Showing posts with label jonathan_haidt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jonathan_haidt. Show all posts

Monday, September 11, 2017

Jonathan Haidt: What to do about liberal bias at Universities.

at
Labels:

Tuesday, August 1, 2017

A Constructive Approach to Bridging the Conservative / Liberal Divide

The political polarization in the US is caused by journalists and politicians who are misleading the public. Research by sociologist Jonathan Haidt shows that all people throughout the world have the same five basic intuitions about morality. The differences between liberals and conservatives occur in slight preferences about which aspects of morality they think are most important. Liberals and conservatives have much more in common than they have differences. However, journalists and politicians gain personally by demonizing and dehumanizing people who disagree with them when they portray these differences as a matter of smart vs. stupid or good vs. evil. This is a scam.

Scott Adams, who is a trained hypnotist and writer on the psychology of persuasion (as well as the author of the comic strip Dilbert) says in a video interview that it is normal for different people to have widely different world views because we make decisions based mostly on emotions not logic. It becomes easy to understand how irrational we all are when you consider the numerous psychological methods that have been found to influence people and change their behavior which have nothing to do with actual facts. What this means is that we should expect there to be people who disagree with us on politics and they are not stupid or evil because we ourselves and other people are not as rational as we all think we are. We all ought to be tolerant of people with different views because it is normal and to be expected.

Hate mongering by journalists and politicians makes it harder to find solutions to problems because it causes discussions to rapidly degenerate into name calling and vilification. It breeds mistrust and keeps us fighting among ourselves which makes us susceptible to exploitation by demagogues and moneyed interests1. Good, intelligent people can disagree3. Every scientific controversy shows that the interpretation of facts is only an opinion. If people will stop being fooled by this deception, the hate mongers will become powerless and our society will be able to solve problems through civil discussions based on mutual understanding and respect. The politicians are not going to solve this problem until it is in their interest to do so. We the people have to come together ourselves and reject media sources and political candidates that persist in dividing and polarizing the country. As Milton Friedman said, we the people need to make it politically profitable for the politicians to do the right thing2.

Jonathan Haidt is a sociologist who studies morality and ethics. In the two videos below, he discusses his research which explains why liberals and conservatives should be able to come together in a positive, cooperative, working relationship instead of their current antagonistic mode of interaction.
Haidt's research identifies five intuitions about morality that people of all cultures recognize. Each moral factor is beneficial in certain situations. Haidt has found that that conservatives and liberals in the US have different opinions about which moral factors are most important and this minor difference is the essence of what differentiates conservatives and liberals.

Haidt himself is a liberal who has come to appreciate the good qualities in conservatism. He likens the relationship between conservatism and liberalism as like yin/yang. Both are a necessary part of the whole of humanity. This is a much more accurate and healthy way of viewing the relationship between the two outlooks than the antagonistic approach many people (particularly journalists and politicians) have. Haidt explains political differences not in terms of smart vs. stupid or good vs. evil but in terms of inborn traits and neither outlook is better or worse in its consequences. A society with both liberals and conservatives will be superior than a society of only liberals or only conservatives.

One of Haidt's interests is the political deadlock and polarization in the current US government. The implications of his research are that in the legislative assemblies in the US, legislators of each party should understand the positive contributions both liberalism and conservatism make to society and they should work together with mutual respect using this knowledge rather than taking an adversarial approach that the other side is stupid or evil. By understanding the different aspects of morality and which situations each is appropriate in, legislation and amendments can be justified on moral grounds - providing a rational, respectful, basis for discussion and compromise.

Electoral politics and commercial journalism seem to me to be a huge obstacle to this vision. Haidt thinks holding open primaries is a good way to improve the situation. I think it would be also be helpful if the political candidates and journalists understood this research and talked publicly about it so that it becomes part of our culture.
Notes

  1. Part of the problem we have solving problems in society is understanding what the actual facts are. Frequently, moneyed interests use media and internet savvy to create a false reality that fools most people including politicians, doctors and scientists who then spread the misinformation. Because of the acrimony caused by political polarization in society, it is very difficult for people to sort through these deceptions because attempts at civil discussions about the facts quickly descend into accusations of the stupidity and evil of those who disagree. This TEDx by Sharyl Attkisson explains how these false realities are created:


    In this eye-opening talk, veteran investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson shows how astroturf, or fake grassroots movements funded by political, corporate, or other special interests very effectively manipulate and distort media messages.
    The talk includes a discussion of how Wikipedia (3:57) has been complicit in the problem. Wikipedia contradicted medical research 90% of the time (5:31).
    Attkisson suggests how to recognize propaganda and astroturf (at 8:55):
    • "Use of inflammatory language such as crank, quack, nutty, lies, paranoid, pseudo, and conspiracy."
    • "Astroturfers often claim to debunk myths that aren't myths at all. Use of the charged language tests well, people hear that something's a myth maybe they find it on snopes... and they instantly declare themselves too smart to fall for it. But what if the whole notion of the myth is itself a myth and you and snopes fell for that."
    • "Beware when interests attack an issue by controversializing or attacking the people, personalities and organizations surrounding it rather than addressing the facts."
    • "Astroturfers tend to reserve all of their public skepticism for those exposing wrong doing rather than the wrong doers. In other words, instead of questioning authority, they question those who question authority."


    TRUST ME, I'M LYING: CONFESSIONS OF A MEDIA MANIPULATOR BY RYAN HOLIDAY


    These videos explain how some people manipulate the media to generate false news stories. False news stories are used to induce opponents to react in ways that make them look bad and make supporters more emotionally involved in the cause. The author, Ryan Holiday, expresses his political views which I am not endorsing, but both sides use these techniques and these videos and the link do a good job of explaining how they work.

  2. No we don't need to change congress. Excuse me. People have a great misunderstanding about this. People in congress are in a business. They're trying to buy votes. They're in the business of competing with one another to get elected. The same congressman will vote for a different thing if he thinks that's politically profitable. You don't have to change congress. People have a great misconception in this way. They think the way you solve things is by electing the right people. It's nice to elect the right people but that isn't the way you solve things. The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.
    Milton Friedman: quoted at goodreads.com:
    I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.
  3. Here are a couple of examples of how people can have different interests without either being stupid or evil:
    • Globalists think it is unfair that national borders keep people from fleeing war zones and prevent them from living where there is economic opportunity. Nationalists think national borders are needed to keep terrorists out, to prevent drug trafficking and human trafficking, and to prevent lower wage workers from displacing them in the work force or lowering wages.
    • High earners may often favor environmentalism and government regulation over economic growth because they don't suffer when the national economy performs poorly. However, for low earners, economic policy is not theoretical or philosophical, economic growth can mean the difference between having enough food for their children or not.
Copyright © 2016 by higginswar All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.
at
Labels:

What Someone Should Say at a Political Rally

I watched President Trump's rally yesterday. When he invited a supporter from the crowd to come up on the stage and speak, it made me think about what I would like someone to say to the TV cameras and this is what I came up with. It fits in with President Trump's theme of making America great again:
...
The people here tonight are a great group of people. You are really great.

I love this country and the people in this country.

We are a great people. We are a great country.

We have great musicians, entertainers, athletes, scientists, workers, and entrepreneurs. We have a great economy, a great political system, and great defense forces. We have great people.

Many people from all over the world want move here and become citizens.

They believe we are a great country.

We can believe that ourselves - that our country is a great country.

But we can become even better. We can try to reduce the political polarization in this country.
We can understand that people with different views can still be good people.

Here are a couple of examples to show what I mean:

Globalists want to increase immigration to help refugees. Nationalists want to control immigration to keep wages from falling so they can provide for their children. Both sentiments are understandable. As a great people, we can find a compromise through honest discussion and democratic processes.

Another example. Environmentalists want regulations that protect the environment. But workers could benefit from less regulation because that would increase economic growth which would improve working conditions and salaries that would help them provide for their children. Both sentiments are understandable. As a great people, we can find a compromise through honest discussion and democratic processes.

I could go through every issue that divided us in the last election and show that both sides have legitimate concerns Note 1.

We have to come together as a people. We have to solve this problem of political polarization because it is getting worse and worse and it is tearing apart our culture. The news media and the politicians react to public opinion. Politicians want your vote, the news media wants you to watch their programs and read their papers. They are not going to help us change. We have to change ourselves and then they will respond to that change.

There is a sociologist, Jonathan Haidt (H a i d t) who studies political polarization. I hope the news media will look at his work and discuss it on their programs. And I hope everyone else will look up his videos on youtube. Jonathan Haidt (H a i d t), he is a sociologist who studies political polarization.

Thank you.

More info on Jonathan Haidt here:
https://higginswar.blogspot.com/2017/08/a-constructive-approach-to-bridging.html
Notes
1) Below is a list of political issues and differing opinions about them. My aim is not to convince anyone to change their opinion but to show that reasonable people may have different opinions for legitimate reasons.
Abortion
  • A woman has a right to control her body.
  • The rights of a person start at the moment of conception and it is wrong to destroy a helpless individual.
Immigration
  • People should be allowed to come to the US to have the same economic opportunities as citizens or to find sanctuary from war or persecution in their home country.
  • Immigration should be regulated because too many immigrants may lower wages or compete for jobs. Terrorists, drugs, and criminals might enter the country when borders are not protected. Too many illegal immigrants may strain the resources of cities causing property taxes to rise which also increases the cost of rental housing.
Environmentalism
  • Regulations are needed to protect the environment.
  • Unnecessary regulations hinder economic growth. Reducing regulations will cause economic growth which will force employers to compete for workers resulting in improved working conditions and raising salaries that will help workers provide for their children.
Government funding of arts and media.
  • Art and media enrich our culture and government funding is needed to support works that would not be produced by private enterprise.
  • Different people have different opinions about art and media and it is not the government's proper role to force people to pay taxes for works that they do not want to pay for or that express opinions they disagree with.
Judicial Appointments
  • The US constitution was written a long time ago when our culture was different than it is today and we need judges who will interpret the constitution in a way that is appropriate for our current conditions
  • Different people have different opinions on many issues and judges should interpret the law as it was written not according to their personal opinions or preferences. Some judges might hold progressive views, others might hold conservative views and the only way to ensure fair rulings is for judges to rule on the law as it was written not according to their personal views. Appointing a judge who will interpret the law as it is written is the best way to compromise between those who want a progressive interpretation of the law and those who want a conservative interpretation of the law. If the laws that were written in past times are not appropriate for us today, then there are mechanisms to update and amend them. It is not appropriate for judges to do this unilaterally.
The Electoral College
  • It is undemocratic and unfair when the candidate for president who gets the most votes does not win the election.
  • When the states agreed to form a nation, the less populous states were concerned that their interests would be ignored by the more populous states so they all agreed to put protections for smaller states in the constitution. These protections include the electoral college and the US senate. Every state that joined the US since that time agreed to abide by the constitution and eliminating the electoral college after this agreement would be unfair to less populous states.
The Minimum Wage
  • Working people deserve a wage that will provide for the necessities of life.
  • When the minimum wage is too high, it makes it impossible for young people to find entry level jobs because they lack skills that can provide an adequate value to their employer. If young people cannot get entry level jobs, then they will never develop skills and experience needed to get higher paying jobs. Raising the minimum wage also increases the incentive for employers to use automation to replace workers making jobs for unskilled workers even scarcer.
Copyright © 2017 by higginswar All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.










at
Labels:

Most News Stories and Political Speeches are Crafted to Misinform and Manipulate You


Problems can be identified and solutions found without experiencing anger, fear, and hate. But we are programmed by the media and politicians to react with those emotions every time we think of the other political party or hear their views expressed. It is a major cause of political polarization in the US.
Contents

Introduction
Those of us who follow the news on TV, radio, newspapers or the internet are bombarded by so many unreliable sources of information if we don't make a concerted effort to pay attention to whether the information is reliable or not, we are very likely to be misinformed and manipulated by journalists, politicians, and political organizations who are taking advantage of us to advance their own personal agenda. The vast majority of what is considered "news" is crafted to get your attention, influence your opinion, make you react the way they want, and keep you coming back for more. Accuracy is of secondary importance. The news rarely gives you an accurate objective representation of reality. We are programmed by the media to react with anger every time we think of the other party or hear their views expressed. It is a major cause of political polarization in the US. Politicians and journalists will not help solve this problem. They are the main beneficiaries of polarization and the main causers of it. This post should help you understand why and how the news media misinforms and manipulates you. With that knowledge you will be able to see through the illusions spun by media manipulators.
A good introduction to this subject is the article at Cracked.com 5 Ways To Stay Sane In An Era Of Non-Stop Outrage which discusses media techniques used to manipulate the public. In the article, the author David Wong, discusses President Trump's media strategy. The principles Wong outlines are generally applicable so it is worth looking at the article even if you don't share the author's political views.
Here is a brief excerpt along with the section titles to give you an idea of what the article is about:

Hey, you know what happens when you read something really enraging on the internet? You get a hit of dopamine. And even though it's a "bad" feeling, you immediately want to feel it again, because anything is better than being bored. Well, people who know how to manipulate this mechanism rule the world. Here's what you need to know now:
...
Ignore Headlines Telling You To Feel An Emotion
...
Remember That People Literally Get Paid To Upset You
...
Know That If You Can Be Trolled, You Can Be Controlled
...
Understand The "Firehose Of Falsehoods"
...
You Must Separate The Signal From The Noise
Dopamine is a chemical found in the brain that plays a role in addiction (see below). Journalists want to get people addicted to the news because journalists make more money that way.
Firehose of Falsehoods referrs to a modern propaganda technique (see below).

Back to Contents

Trolling and Provocateurs
The term "Trolled" is used by Wong to mean that there are people who are deliberately outrageously provocative. They are not really trying to convince anyone of their way of thinking. They are trying to provoke people to react in a way creates publicity (or has some other effect) that helps the provocateur make money or accomplish their aims. They are controlling people (manipulating people) by provoking a reaction from them.
For example, Milo Yiannopoulos, a British public speaker and writer, often makes provocative statements. Recently, at the University of California at Berkeley, protesters demonstrating against Milo rioted and the ensuing publicity increased sales of his books. Some people who might not otherwise be sympathetic to Milo became sympathetic to him because of their outrage at the violence. Those rioters didn't understand they were being manipulated by Milo into helping him sell books and gain supporters.
During the last presidential election campaign, Donald Trump made many provocative statements which attracted so much attention they nearly obliterated the other primary candidates from coverage in the news media. This publicity advantage helped him win the Republican nomination even though his statements were offensive to many people. The outraged reaction of many Democratic party supporters delighted some Republicans and moved them to support Trump. Trump's nomination stunned establishment Democrats and Republicans because they were not aware of how trolling and manipulation works.
Be wary of provocateurs on both sides. They are not telling you about anything real. The "ideology" they espouse is not a real threat because it is invented and inflated to promote themselves. Nobody, including themselves and their "supporters" really believe what they are saying. Many Democratic supporters were stunned and frightened when Trump won the general election. Many of Trump's supporters thought this reaction was humorous because they never took Trump's rhetoric literally.

The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.
-Taking Trump Seriously, Not Literally by Salena Zito, theltlantic.com.
The provocateurs are trying to upset you, to distort your view of reality for their own personal gain. Don't fall for it.
And the news media is a willing and deliberate accomplice, sensationalizing news, spreading rumors, giving the provocateurs lots of publicity because the journalists capitalize on the public's addiction to outrage by turning it into an addiction to news that they can personally profit from.
Many politicians are also ready to jump on the bandwagon, taking the side that will get them the most votes, and benefiting from publicity. Many politicians perform for the voters in whatever way they think will get them the most votes. Unfortunately this too often involves playing on the voter's emotions by demonizing people with different political views. This increases polarization and is tearing our society apart. A true leader would explain why the policies he espouses are for the best without denying that the other side can have legitimate concerns because of their different circumstances and situations.

Back to Contents

Psychological Tricks
Be aware of these tricks used by journalists and politicians to manipulate you and keep you hooked on the news.

  • Be suspicious of headlines that stir up emotions.
  • But also notice how an entire story can be crafted to produce emotional reactions.
  • Be suspicious of rumors presented as news, and news stories based on unnamed sources. That unnamed CIA official might not exist or might be a retired administrative assistant who has no qualifications to make their opinion newsworthy.
  • The other side is not necessarily evil or stupid. Partisan journalists and commentators often to stir up hate by demonizing people on the other side.
  • A subtle but common method of demonization involves describing extremists as members of a group. For example, associating anarchists with Democrats or white supremacists with Republicans. This tends to create the impression that they are typical of the group and that all members of the group are extremists. During the civil rights era, journalists stopped mentioning the race of criminals for this reason. But it is still one of the leading causes of polarization because each side comes to believe the other is mostly extremists when in fact most people are usually quite reasonable. And it can be a self-fulfilling cycle because when people on one side stereotype the other side, it will make the other side less tolerant of them and more likely to demonize them in return.
  • Another method of demonization is the use of inappropriate or undeserved epithets such as lefty, snowflake, social justice warrior, Nazi, misogynist, or racist to describe someone or a group. These types of epithets are used to deliberately prejudice you by making you think someone is an extremist when their point of view might be reasonable. You will often find, if you look carefully, that people who have different political views from you are not evil or stupid. They are just in a different situation or circumstances and they are affected by government policy in ways that are different from you.
  • Problems can be identified and solutions found without fomenting anger, fear, and hate. Those who are fostering those emotions are not the good guys no matter which side they claim to be on.
  • Even reading an article or watching a video made by someone who is angry can influence you and make you angry too. Many bloggers are angry and write posts that spread their anger to their readers.
  • In many cases in history, people who were on the wrong side thought they were doing good. If your basic assumptions about people who disagree with you are wrong, you can easily be on the wrong side and not know it.
  • Out of context quotes are often used to make people think someone said something they never really said. In written articles, notice if quotation marks are used to indicate a direct quotation. If not, they may be paraphrasing or mischaracterizing what someone said. If you can find a video of the story that has the person making the quote that shows what they said before and after they made the statement, that can be very helpful, but video clips with just the quote might be taken out of context too.
  • Predictions of doom and disaster that never really occur are another way they play on our emotions.
  • Be suspicious about "ordinary people" or "protesters" who are really political operatives impersonating ordinary people. Sometimes they fool the journalists quoting them, sometimes the journalists are complicit in the fraud.
  • Headlines are often misleading. Writers want you to read their stories so they often use misleading headlines to spark your interest or get a rise out of your emotions. Just scanning the headlines without reading the stories is a good way to becomes misinformed. When you read an article, you should try to click through to the original source of the information if possible so you can better assess if it is reliable or not. If possible, use a search engine to see what other information is available and if there are corroborating sources or other points of view.
  • Many journalists are not objective reporters of facts. They may have strong opinions and instead of trying to write news stories objectively, they deliberately try to sway public opinion through their work by expressing opinions, making partisan arguments, using compelling images and audio, or withholding information that doesn't support the point of view they are trying to spread. When journalists try to influence pubic opinion, it can be particularly effective because many people assume journalists report objectively and if they don't suspect someone is trying to manipulate them, it is much easier for them to be influenced because they will not be as critical in judging what they hear or read. Also, many journalists might not be deliberately manipulative, but everyone has their own opinions and will influence others through the way they communicate through their tone of voice, choice of words and facial expressions. Even if journalists think they are being objective, the are most probably not.
  • Astroturf movements are political movements that are orchestrated by political organizations but made to look like they are grass roots movements - movements rising spontaneously among ordinary people. When you hear about protests, try to find out who is funding them. If they are not funded by many individual donations from the public but by one or a few foundations or political organizations, then those protests are not genuine, they are political operations designed to manipulate the public. The astroturf link above also discusses how people are manipulated and includes a few videos on the subject.
  • Politicians and journalists promote distorted ways of thinking that are characteristic of mental illness. Cognitive therapy is one of the most effective forms of psychological treatment. It teaches people to recognize and eliminate distorted thinking that can cause depression and anxiety. Listening to politicians and journalists is the opposite of cognitive therapy, they teach people the distorted ways of thinking that cognitive therapy is designed to eliminate. In addition to increased rates of anxiety and depression, the cognitive distortions prevent many people from thinking rationally about politics.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

    Below is a list of fifteen common cognitive distortions from psychcentral.com

    1. Filtering. We take the negative details and magnify them while filtering out all positive aspects of a situation.

    2. Polarized Thinking (or “Black and White” Thinking). In polarized thinking, things are either “black-or-white.”

    3. Overgeneralization. In this cognitive distortion, we come to a general conclusion based on a single incident or a single piece of evidence.

    4. Jumping to Conclusions. Without individuals saying so, we know what they are feeling and why they act the way they do.

    5. Catastrophizing. We expect disaster to strike, no matter what.

    6. Personalization. Personalization is a distortion where a person believes that everything others do or say is some kind of direct, personal reaction to the person.

    7. Control Fallacies. If we feel externally controlled, we see ourselves as helpless a victim of fate.

    8. Fallacy of Fairness. We feel resentful because we think we know what is fair, but other people won’t agree with us.

    9. Blaming. We hold other people responsible for our pain, or take the other track and blame ourselves for every problem.

    10. Shoulds. We have a list of ironclad rules about how others and we should behave.

    11. Emotional Reasoning. We believe that what we feel must be true automatically.

    12. Fallacy of Change. We expect that other people will change to suit us if we just pressure or cajole them enough.

    13. Global Labeling. We generalize one or two qualities into a negative global judgment.

    14. Always Being Right. We are continually on trial to prove that our opinions and actions are correct.

    15. Heaven’s Reward Fallacy. We expect our sacrifice and self-denial to pay off, as if someone is keeping score.

    Scott Adams has written an article explaining how to tell if you are suffering from distorted thinking since it causes symptoms of "cognitive dissonance". Adams uses the example of the overreaction to President Trump that many Democrats experienced as an example of evidence of distorted thinking. If you don't agree with Adams' political views, it is still worth reading the excerpt below because the principles can be applied in other situation and are worth understanding.

    How to Know You're in a Mass Hysteria Bubble, by Scott Adams, August 17, 2017
    http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/08/17/how-to-know-youre-in-a-mass-hysteria-bubble/

    A mass hysteria happens when the public gets a wrong idea about something that has strong emotional content and it triggers cognitive dissonance that is often supported by confirmation bias. In other words, people spontaneously hallucinate a whole new (and usually crazy-sounding) reality and believe they see plenty of evidence for it.

    1. The trigger event for cognitive dissonance

      On November 8th of 2016, half the country learned that everything they believed to be both true and obvious turned out to be wrong. The people who thought Trump had no chance of winning were under the impression they were smart people who understood their country, and politics, and how things work in general. When Trump won, they learned they were wrong. They were so very wrong that they reflexively (because this is how all brains work) rewrote the scripts they were seeing in their minds until it all made sense again. The wrong-about-everything crowd decided that the only way their world made sense, with their egos intact, is that either the Russians helped Trump win or there are far more racists in the country than they imagined, and he is their king. Those were the seeds of the two mass hysterias we witness today.

    2. The Ridiculousness of it

      ... Compare that to the idea that our president is a Russian puppet. Or that the country accidentally elected a racist who thinks the KKK and Nazis are “fine people.” Crazy stuff....

    3. The Confirmation Bias

      ...If you are inside the mass hysteria bubble, you probably interpreted President Trump’s initial statement on Charlottesville — which was politically imperfect to say the least — as proof-positive he is a damned racist....

    4. The Oversized Reaction

      It would be hard to overreact to a Nazi murder, or to racists marching in the streets with torches. That stuff demands a strong reaction. But if a Republican agrees with you that Nazis are the worst, and you threaten to punch that Republican for not agreeing with you exactly the right way, that might be an oversized reaction.

    5. The Insult without supporting argument

      When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own.

    • In an interview on FoxNews@Night with Shannon Bream on March 19, 2018, Scott Adams explained that people don't use logic to make decisions even though we think we do. (2:59: https://youtu.be/vLhcrbtbCEg?t=2m59s):

    We humans ignore facts but we think we don't. The great illusion of life is that we're rational beings making rational decisions most of the time. But when you become a hypnotist, the first thing you learn is that that's backwards and that mostly we're deciding based on our team, our feelings, our emotions, irrational reasons, we make our decision and then we rationalize it no matter how tortured that rationalization is."

    University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt expressed similar views in his book The righteous Mind. He wrote that people don't use reason to form their beliefs, they use reason to justify their beliefs which they form for emotional reasons. William Saletan described Haidt's views in the Sunday Book Review:

    Why Won’t They Listen? ‘The Righteous Mind,’ by Jonathan Haidt By WILLIAM SALETAN SUNDAY BOOK REVIEW MARCH 23, 2012
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html

    The problem isn’t that people don’t reason. They do reason. But their arguments aim to support their conclusions, not yours. Reason doesn’t work like a judge or teacher, impartially weighing evidence or guiding us to wisdom. It works more like a lawyer or press secretary, justifying our acts and judgments to others.

    People can be persuaded. But we are not persuaded by logical arguments. We are persuaded by psychological tricks of various types that take advantage of various instinctive human behaviors. These behaviors are probably in some way evolutionarily adaptive but they have little basis in reason.

  • Blair Warren wrote: "People will do anything for those who encourage their dreams, justify their failures, allay their fears, confirm their suspicions and help them throw rocks at their enemies." If you are aware of this, you will be more resistant to this method of persuasion. Learn more about this at: http://www.actionplan.com/pdf/BlairWarren.pdf
  • It is easier to be fooled by something that seems to agree with your beliefs than by something that contradicts them.
  • Certain words can influence you to think in ways that will cause your own mind to aid in persuading you. For example, if someone says, "Imagine ...", it causes you to visualize what they want to to believe. "Because" is also a "power" word. When you give a reason, even a weak one, people are more likely to do what you ask. "You" is another "power" word. More of these "power" words and explanations of why they work can be found at these links:
  • Robert Cialdini is a professor of psychology who is a well known author on the subject of persuasion. He has identified several "principles of influence": http://changingminds.org/techniques/general/cialdini/cialdini.htm
    • Reciprocity - We feel obliged to give back to people who have given to us.
    • Consistency and commitment - When we make a promise, we feel obliged to work hard to fulfil that promise. When we make a decision, we like to feel that this is the right decision for us.
    • Social proof - We copy what others do, especially when we are unsure.
    • Liking - If you can make people like you for example by showing them you are like them and or by praising them, they will be easier to persuade.
    • Authority - We defer to people who seem superior.
    • Scarcity - When things become less available, they become more desirable.
    • Click, Whirr - When certain cues are presented to us, we feel an urge to complete actions that have, in the past, been successfully paired with the cue.
    https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/282642
    • Unity - Any sense of shared identity such as family, ethnicity, geography, etc. can aid in persuasion.
    .

    You can take an on-line quiz to test your knowledge of these principles at https://www.qzzr.com/.

  • Subliminal Persuasion, Conversational Hypnosis: The web site nlpnation.com explains several techniques of subliminal persuasion or conversational hypnosis.

    If someone tries to influence you directly you might naturally resist them. But there are several techniques that can be used to sneak information past your "resistance filter". The general principle is that instead of making a statement or suggestion directly, it is included in a broader statement so you hear it indirectly while you are focused on something else.

    1. Questions: If someone makes a direct statement, you might doubt it. But if they put the information into a question that assumes what they want you to believe, you may get distracted thinking about the answer to the question rather than whether the premise is true.
    2. "And" and "But": If someone tells you something you don't want to hear you might start to argue with them. But if they give you the bad news first followed by "but" and something good or positive, you are less likely to start arguing. They also might add more positive statements linked by "and".
    3. Because: People are more likely to do what they're asked if given a reason even if the reason is not very compelling. If things seem to make sense people don't look too closely at it and it may slip past their resistance filter.
    4. A means B: This is another way to sneak things through your resistance filter. If you're reading this, it means you are learning important information that will help you avoid being manipulated. That sentance was an example of a means b. Did you notice it?
    5. Awareness patterns: Certain words and phrases cause you to assume what is being said is true rather than question it. For example, "As you know ... ", "Clearly...", "Undoubtedly ...", "I'm sure you realize / notice / see ..."
    6. Agreement Frames: Instead of disagreeing outright someone may say they agree, but then try to convince you of something else. "I agree, and this means ..." or "I agree, and what's more ...". Notice they use the word "and" not "but". They may agree in principle or agree that something about what you said is true without ever directly saying they disagree.
    7. Pacing and Leading: This technique tries to sneak a suggestion past your resistance filter by presenting you with a natural progression of events. You get distracted by the logic of the progression and are more willing to accept the suggestion.
    The article at nlpnation.com has links to pages with example that illustrate these methods.

Back to Contents

Addiction to the News
An article at bigthink.com, by David Hirschman explains how dopamine causes addiction.

"If a drug produces increases in dopamine in these limbic areas of the brain, then your brain is going to understand that signal as something that is very reinforcing, and will learn it very rapidly," says Volkow. "And so that the next time you get exposed to that stimuli, your brain already has learned that that's reinforcing, and you immediately—what we call a type of memory that's conditioning—will desire that particular drug." Over time, the consistently high levels of dopamine create plastic changes to the brain, desensitizing neurons so that they are less affected by it, and decreasing the number of receptors. That leads to the process of addiction, wherein a person loses control and is left with an intense drive to compulsively take the drug."
The article is about addictive drugs but the article at Cracked.com linked above explains that the same process occurs when you experience anger from items such as news articles you see on the internet.

Back to Contents

Firehose of Falsehood: Modern Propaganda
The term "Firehose of Falsehoods" mentioned in the article at cracked.com refers to a Russian propaganda technique that is very similar what happens when we follow the news. It is explained in the article The Russian “Firehose of Falsehood” Propaganda Mode by Christopher Paul and Miriam Matthews at rand.org. Below are excerpts that give a brief overview of what it is and how it works.

Distinctive Features of the Contemporary Model for Russian Propaganda

1. High-volume and multichannel
2. Rapid, continuous, and repetitive
3. Lacks commitment to objective reality
4. Lacks commitment to consistency

...
Why Is Rapid, Continuous, and Repetitive Propaganda Successful?

• First impressions are very resilient.
• Repetition leads to familiarity, and familiarity leads to acceptance.
...
How Does Propaganda Undercut Perceptions of Reality?

• People are poor judges of true versus false information—and they do not necessarily remember that particular information was false.
• Information overload leads people to take shortcuts in determining the trustworthiness of messages.
• Familiar themes or messages can be appealing even if they are false.
• Statements are more likely to be accepted if backed by evidence, even if that evidence is false.
• Peripheral cues—such as an appearance of objectivity—can increase the credibility of propaganda.
The full article contains a section on how to combat this kind of propaganda ... it is not an optimistic assessment.

KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov explained the purpose of inconsistent messages:
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/2007/bezmenov.htm

What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.
More here:
http://higginswar.blogspot.com/2017/08/fascinating-kgb-defector-yuri-bezmenov.html

Every day we are bombarded by so many sources of information that are unreliable, if we don't make a deliberate effort to notice whether information is reliable or not, we are very likely to be misinformed and easily manipulated by journalists, politicians, and political organizations who are using us for their own personal gain.

Back to Contents

Related Information

Back to Contents

“Fake” news versus “wrong” news: a nonideological approach to a smarter readership – Charles J Glasser 1/13/18
https://inforrm.org/2018/01/31/fake-news-versus-wrong-news-a-nonideological-approach-to-a-smarter-readership-charles-j-glasser/

... by using some simple Internet tools and little bit of detective work we can use five steps to sort the wheat from the chaff and become better journalists, commentators and readers

...

1. Domain Registry is the First Sign of Fakeness.

...

2.Lack of Contactable or Experienced Staff

...

3. Lack of Journalistic Legacy

...

4. Lack of Corrections, Updates and Self-Policing

...

5. Does this Make Sense?

Copyright © 2017 by higginswar All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.
at
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)