When the desired behavior is performed, a sound is played. When the test subjects reach deep sleep, that same sound is played repeatedly. Subjects were then more likely to perform the desired behavior.
The article, "Unlearning implicit social biases during sleep" appears in the journal Science; an abstract and full report are available.
[Original Submission - Ed.]
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Scientist Develop Effective Brainwashing
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 76 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @11:28PM
This is great! Now everyone can be programmed -- using force if necessary -- to think like everyone else.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday May 29 2015, @11:37PM
I'm ready for FLOSS self-brainwashing
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by aristarchus on Friday May 29 2015, @11:39PM
The frist step, is to admit you have a problem. A Clockwork Orange? Possibly. But this may be more like a nicotine patch, once you realize that you are a racist, and want to stop being a racist, this may give you a way out. If you don't know you are a racist, well, then you are a racist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @11:43PM
> once you realize that you are a racist,
A black swan event.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Kell on Saturday May 30 2015, @01:56AM
A black swan event.
They prefer "swan of colour".
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Saturday May 30 2015, @03:30AM
A black swan event.
They prefer "swan of colour".
so you are saying all swans are british? BIGOT!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Saturday May 30 2015, @12:19AM
Racism is in the structure of institutions and the assumptions and bias of the culture.
You may "reprogram" overt prejudice - but it still won't be safe for a black man to make minor infractions of the law in USA, without risking being killed by cops.
And all the clucking by privileged ignorant people about "black family", etc.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @12:56AM
So if it can't be changed, then it can't be solved and therefore is not a problem. No sense dwelling on it anymore than dwelling on how unfair gravity is to tall people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @01:21AM
> So if it can't be changed,
Because cultural institutions are set in stone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:57AM
According to Cornelius there, it won't make a difference and thus is irrelevant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @03:37AM
No, gravity is unfair to short people who can't reach high objects as easily. It also gives them a disadvantage in basketball.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @11:55AM
How fucking stupid. Since when is "has a solution" part of the definition of "problem"?
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday May 30 2015, @04:00PM
Since we've had so many solutions in search of a problem.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @06:26PM
Total red herring. Something that isn't immediately useful after its creation (a "solution in search of a problem") won't necessarily always be useless, and such things still don't redefine "problem" to include the phrase "has a solution" in any form.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @06:31PM
They're typically called problems because we don't know the solution, and if you don't know the solution, you can't say for sure that there is one. "Does P=NP?" and similar problems would no longer be problems under such a redefinition, the only "problems" would be ones for which the solution was already known, which would make them not problems at all, and real problems would no longer be addressed because they wouldn't be "problems" until their solution was known, but nobody would look for solutions since they wouldn't be problems.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday May 30 2015, @09:00AM
I like the story as it reinforces the racist stereotype I have of pit bull terriers being stupid creatures!
Read it in The Mirror, probably, so it must be true.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Saturday May 30 2015, @04:27PM
Family Guy......"Brian barks at Cleveland"
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Saturday June 06 2015, @08:23PM
The Pavlovian approach has been going on for years and is itself the biggest source of racism and other forms of extremism because people easily become racist/extreme when they realize what's being done against them. If that wasn't clear enough: not just the people who had a local heritage but also those who don't.
It's not multiculturalism but anticulturalism: the attempted removal of genuinely common culture and thus the destruction of the civil society and the nation state. Europe and the US are slowly being regressed back into tribalism; a lesser form of culture, and eventually if they survive that: stark unforgiving etnocentrism far beyond the weak anthropologist definition (the process of building a society has reset and started over, a revolution if you will) which they are guaranteed not to survive. Not that they understand it, otherwise they wouldn't do it. With this in mind the ridiculous statement of Mona Sahlin declaring “we (you) have no culture / we (you) never had any culture” starts making sense: it's a post-communist reaction of idealism in favor of the continuation of the anti-human agenda of the USSR and its western lackeys/useful idiots. That's why they simply can't comprehend no-go zones; they can't even perceive them or understand what is being said because they're not part of the relevant tribes. That's why things like modern slavery doesn't really matter to them: just as in the old days anything at all is justified by the aims. When humans don't fit ideology they prefer smashing humanity into “shape”. It doesn't work, they're already failing badly. It's why calling them “elites” always should be surrounded with quotation marks of sarcasm: they're the heirs of both Mengele (human experimentation) and Adorno (cultural marxism).
The power vacuum being created is huge and they think their own fascism (surveillance, manipulation) will fill it but completely misunderstand: one can't make an ocean by filling a hole with sand.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday May 30 2015, @04:00PM
Make 'em wear an electric collar and you can achieve the desired results in a fraction of the time!
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Friday May 29 2015, @11:44PM
This seems the place for the obligatory "What could Possibly Go Wrong?" question.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday May 30 2015, @09:03AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @11:53PM
Now we can all be reprogrammed when our Dream-Matics get updated with each day's Correct Thinking from Anita Sarkeesian's twitter feed.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by vux984 on Saturday May 30 2015, @12:51AM
On the other hand... maybe we can fix Anita Sarkeesian!
The question is, as always, "Who gets to define normal?"
What about religion? Can we convert people to Islam? Can we convert them to Christianity? Could we classify religious belief as a mental disorder and cure us all to atheists?
How long before its a diet treatment? (And if it worked, would it be a good or bad thing?)
They seemed to set out to remove a bias for racism and sexism.
If being attracted to a particular race is racism then is being attracted to a particular gender sexism? Is being straight instead of bi-sexual not at least a little bit sexist? Could we fix that if we wanted to? Why shouldn't we? Surely we could at the very least treat homophobia?
Hmm... and if we could do all that...(dons flame retardent suit) couldn't we treat homosexuality too? Why shouldn't we?
Or what about the transgendered... perhaps instead of altering the physical body to match the mind; we simply re-program the mind to be more comfortable with the body? Who gets to decide which way is the more correct "fix"? Shouldn' the mind take precedence?
The idea that we can or should 'fix' the way people think seriously violates my sense of what is ethical. We shouldn't be doing any of the above; ever. The slippery slope on this one is simply too steep.
However re-programming -may- be more humane than the death sentence; or life imprisonment; and possibly cheaper for society too. It might be reasonable to consider that we 'punish' serious violent offenders; or sex offenders etc this way. People who would never see the light of day again without the treatment. If a truly predatory peadophile could be treated such that those impulses or desires were eliminated... maybe that at least is not truly evil.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:25AM
> If being attracted to a particular race is racism
Error in premise.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:59AM
If you do not explain yourself, all that you post are words strung together. A monkey can do that with wooden blocks. Try to be understood or you wont be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @03:08AM
Try to be understood or you wont be.
So, if I understand you, what you are saying is that you did not understand the comment "error in premise"? That is rather amusing, because I certainly understand it. And I am rather sure that everyone else here understands it. Do you require assistance? Would you like to lie down, on this soft cushy bed, next to our *beep* machine?
(The Principle of Charity is to assume that your opponent is making sense and that all failure to comprehend is yours, until your opponent proves that they are not making sense. Just kind of a starting position, but good manners nonetheless.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @03:09AM
> If you do not explain yourself, all that you post are words strung together.
Is it really so difficult to understand that I am saying "you are wrong?"
OP didn't explain himself either, he just said it as a given. The fact you are bitchin suggests you agree with his unexplained words and disagree with mine.
Lazy ass.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gravis on Saturday May 30 2015, @03:35AM
The question is, as always, "Who gets to define normal?"
quite literally, statistics determine what is normal.
The idea that we can or should 'fix' the way people think seriously violates my sense of what is ethical.
you know, i hear they can fix that for you now. ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @05:21AM
quite literally, statistics determine what is normal.
That's not the "normal" that people often talk about. Many times, people will call others abnormal as an insult. Being gay is 'not normal' and therefore is 'bad' to some people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @08:41AM
It is also not normal statistically.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @10:04AM
Yes, but you're using a different definition of the word "normal" than the one that is actually under discussion, making your reply off-topic.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Saturday May 30 2015, @03:16PM
No, statistics measure what is normal. They no more define what is normal than a thermometer decides what temperature it is.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday May 30 2015, @05:28AM
If a truly predatory peadophile could be treated such that those impulses or desires were eliminated... maybe that at least is not truly evil.
It is if you do it against their will. I don't think you should try to modify their bodies or minds through brainwashing or surgery. And I'd just use "rapist" rather than "pedophile" in this context, since that is what is meant.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday May 30 2015, @08:53AM
It is [truly evil] if you do it against their will
Relative to life imprisonment or the death penalty?
And I'd just use "rapist" rather than "pedophile" in this context, since that is what is meant.
I actually went with pedophile on purpose... because they can be 'innocent' in a perverse way. In cases they've just developed an attraction or fetish that is profoundly unhealthy. They don't necessarily even want to hurt their victims; its just an inevitable result of their attention.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Saturday May 30 2015, @09:27AM
Then I realised you did the rather unnecessary anti-Sarkeesian snark earlier, which stood out out rather as being a little unnecessary. (Maybe it was for comic effect though.)
Never having heard of her, or *anyone* involved, when the GamerGate fuss came to the front pages earlier this year, before commenting I decided to go off and do a little research, download the videos and the articles from the various antagonists, and see what they had to say, and how they said it. Of everyone involved, and this is my own personal opinion, and I'm entitled to it, Sarkeesian came over as the least wrong, and the one prepared to put the most effort into backing up her arguments. Many of her antagonists weren't even able to spell her name (missing 2nd 'e' - thank you for getting that right), and a bunch actually came over as downright stupid, in harsh contrast to Anita's erudite presentation.
Despite rumours to the contrary, Soylent News is not an echo chamber, which is good.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday May 30 2015, @09:54AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday May 30 2015, @08:17PM
Then I realised you did the rather unnecessary anti-Sarkeesian snark earlier, which stood out out rather as being a little unnecessary. (Maybe it was for comic effect though.)
It was.
Of everyone involved, and this is my own personal opinion, and I'm entitled to it, Sarkeesian came over as the least wrong
I actually agree. The anti-sjw movement is as over the top bonkers as they come. But at the time of the fuss, I couldn't figure out why the big fuss was even about her; the professional misconduct was by the 'journalist' for conflict of interest; and i said as much on /. at the time. But that's not say I actually agree with Sarkeesian either; I think the cause she's championing has some merit; but not to the degree that she does; and I think she has little real credibility due to her own role in the scandal; and her continued presence does more to undermine her cause than forward it in my opinion.
I was just about to thank you for being brave enough to state the politically incorrect view that maybe it's not true that paedophiles are the worst evil satan has ever created
Heh... that post had enough politically incorrect views in it to last me the rest of the year. :) But I'll stand behind that one.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday May 30 2015, @09:27AM
Relative to life imprisonment or the death penalty?
The death penalty is intolerable. And you didn't quote the whole thing, which was: "It is if you do it against their will. I don't think you should try to modify their bodies or minds through brainwashing or surgery." Permanently altering people's bodies or brainwashing them against their will is horrid, and yes, worse than life imprisonment since they would ask for your 'solution' otherwise.
I actually went with pedophile on purpose... because they can be 'innocent' in a perverse way. In cases they've just developed an attraction or fetish that is profoundly unhealthy. They don't necessarily even want to hurt their victims; its just an inevitable result of their attention.
I wouldn't say an attraction is automatically unhealthy. And again, if there are actual victims, then you need to use something different from "pedophile", which just means that someone has a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Speaking in ways that seem as if you're saying pedophiles are necessarily rapists and molesters just causes confusion.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday May 30 2015, @07:56PM
The death penalty is intolerable. And you didn't quote the whole thing, which was: "It is if you do it against their will. I don't think you should try to modify their bodies or minds through brainwashing or surgery."
The death penalty and life imprisonment are obviously against the persons will as well. Is reprogramming more or less horrid. (I can see an argument either way. Perhaps the convict could choose.)
And again, if there are actual victims, then you need to use something different from "pedophile", which just means that someone has a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Speaking in ways that seem as if you're saying pedophiles are necessarily rapists and molesters just causes confusion.
I agree with you. I originally wrote 'predatory pedophile' to make that differentiation.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 31 2015, @03:34AM
The death penalty and life imprisonment are obviously against the persons will as well.
But which do they think is worse? If they volunteer for the fake brainwashing, then that is one thing. The second sentence explains the real difference. Prison doesn't permanently modify your body or brainwash you.
I'm opposed to the death penalty completely because I don't think the government should have the power to murder people who have been captured, and there is a high chance for mistakes, which prevents the person from ever being freed again.
I agree with you. I originally wrote 'predatory pedophile' to make that differentiation.
I saw the predatory part, but in that case, I still feel something else would have been superior. And because not all child molesters are necessarily pedophiles (some do it for power).
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday May 30 2015, @09:09AM
However, as this is a psych paper, it's probably bunkum anyway! (CI narrow, p<0.05)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @05:41AM
However re-programming -may- be more humane than the death sentence
"Humane" isn't relative, either you are acting out of compassion or you aren't.
It might be reasonable to consider that we 'punish' serious violent offenders; or sex offenders etc this way.
And terrorists. And murderers. And thieves. And dissidents. And wrong-thinkers.
Remember when it was only okay to snoop on enemies of the state? Remember when ordinary people didn't lose their basic rights without due process? Remember when you couldn't be kicked off your plane 5 minutes before flight because some GODDAMN ALGORITHM decided you're a terrorist? Remember when innocent people didn't have to fear heavier sentences if they had the audacity to defend themselves in court? Remember when police officers wouldn't dogpile and torture non-violent unarmed scrawny teenagers in front of a camera [youtube.com] and get away with it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @08:43AM
Would you program yourself?
Could I give myself the ability to have better focus and learn more easily?
If it was an option I totally would, I'd also make myself more inclined to go for a run to keep fit,
make myself more disciplined and tidier. etc.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @11:56PM
Way to frame it, "fighting racism", eh?
You know what Northwestern is known for? Their business school's marketing dept. Guess what they were thinking when they did this study.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @11:59PM
I don't know what they were thinking. Maybe we could change it with this sleep therapy thing. In the mean time, I have an overwhelming urge to go to Best Buy and get a Big Mac. Hmmm.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:37AM
No, they are known for their journalism school.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @03:37PM
It's a pretty big driver. Don't they send a lot of people to P&G afterwards?
(Score: 2) by looorg on Friday May 29 2015, @11:59PM
"... treatment of racism, sexism and other biases"
Why would I ever want to get rid of this?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @12:18AM
You probably also have a bias as to the sexual partners and acts you enjoy. With this new technology we may be able to cure you of heterosexuality (but never homosexuality or dysphoria; The former shouldn't be cured, and only genital mutilation and hormones are acceptable for the latter).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Murdoc on Saturday May 30 2015, @12:13AM
I'm sure that the potential for abuse is obvious, and it certainly is not the way to go about curing these social ills. All that's needed is to start teaching people critical thinking and the rest will attend to itself, once they are good enough at it. And it shouldn't be a hard sell either; who wouldn't want to learn it when it can help you in every aspect of your life?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by aristarchus on Saturday May 30 2015, @12:39AM
who wouldn't want to learn it when it can help you in every aspect of your life?
Yes, a very good question. But the obvious answer is, "racists".
There are two schools of thought, the cognitive, and the operantive. Cognitives think that thinking is the answer to everything. It appears you are in this school. It goes back to my predecessor, Socrates, who used to say "To know the good is to do the good." The inverse of this, of course, is that if someone is doing wrong they must not know, really, what they are doing, and think what they are doing is actually good. This is where we would place our racists who do not know they are racists, they do not think they are doing wrong. So accordingly, we just send them to the re-education camps, teach them critical thinking, and viola, problem solved. No one would chose to be a racist once they understood what racism is, right?
Which brings us to the operant school, represented most clearly by Plato's student Aristotle. Aristotle thought that even if one cognitively understands what the right thing to do is, unless they have the cultivated ability to act on that understanding, we could have a case of cognitive dissonance. In other words, critical thinking is not enough. So for Aristotle being a good person requires not just study, but practice as well. Now this is where the Sleep thingy comes in: if you realize you have racist reactions (for example, sexist if you prefer, NOT!), this is a way to train yourself to not have them. An earlier version was called "aversion therapy", illustrated as I mentioned before in the novel and movie "A Clockwork Orange". And this is not all that unusual. I have heard stories of persons with friends of different races, who shared a cigarette, but viscerally reacted at having something in their mouth that was just in the mouth of another race. Knowing that this was an irrational and immoral reaction did not make any difference in still having the reaction.
Now the danger is in separating the two schools. Operant conditioning may be effective, but it is also mindless, so we get the "what could go wrong?" questions. If we can use this therapy to eliminate racist tendencies, then quite obviously we could use the same technology to inculcate racism! The APA would be on board, because this is just like reverse engineering the Survival, Escape, Resistance and Evasion training given to US military personnel to resist torture into a program to enhance "interrogation" in the Global War on Terra. But this relativism is really indefensible on any rational grounds. The cognitive approach says we have to convince the wrong doer that what they are doing is in fact wrong, respecting their freedom of thought. So we need to first appeal to racists on rational grounds, by means of critical reasoning, and then making available such help as they can voluntarily submit to. Fair enough?
(Score: 1) by Murdoc on Saturday May 30 2015, @03:11AM
I suppose that my comment was too short for me to be clear on what I meant, but in actuality I totally agree with you, that both approaches are needed to be integrated for best effect. Well, not the brainwashing mentioned in the article, but yes, the "practice" as you mentioned. Everyone already knows how to think critically at least a little bit, but like most skills, there are many levels of competence. And also, even the skills that people have they don't necessarily use all the times they should, so that would be part of the practice.
But thank you for clarifying the subject for me. I didn't have all that background information.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday May 30 2015, @05:06AM
I agree that we may be looking at a bunch of very scared racists who thing they may be forced or tricked in to not being racist anymore, but our common point is that that really can't happen. I always have liked the line by the teacher at the beginning of the Joss Whedon movie "Serenity": "We're not telling people what to think, we're just trying to show them how!"
(Score: 1) by Murdoc on Saturday May 30 2015, @07:12AM
I liked that line too, but in the case of Serenity, I think that the teacher was using that line as a way to cover up the sins of the Alliance. Although I loved the movie and Firefly, I didn't really like the message Joss (or at least Mal) was trying to assert that "You can't make people better." I think you can, and we have even succeeded to a degree so far, and that we know plenty about how to do more, without it being sinister like on Miranda, just by doing the stuff we've been talking about.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday May 30 2015, @08:21AM
"Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave. "
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds.
Now that may be the great outlaw libertarian mantra, put in such great context by the genius of Joss Whedon. But I have to ask, " Can I make a suggestion that doesn't involve violence, or is this the wrong crowd for that? " (Wash, the pilot of Serenity).
So you and I, out of the thousands of Soylentils, have come to the conclusion that it is only through the discipline of critical thinking that the pox of racism, sexism, and overall dickish behaviour shall be cured. I take your hand, brother, for truly you are such, and we together will face the onslaught of racists who think that just having different thoughts means that all thought is equally valid! But you realize the downside of this responsibility: Reavers, we made them! (Wash, again. Not surprising that he is the only crew member who gets killed off. )
Not malicious, it is only that when racists are confronted with the logical implications, they tend to cut on themselves and others. So if we can get them to change their behavior when they are asleep, I am all for that, and I imagine Joss is too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @12:10PM
Most bigotry hinges on the idea that being human requires one to have a specific amount of melanin, a specific set of genitals, a specific sexual orientation or identity, or worship a specific god. Anyone with half a brain sees how fallicious this is; bigotry is, by definition, delusional; it is not and never will be valid.
(Score: 1) by Murdoc on Sunday May 31 2015, @02:01AM
Yeah, I liked Wash's comment there too.
So why do you think that so many people here seem against these ideas? They generally seem in favor of more critical thinking education in other threads, so is it just this issue? Maybe it's just random chance who happened to comment; not everyone sees every post and comment. I saw the responses to your recent 'troll' post, and while people did bring up some valid additional factors, they were far from as useful of solutions to the problem. Such as "more diversity", etc. Well, to get that, you pretty much have to reduce the racism first, don't you? But with CT, you can teach people that, not for the purpose of changing their minds about racism directly, but to help them in their lives, such as careers, relationships, education, avoiding scams, etc., and I can't see many people not wanting that (one term I like is "intellectual self-defence"). Then, once they are good at it, they'll have to apply it to their racism/sexism/whatever, and if they are good enough, they will change their minds. One strategy I'd like to try for instance is teaching them about meme allergies [lucifer.com]. If you can get them to agree that they are bad, and that looking for your own and eradicating them is a good idea, they'll practically do it themselves (although some may need help with that). A more comprehensive CT program would likely work even better, I think.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @07:42PM
viola
It's voila goddamn it! (or actually voilà but the former ASCII projection will do)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @07:11AM
Or, I could have been referring to the effect of the lower range member of the violin family, for when truth becomes apparent. (Et tu, grammaricus docentur? )
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @12:04PM
You must be new to life. LOTS of people take pride in being ignorant and stupid. Its mind-boggling, really, but willful ignorance is more popular than money and pussy put together.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by anubi on Saturday May 30 2015, @01:52AM
Doesn't the original brainwashing techniques have their basis in religion?
The whole thing hinges on salesmanship. Can you get others to drink your kool-aid?
Will they ignore their own friends if you tell them to?
The whole idea seemed to be able to sweet-talk people ( leadership skills ) into placing the leader's agenda above their own agenda, even to the point of enforcing "excommunication" - even against their own family - at the behest of the "leader".
"Leaders" love fancy suits, power-hats, and microphones so they can out-bellow anyone in hearing range.
Doesn't surprise me one bit they are Pavlov-conditioning people with sounds. People have been using sounds for centuries to control others, whether it be tribal voodoo chants, patriotic anthems, or preachers hyping gospel music.
We humans seem terribly vulnerable to sound cues.
The microphone-men know this and use it to their advantage.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @01:59AM
These are the social 'sciences' we're talking about here. I'd be hesitant to believe any study out of these fields due to all the subjectivity, bias, and the lack of scientific rigor. Many times, no alternative possibilities are even considered, or at least aren't reported on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:07AM
I'd be hesitant to believe any study out of these fields due to all the subjectivity, bias, and the lack of scientific rigor. Many times, no alternative possibilities are even considered,
like that maybe Anthropogenic Global warming is not actually real, or that some races are in fact more violent and not as intelligent as others, or that some genders are not as good at math and science, and than an invisible sky fairy wants me to have quiverful of kids and marry young girls . . . Did I leave any of the "other possibilities" out?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:39AM
Nope, you've pretty much nailed the modern Republican party.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @05:15AM
Those do seem like the types of conclusions social 'scientists' would reach, being that it is mostly subjective and pseudoscientific. Mainly, I'm referring to studies that the one described here. [soylentnews.org] It's worth it to investigate other possibilities and not pretend as if the possibility you thought of is the only one that exists; that is bad science.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @09:32AM
Those do seem like the types of conclusions social 'scientists' would reach, being that it is mostly subjective and pseudoscientific.
Or, stated just slightly differently, "I do not agree with these findings that prove that I am a complete and total ignoramous, who believes things that have no basis in reality, and I wish that social scientists would agree with me, which I am sure they would, if I could pay them enough money, because I know that if someone where to pay me enough money, I would say what ever they wanted me to say, because I am a person of principle, and once I am bought, I stay bought, not matter what actual reality based Scientists say. Unless they can make a better deal?"
I love how you put 'scientists" in scare quotes, as if you were scared of them. Booo! Begone, you purveyor of completely incorrect ideas! We will hound you into the ground of actual data, and roast you over the coals of peer review! You DARE challenge science, with you piddly contrary opinion? Oh dear, my less that accomplished political operative, you have been defeated in ways you cannot even fathom. Social scientists even now are descending upon you, covertly, of course, to find out what makes you tick. I, for one, hope you can continue to tick, but maybe with a slightly increased appreciation for the "less precise" sciences? If not, we will have to recommend you for a lobotomy. Crude procedure, but effective for the less intellectual gifted.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @10:00AM
Or, stated just slightly differently
Only in a straw man world could that be considered to be only slightly different. Psychology [arachnoid.com] and its ilk are not as scientific as some people think.
I respect scientific fields such as physics, biology, and the like. I'm not a global warming denier. These things tend to be far more rigorous and measure objective reality, even if they aren't always perfect. However, I have little respect for fields of science where so many researchers are biased, reach arbitrary conclusions based on the data, and pretend that the data gathering is objective when it is inherently subjective. I put the word "scientists" in quotes because sometimes I find it hard to believe they're actual scientists; it has nothing to do with fear.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @10:38AM
Ah, once again we have Tom Cruise posting on SoylentNews! Such a great honor, and much craziness!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @12:15PM
Psychology covers anything dealing with the brain or nervous system; psychology includes all branches of neuroscience and neurology, branches of pharmacology and toxicology, and many other things. Its about as scientific as you can get.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @03:45PM
Wrong, for the reasons already stated. Subjectivity, bias, and a lack of scientific rigor are seemingly more present. You cannot honestly claim that the social 'sciences' can compare to a field like, say, physics. There's simply too much subjective guesswork and too many instances where researchers fail to consider alternative possibilities than the ones their bias led them to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @03:55PM
Psychology is not a "social 'science'" as you put it. Try understand what psychology actually is [wikipedia.org] instead of making up your own definition for it to suit your argument. The biological and cognitive branches of psychology are just as "hard" a science as physics or chemistry, as is a significant chunk of the behavioral branch (behavioral neuroscience); there's far more to psychology than your intentionally-limited definition which only consists of the social and psychoanalysis branches.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @04:45PM
Well, I was obviously targeting the social sciences.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @06:38PM
Except for, you know, when you specifically said that psychology was one too. Some branches of psychology deal with stuff similar to social sciences, but "some" != "all". Psychology is not a "social 'science'" but some "social 'sciences'" may fall under psychology.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2015, @03:37AM
Which I was specifically talking about things classified under social sciences. Looks like I caused confusion.
(Score: 2) by TGV on Saturday May 30 2015, @06:49AM
I'll repeat what I wrote elsewhere: If the effect (which is, as the author even admits, surprising) will hold, it changes "implicit bias", i.e. what the implicit bias test measures. That is much less surprising, since that test measures priming effects, i.e. how much does condition A speed up recognition of condition B, rather than attitude. So it doesn't change anything fundamental, but rather weakens the speeding up of the priming process, possibly by adding interference.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:02PM
View the learning bed promo in all its glory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnjdxWjEJJE [youtube.com]