http://www.cracked.com/article_16656_6-brainwashing-techniques-theyre-using-on-you-right-now.html

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
>
http://www.cracked.com/article_16656_6-brainwashing-techniques-theyre-using-on-you-right-now.html

http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
http://www.cracked.com/article_16656_6-brainwashing-techniques-theyre-using-on-you-right-now.html

  Those explain pretty well why some logical fallacies work.

  When you read about logical fallacies in an article discussing about them
(eg. at wikipedia), you usually think that they are so ridiculous and so
easy to spot that you would never fall from them. However, if you think
that, you are greatly underestimating how your brain works. When you are
reading the article, the context is completely different than when experts
manipulate you into thinking how they want.

  It wouldn't be the first time that intelligent, rational, highly educated,
critically-thinking, unbiased, non-radical people have been convinced of
bullshit by simply laying out the bullshit properly to them. If you analyze
how the bullshit has been laid out, you will notice many of the fallacies
described above, and others. They have simply been very cleverly masked.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>
http://www.cracked.com/article_16656_6-brainwashing-techniques-theyre-using-on-you-right-now.html
> 
>   Those explain pretty well why some logical fallacies work.
> 
>   When you read about logical fallacies in an article discussing about them
> (eg. at wikipedia), you usually think that they are so ridiculous and so
> easy to spot that you would never fall from them. However, if you think
> that, you are greatly underestimating how your brain works. When you are
> reading the article, the context is completely different than when experts
> manipulate you into thinking how they want.
> 
>   It wouldn't be the first time that intelligent, rational, highly educated,
> critically-thinking, unbiased, non-radical people have been convinced of
> bullshit by simply laying out the bullshit properly to them. If you analyze
> how the bullshit has been laid out, you will notice many of the fallacies
> described above, and others. They have simply been very cleverly masked.
> 
Reminds me of three things, this recently article:

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/how_do_we_break_this_cycle.php

and its follow up:

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/nhs_has_broken_the_cycle.php

and, more to the point, the bloggers entire line of "Denialist Deck of 
Cards":

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/deck.php

Its undeniable that people get "stuck" in tribalism, but, sometimes the 
tribe can be more right anyway. A good example being the place I post 
at. There was a recent article on the whole nonsense of Liberty 
University, being **very** unliberal college(see, this is a perfect 
example of the same thing, hardline, generally anti-any other opinions, 
using terms like "liberty", to appear to be the "good guys", when 
presenting their vision of who is right an wrong), by banning the very 
existence of Democrats (or at least any official recognition of the 
party are either being Christian, or playing by the same moral rules as 
Liberty does). Some where in the process of discussing this, someone 
showed up to whine about those on the blog being "unfair" to ID 
proponents, LU being pretty much the only college in the universe that 
actually thinks it qualifies as either science, or a course of study. 
Rather than deal with the implication that neither the other posters, 
nor the blogger have ever "read" any ID literature, never mind just 
pointing at even a few of the posts the blogger himself actually wrote 
that described what such books said, and how they got things horrible 
wrong (or not even wrong, as in, not even in the same universe, never 
mind ball park as the thing being supposedly written about), most of the 
posters fell into a pattern of name calling, and telling the guy to shut up.

Frankly, its counter productive. Mind, its also a lot fracking easier 
than pointing out to the 43rd twit in a month that, yes, we do read the 
books, no, they don't correctly describe the science, no, irreducibility 
isn't impossible without someone "intentionally" designing it, and no, 
taking other people's work, getting most of everything they said in the 
original published paper wrong, reinterpreting your misinterpretation to 
imply what you want, then publishing an article in a Home and Garden 
magazine, or some silly place, warbling about how it "really" proves 
your view, or writing some long winded whine about how unfair scientists 
are, and how some wildly insane nonsense, which doesn't even get basic 
math right, proves ID, as a book, doesn't constitute **research**. But, 
it still ends up being nothing but a crowd, mostly all shouting, "You 
are an idiot, go away, or shut up!"

Its possible to be right, and still fall pray to this kind of stupidity. 
It doesn't make you less of a fool for failing to recognize it.

That said, one example used is the "MAC vs. PC" thing. And, its a poor 
example. Most of the people I have seen comment on it, from either side, 
have said, "It makes some good points, but gets others wrong." Just how 
much it gets wrong, and which points, may differ between camps, but even 
the MAC camp are honest enough to admit that some of it is pure, and 
total BS. Now.. What I have seen from the PC side... I am not sure what 
the ratio is, but I tend to suspect that, based on observation, as 
someone that uses PCs all the time, but hates them, but hasn't owned 
anything like a MAC since the MAC II, in general, the PC camp has a much 
higher dose of people that fall for nearly "every" bad argument that MS 
or one of their advocates make, fail to check the facts at all, and 
wouldn't be convinced is the show indicated that PCs tended to catch 
fire, and they where using a fire extinguisher to put their's out, while 
"watching" the commercial. But, that is just an outside opinion on what 
I see being argued by some of the self claimed "experts", MS paid or 
not, that advocate for PCs...

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
http://www.cracked.com/article_16656_6-brainwashing-techniques-theyre-using-on-you-right-now.html

  Btw, this comic strip talks about, what it calls, professional strawmen:

http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1384

  In other words, someone who has been secretly hired by some political
party (or, I imagine, by some company wanting to push through some view)
to participate in a debate as presenting a view opposing that party, but
deliberately losing the debate.

  I wonder if this happens in real life. It doesn't sound at all far-fetched.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
>
http://www.cracked.com/article_16656_6-brainwashing-techniques-theyre-using-on-you-right-now.html

	That's obviously a propaganda piece to keep your mind from searching
how they actually brainwash you. Isn't it obvious? Especially given the
poor quality of Cracked articles in general?

-- 
Mary had a little lamb, a little beef, and a little ham.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

Did you notice they switched from making tin foil to making aluminum foil 
right after that space ship crash in Roswell?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I wonder if this happens in real life. It doesn't sound at all far-fetched.

If it didn't used to happen, it will now, as soon as someone who would hire 
such a person sees the comic.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   It wouldn't be the first time that intelligent, rational, highly educated,
> critically-thinking, unbiased, non-radical people have been convinced of
> bullshit by simply laying out the bullshit properly to them. If you analyze
> how the bullshit has been laid out, you will notice many of the fallacies
> described above, and others. They have simply been very cleverly masked.

Controlling What You Watch and Read.

	This is the one that I often see most really intelligent people suffer
from. "Ordinary" people I've found to fall for lots of logical
fallacies, and it doesn't surprise me. But when someone supremely
intelligent (i.e. as intelligent as I<G>) starts saying incoherent stuff
about some topic, and demonstrating an intelligence that a 3rd grader
would laugh at, it bothers me and I spend (or used to) a lot of time
trying to figure out why he's acting this way. Inevitably the reason is
this - they would get only one viewpoint from whatever sources they look
at, and over years it's repeated continually. That viewpoint never gets
challenged.

	I know it sounds simple the way I wrote it, but this actually
worries/scares me about _myself_. Every time I see one of these people,
I really worry that I may fall/have fallen into the same trap, and
perhaps need to broaden my inputs (reading stuff, watching stuff, etc).
 I now quite believe that _anyone_ will fall for this, no matter how
intelligent (or rather, the only way not to fall for it is by being
impractical and questioning everything continually in life). I'm not
sure the human mind can be as critical continually of something if it
constantly only gets the same kind of input.

	I should clarify. Often it's not others controlling what you watch/read
(although that probably does play a role). It's simply the person
himself. These days (at least in the US), the issue of newspapers going
out of business is often, well, in the news. It worries many -
particularly seasoned journalists - and not because they're worried they
won't have a job. What we're seeing with the Internet based news is that
people tend to read only the stuff that just repeats back to them their
own views. Most online news sources have a serious slant in some
direction, and cater almost purely to that group. With good newspapers
(especially physical ones), you'd get news articles that could challenge
your world view considerably. And while many still don't read them, the
fact that one simply skims the headlines can make a big difference.
You're at least _exposed_ to articles that challenge your views.


-- 
Mary had a little lamb, a little beef, and a little ham.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message