4 ms·

I find this dictionary definition quite fitting: "2. any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, especially one based on repetition or confusion" https

I find this dictionary definition quite fitting: "2. any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, especially one based on repetition or confusion" https://www.dictionary.com/browse/brainwashing https://www.dictionary.com/browse/brainwashing

card_zero 3y ago
Then you didn't find definition 1 quite fitting.
- jampekka 3y ago
  Not as snugly. "a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs," fits very well. "originated in totalitarian countries" not so much, and "especially through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques" very little, although it's an "especially", so not a required feature. The "originated in totalitarian countries" is a bit odd requirement for my taste. Of course, if one wants to use that definition, then by definition even "a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques" is not brainwashing if it doesn't originate from a country that is defined as totalitarian with some definition.
  - spencerflem 3y ago
    yeah, I think in retrospect maybe part of the confusion is that some people's definition of brainwashing is only the torture/drugs definition, while mine and yours presumably has always included propaganda and other purely psychological means. But its hard to convince someone ads are brainwashing when to their mind its just completely obviously something else. In the end its all language games anyways when we hopefully should all be able to agree that it's a problem that 20% of the GDP to be spent trying to control our thoughts
    - card_zero 3y ago
      Would you be OK with 1% of GDP? But would you really be OK with some authority deciding how much gets spent on it? Or is the amount not the real issue? There's an ad in the article itself: it was offering me 25% off a subscription to MIT Technology Review during Earth Week. I didn't ask to see that information. It was trying to get me to do something I wasn't very interested in. Is that advert part of the problem, or is it one you'd arbitrarily allow?
      - jampekka 3y ago
        I'm very OK that some authority (democratically accountable) decides what the advertisements can contain, and how prevalent they are allowed to be. I.e. that advertising is regulated. And it is regulated to an extent, but IMHO it should be regulated dramatically more and the existing regulations should be actually enforced. And at least in Finland, where I'm from, it used to be way way way more regulated than it is nowadays. E.g. advertising to children was universally banned. Ads weren't allowed to air around news. Product placement was strictly banned. TV ads could be put out only every 15 minutes or so, and they could last only a minute or two. Before this commercial radio and TV broadcasts were banned altogether for a long time. Etc etc. The "25% off a subscription to MIT Technology Review during Earth Week" kind of ads were probably banned (and maybe still are in theory). When a product was allowed to be on sale was strictly regulated (had to be sold on the "real" price for vast majority of the time). There's some new EU legislation for restricting "sales" like this, but I don't think they will be effectively enforced (see e.g. GDPR). Non-deceptive ways of informing people about factual product features and availability in reasonable volume (e.g. 1-5% of average communicated information) is probably fine. Modern ads have very little to do with such. They are a huge engine that dramatically shape how people think and act in general, e.g. making them want or even need products that don't really benefit them and making them labor to get such products. Consumerism is the main ideology of contemporary western cultures and this is mainly due to advertising.
        card_zero 3y ago
        Yes. So what this comes down to is, scams should be illegal, and a lot of advertising is scam-like, and deciding how to regulate it is a work in progress. But the topic has now moved away from brainwashing - except I suppose that some people who are exceptionally vulnerable to being scammed will also be vulnerable to repetitious pressure. It's not an aspect of adverts per se. On the whole though you're just saying "some adverts are bad and should be stopped by regulators", which isn't going to attract much disagreement, except in the details. And regulations (beer and bread, for example) are as old as the hills, and so is consuming stuff (is that the same as consumerism?) - I think the problem is recent rapid innovations in legally permissible scamming.

card_zero 3y ago

Then you didn't find definition 1 quite fitting.

jampekka 3y ago
Not as snugly. "a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs," fits very well. "originated in totalitarian countries" not so much, and "especially through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques" very little, although it's an "especially", so not a required feature. The "originated in totalitarian countries" is a bit odd requirement for my taste. Of course, if one wants to use that definition, then by definition even "a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques" is not brainwashing if it doesn't originate from a country that is defined as totalitarian with some definition.
- spencerflem 3y ago
  yeah, I think in retrospect maybe part of the confusion is that some people's definition of brainwashing is only the torture/drugs definition, while mine and yours presumably has always included propaganda and other purely psychological means. But its hard to convince someone ads are brainwashing when to their mind its just completely obviously something else. In the end its all language games anyways when we hopefully should all be able to agree that it's a problem that 20% of the GDP to be spent trying to control our thoughts
  - card_zero 3y ago
    Would you be OK with 1% of GDP? But would you really be OK with some authority deciding how much gets spent on it? Or is the amount not the real issue? There's an ad in the article itself: it was offering me 25% off a subscription to MIT Technology Review during Earth Week. I didn't ask to see that information. It was trying to get me to do something I wasn't very interested in. Is that advert part of the problem, or is it one you'd arbitrarily allow?
    - jampekka 3y ago
      I'm very OK that some authority (democratically accountable) decides what the advertisements can contain, and how prevalent they are allowed to be. I.e. that advertising is regulated. And it is regulated to an extent, but IMHO it should be regulated dramatically more and the existing regulations should be actually enforced. And at least in Finland, where I'm from, it used to be way way way more regulated than it is nowadays. E.g. advertising to children was universally banned. Ads weren't allowed to air around news. Product placement was strictly banned. TV ads could be put out only every 15 minutes or so, and they could last only a minute or two. Before this commercial radio and TV broadcasts were banned altogether for a long time. Etc etc. The "25% off a subscription to MIT Technology Review during Earth Week" kind of ads were probably banned (and maybe still are in theory). When a product was allowed to be on sale was strictly regulated (had to be sold on the "real" price for vast majority of the time). There's some new EU legislation for restricting "sales" like this, but I don't think they will be effectively enforced (see e.g. GDPR). Non-deceptive ways of informing people about factual product features and availability in reasonable volume (e.g. 1-5% of average communicated information) is probably fine. Modern ads have very little to do with such. They are a huge engine that dramatically shape how people think and act in general, e.g. making them want or even need products that don't really benefit them and making them labor to get such products. Consumerism is the main ideology of contemporary western cultures and this is mainly due to advertising.
      - card_zero 3y ago
        Yes. So what this comes down to is, scams should be illegal, and a lot of advertising is scam-like, and deciding how to regulate it is a work in progress. But the topic has now moved away from brainwashing - except I suppose that some people who are exceptionally vulnerable to being scammed will also be vulnerable to repetitious pressure. It's not an aspect of adverts per se. On the whole though you're just saying "some adverts are bad and should be stopped by regulators", which isn't going to attract much disagreement, except in the details. And regulations (beer and bread, for example) are as old as the hills, and so is consuming stuff (is that the same as consumerism?) - I think the problem is recent rapid innovations in legally permissible scamming.