How to Manipulate a Population

Paladin

Purchased Bewilderment
Messages
2,084
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Location
Washington
Can a society ignorant of logical fallacy, bereft of critical thinking skills ever hope to stay free? Recently there have been lists of logical fallacies posted on this and other boards, and I have been truly suprised that more people were not conversant with them. In the United States we see whole masses of people swayed by catchy slogans and linquistic slight of hand. This kind of ad nauseum approach tends to sway whole elections. Is the "spirit of inquiry" lost to us as a race or have we merely gotten lazy preferring consensus thinking so as not to stand out?
 
It's easier to go with the flow, which is why the salmon die after they lay their eggs, isn't it? As for the logical fallacies, I fail to see the importance of memorizing every one of them. I do agree that the general public should at least know what they are and they do need a few courses in critical thinking, but I wouldn't say that knowing every fallacy and using them as a justification for invalidating valid information is all that great. That's probably not what you meant though.
 
The human animal is a social creature, used to existing in heirarchies and simply following. So when leaders spin information to direct others into specific avenues of thinking, it's not too surprising that people can be receptive to it.

2c.
 
I do think that there are a few reasons that the "spirit of inquiry" seems to be on a nose-dive, even if it is only a temporary nose-dive.

Some things seem to get more and more complex as time goes on, and they show little sign of slowing down: science, technology, culture...society, in general. As our lives become more complex, we require more and more commonly held beliefs with which to feel our way around. Our society is progressively becoming a deeper and deeper reflection of the human mind, where ideas about life are systematized and in-grained into the world we experience.

I think of it like the process of learning a skill...say, fishing. You start out as child, with little more than worms and a cane pole...as you get more proficient, you invest in a rod and reel, carry a small tackle box, and remember to start bringing sunglasses...your skill grows even further, and you have a whole series of different fishing rods for different situations, an array of tackle to address varying conditions, knowledge of basic patterns of fish behavior...you continue honing your skill, and soon you have more rods than you find time to use, enough tackle to handle absolutely any conditions, a boat, fishing vests, specialty tools, and a library of learned patterns and probabilities that you can call upon at anytime.

What's the downside? Well, everything has lost it's apparent mystery. The child with a can of worms could've sat for hours with the hope of catching some strange fish out of a pond, whereas the professional will take one look and determine that the body of water is not a prime habitat for the growth of large gamefish, and that only small catches can be had at some remote location across the water, and that it's not worth wasting time there. "He loses his sense of wonder", as Alan Watts so often said. The world, to him, is completely known. No longer does he feel excitement at dropping a line into the water to see what emerges from the depths. He thinks he knows...so he doesn't even bother. It's funny, though. I've been fishing for years and years (which is partly why I chose the analogy), and I'm always surprised to hear about children catching admirable fish in the most unlikely places, where no 'pro' would ever be caught dead. How do they do it? It's not because they are particularly skilled, but because they don't have enough skill or knowledge to be perpetually lead to the statistically best spots where everyone else goes.

If you turn back the clock by 10,000 years or so, the mere unexplainable existence of the Sun and the stars was enough to make any man question the certainty of his ideas. But our age is emerging as one of the first in the history of mankind where we arguably 'know too much'. Gone are the days when a person's mind was left to thinking about his small tribe and whatever untouched wilderness inspired. Our society is made of more than just massive, immobile buildings...it is made of massive, unmoveable ideas, too...lots of them. Each one of them is built upon a foundation of hundreds of millions of individual minds. Metaphysically speaking, you can look at society as a collective mind. To the degree that man's mind is no longer 'just his', is also the same degree to which societal complexity can flourish. Again, the problem here is 'knowing too much'. We have so much knowledge about our world that it seems that our knowledge offers more mystery than the world which originally inspired it! It is only in this confusion that society tends to become a self-defeating proposition...a structure that celebrates the past and the knowledge it has provided exclusively, and so ends up collectively repeating the same mistakes over and over again...falling for the same scams...running head-long into the same doomed situations. Individual minds that 'snap out of it' are, by and large, helpless to do too much more than go with the flow, as flowperson so appropriately mentioned. An individual mind can and does change the world, but changing the ideas of the collective mind is a different story.
 
moseslmpg said:
It's easier to go with the flow, which is why the salmon die after they lay their eggs, isn't it? As for the logical fallacies, I fail to see the importance of memorizing every one of them. I do agree that the general public should at least know what they are and they do need a few courses in critical thinking, but I wouldn't say that knowing every fallacy and using them as a justification for invalidating valid information is all that great. That's probably not what you meant though.

I appreciate the spirit of your argument, but how could logic or reason invalidate something that is logical or reasonable? A knife cannot cut itself, nor can a tooth bite itself.
 
jiii said:
Some things seem to get more and more complex as time goes on, and they show little sign of slowing down: science, technology, culture...society, in general. As our lives become more complex, we require more and more commonly held beliefs with which to feel our way around. Our society is progressively becoming a deeper and deeper reflection of the human mind, where ideas about life are systematized and in-grained into the world we experience.

I think of it like the process of learning a skill...say, fishing. You start out as child, with little more than worms and a cane pole...as you get more proficient, you invest in a rod and reel, carry a small tackle box, and remember to start bringing sunglasses...your skill grows even further, and you have a whole series of different fishing rods for different situations, an array of tackle to address varying conditions, knowledge of basic patterns of fish behavior...you continue honing your skill, and soon you have more rods than you find time to use, enough tackle to handle absolutely any conditions, a boat, fishing vests, specialty tools, and a library of learned patterns and probabilities that you can call upon at anytime.

What's the downside? Well, everything has lost it's apparent mystery. The child with a can of worms could've sat for hours with the hope of catching some strange fish out of a pond, whereas the professional will take one look and determine that the body of water is not a prime habitat for the growth of large gamefish, and that only small catches can be had at some remote location across the water, and that it's not worth wasting time there. "He loses his sense of wonder", as Alan Watts so often said. The world, to him, is completely known. No longer does he feel excitement at dropping a line into the water to see what emerges from the depths. He thinks he knows...so he doesn't even bother. It's funny, though. I've been fishing for years and years (which is partly why I chose the analogy), and I'm always surprised to hear about children catching admirable fish in the most unlikely places, where no 'pro' would ever be caught dead. How do they do it? It's not because they are particularly skilled, but because they don't have enough skill or knowledge to be perpetually lead to the statistically best spots where everyone else goes.

If you turn back the clock by 10,000 years or so, the mere unexplainable existence of the Sun and the stars was enough to make any man question the certainty of his ideas. But our age is emerging as one of the first in the history of mankind where we arguably 'know too much'. Gone are the days when a person's mind was left to thinking about his small tribe and whatever untouched wilderness inspired. Our society is made of more than just massive, immobile buildings...it is made of massive, unmoveable ideas, too...lots of them. Each one of them is built upon a foundation of hundreds of millions of individual minds. Metaphysically speaking, you can look at society as a collective mind. To the degree that man's mind is no longer 'just his', is also the same degree to which societal complexity can flourish. Again, the problem here is 'knowing too much'. We have so much knowledge about our world that it seems that our knowledge offers more mystery than the world which originally inspired it! It is only in this confusion that society tends to become a self-defeating proposition...a structure that celebrates the past and the knowledge it has provided exclusively, and so ends up collectively repeating the same mistakes over and over again...falling for the same scams...running head-long into the same doomed situations. Individual minds that 'snap out of it' are, by and large, helpless to do too much more than go with the flow, as flowperson so appropriately mentioned. An individual mind can and does change the world, but changing the ideas of the collective mind is a different story.

Wow, where do I begin!:D
Very well put Jiii, it seems you propose we gravitate toward the "Beginners Mind" as it were?
I think being as clear headed, and precise in our use of the aquired knowledge as possible is the issue. Using the knowledge of what consititutes a good argument and what is merely an appeal to our ego, or fears, or desires is what would keep a nation on the right track. Historically, it has been rather easy to manipulate the populace into all kinds of bad ideas that can cost billions of dollars, thousands of lives and send the human race reeling backwards instead of forward. Now, you might ask me to define backwards and forwards and you would be right to do so, though that might take more time and space than we have in this thread. Therefore suffice it to suggest that a more enlightened race of persons who see that violence isn't a good option for solving problems, that taking the time to consider the consequences of our actions is helpful, being ethically, spiritually advanced enough to move toward a positive life not a negative one is where we need to be.
 
Sorry, what I meant is that for some people who are too focused on logic. They reject the result of a fallacious (that is, containing at least one logical fallacy) argument on the sole basis that it contains logical errors, despite the fact that it reaches the same conclusion as an impeccable argument.

I really do wish they had something like Theory of Knowledge in public school systems though. It really helped me to develop a stronger sense of epistemic awareness and all that jazz.
 
Paladin said:
Wow, where do I begin!:D
Very well put Jiii, it seems you propose we gravitate toward the "Beginners Mind" as it were?
I think being as clear headed, and precise in our use of the aquired knowledge as possible is the issue. Using the knowledge of what consititutes a good argument and what is merely an appeal to our ego, or fears, or desires is what would keep a nation on the right track. Historically, it has been rather easy to manipulate the populace into all kinds of bad ideas that can cost billions of dollars, thousands of lives and send the human race reeling backwards instead of forward. Now, you might ask me to define backwards and forwards and you would be right to do so, though that might take more time and space than we have in this thread. Therefore suffice it to suggest that a more enlightened race of persons who see that violence isn't a good option for solving problems, that taking the time to consider the consequences of our actions is helpful, being ethically, spiritually advanced enough to move toward a positive life not a negative one is where we need to be.

A triple hand clap for your excellent post jiii ! And your follow on Palladin. :)

Hmmm...just who was it about two thousand years ago that suggested we view the world around us as through the eyes (mind) of children. All of you really smart people have just one guess.

flow....:cool:
 
flowperson said:
A triple hand clap for your excellent post jiii ! And your follow on Palladin. :)

Hmmm...just who was it about two thousand years ago that suggested we view the world around us as through the eyes (mind) of children. All of you really smart people have just one guess.

flow....:cool:

Does this mean I get more than one?:D
ummmm lemeesee, uh Mel Brooks?;)
 
Kindest Regards, all!

When was government ever *not* about crowd control?

Touching briefly back to "behaviorism," et al, the methods used are used because they work, not the other way around. Which is to say, society was not forced into behavioral psych, behavioral psych came out of studying what motivates and influences "people," people being the masses in general terms. People being people, and psych being psych, there are always exceptions to be found. But by and large the idea is to play to people's wants and desires.

"Tell them what they want to hear, and then do as you damn well please. -Just don't get caught doing it."

There are a lot of interconnected aspects that underlie this as well. Consider, how many of the upper level politicos since the founding of the US have been affiliated, directly or indirectly, with the Freemasons? Is this to say that the Freemasons have some sort of religious superiority complex over the rest of the masses of "unbelievers?" (It does give one pause when one considers the methods and motivations of such secretive groups as Theosophy who associate themselves actually or by implication to the Freemasons)

What about that mandatory demon "business?", without which we would hardly survive (especially those of us in the cushy west where we have luxuries like, oh, computers and the time to participate in online forums).

The problem being underlined by the OP has a multi-faceted source, and it is somewhat unrealistic to lay the blame at the base of only one facet. Even if we were to educate every last person on the earth to the ills and dangers of fallacious reasoning (assuming such could even be done; and assuming that an emotionless state of mind, culture and society would be preferable to the human's natural state), the problems being highlighted would still continue.

It is the nature of the beast.

:D
 
So we should just give up? Admit that we are just sheeple herded about by those who have the majick key of psychology? The masses of men doomed to stupidity and brutishness because they lack the will or ambition to think?
 
My wife usually runs on instinct ... and I hate to admit it, but many times her solutions to a family problem prove to be much better than mine. Rationality isn't always right - even in science! (See the latest Time magazine discussion on "How the stars were born").
 
I love how the english language is constantly re-inventing new words and itself. "Sheeple" is pretty much self-explanatory in its composition and intended meaning...thanks Paladin. I'm dialing the Oxford dictionary folks later today.

Other re-invented words are not so self-revealing as to their composition or intent. Elsewhere on these boards I have found the word "pedophiler". While I believe that I undestand the intent of this new-to-my-experience word I tend to define it as a French person who might be constantly running around a large room full of filing cabinets and stuffing papers into them.

flow....:D
 
kenod said:
My wife usually runs on instinct ... and I hate to admit it, but many times her solutions to a family problem prove to be much better than mine. Rationality isn't always right - even in science! (See the latest Time magazine discussion on "How the stars were born").

Absoutely Ken, I really think there is a higher faculty available to humans than just reason or logic. The intuitive faculty though, I see as different from the mere "fight or flight" reaction indicative of animal like behavior. I personally subscribe to the thought that insight and intuition have a divine source and are only later expressed in reasonable language in order to share them with a larger ( and sometimes less advanced) population. The old adage found in twelve step groups is that if it is spiritual it will be practical is an example of this idea.
 
Kindest Regards, Paladin!

Paladin said:
So we should just give up? Admit that we are just sheeple herded about by those who have the majick key of psychology? The masses of men doomed to stupidity and brutishness because they lack the will or ambition to think?
Oh my! We haven't surrendered to false dichotomy so soon in the program, have we? Is there not a middle way, one that embraces "knowing is half of the battle?"
 
juantoo3 said:
Kindest Regards, Paladin!


Oh my! We haven't surrendered to false dichotomy so soon in the program, have we? Is there not a middle way, one that embraces "knowing is half of the battle?"

Of course not Juan don't be silly:D
It merely seemed to me that was where you were headed with your thats-the-nature-of-the-beast thingy :)
 
The masses of men doomed to stupidity and brutishness because they lack the will or ambition to think?
Herein lies an important clue. Are "men" stupid and brutish, lacking the will and ambition to think because of advertising psych, or does advertising psych take advantage of the fact that "men" are stupid and brutish, lacking the will and ambition to think? The answer is important, because it parlays into governmental use of propaganda in our day and age, but it also has ramifications that reach back into the history of the development of civilization. Force only carries a leader so far. How does one compel a physical / military / rival of equal (or greater) strength to follow?
 
juantoo3 said:
How does one compel a physical / military / rival of equal (or greater) strength to follow?

So many things work....as Seattle says...women.

Sex works.

Beer and Baseball works.

Popcorn and Circus works.

Television, movies, music.

Creating lemmings appears relatively easy utlizing Madison Avenue's techniques.

Rome used the forum....hmmm so does CR.
 
Back
Top