I think it’s plausible that manipulation via propaganda can affect behavior, but such a manipulation would have as it’s aim to prevent the target from changing his mind ever again. Thus the observed lack of people changing their mind on politically contentious topics would reflect not lmmunity to memetic contagion, but instead that they were indoctrinated very well by whomever had been the first to bamboozle them , probably in school or through mass media, though other routes are plausible too. This naturally means that most indoctrination and propaganda is spread close to even across the population. So far as somebody doesn’t agree with both schoolteachers and mass media, they were instead either resistant to both school indoctrination…
Genes, Memes, and Manipulability
KKtw •
Replies (2)
Iitisiv •
#186The fact that the propagandized so rarely follow their professed beliefs where they might be personally harmed (as you pointed out) indicates that their professed beliefs are not sincerely held but rather a compromise to whatever authority/social force is attempting to impose said beliefs. From this it also follows that relative vulnerability to said authority would predict compromise to it, and I believe this is observed in the fact that women, who are more generally vulnerable, tend to be susceptible to propaganda then men. Propaganda serves more to signal power on the part of the propagandist. The fact it exists is its most important function. This is why propaganda doesnt try to hide itself. If you’ve seen compilations of news stations all reciting exactly the same lines and wondered why our nations propagandists would be so sloppily ostentatious, its because that the whole point. People need to know that this messaging is coming from people who can control the news, this alone implies coercive power and can often affect behavior with this implication alone.
If you havent seen the videos Im talking about heres an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI
KKtw • • reply to #186
#196The propagandized do vote against their own interests, which suggests they really have wrong beliefs, they just move away from pain caused by being close to poor africans and having transsexuals near their children, and invent epicycles to justify it. For instance young urban Middle classes should be right wing electorally from a selfish standpoint, but aren’t. If your college or employer or social environment would retaliate, just lie to them about whom you voted for. But no, they’re 2/3 lib everywhere. So I do think the connection between mutational load and leftism is likely to be via being easy to propagandize, or having low genetic resistance to conforming with the opinions of the powerful, the high status and peer groups. Also likely a substantial part of environmental variance in leftism might be how strongly somebody was left-propagandized in childhood.
Post a Reply
Log in to reply.