4 ms·

Not as snugly. "a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs," fits very well. "originated in totalitarian countries" not so much, and "e

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.
      - jampekka 3y ago
        The brainwashing part is more subtle than simple scams. And most advertising doesn't really work in the simple way that it would create just an urge to buy something with repetition or persuasion. It affects us all, directly and indirectly, not just some exceptionally vulnerable. Vast majority of ads try to link some connotations to their product/service/brand. E.g. young attractive women happen to be around a certain beer brand. But when you buy the beer, it doesn't come with the women included. It didn't of course outright claim that it would, but the women are put in the ad to create such connotation, and it seems to work. Is that a scam? In any case it's misleading and manipulative. Now, that's just one case. But there are thousands (millions?) such products/services/scams with their own misleading and manipulative connotations. And together these manipulate the whole culture and society. It transcends just the individuals seeing the ads. Diamonds are a good example of purely ad-constructed social phenomenon. By associating diamonds with true forever love and devotion and appreciation and whatever, they suddenly become "valuable". And the individual doesn't even have to believe any of this, but if they think that others believe it, they can deem that other people think they are worthy of appreciation and whatever if somebody bought them a diamond. Of course all of this happens very subconsciously, but it works very effectively. This is how a lot of advertising works. By manipulating whole societal beliefs and values. That's even beyond brainwashing. Consumerism isn't just buying stuff. It's about people e.g. identifying themselves and others based on what (brand) they buy. The actual product doesn't necessarily even matter itself, it's all the connotations that are associated to them societally with ads. Fashion items are a clear example of this, but it happens with all sorts of goods. Edit: here's an overview of some theories on how ads work, from advertisers: https://adassoc.org.uk/credos/how-does-advertising-work/ https://adassoc.org.uk/credos/how-does-advertising-work/

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.
    - jampekka 3y ago
      The brainwashing part is more subtle than simple scams. And most advertising doesn't really work in the simple way that it would create just an urge to buy something with repetition or persuasion. It affects us all, directly and indirectly, not just some exceptionally vulnerable. Vast majority of ads try to link some connotations to their product/service/brand. E.g. young attractive women happen to be around a certain beer brand. But when you buy the beer, it doesn't come with the women included. It didn't of course outright claim that it would, but the women are put in the ad to create such connotation, and it seems to work. Is that a scam? In any case it's misleading and manipulative. Now, that's just one case. But there are thousands (millions?) such products/services/scams with their own misleading and manipulative connotations. And together these manipulate the whole culture and society. It transcends just the individuals seeing the ads. Diamonds are a good example of purely ad-constructed social phenomenon. By associating diamonds with true forever love and devotion and appreciation and whatever, they suddenly become "valuable". And the individual doesn't even have to believe any of this, but if they think that others believe it, they can deem that other people think they are worthy of appreciation and whatever if somebody bought them a diamond. Of course all of this happens very subconsciously, but it works very effectively. This is how a lot of advertising works. By manipulating whole societal beliefs and values. That's even beyond brainwashing. Consumerism isn't just buying stuff. It's about people e.g. identifying themselves and others based on what (brand) they buy. The actual product doesn't necessarily even matter itself, it's all the connotations that are associated to them societally with ads. Fashion items are a clear example of this, but it happens with all sorts of goods. Edit: here's an overview of some theories on how ads work, from advertisers: https://adassoc.org.uk/credos/how-does-advertising-work/ https://adassoc.org.uk/credos/how-does-advertising-work/