SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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This discussion has been archived.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.
All this time I've been VIEWING a RUSSIAN MIDGET SODOMIZE a HOUSECAT!
(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.