Poll: Forced Thought

[Guitar Gamer]

are you kidding? the very idea that technology that could make more people less retarded is a miracle but sadly I believe people have the right to say whatever stupid and biased, group thought (or the lack of thought I guess) things they want, as long as it doesn't effect other people they can/will/shouldn't, if they want to stop then we bring the chair

 

[Supreme Unleaded]

While thats a great idea the word CORRUPTION towers down over it. Think about it, if they can make you less "stupid" or iggnorant what els can they do. Its too close to brainwashing and we all know where that goes.

So, the concept, yeah its pretty damned good, the practice, hell no.

EDIT: Just thought of this. What if the commonly beleived "rule" that your hammering into the sujects brain is wrong. Like the power of flight, I can't remeber the name of the guy who made the rule but it stated that when an aircraft flyes it creates a area of low preassure above the wing and high pressure under the wing, thus creating lift. This was commonly thought as the way aircraft flew for years and was tought that way... untill symetrical wings where created, then it showed that only like 10% of the lift is from the low/high pressure mix.

That idea was thought to be correct for years, if we hammered that into peoples minds who thought it flew differently then we would have never figured the real way a plane flyes out. So what i mean is, what if the "superior argument" is wrong. If it goes by majority rule then that argument is many times going to be wrong. I could make many ore examples but it would fill a page. So no, your Idea acually wouldnt really work.

 

[Mray3460]

How can you know that someone lost due to their opponent's superiour skills? There is always a chance of an accident. Any tiny thing could have affected the performance and be unrelated to either opponents "skills".

It was a bad example, I should have taken the time to think it over more carefully before I posted. It was just the simplest situation that I could think of at the time that applied to the situation.

Cult members, extremists, and anyone else are equally right and wrong as anyone else. Who said creation is better then destruction? Why? Who said being altruistic is better then being misanthropic? Why? Who said life should be preferred to death? Why?

I somewhat agree with your opening statement in this section. But I used those categories as general examples of groups that tend to be though of as closeminded, ignorant, or brainwashed. As to your questions, the machine does not answer them, nor does it force others to accept certain answers. In essence, the machine would force people to come up with and choose their own answers to the questions, while considering the answers of others, instead of outright, blindly following those other answers and defending them as the "only" answers. Sorry if I didn't make that clear in my OP.

Most things really do come down to ideology. And for things that don't, like your "skills" example, the "machine" would have to know every tiny fact about everything to know - and thus provide - the supposed truth. What really is "skill"? What really is "luck"? There are no stats you can compare in real life. And again, there are more factors capable of affecting any outcome then you could ever imagine.

This part kind of confused me and I'm unsure what you're talking about. I'd appreciate a clarification. For the record though, the machine makes no judgments, instead, it forces the individual to make their own, objective judgments, despite any pre-conceived notions that they may or may not have had. The devise is both retroactive and continues to function for the remainder of the individual's life.

Most of the things you see as "truth" are just there because they've been hammered into your head since childhood. Values, morals, everything. Common sense, even - it's hardly based on some kind of "behind-the-scenes" wisdom, it comes from basic knowledge of the situation which is usually enough in every day life. But your common sense won't do shit in an area you've never heard of.

I think that the "Common Sense" you're referring to is a set of "Paradigms" (Pre-conceived notions), and I pretty much agree with your assessment if that is the case. However, I think you may have mistaken what the machine does concerning these paradigms. It does not force a particular, new set into the individual, rather, it prevents the individual's current paradigms from interfering with their ability to comprehend and process new information which contradicts their previously held beliefs or ideas.

All you're trying to do with your idea is to brainwash everyone in your idea of what is right. And I don't see how it's any different from the examples you provided.

The technology wont make everyone think like me, it will make everyone think.

 

[KarumaK]

See the problem with this is that you will destroy civilization.

The way the majority of people manage to deal with everyone is by ignoring or denying things that make them want to bash a skull in. I'd expect massive rioting before everyone settle down only with those who thought like they did thus isolating everyone in pocket groups composed only of like-minds.

That said I'd totally use it, after repurposing it to brainwash the masses to bend at my word.

 

[Mray3460]

While thats a great idea the word CORRUPTION towers down over it. Think about it, if they can make you less "stupid" or iggnorant what els can they do. Its too close to brainwashing and we all know where that goes.

So, the concept, yeah its pretty damned good, the practice, hell no.

EDIT: Just thought of this. What if the commonly beleived "rule" that your hammering into the sujects brain is wrong. Like the power of flight, I can't remeber the name of the guy who made the rule but it stated that when an aircraft flyes it creates a area of low preassure above the wing and high pressure under the wing, thus creating lift. This was commonly thought as the way aircraft flew for years and was tought that way... untill symetrical wings where created, then it showed that only like 10% of the lift is from the low/high pressure mix.

That idea was thought to be correct for years, if we hammered that into peoples minds who thought it flew differently then we would have never figured the real way a plane flyes out. So what i mean is, what if the "superior argument" is wrong. If it goes by majority rule then that argument is many times going to be wrong. I could make many ore examples but it would fill a page. So no, your Idea acually wouldnt really work.

Sorry it took so long to reply, let me quote myself.

Note: The technology does not and cannot target individual ideologies, or any mental processes that aren't specifically mentioned above.

Thereby it cannot be abused, as it does not target ideologies, ideas, or opinions, it only targets a certain process of thinking (or rather a process for NOT thinking)

A lot of people don't seem to be getting what the machine would do. It would not force someone to think a particular opinion or idea. It would force someone to think, period. It would render them incapable of simply accepting anything, most especially their own beliefs, at face value or coming up with grand, ridiculous fallacies to justify their own beliefs TO THEMSELVES. Essentially, it makes it so that people cannot simply follow their own beliefs without thinking about them and disables their ability to subconsciously fool themselves into believing that they are right, when even they, on some level, realize that they are wrong.

I'm sorry if I did not communicate that as well as I should have, your comment was well thought out, and I look forward to a second response.

 

[BonsaiK]

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.

The technology for this to occur won't happen within our lifetimes, and maybe not in this millenia, probably never. Medical science overall is still in its infancy, and neuroscience hasn't really even gotten to the "infantile" stage yet. These's so much that we don't know about how the mind works, that we're probably still a few hundred years away from being able to do a relatively simple interfacing job like plugging a memory stick directly into our brain to increase our general knowledge. What you're suggesting is far more complex and multi-faceted than this.

If it IS possible, then we open up a very difficult can of worms. Concepts like "truth", "individuality", "freedom of thought" aren't really what they appear, because these ideas lie within pre-conceived notions of "freedom" and "invividuality vs group" that are very much constructed by our perceived "reality" which is an interpretation of stimuli that don't necessarily correlate with the "real" way things actually are/are not. "Group think" isn't necessarily not the truth anymore than it necessarily is the truth (just because a lot of people are having the same thought, is it wrong?), people exhibit herd mentality for good reasons to do with survival, propagation etc which allows them to then navigate "reality" vs "the Real" in certain ways. This is impossible to discuss without getting very deep into territory which is far, far beyond the scope of this forum, I suggest that you study Lacanian theory a bit, that would interest you probably and might help you get a better grasp of what the real problem behind this idea is in practice. I guess what you're asking really is to force the blue pill down people's throats, but you need to realise that the company that makes the blue pill really just makes the red pill and applies blue food colouring. I know that's a crappy analogy but that's about the best I can do, you need to go very deep into psychoanalytical theory to get a better answer than that. I'll let you find it yourself seeing as how you're such an advocate of free thought and all.

 

[NeutralDrow]

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").

We'd be able to defeat the Warlock Lord, Brona, free the Trolls and Gnomes from bondage, and bring peace back to the Four Lands.

 

[Kollega]

In the immortal words of Dark Helmet of the "Spaceballs" fame - No! It's too dangerous!

You see, it sounds good on paper. But in twelve nanoseconds some douchebag will reverse-engineer it to force people into wrong beliefs.

 

[Krythe]

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").

THE GAME

I just caused you all to lose and you cannot deny it.

 

[Godavari]

I'm pretty sure that goes against every basic human right ever.
We can't morally force people to think in a way we deem "superior".

 

[HelbrechtBT]

No. First off thier is the whole human rights thing which does not need to be said again. Second is that what if the information burned into peoples brains turns out to be wrong? What if the scientific theory put into everyones head later turns out to have been incorrect? Does everyone have to report in for thier next brainwashing session?

 

[Mray3460]

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.

The technology for this to occur won't happen within our lifetimes, and maybe not in this millenia, probably never. Medical science overall is still in its infancy, and neuroscience hasn't really even gotten to the "infantile" stage yet. These's so much that we don't know about how the mind works, that we're probably still a few hundred years away from being able to do a relatively simple interfacing job like plugging a memory stick directly into our brain to increase our general knowledge. What you're suggesting is far more complex and multi-faceted than this.

If it IS possible, then we open up a very difficult can of worms. Concepts like "truth", "individuality", "freedom of thought" aren't really what they appear, because these ideas lie within pre-conceived notions of "freedom" and "invividuality vs group" that are very much constructed by our perceived "reality" which is an interpretation of stimuli that don't necessarily correlate with the "real" way things actually are/are not. "Group think" isn't necessarily not the truth anymore than it necessarily is the truth (just because a lot of people are having the same thought, is it wrong?), people exhibit herd mentality for good reasons to do with survival, propagation etc which allows them to then navigate "reality" vs "the Real" in certain ways. This is impossible to discuss without getting very deep into territory which is far, far beyond the scope of this forum, I suggest that you study Lacanian theory a bit, that would interest you probably and might help you get a better grasp of what the real problem behind this idea is in practice. I guess what you're asking really is to force the blue pill down people's throats, but you need to realise that the company that makes the blue pill really just makes the red pill and applies blue food colouring. I know that's a crappy analogy but that's about the best I can do, you need to go very deep into psychoanalytical theory to get a better answer than that. I'll let you find it yourself seeing as how you're such an advocate of free thought and all.

First and foremost, thank you for the well thought out reply and the referrals (I'll definitely have to check those out). The reasons you put forward against the practice drew from real-world concerns (such as survivability), and your comments on the nature of perception are a valid point. However, I feel there is some confusion of terms.

"Group Think" (in this context, under the Sociological definition) is not the belief in the opinions of the majority (just because many people believe it, doesn't mean that it is wrong), it is the unquestioning acceptance by an individual of a belief BECAUSE nearly everyone else believes it, rather than on the merits of the belief itself (This also applies to behaviors and the "If everyone else is jumping off a bridge..." mentality).

Furthermore, this machine would focus more on eliminating the mental processes that people use to avoid unfortunate implications raised by new information that is directly incomparable with their old beliefs because it is easier than changing those beliefs, despite the fact that they themselves now, on some level, realize that those beliefs are wrong (I.E. Man believes that the world is flat. Man is taken around the world, irrefutably proving his belief wrong. Man, ignoring the information, continues to believe, and act on the belief, that the world is flat. This technology would remove his ability to ignore that information [I'm not sure if there is a technical term for that ability]).

As a final note, your "red pill, blue pill" example was actually a perfect analogy for the situation, and actually provides a much more accessible and understandable explanation of the idea than I did, well done (although, you did get the colors switched).

 

[Mray3460]

In the immortal words of Dark Helmet of the "Spaceballs" fame - No! It's too dangerous!

You see, it sounds good on paper. But in twelve nanoseconds some douchebag will reverse-engineer it to force people into wrong beliefs.

I'm pretty sure that goes against every basic human right ever.
We can't morally force people to think in a way we deem "superior".

No. First off thier is the whole human rights thing which does not need to be said again. Second is that what if the information burned into peoples brains turns out to be wrong? What if the scientific theory put into everyones head later turns out to have been incorrect? Does everyone have to report in for thier next brainwashing session?

Please read the rest of the thread, some clarifications were made, as apparently the majority of the readers misunderstood what the devise actually does. It does not force people to think a particular belief, opinion, or moral is true/false, it merely keeps people's pre-conceived notions from interfering with their ability to understand the beliefs of others, question those notions when new information is provided, and to enhance their ability to question another person's beliefs when they are put forward. It does not tell people what to think. It forces them to THINK, PERIOD!

(Sorry for the rant, I've just had to explain this four times already. Thank you for your posts and your thoughts)

Edit: Sorry for the double-post as well

 

[chinese_democracy]

I think your invention already exists. I don't see many narcissistic potheads.

 

[BonsaiK]

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.

The technology for this to occur won't happen within our lifetimes, and maybe not in this millenia, probably never. Medical science overall is still in its infancy, and neuroscience hasn't really even gotten to the "infantile" stage yet. These's so much that we don't know about how the mind works, that we're probably still a few hundred years away from being able to do a relatively simple interfacing job like plugging a memory stick directly into our brain to increase our general knowledge. What you're suggesting is far more complex and multi-faceted than this.

If it IS possible, then we open up a very difficult can of worms. Concepts like "truth", "individuality", "freedom of thought" aren't really what they appear, because these ideas lie within pre-conceived notions of "freedom" and "invividuality vs group" that are very much constructed by our perceived "reality" which is an interpretation of stimuli that don't necessarily correlate with the "real" way things actually are/are not. "Group think" isn't necessarily not the truth anymore than it necessarily is the truth (just because a lot of people are having the same thought, is it wrong?), people exhibit herd mentality for good reasons to do with survival, propagation etc which allows them to then navigate "reality" vs "the Real" in certain ways. This is impossible to discuss without getting very deep into territory which is far, far beyond the scope of this forum, I suggest that you study Lacanian theory a bit, that would interest you probably and might help you get a better grasp of what the real problem behind this idea is in practice. I guess what you're asking really is to force the blue pill down people's throats, but you need to realise that the company that makes the blue pill really just makes the red pill and applies blue food colouring. I know that's a crappy analogy but that's about the best I can do, you need to go very deep into psychoanalytical theory to get a better answer than that. I'll let you find it yourself seeing as how you're such an advocate of free thought and all.

First and foremost, thank you for the well thought out reply and the referrals (I'll definitely have to check those out). The reasons you put forward against the practice drew from real-world concerns (such as survivability), and your comments on the nature of perception are a valid point. However, I feel there is some confusion of terms.

"Group Think" (in this context, under the Sociological definition) is not the belief in the opinions of the majority (just because many people believe it, doesn't mean that it is wrong), it is the unquestioning acceptance by an individual of a belief BECAUSE nearly everyone else believes it, rather than on the merits of the belief itself (This also applies to behaviors and the "If everyone else is jumping off a bridge..." mentality).

Furthermore, this machine would focus more on eliminating the mental processes that people use to avoid unfortunate implications raised by new information that is directly incomparable with their old beliefs because it is easier than changing those beliefs, despite the fact that they themselves now, on some level, realize that those beliefs are wrong (I.E. Man believes that the world is flat. Man is taken around the world, irrefutably proving his belief wrong. Man, ignoring the information, continues to believe, and act on the belief, that the world is flat. This technology would remove his ability to ignore that information [I'm not sure if there is a technical term for that ability]).

As a final note, your "red pill, blue pill" example was actually a perfect analogy for the situation, and actually provides a much more accessible and understandable explanation of the idea than I did, well done (although, you did get the colors switched).

I don't know of a single person, ANYWHERE, who ONLY believes in stuff because "well, everyone else does". Belief is a far more complex thing than this, there are any number of other factors at play, including (but not limited to) past life experiences, education, the media, the cultural climate, etc etc...

What if the man who was taken around the world was actually unknowingly drugged and put in a completely convincing "take someone around the world simulator" (by the time scientists can figure out your invention they probably will have figured this one out too)? Using this new thing you're advocating, his ability to question the validity of his experience would be removed.

 

[Mray3460]

I think your invention already exists. I don't see many narcissistic potheads.

Unfortunately it has the added effect of slowing the individual's reaction time (and other side effects). Additionally, you need to apply your solution multiple times. With this, it's a one-time, 5 to 10 second process, that has none of the additional negative effects of cannabis.

Clever response though, well done.

 

[Noone From Nowhere]

As long as the mindscrew is consensual, it's a-okay by me.

Mindrape is always wrong, even if one thinks that the other party was totally begging for it by holding all of those fallacious ideas just to tease everyone.

 

[Mray3460]

snip for the sake of space

I don't know of a single person, ANYWHERE, who ONLY believes in stuff because "well, everyone else does". Belief is a far more complex thing than this, there are any number of other factors at play, including (but not limited to) past life experiences, education, the media, the cultural climate, etc etc...

I was more refering to actions taken there, but I see your point, and concede it.

What if the man who was taken around the world was actually unknowingly drugged and put in a completely convincing "take someone around the world simulator" (by the time scientists can figure out your invention they probably will have figured this one out too)? Using this new thing you're advocating, his ability to question the validity of his experience would be removed.

This is a valid concern, but if someone simply showed the affected man the simulator and proof that he had been in it, he'd adjust his beliefs again (although, he'll have probably gathered more information on the subject by than, and wouldn't simply change his beliefs back). The beauty of the machine is that it is not a one-time effect, rather, it is a permanent change to the person's thought processes, so that even if they willingly change their beliefs once, and strongly support those new beliefs, their beliefs can be changed again if better evidence is presented for a different stance on the subject.

 

[joshthor]

this would cause massive riots to the point that many people leading the charge would die, at which point the military would step in and cause even more bloodshed.

I'm confused as to how all of that would occur. Would you mind clarifying?

Edit: Fixed the link

people dont like being told what to do. people also dont doing things that they know can cause change, or that have even the slightest possibility to force them to change. hence all wars in the world.

 

[Mray3460]

this would cause massive riots to the point that many people leading the charge would die, at which point the military would step in and cause even more bloodshed.

I'm confused as to how all of that would occur. Would you mind clarifying?

Edit: Fixed the link

people dont like being told what to do. people also dont doing things that they know can cause change, or that have even the slightest possibility to force them to change. hence all wars in the world.

I'm afraid that I still don't follow. Would the very act of attempting to implement the device cause riots or would the change in thought processes/sudden, horrifying revelations of some people caused by the application of the device cause said riots?