Mray3460 said:
A strange idea occurred to me today while thinking about human thought processes, namely about the fact that many humans, either consciously or unconsciously, do "mental gymnastics" to either ignore information directly against what they believe in, inflate their own egos, enable "group think," or to justify their own actions because it's "easier" than seeing and dealing with the truth (This is often seen in the case of cult victims, extremists, supremacists, and other deliberately ignorant or "blind" individuals)(I.E. a man believes that he is better at everything than everyone else, even though he has been beaten in a number of contests in areas that he has specifically claimed to be superior at):
What if there was a way to literally FORCE someone to acknowledge the truth or make it impossible for them to ignore or dismiss a superior argument or irrefutable evidence (I.E. the aforementioned man would find himself unable to deny that he had lost due to someone else having a superior level of skill, and that his opponent hadn't just "gotten lucky" or convince himself that he hadn't "really been trying").
For the sake of argument, lets assume the process would work something like the classic electric-chair-esk setup of the helmet and manacles: Strap someone in, throw the switch, and in 5 to 10 seconds, with no physical pain or damage of any kind, the person would be unable to deliberately remain ignorant through mental exercise, become drawn into a "group think" situation, or be indoctrinated by an ideology to the point of being unable or unwilling to disregard it when glaring, damning flaws in it are pointed out.
Initially, I thought of what an incredible world it would be if the technology were applied to everyone (No more cults, No more group think, No more bigotry, etc.) but I then thought of the human rights and free will concerns. Does someone have the right to be a bigot? An idiot? A figurative sheep? Which brings me to the questions of the poll: If this technology existed, should it be applied to the masses? Why or Why not?
Note: The technology does not and cannot target individual ideologies, or any mental processes that aren't specifically mentioned above.
Edit: As clarification, the device does not tell people what to think. It forces people to think, period. With no specific arguments, beliefs, opinions, or facts imprinted into the person's brain. Rather, it forces them to continually (even after exposure) examine their own beliefs and the beliefs of others objectively ( with no pre-conceived notions interfering with their judgment).
An interesting idea to be sure, but a machine like what you are talking about has a huge potential for abuse.
But, aside from that . . .
There is a glaring flaw in your theory. . . that the people you think are being ignorant, or in denial, actually are. To clarify, using your example, how do you know that the man wasn't really convincing himself to lose to his opponent, or that some factor was at play that really did cause him to lose, even though he was superior.
Basically, you have to assume that the way you think is right, and the way he thinks is wrong. To effectively use this general concept, you must base your ideology on an Objective view. From an Objective view, human opinion is irrelevant and is replaced by some universal constant. To my knowledge, there are only two popular universal constants. Reason and God.
If you use Reason, ( the ability to critically think, which is instilled in us by universal law) you run into the problem that not everyone uses Reason the same way. If you use God, ( a supernatural entity which has put universal laws in place, including Reason) you must then be able to agree on which God, due to the variety of world religions, actually exists. Both concepts present a difficulty that many people have problems with.
If you reject the idea of the universal constant, then you must be willing to admit the critical flaw in your plan due to a Relative view. In example, you use your machine on a person, and when the person has been adjusted, still disagrees with you. Then the person was never wrong, and neither were you, because in a Relative view, both people can be right at the same time, despite having opposing views. No doubt you have a problem with this view as well.
So, I think it would be best if we allow people to have their opinions, even if we disagree with them. And before some supposedly "clever" person decides to quote me with some smart-ass comment like, " So, we should allow everyone to have opinion, even if their opinion is to hurt others?" I will say that there would obviously have to be restictions in place in the event of harm to others, and that those restrictions would have to be examined carefully for abuse against a specific ideology.
