[Split] Pavlovian Conditioning and Politics

[Axis Kast]

None of them involve Pavlovian sensory conditioning. Pavlovian sensory conditioning bypasses the conscious mind. It is a highly advanced technique, honed by decades of television advertising research. We are lab rats in a largely successful experiment to create machines which order our thought patterns for us.

And public debate, during the Founders' day, was political theater. The winner entertained his audience, as much as he convinced them of the correctness of his position. The political process itself? Farcical. One obtained voters through the work of hot-headed editorials that presented the facts as only one side wished them to be made known (as today), or because he had promised them a hearty spread and free liquor.

To describe early America as somehow more democratic, or to discount the effect that technology has had on allowing individuals to educate themselves on more than merely the local set of issues, and to communicate their demands directly, is to do utter disservice to the evidence.

[Patrick Degan]

None of them involve Pavlovian sensory conditioning. Pavlovian sensory conditioning bypasses the conscious mind. It is a highly advanced technique, honed by decades of television advertising research. We are lab rats in a largely successful experiment to create machines which order our thought patterns for us.

And public debate, during the Founders' day, was political theater. The winner entertained his audience, as much as he convinced them of the correctness of his position. The political process itself? Farcical. One obtained voters through the work of hot-headed editorials that presented the facts as only one side wished them to be made known (as today), or because he had promised them a hearty spread and free liquor.

And what does that have to do with the price of eggs? How does any of that invalidate the argument that the money power of large corporations enables them to literally bribe whole governments and literally condition whole populations through mass communication media and large media buys to drown out every other message under the rubric of exercising free speech rights thanks to the fiction that a corporation is a person?

To describe early America as somehow more democratic, or to discount the effect that technology has had on allowing individuals to educate themselves on more than merely the local set of issues, and to communicate their demands directly, is to do utter disservice to the evidence.

Except that is not what is being argued in this thread. Not at all.

[Axis Kast]

And what does that have to do with the price of eggs? How does any of that invalidate the argument that the money power of large corporations enables them to literally bribe whole governments and literally condition whole populations through mass communication media and large media buys to drown out every other message under the rubric of exercising free speech rights thanks to the fiction that a corporation is a person?

Wong commented that modern telecommunications are more subversive than the written word during the colonial era, and linked that to more "wholesome" political dialogue.

And I quote:

I seriously cannot believe anyone would think that large amounts of money would constitute a protected form of "expression". As for printing presses, I would argue that this is a clear case of people mindlessly extending primitive ideas into the modern era without consideration for the changes in technology. Modern media marketing is not like printing presses in the 18th century. It is based not on literary argument, which requires at least a modicum of thought on the part of the reader, but on sheer brute-force Pavlovian sensory conditioning.

Wong implies that the media blitz of today is more objectionable than pamphleteering -- which completely ignores the often-raucous, even violent character of politics during the era to which comparison is being made.

[Patrick Degan]

And what does that have to do with the price of eggs? How does any of that invalidate the argument that the money power of large corporations enables them to literally bribe whole governments and literally condition whole populations through mass communication media and large media buys to drown out every other message under the rubric of exercising free speech rights thanks to the fiction that a corporation is a person?

Wong commented that modern telecommunications are more subversive than the written word during the colonial era, and linked that to more "wholesome" political dialogue.

And I quote:

I seriously cannot believe anyone would think that large amounts of money would constitute a protected form of "expression". As for printing presses, I would argue that this is a clear case of people mindlessly extending primitive ideas into the modern era without consideration for the changes in technology. Modern media marketing is not like printing presses in the 18th century. It is based not on literary argument, which requires at least a modicum of thought on the part of the reader, but on sheer brute-force Pavlovian sensory conditioning.

So... instead of addressing the argument before the bar, you simply reassert your red herring. Mike's alleged point about colonial-era dialogue being more "wholesome" exists only in whatever parallel-universe version of this thread you evidently are reading and commenting on and not this one.

Wong implies that the media blitz of today is more objectionable than pamphleteering -- which completely ignores the often-raucous, even violent character of politics during the era to which comparison is being made.

He "ignores" it because part B of that statement actually has nothing to do with the point he is in fact arguing, as opposed to your entirely fictional version of his argument.

[Axis Kast]

So... instead of addressing the argument before the bar, you simply reassert your red herring. Mike's alleged point about colonial-era dialogue being more "wholesome" exists only in whatever parallel-universe version of this thread you evidently are reading and commenting on and not this one.

What part of, "Modern media marketing is not like printing presses in the 18th century" eludes you?

Wong is driving false equivalence between print media in the 18th century and the political process at the same time. He also ignores the fact that the reader's contribution of a "modicum" of thought -- and nevermind that many were illiterate, or functionally so -- would have been hampered by the fact that many of the circulars were political rags.

Modern communications today are not, in fact, more pernicious. Indeed, the political system, and the lines of communication which sustain it, are notably superior by his own preferred measure -- whether or not they improve the human condition.

[Patrick Degan]

So... instead of addressing the argument before the bar, you simply reassert your red herring. Mike's alleged point about colonial-era dialogue being more "wholesome" exists only in whatever parallel-universe version of this thread you evidently are reading and commenting on and not this one.

What part of, "Modern media marketing is not like printing presses in the 18th century" eludes you?

Wong is driving false equivalence between print media in the 18th century and the political process at the same time. He also ignores the fact that the reader's contribution of a "modicum" of thought -- and nevermind that many were illiterate, or functionally so -- would have been hampered by the fact that many of the circulars were political rags.

Modern communications today are not, in fact, more pernicious. Indeed, the political system, and the lines of communication which sustain it, are notably superior by his own preferred measure -- whether or not they improve the human condition.

I'll be generous and assume for the moment that you simply suffer from a deep seated reading-comprehension problem. Mike's entire point has nothing to do with equivalence or quality of information content but sheer volume reaching to saturation and even overload levels —something which even the worst rags of the Yellow Journalism era were incapable of achieving in comparison to the current propaganda machine that is the 24/7 infotainment "news" industry. So can we have an end to this idiotically obvious red herring you keep trying to flog here?

[Axis Kast]

I'll be generous and assume for the moment that you simply suffer from a deep seated reading-comprehension problem. Mike's entire point has nothing to do with equivalence or quality of information content but sheer volume reaching to saturation and even overload levels —something which even the worst rags of the Yellow Journalism era were incapable of achieving in comparison to the current propaganda machine that is the 24/7 infotainment "news" industry. So can we have an end to this idiotically obvious red herring you keep trying to flog here?

Mike never said one word about saturation and overload. As far as I can tell, he was referring to media's capacity to trigger human emotion through evocative use of sound and imagery.

[Patrick Degan]

I'll be generous and assume for the moment that you simply suffer from a deep seated reading-comprehension problem. Mike's entire point has nothing to do with equivalence or quality of information content but sheer volume reaching to saturation and even overload levels —something which even the worst rags of the Yellow Journalism era were incapable of achieving in comparison to the current propaganda machine that is the 24/7 infotainment "news" industry. So can we have an end to this idiotically obvious red herring you keep trying to flog here?

Mike never said one word about saturation and overload. As far as I can tell, he was referring to media's capacity to trigger human emotion through evocative use of sound and imagery.

Are you even reading the same fucking thread the rest of us are? Do you not understand that "sheer brute-force Pavlovian conditioning" IS continual repetition of the same stimulus?

[Axis Kast]

Are you even reading the same fucking thread the rest of us are? Do you not understand that "sheer brute-force Pavlovian conditioning" IS continual repetition of the same stimulus?

The claim that there is something more pernicious about modern political expression, because of the vehicle, needs evidence. The hypothesis that the media is today more manipulative because it plays on our psychology ignores the fact that rhetoric was practiced for just that reason since before it was described by the ancient Greeks.

Mike complained that corporations are sufficiently wealthy to cast a stream of information and conditioning at their target audience -- and acts as if the owners of printing presses in the 18th century, or the partisans of the various political parties of the time, did anything different with their resources. He then claims that it was somehow a more wholesome time, politically, because at least print required somebody to digest potentially complex arguments -- which ignores widespread illiteracy and semi-literacy, as well as the fact that plenty of politicking went on independent of the presses.

[Patrick Degan]

Are you even reading the same fucking thread the rest of us are? Do you not understand that "sheer brute-force Pavlovian conditioning" IS continual repetition of the same stimulus?

The claim that there is something more pernicious about modern political expression, because of the vehicle, needs evidence. The hypothesis that the media is today more manipulative because it plays on our psychology ignores the fact that rhetoric was practiced for just that reason since before it was described by the ancient Greeks.

Mike complained that corporations are sufficiently wealthy to cast a stream of information and conditioning at their target audience -- and acts as if the owners of printing presses in the 18th century, or the partisans of the various political parties of the time, did anything different with their resources. He then claims that it was somehow a more wholesome time, politically, because at least print required somebody to digest potentially complex arguments -- which ignores widespread illiteracy and semi-literacy, as well as the fact that plenty of politicking went on independent of the presses.

Aren't you just full of shit. You keep ignoring the scale issue that differentiates wholly printed political communication from modern day, 24/7 infotainment "news" —in which a lie can circulate unchallenged a hundred times during the news cycle before the first whisper of the truth of a matter even gets out, and then is buried as the lie starts making the next hundred-repetition cycle and so forth. That is a propaganda machine which no William Randolph Hearst or Joseph Goebbels would even have dreamed of being able to manipulate and reaches the literate, semi-literate, and illiterate simultaneously and subjects them to a continual drumbeat of a select message drowning out every other message.

Secondly, you are being patently dishonest in strawmandering Mike's claim that the previous era of printed-only communication was more "wholesome". He said no such thing about "wholesomeness" nor claimed that discourse was any better than what we get now than back in the age of pamphleteering or yellow newspapers, only that a printed pamphlet required a modicum of thought to digest. That's not making a claim as to the quality of the communication or that the discourse in the previous era was "better".

[Axis Kast]

Aren't you just full of shit. You keep ignoring the scale issue that differentiates wholly printed political communication from modern day, 24/7 infotainment "news" —in which a lie can circulate unchallenged a hundred times during the news cycle before the first whisper of the truth of a matter even gets out, and then is buried as the lie starts making the next hundred-repetition cycle and so forth.

The scope and speed with which we can purvey a lie has increased. So has the number of competing news outlets; the proportion of our society which is literate and educated; and the number of people with access to an Internet connection which permits them to call down information on any subject, often instantaneously.

That is a propaganda machine which no William Randolph Hearst or Joseph Goebbels would even have dreamed of being able to manipulate and reaches the literate, semi-literate, and illiterate simultaneously and subjects them to a continual drumbeat of a select message drowning out every other message.

It's called radio.

However, your entire argument is flawed because you insist that a particular message cannot be refused. When I dislike the content offered me on one news channel, I switch over to another. The same people who choose to listen only to one kind of news today would also choose to read only one sort of paper in the 1890s or the 1770s. They would also be unable to benefit from access to any factual resources, such as are provided by credible media organizations and academia today, which are now more widely available than ever before.

Secondly, you are being patently dishonest in strawmandering Mike's claim that the previous era of printed-only communication was more "wholesome". He said no such thing about "wholesomeness" nor claimed that discourse was any better than what we get now than back in the age of pamphleteering or yellow newspapers, only that a printed pamphlet required a modicum of thought to digest. That's not making a claim as to the quality of the communication or that the discourse in the previous era was "better".

Dishonest? Mike clearly alleged that television is a more pernicious medium than a printing press, completely without respect to context. His point is either wrong, or else worthless, because the two technologies do not function in a vacuum for convenient purposes of comparison.

Of course, if Mike cares to clarify, let him. Why try to debate his purposes through you?

[Patrick Degan]

Aren't you just full of shit. You keep ignoring the scale issue that differentiates wholly printed political communication from modern day, 24/7 infotainment "news" —in which a lie can circulate unchallenged a hundred times during the news cycle before the first whisper of the truth of a matter even gets out, and then is buried as the lie starts making the next hundred-repetition cycle and so forth.

The scope and speed with which we can purvey a lie has increased. So has the number of competing news outlets; the proportion of our society which is literate and educated; and the number of people with access to an Internet connection which permits them to call down information on any subject, often instantaneously.

Which would be a nice and relevant argument if the very people who get bombarded with propaganda actually bothered to do that sort of fact-checking in the first place. Most people are passive receivers, not active questioners, and TV is a very convenient device to do all a person's thinking for him.

That is a propaganda machine which no William Randolph Hearst or Joseph Goebbels would even have dreamed of being able to manipulate and reaches the literate, semi-literate, and illiterate simultaneously and subjects them to a continual drumbeat of a select message drowning out every other message.

It's called radio.

Radio in Goebbels' day wasn't supplemented with 24/7 television propaganda, and didn't opeate 24/7 even in his day.

However, your entire argument is flawed because you insist that a particular message cannot be refused. When I dislike the content offered me on one news channel, I switch over to another. The same people who choose to listen only to one kind of news today would also choose to read only one sort of paper in the 1890s or the 1770s. They would also be unable to benefit from access to any factual resources, such as are provided by credible media organizations and academia today, which are now more widely available than ever before.

And when all the channels are essentially drumbeating the same propaganda message —as they so conveniently did for the late maladministration to help it lie this country right into the Iraq War— a channel-clicker does fuck-all for finding an alternative message.

Secondly, you are being patently dishonest in strawmandering Mike's claim that the previous era of printed-only communication was more "wholesome". He said no such thing about "wholesomeness" nor claimed that discourse was any better than what we get now than back in the age of pamphleteering or yellow newspapers, only that a printed pamphlet required a modicum of thought to digest. That's not making a claim as to the quality of the communication or that the discourse in the previous era was "better".

Dishonest? Mike clearly alleged that television is a more pernicious medium than a printing press, completely without respect to context. His point is either wrong, or else worthless, because the two technologies do not function in a vacuum for convenient purposes of comparison.

No, Axi, you do not get to invent a "context" which is convenient to a false argument you keep trying to flog.

[Darth Wong]

None of them involve Pavlovian sensory conditioning. Pavlovian sensory conditioning bypasses the conscious mind. It is a highly advanced technique, honed by decades of television advertising research. We are lab rats in a largely successful experiment to create machines which order our thought patterns for us.

And public debate, during the Founders' day, was political theater. The winner entertained his audience, as much as he convinced them of the correctness of his position. The political process itself? Farcical. One obtained voters through the work of hot-headed editorials that presented the facts as only one side wished them to be made known (as today), or because he had promised them a hearty spread and free liquor.

To describe early America as somehow more democratic, or to discount the effect that technology has had on allowing individuals to educate themselves on more than merely the local set of issues, and to communicate their demands directly, is to do utter disservice to the evidence.

You can't seriously be so damned stupid that you think the associative conditioning techniques of modern advertising have anything to do with "debate" or "editorials" or even "communication". Don't you get it? Pavlovian conditioning completely bypasses all of that. It creates a conditioned reflex response in the subject, which has nothing to do with the ways that people normally communicate with each other. It is nothing at all like an argument, or a debate, or any kind of discussion or speech.

This is not about quality of dialogue; this is about completely bypassing your conscious mind in order to assault your unconscious mind. That's how modern advertising works. And guess what: sensory conditioning is more effective if you affects more of your senses. TV gets two: hearing and sight.

[Lusankya]

You can't seriously be so damned stupid that you think the associative conditioning techniques of modern advertising have anything to do with "debate" or "editorials" or even "communication". Don't you get it? Pavlovian conditioning completely bypasses all of that. It creates a conditioned reflex response in the subject, which has nothing to do with the ways that people normally communicate with each other. It is nothing at all like an argument, or a debate, or any kind of discussion or speech.

I remember in the 2004 Australian election, the Liberal party briefly ran a campaign ad in which a picture of Latham's image was shown while the ad was making an annoying high pitched noise which wasn't loud enough to stop people from hearing the "political message" that was being read out (probably something to do with Labor making interest rates high), but was loud enough to make people associate Latham's face with discomfort. IIRC, it got pulled by the Advertising Standards Bureau pretty fast, precisely because it was using Pavlovian conditioning techniques. It's probably difficult to rate how much effect that ad had on people because a) it was only on briefly and b) Latham was a nutter anyway, so plenty of people voted against him on that basis, but the fact is, the only thing that stopped the Howard Government from using techniques like that was a strong regulatory body, which I'm not entirely sure exists in the US.