Mind Control

[VCrakeV]

I was recently playing a game, Civilization, and my cities were quite unhappy from multiple sources. So, I immediately thought about building mind-control centers (which reduce unhappiness in cities to 0). However, I paused for a while, thinking about the ethics of it. I always play the game with my personal beliefs in mind. For example, I never adopt the bureaucracy civic.

I ended up building them in every city that could make use of them. Is mind control immoral? Most people would say yes without questioning anything. But it depends-what're are you putting in their brains? Is it justifiable to control minds for a better good? What if minds were controlled to get rid of the evil in people-greed, stupidity, hate, and more-to better humanity?

And what about the method? What if we could control minds with chips, or waves? What if we used propaganda and broadcasting? What about mandatory drugs? There are many potential methods, and surely some are more/less ethical than others.

Your thoughts?

[Palmares]

I guess you really need to define "mind-control".

But I'm guessing from your post you mean more than simply the practice of an individual hypnotist or similar. Rather, institutional means of thought control. Enter 1984.

What I would posit, is how do you know what's best for someone? To the point of knowing it better than themselves?

I think there's a definite difference between influence through equal engagement (e.g. discussion amongst equals), as opposed to coercive influence from above (e.g. an education system giving you bad marks for disagreeing with it's version of history).

[jullia]

In a way, education is a form of mind control.

[VCrakeV]

In a way, education is a form of mind control.

Precisely! Is it wrong for us to teach people what's wrong and what's right? What about evolution vs creationism? Surely there's a fine line created by schools. Either you're in a catholic school, or you're Biology teacher fills you in (or, like my Biology teacher, she'll make evolution and Darwinism the independent studies for that course...).

What if schools taught not to discriminate? What if we had a scenario like 1984 (thanks Palmares for the reminder), but it was all "good" stuff-don't discriminate, make sure to share and be fair, don't harm others, don't create a monopoly on toothbrushes, etc.?

Is it wrong to tell people what's wrong? EDIT: In an assertive manner. That is, telling them without allowing/encouraging debate or disagreement.

[Sewer Socialist]

What if schools taught not to discriminate? What if we had a scenario like 1984 (thanks Palmares for the reminder), but it was all "good" stuff-don't discriminate, make sure to share and be fair, don't harm others, don't create a monopoly on toothbrushes, etc.?

Well, isn't that sort of what Brave New World was about, sort of? Controlling people through drugs, making them happy, so there wouldn't be conflict? To me, the bad thing about that world wasn't that the world was like that. It's difficult to say that a world filled with happiness is bad. The problem was that someone slipped through the cracks, and had the most alienated existence.

Also, with regards to "What if minds were controlled to get rid of the evil in people-greed, stupidity, hate, and more-to better humanity?" - evil does not exist in people. These things are encouraged by class societies, commodity markets, and their insecurity - insecurity of hoarded wealth held at the top, and insecurity of the next paycheck at the bottom.

[VCrakeV]

Well, isn't that sort of what Brave New World was about, sort of? Controlling people through drugs, making them happy, so there wouldn't be conflict? To me, the bad thing about that world wasn't that the world was like that. It's difficult to say that a world filled with happiness is bad. The problem was that someone slipped through the cracks, and had the most alienated existence.

I actually never read it before. Maybe I should sometime... I might look into an e-reader sometime. There's so much to read, and too much space to fill for me to be buying books.

EDIT: Not enough space. XD

[consuming negativity]

Precisely! Is it wrong for us to teach people what's wrong and what's right? What about evolution vs creationism? Surely there's a fine line created by schools. Either you're in a catholic school, or you're Biology teacher fills you in (or, like my Biology teacher, she'll make evolution and Darwinism the independent studies for that course...).

What if schools taught not to discriminate? What if we had a scenario like 1984 (thanks Palmares for the reminder), but it was all "good" stuff-don't discriminate, make sure to share and be fair, don't harm others, don't create a monopoly on toothbrushes, etc.?

Is it wrong to tell people what's wrong? EDIT: In an assertive manner. That is, telling them without allowing/encouraging debate or disagreement.

it's wrong if the person doesn't want to learn and you force them to sit and listen anyway under penalty of the entire rest of their life being screwed up.

people like to learn. if they don't want to, it is because it is being forced on them or they realize that they're being taught a bunch of bullshit. or, maybe, they usually like to learn, but right now they'd rather eat some cake. there are plenty of reasons. but if they don't want it, giving it to them is not doing what is in their best interest; it is doing what you wrongly think is in your best interest. "altruism" in this manner is to treat the individual as an object through the disregard of what makes them who they are - their actual selves - through lack of recognition of their informed consent or lack thereof for the particular activity. this is never in anybody's best interest, least of all the person being disregarded "for their own good".

[VCrakeV]

it's wrong if the person doesn't want to learn and you force them to sit and listen anyway under penalty of the entire rest of their life being screwed up.

people like to learn. if they don't want to, it is because it is being forced on them or they realize that they're being taught a bunch of bullshit. or, maybe, they usually like to learn, but right now they'd rather eat some cake. there are plenty of reasons. but if they don't want it, giving it to them is not doing what is in their best interest; it is doing what you wrongly think is in your best interest. "altruism" in this manner is to treat the individual as an object through the disregard of what makes them who they are - their actual selves - through lack of recognition of their informed consent or lack thereof for the particular activity. this is never in anybody's best interest, least of all the person being disregarded "for their own good".

What if they aren't forced? What if we lived in a system in which you're taught these things from birth? Either you're taught what's "right", or nothing at all. No one forces you to go to school—save for your parents, usually—but people will be inclined to go to school, and send their children to school. If you choose to learn nothing at all, what would there be to life? People wouldn't know the basics of communication.

What if people are brainwashed from birth? If they are, there's nothing to dislike. Look at religion. Parents teach their children religion as they grow up. Because they grew up with it, they will be brainwashed to enjoy further brainwashed... If that makes sense. If people were brainwashed as children/babies to go to school, they'd be brainwashed into wanting to be brainwashed. Got that?

[The Intransigent Faction]

What if they aren't forced? What if we lived in a system in which you're taught these things from birth? Either you're taught what's "right", or nothing at all. No one forces you to go to school—save for your parents, usually—but people will be inclined to go to school, and send their children to school. If you choose to learn nothing at all, what would there be to life? People wouldn't know the basics of communication.

What if people are brainwashed from birth? If they are, there's nothing to dislike. Look at religion. Parents teach their children religion as they grow up. Because they grew up with it, they will be brainwashed to enjoy further brainwashed... If that makes sense. If people were brainwashed as children/babies to go to school, they'd be brainwashed into wanting to be brainwashed. Got that?

That's an interesting point. I recently discussed this with a family friend who's a Liberal teacher. Alfie Kohn's book "Punished By Rewards" makes a solid case that reliance on punishments and/or rewards as incentives for kids to embrace education are counterproductive, but my friend raised the point that "Kids aren't naturally inclined to go to school".

My thoughts at the time were "Okay, but kids do demonstrate a 'natural curiosity' (desire to learn) and are socialized into accepting schools as the normal institution through which this takes place. The problem is not inherently with public schooling but with these practices used in an attempt to either coerce or bribe kids into 'doing well' at school."

As for the original question, I'm glad somebody else treats gaming as a moral/political exercise on occasion, too. It brings to mind "A Clockwork Orange". While I reject the notion of free will, I still see mind control as ethically and practically objectionable. In this scenario, is there some kind of upkeep needed to maintain the device? If so, a breakdown is possible, and in such a case people who otherwise unthinkingly did X would no longer do so and may even actively set out to do the opposite.

I would contend that we can, in fact, determine objectively what is in someone's interests, but that a huge or even primary part of such is their ability to autonomously recognize them for themselves. That is the single best guarantee possible for the fulfillment of their interests in the event that either mind control were no longer possible or its implementation was prevented from the beginning.

[Tim Redd]

In a way, education is a form of mind control.

Especially bourgeois education. Genuine Maoist proletarian education among other things should teach you to question authority.

[cyu]

Yep, I'd say all human communication can be seen as an attempt at mind control. The communicator is trying to put a certain train of thought into the recipient's head - and those thoughts have a purpose - to bring about some kind of change in that person's mind, ie. "mind control".

In fact, I'd say "politeness" is one of the most effective forms of mind control. True, it's quite different from the aggressive actions one typically associates with "mind control" in the movies, but what is "politeness" really? You say what you typically say, except you add a "magic word" to your requests, and suddenly your target is more likely to comply with your request.

In any case, I suspect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy_of_the_Oppressed was written with these very issues in mind. Freire was probably well aware of the potential for abuse by teachers in positions of authority, and the pitfalls of not being conscious of their own power. I'd say the book is written from the perspective of those in power (ie. the teacher) who is trying to be mindful of inadvertently doing the "wrong" thing by not realizing their power over their students.

From the other side, the side of those who are not in positions of authority, whether it is students, or the audience of the mass media, I would say it is less about the tactics used in "mind control" and more about empowerment. Instead of saying only certain segments of society should be allowed to have weapons, everyone should be allowed to have weapons. Instead of saying only certain segments of society should understand propaganda tactics, everyone should understand propaganda tactics. Instead of saying only certain segments of society should control the media, everyone should control the media.

[Dean]

I was recently playing a game, Civilization, and my cities were quite unhappy from multiple sources. So, I immediately thought about building mind-control centers (which reduce unhappiness in cities to 0). However, I paused for a while, thinking about the ethics of it. I always play the game with my personal beliefs in mind. For example, I never adopt the bureaucracy civic.

I play civilization - which version are you playing? I have never seen mind control facilities.

I almost always try to be an ethical leader, just because that comes naturally to conservative play styles. But you can't apply your own ideology to the game, partly because it is a game, but also because it includes doctrines and elements that are rigid reflections of the (Western/Anglo-American view of) real world ideologies. For instance, Civilization 5 has competing "freedom" "order" and "autocracy" options which represent Western Liberal Democracy, Communist Bloc and Fascism respectively. These choices are not in the ideals of Jeffersonian Democrats, Marxists Communists or Nietzscheans, but in the form of the Really Existing state capitalist regimes that each one of those blocs represented.

Not every Communist-aligned state was an autocratic mess, but they mostly were. The Liberal Democracies which most champion free markets have, today, the most regulated markets in the world, frequently with monopolies and very little social mobility. All of the states which succeeded from the 1930s on (and continue to enjoy the fruits of this success) have or had hyper-autocratic enterprises based on state purchases and institutions, closely resembling fascist economic models.

The real world is messy, and Civilization does a decent job of codifying some of the most overt differences between these models. Nonetheless, in most of these games there is no way to implement the kind of state like that seen in the US, which takes significant influence from each of the three models and finds its strongest expression of liberal democracy in the ideological and legal foundations, rather than the economic and even political/legal institutions that really exist.

I ended up building them in every city that could make use of them. Is mind control immoral? Most people would say yes without questioning anything. But it depends-what're are you putting in their brains? Is it justifiable to control minds for a better good? What if minds were controlled to get rid of the evil in people-greed, stupidity, hate, and more-to better humanity?

And what about the method? What if we could control minds with chips, or waves? What if we used propaganda and broadcasting? What about mandatory drugs? There are many potential methods, and surely some are more/less ethical than others.

Your thoughts?

Mind control is unethical and creates a system of control that can be abused and create a stratified society: an overclass of those who can control that information, and an underclass who is not able to control it, but is influenced by it.

Communism, and most leftist political doctrines like Anarchism, specifically refer to education as a means to empower the population to have control over their own lives. Even using education as a means to indoctrinate by choosing specific historical and political data to emphasize represents a possible means to selectively influence people and reduce the capability for a population to self-govern. This is not to say that a liberated educational system shouldn't have certain compulsory information (as an example, lessons meant to teach students how to navigate road signs are obviously necessary).

Education should be the extent of propaganda and indoctrinate that is official policy in any way, and it should never stray from the Latin root: "E Ducere," to draw out - in other words, education is to find what is in the student. There are significant professional movements encouraging this kind of education. The moment that education is meant to put something in a students mind, rather than to allow the student to form their own position and relationship to something, that education is actually meant as an external control mechanism, susceptible to all the pitfalls of class and instability that creates.

[VCrakeV]

I play civilization - which version are you playing? I have never seen mind control facilities.

I was playing Civ 4 with an overhaul mod.

[BIXX]

Fuck mind control.

I am of the opinion that unhappiness and happiness are equally important. In fact...

Joy and sorrow are only two liquors with which life merrily gets drunk.

To go further, we might understand that the "bad" in people (stupidity, greed, hate, etc...) Is part of what fundamentally makes certain people who they are, also it would exemplify the qualities they have that we enjoy, such as love, altruistic impulses, and intelligence.

Fuck bettering humanity, we are living for ourselves, as that is why I oppose capitalism and civilization- if we are struggling for a better humanity than a better life then the war is already lost.

[Redistribute the Rep]

http://orwell.ru/library/articles/so.../english/e_fun

Orwell's thoughts on it are interesting.

[Invader Zim]

Well, I'm not sure if this is really relevant to the ethical questions being discussed but 'mind control' seems to have taken some steps of late, in that scientists have been able to manipulate the brain to control non-bodily objects - i.e. when a person thinks something in particular, then it causes an LED to light up. Using the electrical signals from the brain to send a signal to an electronic object. This, they hope, will lead to the creation of devices that will be implanted in the brain that will have medicinal purposes. So, for a person who suffers from epilepsy, when a fit is coming on the brain's signals will activate an implant which will automatically stimulate a part of the brain to release chemicals will which alleviate, if not avert, the seizure.

I also read about not dissimilar technology (well, it didn't sound too dissimilar from position of absolute ignorance) that was about brain implants designed to stimulate elements of the brain that would encourage the creation of neural pathways associated with empathy in psychopaths.

I guess this isn't mind control as we would normally think of it, but it is artificial intervention, however crude, on how brain functions.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Well, I'm not sure if this is really relevant to the ethical questions being discussed but 'mind control' seems to have taken some steps of late, in that scientists have been able to manipulate the brain to control non-bodily objects - i.e. when a person thinks something in particular, then it causes an LED to light up. Using the electrical signals from the brain to send a signal to an electronic object. This, they hope, will lead to the creation of devices that will be implanted in the brain that will have medicinal purposes. So, for a person who suffers from epilepsy, when a fit is coming on the brain's signals will activate an implant which will automatically stimulate a part of the brain to release chemicals will which alleviate, if not avert, the seizure.

I also read about not dissimilar technology (well, it didn't sound too dissimilar from position of absolute ignorance) that was about brain implants designed to stimulate elements of the brain that would encourage the creation of neural pathways associated with empathy in psychopaths.

I guess this isn't mind control as we would normally think of it, but it is artificial intervention, however crude, on how brain functions.

They are able to send signals to a rats brain to make it run around too.

[VCrakeV]

Fuck mind control.

I am of the opinion that unhappiness and happiness are equally important. In fact...



To go further, we might understand that the "bad" in people (stupidity, greed, hate, etc...) Is part of what fundamentally makes certain people who they are, also it would exemplify the qualities they have that we enjoy, such as love, altruistic impulses, and intelligence.

Fuck bettering humanity, we are living for ourselves, as that is why I oppose capitalism and civilization- if we are struggling for a better humanity than a better life then the war is already lost.

Wouldn't a better humanity result in a better life?

[consuming negativity]

Well, I'm not sure if this is really relevant to the ethical questions being discussed but 'mind control' seems to have taken some steps of late, in that scientists have been able to manipulate the brain to control non-bodily objects - i.e. when a person thinks something in particular, then it causes an LED to light up. Using the electrical signals from the brain to send a signal to an electronic object. This, they hope, will lead to the creation of devices that will be implanted in the brain that will have medicinal purposes. So, for a person who suffers from epilepsy, when a fit is coming on the brain's signals will activate an implant which will automatically stimulate a part of the brain to release chemicals will which alleviate, if not avert, the seizure.

I also read about not dissimilar technology (well, it didn't sound too dissimilar from position of absolute ignorance) that was about brain implants designed to stimulate elements of the brain that would encourage the creation of neural pathways associated with empathy in psychopaths.

I guess this isn't mind control as we would normally think of it, but it is artificial intervention, however crude, on how brain functions.

step 1: thinking certain thoughts that are not Approved™ begets a punishment, such as an electric shock
step 2: the person is trained not to think about certain things through conditioning
step 3: actual literal brainwashing/mind control/thought policing

[BIXX]

Wouldn't a better humanity result in a better life?

Not really. Because we aren't us at that point- we would be more similar to bees.