Thread: Money doesn't buy elections

Originally Posted by misterman

Yes, we already do that. At least my school did. It's a good idea. Basic critical thinking skills.



When you start talking about the mind control stuff, it gets into tinfoil hat territory.

First of all, we do NOT do that. Not even nominally. We teach to standardized tests. There is NO emphasis on development of critical thinking skills until the college level.

Second, your insistence on going all the way past "undue influence of unsuspecting subjects" to "mind control" is a reduction to absurdity argument.

Persuasion is a science of percentages. Based on things like focus groups. IE "40% of white males age 18-35 will respond favorably to a message that includes element "x". "

Put another way, if your critical thinking premise is correct then I assume you are incapable of enjoying stage magic because your critical thinking skills cause you to see through every trick. Their entire stock in trade is tricking you into believing you are seeing things you are not.

And that there are no con men in the world, because critical thinking causes everyone to see through their tricks. "Mind control" it ain't, but they've been tricking people into handing over their money for centuries. So its not a huge leap to posit that the same cognitive "glitches" they use can be used to trick people into handing over their votes.

And as an aside, some of the techniques in play are immune to critical thinking. They exploit "hardwiring" and allow the unscrupulous to "bypass" our critical thinking tools.

A specific curricula examining how these techniques work and how they are implemented would be necessary to armor one against them.

Originally Posted by misterman

Yeah. So? Same goes for volunteers. You ever volunteer for an election campaign? Was that corrupt?

What about the media - when they praise a candidate, that's also free publicity for him/her. Corruption?



Please just state your own opinion without these side comments.

Sorry, there is an unconscious or deliberate disconnect in your reasoning. Or your presentation thereof.

There is NO functional difference between private wealth donating billions DIRECTLY to a campaign or INDIRECTLY by picking up the tab for advertising, "hackumentaries" etc. In fact it provides a significant ADVANTAGE over direct contributions because it creates "plausible deniability" (see recent Gingrich SuperPAC Romney ad).

So a simple extension of your argument is that you would have no problem with unlimited direct contributions. Because there is NO functional difference.

I simply don't believe that you believe that campaigns and superpacs aren't bypassing coordination regulations. The only way they could EVER get "caught" is if they admitted doing it. Or were so foolish as to generate evidence that could fall into the wrong hands in the first place.

Originally Posted by misterman

Sure they do. So what? That's freedom of speech. But the issue was donations to candidates.

Which, as you said, is limited, and as I said, there are more ways around the limitations than mosquitoes in the Everglades.

which might have been just a slight exaggeration.

Originally Posted by What if...?

First of all, we do NOT do that. Not even nominally. We teach to standardized tests. There is NO emphasis on development of critical thinking skills until the college level.

Whoa there. I learned it in elementary school. I'm sure some schools don't do it now, but I imagine many still do. You can't just generalize like that. In any event, we agree that they SHOULD.

Second, your insistence on going all the way past "undue influence of unsuspecting subjects" to "mind control" is a reduction to absurdity argument.

Not really. Listen to yourself some time.

Persuasion is a science of percentages. Based on things like focus groups. IE "40% of white males age 18-35 will respond favorably to a message that includes element "x". "

Sure, but you go much further than that with your claims.

Put another way, if your critical thinking premise is correct then I assume you are incapable of enjoying stage magic because your critical thinking skills cause you to see through every trick. Their entire stock in trade is tricking you into believing you are seeing things you are not.

I can enjoy it and know it's not real at the same time. That's just how advanced my skills are (and most people's).

Do you enjoy magic? Do you know it's not real?

And that there are no con men in the world, because critical thinking causes everyone to see through their tricks. "Mind control" it ain't, but they've been tricking people into handing over their money for centuries. So its not a huge leap to posit that the same cognitive "glitches" they use can be used to trick people into handing over their votes.

Sure, people can be conned. Didn't say they're perfect.

And as an aside, some of the techniques in play are immune to critical thinking. They exploit "hardwiring" and allow the unscrupulous to "bypass" our critical thinking tools.

This is where you get into the mind control stuff.

A specific curricula examining how these techniques work and how they are implemented would be necessary to armor one against them.

Or a secret talisman worn around your neck to guard against bewitchment.

Originally Posted by Dittohead not!

Which, as you said, is limited, and as I said, there are more ways around the limitations than mosquitoes in the Everglades.

Which I said wasn't true. Around the circle we go.

which might have been just a slight exaggeration.

No, an enormous falsehood.

Originally Posted by What if...?

There is NO functional difference between private wealth donating billions DIRECTLY to a campaign or INDIRECTLY by picking up the tab for advertising, "hackumentaries" etc. In fact it provides a significant ADVANTAGE over direct contributions because it creates "plausible deniability" (see recent Gingrich SuperPAC Romney ad).

There's an ENORMOUS difference.

If there isn't, then you are giving Romney (for example) a donation whenever you say something good about him or put a Romney bumper sticker on your car.

I simply don't believe that you believe that campaigns and superpacs aren't bypassing coordination regulations.

Oh, I never said they aren't bypassing them. I said such coordination rules exist.

BIG difference. Do not confuse the two.

The only way they could EVER get "caught" is if they admitted doing it. Or were so foolish as to generate evidence that could fall into the wrong hands in the first place.

So this is nothing more than a law enforcement matter.

Originally Posted by What if...?

First of all, we do NOT do that. Not even nominally. We teach to standardized tests. There is NO emphasis on development of critical thinking skills until the college level.

The test includes separating fact from opinion, understanding cause and effect, comparing and contrasting, and reading for meaning.

Don't those qualify as critical thinking skills?

Originally Posted by Dittohead not!

The test includes separating fact from opinion, understanding cause and effect, comparing and contrasting, and reading for meaning.

Each state has its own tests, and there are different tests at different grade levels. You can't simply speak of "the test."

Originally Posted by misterman

Each state has its own tests, and there are different tests at different grade levels. You can't simply speak of "the test."

I know from personal experience that the test in California includes those things, because I was required to teach them to fourth graders. I'd be willing to bet that the ones in other states do as well. If they don't, then they should.

Originally Posted by misterman

Whoa there. I learned it in elementary school. I'm sure some schools don't do it now, but I imagine many still do. You can't just generalize like that. In any event, we agree that they SHOULD.



Not really. Listen to yourself some time.



Sure, but you go much further than that with your claims.



I can enjoy it and know it's not real at the same time. That's just how advanced my skills are (and most people's).

Do you enjoy magic? Do you know it's not real?



Sure, people can be conned. Didn't say they're perfect.



This is where you get into the mind control stuff.



Or a secret talisman worn around your neck to guard against bewitchment.

How many major universities have entire departments deidicated to UFOs, vampires, the illuminati, 9/11 truth, birtherism?

Cognitive Neuroscience is a REAL thing. There is an actual science to persuasion. You can get degrees from major universities. Its part of Communications curricula as well.

Human beings have stimulous/response patterns just like every other animal. Those who stand to profit or benefit from delineating them are and have been doing so, apart from whats been learned through simple scientific curiosity.

Getting someone to believe something that isn't true isn't "mind control".

Inducing warm fuzzy feelings, or cold spiky feelings, towards something or someone doesn't rise to the level of "mind control" either.

Are you beginning to understand that you sound like someone arguing that the world is flat and at the center of the universe when you go with the "mind control" dismissal?

It is utterly unnecessary to control a persons mind to manipulate many into voting against their best interests. Hell, you can accidently manipulate a person into starving themselves to death.