. . Subject: Re: Fixing the Communications Failure (Cultural Cognition) . . . . . . . . . > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Not really I guess, because if they have different values they want different values to dominate society. For example the authoritarian and individualistic supportive people, who - say - like a fair fight to establish merit and ability, prefer perhaps great income disparity to motivate those who are incompetent to shape up or just die; whereas those who favor more egalitarian society would perhaps want those who are more competent and able to lend a helping and teaching hand to those more incompetent and ignorant, so that all could live well and none would be extremely much more wealthy while others died from their incompetence, or lack of being helped the egalitarians might say. So they aren't rooting for the same outcome, and they may be in a sort of battle. But deeper still may be the goal of the survival of humanity, without which there would be nothing. Since monkeys need to fight among themselves to keep litterally fighting fit, and those who don't are in danger of loosing their edge (note that the love making bonobo chimp species is also called 'dwarf chimp,' which seems to show circumstantial proof that not fighting already causes those chimps to have developed into an enferior fighting species that one day may actually get wiped out by the bigger war chimps). Hence since we descend from these mammels, humans may still be pre-dispositioned to constantly attempt to find causes to fight with each other, while re-enforcing bonds with one of the factions. The differences of opinion and taste are merely props, excuses, to go to war, where war is the real goal, a goal that needs no real reasons. Around this survival strategy and condition you can get side-effects, like if you're not in either camp you're in your own camp and likely to die off, etc. This reasoning could be one of the causes for why people work themselves into cliques that start to fight, and why they also figth internally over control over their camp/clique/tribe/network/class/corporation/ nation/world, etc. The want the fight, because they instinctually are programmed to 'know' that war means survival, and so through war all the factions attempt to gain a single objective together for the species: survival, and through survival experience happiness. Only one problem with this: humanity does not find survival through war, through excess infighting and group formation for fighting anymore, but rather faces extinction. Humanity is no longer in the mammel niche in the biological world, but has changed into the technical niche. In the technical nich survival comes through co-operation, reasoned arguments, admitting you are wrong when you are, science, peace, solidarity. Apparently humanity has instincts bred into it for tens of millions of years perhaps, very much longer then humanity had access to truly body independent technical power, which didn't really occur until the last century - and even then you still need to be athletic enough to point the gun and take the kickback of the weapon. There are still lingering parts of the old animal-infighting niche surviving, although eventually it will all get eliminated, probably rather quickly now - in the next centuries. In real life however, humans in high tech wealthy western society don't face a threat from animals, probably mostly because our technical power is also in our infrastructure. Anyway, if it seems that the studies suggest a sort of irrational instinctive change of opinion toward illogically opposing the cultural color of another (created) camp, that would fit with this. Quite possibly using students for the study may have made the correlation between cultural side-information and the real scientific data (or presumed real) stronger, assuming that children re-live the ancient past of the species. Since the youngest children are not in much fighting and need all the solidarity from their group, the youngest children might 'mis-identify' anyone they see as their own camp, or perhaps unless the distinction is sufficiently clear and not vague. This might change when the individuals get to an age where they would become economically self-sufficient and able to go to war. Since the human species has had to adapt to peace rather then war, or should have but maybe has done some (presumably it has, or wouldn't we be throwing insults at each other here -- oh shit we do !), perhaps individuals at some age get into the periods where the more recent peace adaptations have occured. This would perhaps be a reason behind the idea that when people get older they become kinder people, less easily angered by nothing important. Perhaps it is interesting to do the study for all kinds of age groups and intelligence levels, and even different peoples. > ... > ... > ... Perhaps if people realized how humanity is evolving into another niche, in which war means death and extinction, that this knowledge itself might have a positive impact on their appreciation of objective data over group-loyalties that ultimately are merely designed to become excuses for war. However there is a cultural problem with this: capitalist financiers want to exploit labor, and for this to be credible the people must not know that peace is the way. Since academia and big business and high finance are enmeshed, a nice word of saying they are all bitterly corrupt, whores to capital, it is highly questionable that academia would yield to objective scientific reasoning itself, without a major societal upheaval in the highest quarters of Government and the money and economic power enforcing it on them and re-casting the group loyalties of these very scientists who think they are so objective but in reality are merely playing the tune of what they correctly perceive to be their ruling alpha-pair: corporate chieftains and the criminal money powers. The big question is: can science do science, and if so when will she get to it ? A great way to know is, I guess, when science will stop supplying the forces of war with new tools of war. When science will put its knowledge to work in the persuit of peace and justice, for real and not merely for show (as they have up to now). When they start to demand democracy, and stop shilling for dictatorship, because dictatorship is everywhere while democracy is mostly an imperceptible vagueness lost in lies and corruption, greed and idiocy, nationalism .... > ... > ... Why does it scare me to read that capitalist scientists are studying how to control cultural cognition ? A healthy bias against the group of people responsible for some of the worst outcries of human suffering the last centuries maybe ? What reason is there to belief this knowledge will get used for good more then used for evil ? If these scientists where looking to do good, wheren't they campaigning for the impeachment of liar Obama right now, for example ? > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Of course all this is absolutely true. If I had billed myself an anarchist for example, the anarchists would have flocked to my side, or at least we would be on speaking terms. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... There they go: manufacturing consent. Whores to capital bosses. The maffia is very pleased with your work, whores, they can use this, whores. They probably will attempt to see if it works. What are they going to sell us, a world currency ? world war 3 ? Dictatorship (in companies) is liberty ? Servitude is happiness ? You should always think who can abuse what you write/make-up, because it will get in the wrong hands or you should assume it can. Many evil people are quite ignorant, dull witted and emotionally self centered, thrill based creatures, but smart enough to try out the advice of smarter people to see if they work. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Which may not be an illigitemate conclusion, because if a member of their community accepts it, they have a reason to belief that the issue conforms to the values of that community, assuming that the person in question did compare the issue with those values already, and assuming that the person in question wants to stay part of the group and has not changed being part of that community, assuming that an established position is not easily given up and may very well be working well for that person giving it no motivation to change. If they think the person is knowledgeable, they may even believe the verification wrt to values of the community was especially rigorous, and therefore more trustworthy, perhaps even better then they could (in a short period of time at least). > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Interesting focus on manipulation here, in the sense of pulling out a manufactured image 'recognized as.' > ... > ... Maybe giving HPV vaccinations /is/ condoning permissive practices, how about a little objectivity. Seems it is automatically assumed that the scientists know everything, and are therefore right in using any means of scientifically engineered but pure evil of course lying manipulations to get their way with the people. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... "of course" hehe. Isn't pulling out a few actors a case of bringing information in a socio-engineered biased way to get it accepted ? > ... > ... Oh no, science communicators don't want to break out a pack of manipulators to sell their stories to the target audiences ? Glad to hear it. Let them dress up how they like, maybe we the people need those clues as well about them. > ... > ... > ... > ... Sounds like a great plan, let's stick to it. > ... the truth ? > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Maybe they are wars between opposing views, isn't that at least how it is ? Isn't it true that scientists can have bitter disputes between opposing views ? If that's how it is, then that is how it is. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... No. We disagree already, now what. :) Is this because of different side-values ? You being whores to capital and corporate chieftains and the great USA war machine (presumably), also in another continent. Maybe the problem was your communication included too much focus on wanton manipulation, which is just pure bullshitting the people and lying to get your way, using actors to play certain stereotypes to get people to think they where watching people who believe things they too believe. The art of tyranny is what was described. Maybe if this had been brought more in the sense of cultural harmony, how to communicate something in someone its own cultural language, that it would have appealed to someone in the egalitarian camp ... that would of course have been nothing new either. Sad that they've taken a research that seemed it could be about the irrationality of clique formation, about the irrationality of the war between the communities producing incorrect positions on science data, and they turned that instead into a way to push their own agenda on people using stage actors and basically lying that way. They could have made an appeal to the people to acknowledge excessive clique formation hurting society at large, and left it at that. Instead they hand the maffia a play-book for how to manipulate the masses some more. The Brezinskis of the world like nothing better then this kind of manipulation research, don't they. The world is not doing great, everything you say and do can be used against you, objective or not. It is a war for peace, don't give the enemy more ammunition then they already have and are using. If the people don't want to be objective, then let them not be objective, it is their lives, their choices.