brainwashed" and "convinced", though the way you're using them mean similar things with different subtext). | ||
|
LuckyFool
United States9015 Posts
| ||
|
Mothra
United States1448 Posts
| ||
|
felisconcolori
United States6168 Posts
On April 01 2013 16:30 fight_or_flight wrote: felisconcolori, I think I agree with you even though we are using different terminology and looking at it from different angles. It sounds like you may have some personal experience with it as well, so you know how real off of this stuff is. I fall under the stereotype of people who eventually majored in Psychology in college because they are "fucking nuts". Although because of said issues, I did wind up not finishing my degree. One of the things I continually try to plan towards getting finished. As to how real some of this stuff is, I'm going to get to that just after... On April 01 2013 23:45 Treehead wrote: I'm afraid we're going to have to define "brainwashing" before we can have a real conversation. Brainwashing as a concept brings to the mind an image of a helpless tool which can only serve its master, but I think the image you are describing is much more akin to a person who is easily able to be persuaded by certain individuals who are able to use a certain type of presence, because he either hasn't learned to think for himself, or because he's been taught that thinking for yourself is somehow "incorrect" behavior. What's the difference, you ask? The difference is that the first image is someone who has done nothing wrong himself, but suddenly and completely outside his own control, he is bent to the will of another. This is what people are afraid of. The second is more like the reason so many people listen to politicians and political pundits rather than ask their own questions and get their own answers. People often presume that others have a better grasp on reality than they do, and this is not unhealthy provided proper critical thinking capacity. It's the critical thinking capacity that many people lack in this second instance, but that's easily remedied for anyone who wishes it so. The first image, on the other hand, reminds us more of something like a puppet - you can cut the strings, but that doesn't mean the puppet will know what to do once it's freed. A big problem with social control in general is that language can so easily be twisted to have the same content but mean contradictory things in subtext (e.g. "this war is a bold step towards freedom abroad" vs. "this war is a vicious assault on the power structure and way of life for people abroad") leads to divided opinions over whether something is good or bad. The fact that there is division is not necessarily bad - but the extent of the division, and the polarity of the language being used that can be used to preclude any form of discussion other than "well obviously x is good" vs. "well obviously x is bad" makes complicated issues our society needs to analyze into simple issues a person needs only hear "the one true argument about" to be convinced of its inherent correctness. Lack of education and intelligence makes people unable to interpret complex thought, which leaves them sheep to those who can. I don't consider this "brainwashing" and neither should you (because of the polarity of the division between the words "brainwashed" and "convinced", though the way you're using them mean similar things with different subtext). There is in fact a great deal of distinction to be made - the term "brainwashing" has multiple possible interpretations. 1 - The "fictional" version, which many a dictator would give away anything to achieve. Which is what I feel you are referring to in the first sentence. A method of forcing someone to become a slave, of re-writing completely a person to match what is desired. As far as I am aware, such a complete and total act on the human mind (as we currently understand it) is impossible to achieve - it would shatter the person's mind and leave them a broken shell containing candy coated bits of neurosis. 2 - Indoctrination or behavioral modification - this is something that does exist, and is actually predicated on tenets of human and animal learning. (Think along the lines of Alex's fate in A Clockwork Orange.) This is a part of living, and happens all the time although normally it isn't extreme or life altering. Military training is, to my mind, probably the most extreme form that is commonly encountered. Although it also involves such minor things as smoking cessation programs, AA, and similar addiction counseling. In all of these cases, success is largely predicated on the desire of the individual to change and willingness to accept the change. The problem of course is that it's not always permanent, and you cannot force change on the individual - the individual must be willing to accept that change. It's not unlike hypnosis - in those individuals that can be hypnotized, it's not possible to make someone that has been hypnotized do anything that they would not do themselves. 3. Chemical alterations - this is really just #2, but using pharmaceuticals to change neurochemistry in such a way as to make an individual more pliable. Great changes can be accomplished in some people, but there really isn't enough good research (and it is an extremely delicate topic to research, ethically) to prove any kind of efficacy across a wider population. Anecdotally, there are interesting things that have been done, but again not anything that points to a method where you could force change that was not desired by the individual. 4. Coercion- exactly what it says. Even here, you're not really forcing an individual to change or to act in a manner you desire. It's more a process of limiting what choices are available, or misrepresenting those choices, to guide an individual into making the choices you want. Those choices may change someone, but the individual is still the one making those choices and changes. Essentially, presenting an individual with two choices (both of which may not be in the interest of the individual). An extreme example would be torture - an individual is basically left with the choice of pain/death or complying. (Which, aside from ethical considerations, is largely unreliable.) After the first point, which is basically impossible (currently, and possibly entirely) given the state of psychology, neuroscience, and general knowledge of how the human mind functions, the other points depend greatly on the individual. Education and intelligence can help, but they are not guarantees. (Education, as I mention in point 2, is partially a form of ensuring that youth are instructed in the proper groupthink for their society, given a sense of what the norms of behavior are, and ensuring that they grow up respecting those things.) Logic, critical thinking, and being able to accurately observe what is going on around, to, and within your own mind help as well. I don't buy your point on complex thought, though; a great deal of convincing is done with small, simple concepts. Human beings, as I said earlier in the thread, are social animals. If everyone else is in agreement, it can be difficult to break from the groupthink even if you know that it is wrong. And even then, it can take a great deal of will to buck the herd mentality and risk being cut off. Fortunately, humans are all kinds of contrary. All of the above said, I don't know if something like what is portrayed in Brave New World would work. That kind of systemic, enforced environment in which all thoughts and actions are closely guided and monitored is something that I hope to never have to worry about - at least to the degree present in that and other dystopian novels, as well as some other SciFi works that came along during the age when people gave a lot of possibility to the science of psychology. (It hasn't quite lived up to the expectations. The idea of #1 Brainwashing being possible, of emotional calculus, etc, never has quite come to pass. Hell, they're still trying to define "self" without circular referents.) | ||
| ||
