Mind-blowing manifesto explains some of GOP mind control techniques

[ProfessorPlum]

Getting out of Embed: The Role of Social Context in Decision Making is a very revealing, short presentation about how the GOP is attempting to control us. It also sheds light on why so many of our fellow citizens swallow Cheney's lies.

It discusses decision making within a social context, and reveals that many people will go along with an obviously wrong group when making a decision - and how a group of people can actually affect a decision-maker's perception of what they are seeing or hearing. It also reveals that there is a minority of people who won't go along with a flawed decision from the majority if they perceive it as incorrect (would that this were a larger percentage of the American population).

It also discusses, very briefly, Milgram's authoritarian-shock experiments, and the Stanford prison experiment which have become famous windows into the human soul and behavior.

We should all keep these lessons in mind at all times. Especially when watching TV! This explains why the GOP/TV hosts are always casting opposition to the war as "fringe" and "minority" when in fact those opinions are anything but fringe.

The bottom line is that if you think that most people think something is true, you are likely to begin to perceive it as true as well (unless you are in a small minority).

Fascinating. Here are some excerpts:

Unfortunately, our perceptions do not accord with how the world really works. Decision
making, whether it’s in the board room or on the trading floor, is an inherently social
exercise. Our social context, the behaviors and attitudes of those around us, powerfully
influences how we decide.

...

Embedded social context is important for decision makers on a couple of levels. First, the
more aware you are of your social surroundings and how the group can affect you, the better
decisions you’ll make. Seeking and considering diverse viewpoints helps dilute the potentially
negative consequences of context.

...

Most people try to perceive situations clearly and without bias, but this research flies in the
face of that objective. The study’s leader, Gregory Berns, summed up the findings: “We like to
think that seeing is believing,” but the study suggests “seeing is believing what the group
tells you to believe.”

...

The results were disturbing. Across various trials—where Milgram altered the physical
proximity of the learner—roughly half of the subjects administered the maximum shock level.
The average shock level was 22.6, in the realm of extreme intensity. Milgram found the
willingness to shock declined as he moved the learner physically closer to the subject. But the
conclusion was inescapable: normal people would consistently deliver lethal shocks under the
guise of authority.

[Demeter]

1. As One of the Anti-Social, Non-Conforming Minority

I hope that Lemmings come into fashion.

[blm]

2. Don't we know it. Thanks for continued focus on this Prof.

It really is the battle this nation must have - - the tactic needs to be REVEALED.

Did you see the kerrygoddess thread on Jonathan Kaplan? You must hear that conference call.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2791879

[ProfessorPlum]

5. Heard it. Disgraceful. "Media Whore" is too kind

How about Paul Hackett on Hardball? That's the way to inject new (and truthful!) 'memes' into the public discussion.

[blm]

8. I'm thinking Hackett may not serve us as well in Congress as he would as

a Dem spokesman. I think if he was actually SCHOOLED in more areas of Democratic issues and the historic record, he would make a strong DNC spokesperson for the airwaves.

[ProfessorPlum]

9. he certainly feels free to speak his mind on television

He makes me a bit nervous as a candidate as well, but damn can that guy cut through the crap.

[blm]

12. Imagine if he was steeped in the REAL FACTS of the last 40 yrs. in a way

that can HELP the average American understand how it all connects for today and their future.

[havocmom]

3. It's important to understand. We can't fight what we don't recognize

Some people simply let others set and define everything. Some do not run on logic and can't do much independent critical thinking.

What I have noticed among the profoundly stubborn (those who will not see the neocons for what they are, no matter how much evidence is given) is that they really are very insecure. Most are looking for the father figure to tell them what has to be and to PAT THEM ON THE HEAD AND LOVE THEM. Doesn't seem to matter if the father figure is really screwing them, so long as the appearance of affection and acceptance is there for them to delude themselves with. Father figure as security blanket.

Any wonder the junta plays the 'terra terra terra' track? They have to maintain the myth of the boogey man to set the parameters for social discourse. They have to create the situation where they can play-act the benevolent father figure.

How do we beat the nature of it? Hey, there's a reason the GOP calls us 'elitist'. That sets us up as the 'un-accepting, unaffectionate' and works on masses of people at a very deep emotional level. We beat it by looking back at the old populists and how they reached out by showing how much alike people really are. Look at how the Big Dawg can relate and REALLY connect with people. He is adroit at showing how much he cares.

We gotta connect with people at the emotional level, not just the logic centers. We gotta let them know they are cared about and accepted. Talking in abstracts won't do it.

And we gotta keep pounding the GOP with the truth of what their policies have done to America and Americans. Some abused children really will walk away from the abuser, if they are shown truth AND a path out to where there is genuine caring and love.

We won't win them all, but we will make great strides.

And the GOP knows it. That's why they are racing around purging voter registrations and looking for excuses to have ballots thrown out this fall.

DEMS are making headway in the heartland, when they show there are more similarities than differences and that DEMS have plans to get US back on course to take care of its citizens.

[Felinity]

4. This topic is of the utmost importance Please K&R with me

There's a lot more to be yet uncovered. There are mind control programs (if anyone has any data to support this, please share)in play; without getting all spooky on you, a lot of it is aimed at distracting or demoralizing people to the point where they give up.

More needs to come out about their marketing and disinformation techniques as well. There's a Hardball video posted
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2793803
where Paul Hackett keeps jumping in with "talking points." "Talking points" should be the mantra of all Democrats asked to discuss issues with Republicans.

They say "Fight them over there instead of over here."
We say "Wow, that's an old Talking Point!"

They say "we're spreading Democracy"
We say "too bad you're not spreading Democracy in the Middle East as well as the Republican Party spreads that Talking Point manure all over the media".

They say "Al Qaeda yada yada yada."
And we say "Talking Point! Where's the action to back that up? Where's Osama? How much of Afghanistan does the Taliban control now? How's the Poppy crop this year?"

[alvarezadams]

6. Milgram, groupthink, Abilene paradox

not much new here but I'm happy to see that the whole concept (which is behind the $1 billion per year, every year, election or no election, to push "conservative ideals") is publicized.


You're ripe for Jost.

[klook]

11. This Jost?

Are you talking about the guy referenced in this article?

Here's his page on the NYU Dept. of Psychology web site: http://www.psych.nyu.edu/jost/

He says:

System justification theory addresses the holding of attitudes that are often contrary to one's own self-interest and therefore contrary to what one would expect on the basis of theories of self-enhancement or rational self-interest. Thus, our research focuses on counter-intuitive outcomes, such as the internalization of unfavorable stereotypes about one's own group, nonconscious biases that perpetuate inequality, attitudinal ambivalence directed at fellow ingroup members who challenge the system, opposition to equality among members of disadvantaged groups, rationalization of anticipated social and political outcomes, and tendencies among members of powerless groups to subjectively enhance the legitimacy of their powerlessness and, in some cases, to show greater support for the system than do members of powerful groups.

Fascinating stuff. I will have to explore this guy's work further. Thanks for the tip.

[alvarezadams]

15. That's the guy

I've corresponed with him on occassion. This might be a good starting point: http://www.wam.umd.edu/~hannahk/bulletin.pdf#search='jostpdf'

[alvarezadams]

16. Jost

Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism,
dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure,
regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification).
A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological
variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r
.50); system instability (.47);
dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (–.32); uncertainty tolerance (–.27);
needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (–.20); fear of threat and loss (.18);
and self-esteem (–.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification
of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty
and threat.

[klook]

17. Thanks.

I don't normally read academic papers for fun, but this looks like it could be rewarding. Interesting to see that this paper cites Erich Fromm's Escape from Freedom, an analysis of the psychology of authority and subjugation published in 1941.

Also of interest: Mothers in the Fatherland by Claudia Koonz, an analysis of the importance of "family values" in Nazi Germany. As one reviewer puts it, this book discusses "the Nazism of the hearth."

These are, unfortunately, very important and relevant topics nowadays.

[w4rma]

7. I think it really boils down to the world being complicated so we all need

"experts" to trust so that we aren't wasting our time on every single solitary issue and so that we can live our lives rather than spending all our time researching every little detail of every little thing.

[ProfessorPlum]

10. Amazingly, I was smarter than the entire Cheney administration

I am a chemist and a dilettante student of history, and I knew that occupying Iraq would be a sh*t sandwich from the word go. So much for the "experts".

[peacetalksforall]

14. Mere citizens and citizens with expertise like yourself figured it out and

shared it with each other - not just in living rooms or cafes, but in public forums like DU. In spite of the ease of our leaders getting the message that many did not believe the premise and promise, we failed to break through to those Dem leaders who rubber-stamped Republicans and even played 'gung-ho' for the Republicans and PNAC and continue to do it to today - even after unholy death, maiming, lies, destruction, theft, abuse, torture, torment, and untold threats and acts in the future.

What does that say? In addition to insight, gut, expertise, history - we need new leaders.

I'm fed up and I will name them and broadcast their names forever or until they get down on their kneews and cry for the families here and there who should be enjoying their children and living in peace and hope.

Thank God for the Kucinichs's and Wellstone's and their compatariots. Good souls.

[w4rma]

20. Pick your "leaders"/"experts" well. Help others pick theirs. (nt)

[w4rma]

19. See post #18 (nt)

[rman]

13. I think that's what authoritarians want us to believe

Reality is that a democracy can not function with an uninformed electorate.

Which does not mean we have to research "every little detail of every little thing" - rather it means that researching nothing won't get us anywhere.

[w4rma]

18. I think you're looking at this the wrong way. I used "experts" in quotes

for a reason.

*Anybody* can be an "expert" on some part of politics. It's all about having your opinions trusted by people.

For one example, I trust Mr. Krugman who writes for the NY Times. He's been right about so much stuff that now when he says something I trust it right off the bat. I don't worry myself with double checking his facts, anymore.

Rush Limbough is an "expert" to many folks. President Clinton is an "expert" to many folks. Kucnich is an "expert" to many folks.

[Blue_Tires]

21. ttt n/t

[ProfessorPlum]

22. kick

for evening crowd