Economy Great Article Breaking Down the US Housing Crisis & Why Government Isn't Doing Anything About It

[Sinister]

How do you draw the line between informing and brainwashing? If I cite research showing that refined sugar has deleterious effects on your well-being, am I brainwashing you against sugar?

Persuasion and manipulation are always different.

 

[brothir]

I've just been confronted with someone repeatedly rejecting contrary evidence by accusing me of cherry-picking while having cited very little data themselves.

Have you read the book he offered as evidence?

 

[Sinister]

First of, please don't say stuff like "ole Jack". It's impolite and unpleasant.

I think the biggest proponents of propaganda were people like Goebbels, who most assuredly was evil. I don't see what your core contention is with the moral relativism you're describing here. I'm not arguing the world is "that black and white", although since you haven't described just how black and white you think my position is it's hard to comment in depth. I wasn't even trying to argue that the world is black and white in almost any respect outside of at least some amount of good and bad people existing.

Resistance to brainwashing turns the discussion into a "God of the gaps" situation, where every instance of ideological resistance reduces the possible surface area where brainwashing can exist. That's a major concession of the potential of brainwashing.

I will use candor however I like, thank you. Jack is well-aware that I actually hold him in high-reward, he doesnt need you tone policing me over it.

You just seem to keep suggesting that if brainwashing doesnt fully override a person's psyche then that means it doesnt exist. Like it cannot exist on a scale, which is absurd.

 

[Sinister]

Have you read the book he offered as evidence?

Not in its entirety, and I dont expect he has read everything I've provided in its entirety. I did my best to familiarize myself with the author's perspective and data pool as best I could for the purpose of this discussion.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I haven't been backed into any corners in this debate. I've just been confronted with someone repeatedly rejecting contrary evidence by accusing me of cherry-picking while having cited very little data themselves.

My point is that in psychology research, there are lots of individual studies showing conflicting results that mostly don't replicate. So you want to look at the weight of the evidence. Do you disagree with that point? If you agree with it, I think you can see the value of meta analysis and curated collections of research.

I've provided relevant evidence from History, the field of advertising, the field of mentalism (whose practitioners have a good habit of exposing charlatanism based on social manipulation, like people who claim to talk to the Dead), the field of fMRI study. There is more than enough data to conclude that there are conditions in which subliminal persuasion can work to a measurable degree, and we even know the pathways activated in the brain. Nothing false about it despite that you will definitely continue to insist so. Readers of this who arent us will just have to come to their own conclusion.

I think "subliminal persuasion" is already moving off the main discussion, and the main takeaway should be that small stimuli evoke small responses, and nothing like "control" comes into play. I don't think a reasonable inference from "advertising exists" is that advertising is strong enough to constitute control. I pointed out that lots of advertising is about informing people about the existence of products and trying to stand out among a sea of similar consumer options.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Persuasion and manipulation are always different.

The connotation is different. The denotation is at least very similar. But how do you draw the line between informing and brainwashing?

 

[brothir]

Not in its entirety, and I dont expect he has read everything I've provided in its entirety. I did my best to familiarize myself with the author's perspective and data pool as best I could for the purpose of this discussion.

Well, if you don't know the book thoroughly then you don't know if he has given you little evidence. The book could contain a lot of it.

 

[brothir]

I will use candor however I like, thank you. Jack is well-aware that I actually hold him in high-reward, he doesnt need you tone policing me over it.

You just seem to keep suggesting that if brainwashing doesnt fully override a person's psyche then that means it doesnt exist. Like it cannot exist on a scale, which is absurd.

I agree that JVS doesn't need me to do anything for him, and it's not why I politely asked you not to use a phrasing I saw as a put-down.

Brainwashing indicates a fairly absolute state, where a person is genuinely helpless. That there is then all these caveats to how that state is achieved reduces the plausibility of it in my eyes. Substantially.

 

[brothir]

The denotation is at least very similar.

They're partially overlapping. Persuasion is more limited in terms of the actions that falls under it, whereas manipulation can involve theoretically endless amounts of indirection.

 

[Sinister]

I agree that JVS doesn't need me to do anything for him, and it's not why I politely asked you not to use a phrasing I saw as a put-down.

Brainwashing indicates a fairly absolute state, where a person is genuinely helpless. That there is then all these caveats to how that state is achieved reduces the plausibility of it in my eyes. Substantially.

That's just not the definition of brainwashed. A person is brainwashed of they're coerced into thinking something is true by the repetitious repeating of it, and actively discouraged from thinking about it analytically/critically.

 

[Sinister]

Well, if you don't know the book thoroughly then you don't know if he has given you little evidence. The book could contain a lot of it.

I take it outright that any book that makes angood faith argument is going to substantiate their claim with a data pool. And I'm not going to go through every source of the author's data from an entire book here. Nor will I be stymied by the notion that that should be required for a coherent opposition. "Well have you read ____?" Arguments are often used rhetorically for the purpose of avoiding substantiating points. Otherwise we can just exchange reading lists and be quiet.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I take it outright that any book that makes angood faith argument is going to substantiate their claim with a data pool. And I'm not going to go through every source of the author's data from an entire book here. Nor will I be stymied by the notion that that should be required for a coherent opposition. "Well have you read ____?" Arguments are often used rhetorically for the purpose of avoiding substantiating points. Otherwise we can just exchange reading lists and be quiet.

That's not how I presented it.

Here's me: "We've discussed this before (I pointed out that Bernays' actual greatest move was convincing people that he was effective). I cited Hugo Mercier's Not Born Yesterday, which collects a lot of research on this (hence the conclusion that mass persuasion has been a massive failure). But I don't think you addressed the points I made in my previous response ITT. What is it exactly that people are persuaded of? Different people say different things, in part because people choose media that tells them what they want to hear and then convince themselves that everyone else is brainwashed. And how are you able to resist the pull?"

 

[Sinister]

That's not how I presented it.

Here's me: "We've discussed this before (I pointed out that Bernays' actual greatest move was convincing people that he was effective). I cited Hugo Mercier's Not Born Yesterday, which collects a lot of research on this (hence the conclusion that mass persuasion has been a massive failure). But I don't think you addressed the points I made in my previous response ITT. What is it exactly that people are persuaded of? Different people say different things, in part because people choose media that tells them what they want to hear and then convince themselves that everyone else is brainwashed. And how are you able to resist the pull?"

Are you making the same claim that in order for brainwashing to be a real thing, people have to be all convinced of the SAME thing? Or that people arent deceitfully convinced things are true that just arent true because there are other people who say they arent true? Because people claim other people are brainwashed doesnt mean no one is. And not every instance of people adopting radical beliefs they were convinced of requires an obvious redetermination towards those beliefs, despite that that's the strongest likelihood of it happening.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Are you making the same claim that in order for brainwashing to be a real thing, people have to be all convinced of the SAME thing? Or that people arent deceitfully convinced things are true that just arent true because there are other people who say they arent true? Because people claim other people are brainwashed doesnt mean no one is. And not every instance of people adopting radical beliefs they were convinced of requires an obvious redetermination towards those beliefs, despite that that's the strongest likelihood of it happening.

I'm only making the claims I posted. A couple of questions I've had are how do you resist the pull of brainwashing that so strongly affects everyone else, and how do you distinguish informing and brainwashing?

 

[Sinister]

I'm only making the claims I posted. A couple of questions I've had are how do you resist the pull of brainwashing that so strongly affects everyone else, and how do you distinguish informing and brainwashing?

I dont understand how this is a real question. Escaping brainwashing requires skill in critical thinking (this and situational awareness are things I teach every say), as well as the ability to discern information that makes an appeal to a grievance, as opposed to one that can be substantiated with data. It also requires consistent review of one's own positions to prevent the strength of exploitable biases, even if that exploitation isn't noticeable.

I dont ever recall it being insinuated by anyone sensible that brainwashing is this overwhelming undefeatable force.

 

[blackheart]

I'm only making the claims I posted. A couple of questions I've had are how do you resist the pull of brainwashing that so strongly affects everyone else, and how do you distinguish informing and brainwashing?

Pretty easy - be educated in media literacy

It is not as if the media outright lies to people and fabricates stories much these days. The last major example of that was the Iraq war and its still biting them in the ass to this day. They know they can't really get away with that anymore. It's more so about how they present a story, what kind of language they use, and what contextual information they decide to leave out in the presentation of that story, that molds and shapes how people think and what they believe.

As a random example, re: coverage of Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza, you'll see headlines like - "30 deceased in food line explosion". Notice all of the passive language in that type of headline? Oh wow there was just an explosion? And 30 people are just now "deceased"? Like they're just describing a random act of god that no one is responsible for. Instead of the more accurate and truthful "9 children, 15 women, and 6 men killed by Israeli Missile while standing in line for food". "30 deceased in food line explosion" isn't technically a lie. But it is a lie in the bad-faith

Which headline is more likely to stir up rage against our shining Middle-East ally? Which headline is more likely to protect the reputation of said ally, and therefore reinforce America's foreign policy goals/interests?

 

[Sinister]

On a side note and to the original subject, Strong Towns must have been reading this thread judging by the latest video they dropped:

 

[Jack V Savage]

I dont understand how this is a real question. Escaping brainwashing requires skill in critical thinking (this and situational awareness are things I teach every say), as well as the ability to discern information that makes an appeal to a grievance, as opposed to one that can be substantiated with data. It also requires consistent review of one's own positions to prevent the strength of exploitable biases, even if that exploitation isn't noticeable.

I dont ever recall it being insinuated by anyone sensible that brainwashing is this overwhelming undefeatable force.

I think it's inherent in the idea that the media controls the population to the extent that we don't have meaningful democracy because of it (which is what I was pushing back on to start). And, yeah, if that's all it takes to avoid the irresistible pull, I don't see the argument for the claim (i.e., that the media controls everyone so there is no democracy).

I still think you haven't thought this through enough. Everyone thinks they do that stuff. How do you know that you are among the elect who really does?

Pretty easy - be educated in media literacy

It is not as if the media outright lies to people and fabricates stories much these days. The last major example of that was the Iraq war and its still biting them in the ass to this day. They know they can't really get away with that anymore. It's more so about how they present a story, what kind of language they use, and what contextual information they decide to leave out in the presentation of that story, that molds and shapes how people think and what they believe.

So in your view, like someone who is hired by ABC as a reporter is thinking, "damn, we're getting hurt by lying to get support for an invasion of Iraq so we have to be more careful now"?

As a random example, re: coverage of Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza, you'll see headlines like - "30 deceased in food line explosion". Notice all of the passive language in that type of headline? Oh wow there was just an explosion? And 30 people are just now "deceased"? Like they're just describing a random act of god that no one is responsible for. Instead of the more accurate and truthful "9 children, 15 women, and 6 men killed by Israeli Missile while standing in line for food". "30 deceased in food line explosion" isn't technically a lie. But it is a lie in the bad-faith

The language is designed to avoid taking a side, which is what the MSM generally does. I've been critical of that approach myself, though it's understandable from a business/credibility maintenance standpoint. But it doesn't amount to the media controlling people.

 

[blackheart]

So in your view, like someone who is hired by ABC as a reporter is thinking, "damn, we're getting hurt by lying to get support for an invasion of Iraq so we have to be more careful now"?

I think that's a silly way of portraying how that kind of decision making happens.

The language is designed to avoid taking a side, which is what the MSM generally does. I've been critical of that approach myself, though it's understandable from a business/credibility maintenance standpoint. But it doesn't amount to the media controlling people.

Lol "avoid taking a side" wrong. Notice the complete lack of passive language when reporting on the Hamas attacks. There is none. You are demonstrating in real time your lack of media literacy Jack. The things that I am saying are collegiate level - not wacky communist out there conspiracies. Knowing the difference between passive vs active voice and how they are used to shape narratives is really basic shit my dude.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The funny thing is that when it came down to the actual policy here in Austin, Islam and I would have voted the same way.

How so?