13 ms·

> If it was successful thought control, then we couldn't have a discussion about it. Nobody would know what you were referring to. I wonder if you believe that

> If it was successful thought control, then we couldn't have a discussion about it. Nobody would know what you were referring to. I wonder if you believe that this kind of absolute, unsubtle thought control is what Ursula Le Guin was talking about with the brush example, or what the parent post was talking about. Or even what Orwell was talking about.

mercer 6y ago
To me it seems that's what the discussion boils down to. I agree that words cannot 'control' thoughts fully, but I also agree that Ursula Le Guin didn't argue this at all but rather that the /way/ we use words has an effect on how we think about these concepts, and as such can be used for manipulation. There are plenty of studies that show that saying the same thing in different wording can drastically change how people feel about these things. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is really popular in the full 'thought-control' kind of way, and I do believe that that is not well supported.
perl4ever 6y ago
There's been some doubt created about what Le Guin was talking about. I don't have the context handy. What Orwell was talking about, what he thought or feared possible, I disagree with, and, well, you can compare our society to 1984. There is a tremendous amount of propaganda, and it has an effect, but don't you agree that as warped as the mental space we collectively inhabit may be, that it's not under control of a specific entity? Even in, say, the Soviet Union, it wasn't under control. Maybe some day when totalitarians can program brains...
- justin66 6y ago
  > but don't you agree that as warped as the mental space we collectively inhabit may be, that it's not under control of a specific entity? Yes, I agree that the case of a single entity being able to use words to place thoughts directly in minds like a TV version of hypnosis or etch them out of minds as if with electroshock therapy is not an accurate description of... anything. It's not what anyone means when they talk about words shaping thought, an idea which you disparaged so vituperatively - which would be understandable if anyone meant by it what you seem to be implying they mean. They can mean a number of things, whether it's a coach or leader influencing the attitudes of their followers, a person seeking to direct their own train of thought, a movement using language to dehumanize a minority group, an advertiser affecting how the public views a product, or a propagandist or politician attempting to move the Overton Window. Or many other things, more or less subtle.

mercer 6y ago

To me it seems that's what the discussion boils down to. I agree that words cannot 'control' thoughts fully, but I also agree that Ursula Le Guin didn't argue this at all but rather that the /way/ we use words has an effect on how we think about these concepts, and as such can be used for manipulation. There are plenty of studies that show that saying the same thing in different wording can drastically change how people feel about these things. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is really popular in the full 'thought-control' kind of way, and I do believe that that is not well supported.

perl4ever 6y ago

There's been some doubt created about what Le Guin was talking about. I don't have the context handy. What Orwell was talking about, what he thought or feared possible, I disagree with, and, well, you can compare our society to 1984. There is a tremendous amount of propaganda, and it has an effect, but don't you agree that as warped as the mental space we collectively inhabit may be, that it's not under control of a specific entity? Even in, say, the Soviet Union, it wasn't under control. Maybe some day when totalitarians can program brains...

justin66 6y ago
> but don't you agree that as warped as the mental space we collectively inhabit may be, that it's not under control of a specific entity? Yes, I agree that the case of a single entity being able to use words to place thoughts directly in minds like a TV version of hypnosis or etch them out of minds as if with electroshock therapy is not an accurate description of... anything. It's not what anyone means when they talk about words shaping thought, an idea which you disparaged so vituperatively - which would be understandable if anyone meant by it what you seem to be implying they mean. They can mean a number of things, whether it's a coach or leader influencing the attitudes of their followers, a person seeking to direct their own train of thought, a movement using language to dehumanize a minority group, an advertiser affecting how the public views a product, or a propagandist or politician attempting to move the Overton Window. Or many other things, more or less subtle.