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

[brothir]

The biggest trap with accepting that brainwashing is real is the basically automatic immense hubris that comes along with believing oneself is somehow part of the anointed who are aware that it's the case, as opposed to the unthinking masses. As an incredibly intelligent person, I find it useful to try and steer away from perspectives that seem conveniently too self-serving and self-aggrandizing.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I disagree that there's no sense in pursuing discussion of evidence just because the one you're arguing didn't accept it. The first thing to consider is of course that the evidence actually isn't evidence. If someone contends that's the case and you retort "getting into the weeds" then you've closed yourself off from admitting error. That in itself would lead to a repetitive discussion, and it'd be your fault.

I think if he wants to back up and refocus on broader principles, that's valid to some extent. Like, I think this whole "do images that are at the edge of perception evoke any response from the brain" sidetrack is pretty irrelevant to the broader discussion about whether voters are "controlled" by the media to the extent that they aren't meaningfully participating in democracy even though they think they are and formal structures allow them to. If he wants to step back another step, I think the issue isn't so much whether we're a "propagandized society" as whether free will is an illusion generally. Because even if the media isn't controlling us, all of our ideas *can* be said to come from some combination of hard wiring and our environment generally, of which the media is part. But I think the discussion has to follow the level that the original statement was made on.

 

[brothir]

I think if he wants to back up and refocus on broader principles, that's valid to some extent. Like, I think this whole "do images that are at the edge of perception evoke any response from the brain" sidetrack is pretty irrelevant to the broader discussion about whether voters are "controlled" by the media to the extent that they aren't meaningfully participating in democracy even though they think they are and formal structures allow them to. If he wants to step back another step, I think the issue isn't so much whether we're a "propagandized society" as whether free will is an illusion generally. Because even if the media isn't controlling us, all of our ideas *can* be said to come from some combination of hard wiring and our environment generally, of which the media is part. But I think the discussion has to follow the level that the original statement was made on.

I think you just have to have "for some definition of free will (...)" as an agreed-upon axiom, because if you want to examine evidence across multiple definitions of free will the decision tree explodes into being unworkable. The subliminal messaging thing is useful to the conversation, but it seems to be a case of massively overstating the relevant extent of the evidence. Can the brain be influenced? Yes. Can the brain be influenced by really small things? Yes. Does that mean it's possible to engineer a mass-convincing machine? Not on its own.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The biggest trap with accepting that brainwashing is real is the basically automatic immense hubris that comes along with believing oneself is somehow part of the anointed who are aware that it's the case, as opposed to the thinking masses. As an incredibly intelligent person, I find it useful to try and steer away from perspectives that seem conveniently too self-serving and self-aggrandizing.

I brought that up a few times. How are you (you meaning the person who believes this) able to avoid this effect? And why do people with opposing views believe it? The guy Sinister was agreeing with has the exact opposite beliefs about the nature of the brainwashing. I'd say that of course the information we have contributes to our positions, but the media (or advertisers or academia) isn't able to deliberately change people's values.

Think about what advertising can and can't do. It can inform them about a new product that they might like, it can bring one choice among many to the forefront (e.g., if there are lots of companies that make interchangeable widgets, it can make one stand out on the shelves). It can evoke curiosity. It can't make people like a product that they don't like (i.e., if you already have experience with a product, ads can't change your mind about it). It can't create a new biological urge (like, the idea that people like hyperpalatable foods because of ads rather than their hyperpalatability is silly).

Also, Sinister and I had this discussion before, and I laid out a few other points:

1. Persuasion generally occurs on a personal level.
2. It is extremely difficult to change someone's mind when they have firm beliefs about something.
3. It's easier to convince people to believe true things than false things.
4. The dumber and separately less educated someone is, the harder it is to change their mind about something (which goes against popular mythology).

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think you just have to have "for some definition of free will (...)" as an agreed-upon axiom, because if you want to examine evidence across multiple definitions of free will the decision tree explodes into being unworkable. The subliminal messaging thing is useful to the conversation, but it seems to be a case of massively overstating the relevant extent of the evidence. Can the brain be influenced? Yes. Can the brain be influenced by really small things? Yes. Does that mean it's possible to engineer a mass-convincing machine? Not on its own.

I'd also note that the influence of "subliminal" messaging is naturally much smaller than the influence of obvious messaging. I gave the example from the analysis Sinister cited. A flash of an angry face can temporarily evoke a tiny arousal response in someone, but an angry person up in their grill will evoke a much stronger and longer-lasting arousal response. Believers in subliminal messaging have it backwards, thinking that a stimulus that is barely detected is somehow more powerful (perhaps on the theory that you're less likely to consciously counteract it, but that's not supported).

 

[Sinister]

I disagree that there's no sense in pursuing discussion of evidence just because the one you're arguing didn't accept it. The first thing to consider is of course that the evidence actually isn't evidence. If someone contends that's the case and you retort "getting into the weeds" then you've closed yourself off from admitting error. That in itself would lead to a repetitive discussion, and it'd be your fault.

Again, though, I didn't only engage with the discussion only once. I addressed the one particular point multiple times and substantiated my case. I only care so much if someone disagrees, there's no sense in being drawn into beating a dead horse on a single point.

 

[brothir]

I'd also note that the influence of "subliminal" messaging is naturally much smaller than the influence of obvious messaging. I gave the example from the analysis Sinister cited. A flash of an angry face can temporarily evoke a tiny arousal response in someone, but an angry person up in their grill will evoke a much stronger and longer-lasting arousal response. Believers in subliminal messaging have it backwards, thinking that a stimulus that is barely detected is somehow more powerful (perhaps on the theory that you're less likely to consciously counteract it, but that's not supported).

For the mass-brainwashing hypothesis to work it definitionally has to be hard to notice, otherwise it's not brainwashing but straightforward authoritarian commanding of people. The Nazis sure commanded a lot of people to do things, but that's not a very interesting hypothesis. So you need a small-scale interaction with a fairly substantial effect, giving the rise to the desire of over-interpreting small effects as large.

 

[brothir]

Again, though, I didn't only engage with the discussion only once. I addressed the one particular point multiple times and substantiated my case. I only care so much if someone disagrees, there's no sense in being drawn into beating a dead horse on a single point.

I'm not re-litigating the entirety of the discussion to find out, so avoiding getting into weeds I've noticed "getting into the weeds" as being systemically used to avoid details that proved inconvenient in other discussions.

 

[Sinister]

The biggest discrepancy I've found with the argument that brainwashing is real is why we're even having this conversation. If it was the case, we'd already be in a Nineteen Eighty-Four type situation, unless the people capable of brainwashing are all somehow really nice.

Why are you representing "the people capable of brainwashing" as monolithic in their purposes? Lol Especially after I already laid out that Bernays himself stated that his form of social persuasion was optimal because democracy allows for plurality of propaganda. Brainwashing existing or being effective to varying degrees (never debated some work better than others and under varying circumstances), doesnt mean everyone who does it wants the same things.

Also, devolving into 1984 requires incrementalism. It has long been stated that the United States is too big, and loves freedom too much to ever become a fascist dictatorship with full State oppression of political opposition, and here we are with that knocking on our door. The work of long campaigns to convince people that democracy doesnt work, among a host of other things.

 

[Sinister]

I'm not re-litigating the entirety of the discussion to find out, so avoiding getting into weeds I've noticed "getting into the weeds" as being systemically used to avoid details that proved inconvenient in other discussions.

That's fair enough, that just wasnt my intended purpose at all.

 

[brothir]

Why are you representing "the people capable of brainwashing" as monolithic in their purposes? Lol Especially after I already laid out that Bernays himself stated that his form of social persuasion was optimal because democracy allows for plurality of propaganda. Brainwashing existing or being effective to varying degrees (never debated some work better than others and under varying circumstances), doesnt mean everyone who does it wants the same things.

Also, devolving into 1984 requires incrementalism. It has long been stated that the United States is too big, and loves freedom too much to ever become a fascist dictatorship with full State oppression of political opposition, and here we are with that knocking on our door. The work of long campaigns to convince people that democracy doesnt work, among a host of other things.

I simply find it implausible that if brainwashing was real that people who ideologically value freedom would use it or that nice people would out-compete ruthless people in pursuit of the power of it. You'd have a civil war for power after someone using it gained enough power, if there was any contest at all. Finally, if the US has defeated mass-brainwashing by simply being ideologically committed to freedom enough, then that's goodbye to the idea that brainwashing has any real power. Also, there are other countries than the US and not all of them are authoritarian.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

the MSM was definitely pro-vax.

Ya think?

 

[brothir]

If someone's down all the time, we'd call him a depression case. But we're talking about some who are brainwashed all the time, making them an impression case.

 

[Sinister]

I didn't make that suggestion. We've been discussing that original point throughout. If you want to step back and acknowledge that academia doesn't control the population while still insisting that the media does, that would be helpful.

I don't see the analytic value of separating Fox. In total, the media was very supportive of vaccines. People who are inclined to seek out partisan media had partisan takes--which *at least* suggests a possible problem with your argument that you should address and consider. Specifically, it lines up with the theory that people seek out media that tells them what they want to hear better than the theory that people are "controlled" by the media.

What are you trying to say here? The power of Fox's propaganda also forced non-rightists into being anti-vaxxers?

This is an argument from (imagined) authority as well as a circular argument (it's true because it's a fact, and it's a fact because I say the authorities say it is).


Well, I recommended a book that lays out the case and cites a lot of data. Pointing you in the direction of data isn't cherry-picking.

Did you read that? What they conclude is that showing a visual stimulus "subliminally" (defined) probably can cause a neurological response (e.g., a flash of an angry face could slightly cause arousal even if you don't notice it). It's a very weak effect (much less than, say, a frowning person getting in your face). That's why I said it depends how you define "works." Subliminal messaging isn't going to drive your decisions, and to the extent it has any effect at all, it's much weaker than more obvious stimulus.


Again, not a meta analysis. The reason I point that out is that in psychological studies particularly, you can find all sorts of crazy effects in any particular study, and then they don't replicate. There are lots of websites devoted to that. I think a single study is useful for identifying a potential effect to look into, but it's not going to be the last word on anything. And when you have an issue that gets studied a lot, that's particularly a problem. Also an issue in health studies (e.g., you'll find lots of health studies showing that homeopathic medicine works, even though there is no plausible mechanism by which it does, and meta analysis doesn't support it). "Subliminal messaging" is on a level with homeopathic medicine.

Why would I step back and clarify some sh*t I never said or contended? I could make some cases for Academia being misleading on a large scale and there's one case specifically where it effects the entire works to this day. A bad scientist ended up on the cover of Time Magazine over it. But I view that as incidental that that guy's particular ego, and there was a ton of opposition within the community at the time. The media, however, has based their entire model on being able to capture audiences.

The analytical value of separating Fox is scale. Fox is larger, with a larger viewing base than other networks. They are by no means a small outlier. And they also admitted numerous times that deceitful reporting is part of their business model. Seems convenient to be dismissive of that. And yes, non-rightists became vaccine skeptical, people who were not politically "right" and previously moderate on vaccines became vaccine skeptical. This is noted by Doctors.

The argument is from empirical data/authority at the relevant time. Nothing imaginary about it. I have shown the actual propaganda itself as well as reports of it.

Recommending a book is a single-source, vaguely suggesting it contains references doesnt make it unique. Such books should always contain references. Your contention is that this book is u questionably correct. And you've repeatedly been dismissive of data to hold onto that contention.

Jack, you said its junk science that works on no one. That data suggests your point was nonsense. Subliminal stimulus has effects on the brain to statistically significant degrees that vary on outcome depending on the strength of them, and the conditions in which they're given. The fact that that's always been known has been the basis of propagandizing societies..

 

[Jack V Savage]

Why are you representing "the people capable of brainwashing" as monolithic in their purposes? Lol Especially after I already laid out that Bernays himself stated that his form of social persuasion was optimal because democracy allows for plurality of propaganda. Brainwashing existing or being effective to varying degrees (never debated some work better than others and under varying circumstances), doesnt mean everyone who does it wants the same things.

The initial term we were discussing was "control." The idea being that we don’t have meaningful democracy because people are controlled by the media (and other institutions). If the claim is just that people's views are influenced by information, that is certainly true.

Also, devolving into 1984 requires incrementalism.

Remember that Orwell wasn't predicting the future; he was trying to help people see the present at the time. And it wasn't about subtle manipulation.

Also, the person you were agreeing with is a fascist who was arguing that democracy doesn't work (because people are controlled by the media and academia).

 

[Sinister]

I simply find it implausible that if brainwashing was real that people who ideologically value freedom would use it or that nice people would out-compete ruthless people in pursuit of the power of it. You'd have a civil war for power after someone using it gained enough power, if there was any contest at all. Finally, if the US has defeated mass-brainwashing by simply being ideologically committed to freedom enough, then that's goodbye to the idea that brainwashing has any real power. Also, there are other countries than the US and not all of them are authoritarian.

I dont think the world is quite that black and white. The biggest proponents of propaganda have been moneyed interests. People who ole Jack himself has argued arent particularly good or evil, but just want to make money. Perception of good or evil, mean or nice, would be relative to that. Most idealogs who pursue social engineering would vehemently argue that they are the good guys, acting in everyone's best interest, or at least in that or their Country.

Resilience to brainwashing of ideology doesnt mean brainwashing doesnt exist, I dobt think the existence of both of those in the world is mutually exclusive.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Recommending a book is a single-source, vaguely suggesting it contains references doesnt make it unique.

I don't get your point about it being unique. Lots of books explore issues in depth. I haven't stated otherwise. I think the idea that a book rec is cherry-picking is such obvious rot that there's no way you really believe it (you feel backed into a corner by your arguments failing).

Such books should always contain references. Your contention is that this book is u questionably correct. And you've repeatedly been dismissive of data to hold onto that contention.

My contention is that the weight of the evidence is strongly against the mass brainwashing theory.

Jack, you said its junk science that works on no one. That data suggests your point was nonsense. Subliminal stimulus has effects on the brain to statistically significant degrees that vary on outcome depending on the strength of them, and the conditions in which they're given. The fact that that's always been known has been the basis of propagandizing societies..

Subliminal persuasion is junk science, and the data on that is very clear. Your last statement is false.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Resilience to brainwashing of ideology doesnt mean brainwashing doesnt exist, I dobt think the existence of both of those in the world is mutually exclusive.

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?

 

[Sinister]

I don't get your point about it being unique. Lots of books explore issues in depth. I haven't stated otherwise. I think the idea that a book rec is cherry-picking is such obvious rot that there's no way you really believe it (you feel backed into a corner by your arguments failing).

My contention is that the weight of the evidence is strongly against the mass brainwashing theory.

Subliminal persuasion is junk science, and the data on that is very clear. Your last statement is false.

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. 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.

 

[brothir]

I dont think the world is quite that black and white. The biggest proponents of propaganda have been moneyed interests. People who ole Jack himself has argued arent particularly good or evil, but just want to make money. Perception of good or evil, mean or nice, would be relative to that. Most idealogs who pursue social engineering would vehemently argue that they are the good guys, acting in everyone's best interest, or at least in that or their Country.

Resilience to brainwashing of ideology doesnt mean brainwashing doesnt exist, I dobt think the existence of both of those in the world is mutually exclusive.

First off, 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.