I am a big proponent of critical thinking. I talk about it fairly frequently here. Recently I encountered a new steemit user who indicated that "Voluntaryism does not require critical thinking" and I found this statement very disturbing on a number of levels. I tried to respond in a positive way stating that it was absolutely vital to it, and I tried to explain that they may not have been exposed to enough of what critical thinking actually encompasses. I was trying to be helpful, especially to a fellow proponent for voluntaryism. I obviously failed as they thought I was giving them an ad hominem attack though I never attacked their character. I wrote quite a few replies to them trying to clear this up. It bothered me. Many of you know who I am, what type of person I am. You know I don't attack a persons character. I can be brutally honest but I will not ad hominem attack someone. If I fail and do so I'd apologize and clarify. Which I did apologize to this person if they took it that way.
This lead me to a thought that I would have wanted to share with him. It is an illustration for why critical thinking is vital to any future ideologically based world whether Voluntaryism, Anarcho-Capitalism, or something else.
The biggest problem with organizations, systems, and governments in history is that ultimately they all are corrupted. Thus, any potential system you wish your descendants to have a better world and live under would need to be prepared to face the corruption.
Corruption usually begins when someone convinces you to give them power to act in your behalf. If they can repeat this process that power grows. As this process continues pretty soon it is those with more power that has been delegated to each other that offer favors, or block others. This is one common form of corruption.
A technique that massively accelerates the process of corruption can be propaganda.
Propaganda is using the media and other sources to manipulate and lead the minds of the masses in a desired direction.
This is very commonly done by using a form of fallacy that is identified in critical thinking as an Appeal to Emotion. They will convince the masses to act a certain way, be outraged at something, happy about something purely by playing to their emotions. An Appeal to Emotion is a logical fallacy and something people who regularly practice and quiz themselves on critical thinking would be far less susceptible to. In fact, they would likely notice the attempt for what it is.
Another common fallacy used in propaganda is an Appeal to Tradition. This is the "We always have done it this way, why should we change" type of statement. This is a logical fallacy. Because, you have done something in the past does not mean it is the best choice or even a wise choice. It could be, but tradition alone is not justification. This is something people who regularly exercise their critical thinking would see as an Appeal to Tradition and thus, be less susceptible to it.
Yet another very common fallacy and perhaps one of the more common is the Appeal to Authority. This is stating that something must be true because some WELL KNOWN person said it was true. No matter who the person is this is not how reason works. If they are speaking in a field of expertise of theirs then there may be a higher probability of it being correct, but it is not guaranteed to be correct. Often the appeal to authority will be used with an authority figure who has no expertise in the subject matter at all. Surprisingly this is a VERY effective logical fallacy. Many people will stop asking questions and just go along with it. A person who exercises and tries to get at critical thinking would be more likely to notice this and less likely to fall for it.
There is also a common technique of misdirection known as a Red herring. Rather than addressing the subject at hand let's talk about something extremely controversial that catches the attention. This can be deemed changing the subject, but really the red herring is when this is done simply to resist answering the question.
The study of critical thinking can be a life long pursuit. We cannot master it. We can only get better at it.
We are all going to make mistakes, but critical thinking teaches us how to discuss these mistakes without feeling the need to lash out and use the types of fallacies, and misdirections I was referring to above.
It seems rather obvious to me that if we push for a voluntaryist society of some kind in the future with no actual governance that critical thinking would be absolutely crucial for interaction between members of society. It would also be crucial in being aware and preventing the common paths to corruption. Without it I suspect that society would be very short lived.
This is true of any ideology. Ideologies can sound great on paper and when talking about them. That is until humans are applied to it and each of these individuals carries out their own paths. I don't see any of these as surviving without a population well versed in critical thinking.
So how does this tie into propaganda?
Propaganda is not about truth. It is about using techniques on a mass scale to manipulate the population.
I imagine that if the majority of the population were versed in critical thinking that this would be mostly ineffective.
The majority of propaganda that I see relies on the population not recognizing the logical fallacies, and things like red herrings for what they are. As long as we cannot recognize them they are very effective.
I watch the news and I see them flagrantly all over the place. It is very rare to find a piece of journalism these days that does not have some of these.
This is another post on why I believe critical thinking is so "critical", and why I have chosen it as one of my personal tasks to undertake. If I can make more people aware of critical thinking and inspire them to go research it, exercise it, and practice it on their own then hopefully I am doing something that can help the future. I am not telling you how you should think. I am pointing you at the tools that will help you forever do your own thinking.
Because the bulk of the masses are sheep. In one sentence.
They would rather have someone spoonfeed anything to them and take it as gospel than critically think or report (in the media case) -- for themselves.
The masses are being dumbed down as we know and this is also a government sponsored program -- flawed on purpose in the schooling systems of today.
And all related, people do not wish to question things or authority and that is part of the education / conditioning systems also.
Those are my reasons, threaded together. You cannot separate them.
I can, but I don't want to look stupid.
I think propaganda works by creating narratives that a lot of people want to believe are true anyway. Then when the media uses coordinated efforts to push an agenda, those who don't buy into the "accepted" point of view feel like they are in the minority, and feel under attack. This can create or worsen divisions among a population, to the benefit of a government.
To some degree. Yet it can be more insidious than this.
Numerous people have said versions of the "Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth".
There are quite a few variations. They are generally not from particularly pleasant individuals historically speaking.
Yes, I agree. Lies have been woven all through history. With sinister goals in mind. Another thing is that history is written by the victor.
It's even worse. History is EDITED by the victor is my new saying. Because, we have people going back and rewriting history even today. Changing the narrative, removing specific topics, adding others.
YES!!!
Regarding: "stating that something must be true because some WELL KNOWN person said it was true".
Well, for not so long time ago i heard EVERY single politician and/or person in power, fame ,expertise ... you name it, say (to underestimate a lil) that they were 100% (hundred percent) sure that Saddam Hussein had WMD and could both put together and blow up the entire globe within 45 minutes,
Everyone was in consensus about this..
From POTUS down to the smallest of the smallest .............
I guess ya'll get the point?! ;)
Conclusion: “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough,
it will be believed.” - Joseph Goebbels
And the method how to control both sides and getting the already decided result is even older than that .. Known as "Hegelian dialectic".
Check it up and connect the dots ..........
Yep, the Hegelian dialectic is another big one. Do you think perhaps if most people were skilled at critical thinking and could recognize logical fallacies when they are used to manipulate them that they might also be less susceptible to the Hegelian dialectic?
Well, thats a hard one?!
Its not only about critical thinking and intelligence,
Its actually more about recognize a "method" ... And the history behind it.
My best advice how to understand these things/how this technique is pulled out/used (Hegelian dialectic) is to understand the "secret core codes" of the Jesuits.
"The art of war" is a Jesuit manual hidden in plain site as an historic book,
Which fit so well with their most important code:
“black is white and white is black” ..i.e Always accuse your enemy for what you are and do, always tell the opposite to the truth .. If you so do, it will be impossible for anyone to accuse You (The Jesuits) and in a logic way make others understand what you REALLY are doing. (The art of war "short version")
Thanks for the information. I am very familiar with the Hegelian Dialectic. It's been one of those things I've written about, mentioned, etc. It becomes kind of an obvious technique for anyone that bothers to research the various false flag attacks in history.
Then you knew that Hillary stood for the "Thesis" while Trump is the "antithesis",
So what we now are waiting for is the "synthesis".
(for the first time in many decades, i truly believe these 2 aren't "init/totally informed".. i.e as before, know that they only fake the 2 wings on the same birds, i actually think that the BIG GAME now been taking up a notch so that these 2 (and everyone on each side) think they rep 2 different "power" (The illuminati=Hillary Vs. The outsider cowboy=TRump),
I think "the game" went into a whole new stage/dimension with this last election, it even look like all "old" power (politicians, media, the major part of the entire "shebang") is left unknown and the game has taken "one step up" ...
What is coming couldn't be faked by all the involved if they all know what "The Wizard" has in plan (!), so its a new game,.. Same actors though. (imho)
Do you get me?! ;)
I actually think what happened with Trump was not part of the plan. The panic and overreaction that hasn't really stopped afterwards seems to support that.
Plus news week already having covers printed for Madam President... that didn't work out.
I sure as hell didn't want her to win as I've done too much research on her and I consider her one of the most corrupt politicians in U.S. history. I didn't used to have a problem with her.
Still even considering that I was pretty sure she was going to win. I even said it up to a year before the election. She had too many of the boxes checked for the people that get to be president. She also had the media pushing for her hard. Perhaps too hard... that might be part of the backfire, some of the people that don't usually notice the media bias might have actually noticed it for a change.
The Seth Rich leaks to wikileaks about DNC and Hillary colluding against Bernie also was bad for her. Very bad.
There was even indications of fraudulent activities going on IN HER favor on election day. I spoke to some people on that day that witnessed it.
Yet at least in PA where a bunch of it was she still lost.
I kind of thought they may have underestimated how much they had to cheat.
Thus why before the election Hillary and Obama both had to tell Trump not to be a poor sport when he lost, because the system works...
Yet when she didn't win... it was full on panic mode and it was clear some news outlets didn't quite know what to do.
Then the hypocrisy kicked in and Hillary and Obama began doing what they told Trump not to do...
Could it all be a show... a spectacle.... yes
However, I do think something may have gone off script in this and they are reacting to that.
My theory is that they wanted trump to run against hillary to seal it for her, but also because even if he did win it would really only be a minor set back.
Even if he wasn't at war with corporate media, the amount of damage he would do to the status quo is very limited. Consider his background, his world, his perspective - remember, he doesn't even think the banks have really done anything wrong.
Like you, I thought for sure hillary would get it. But now that she didn't, the only solace we get is the shadenfreude of seeing the low information liberals lose their shit day after day. Really though, even though the differences at the top are minor, one important thing has happened - the left, who gave obama a pass for 8 years now has to oppose everything trump does, even if it is the same as what obama was doing. That is useful. I'm kind of worred what happens after next election, when we revert to total puppet (rather than 90% puppet) - we will have smug lefties rallying behind biden or whoever and then crazytown all over again for anyone who cares about freedom.
Remember that CHAOS is THE goal.
THEN a lot of things make sense in fooling both "sides".
The REAL POWER.. REAL TOP couldn't care less about politicians and so called powerful illuminati, rich peps etc. etc. .. They are only useful for a purpose.. When hell brake lose and these people aren't needed or useful anymore..
Bye bye..... Everyone for themselves ... And if your not IN, your OUT!
Ps. All humans.. Rich or poor (even those in the pic below) .. Are simple soldiers (marionettes) for The REAL POWER .. For a purpose and time .. Again..
Read "The art of war". ;)
Their intimidation tactics may have backfired on them as far as polling goes; usually the democong "find" just enough votes in the trunk of some poll worker's car to put them over the edge.
Having the right amount of ballots ready requires some level of accurate polling, but with the D+10, or +15 samples they were taking to skew the media propaganda, they weren't going to get accuracy.
On top of that, I think people weren't being honest with the polls (who wants the pollster to know you are deplorable)
Finally, there are probably more than a few things which threw the political class off the tracks; we were talking a coupla days ago about Rust Belt voters
I also thought if you wanted to elect Hillary, what better way than to make certain everyone was terrified of her opponent. I actually believe that WAS the initial purpose of Trump, maybe not by Trump himself, but by them.
Yet I think some control may have been lost by the puppeteers and they are desperately trying to get it back.
Remember ..... Nothing is what it seems .......
Black is white and white is black ........
Ps. The Jesuit oath tells A LOT as well. ;)
http://www.reformation.org/oath.html
Interesting. I hadn't read this oath before.
I have study these things* for a few years now .. More is coming .......
*The 3 city states, illuminates, CFR which simply is a branch of RIIA,(The Royal Institute of International Affairs, commonly known as Chatham House), Free Masons, Jesuits and last but not least .... The VATICAN who now has "the black Pope" (head of Jesuits) as "The white Pope" (the official Pope) for the first time ever (Black is white and white is black). ;)
The pieces start to fall into place right in front of our eyes ...
and they do it officially ...... HUGE things are coming ............
To be continued ...........
I know I may sound like Grandpa, "Get off my lawn." Sometimes, I think kids today have not been allowed the time to become critical thinkers. There is this constant need in our youth to be stimulated by ipads, iphones, TV. When do they take the time to think for themselves? I think they are in a perpetual state of waiting to be entertained.
Well exposure to critical thinking being minimized I am starting to think is by design. If you look into the Prussian Education System and what got people excited about it, and then realize it is the system most nations education system is based upon then it makes sense why you wouldn't want to teach as much critical thinking. One of the things they really liked about the results from the trials of the Prussian Education System was how good it was at making students more obedient to the state. This means they were more susceptible to the Appeal to Authority fallacy, and Appeal to Tradition at the very least.
So if you reduce critical thinking that obedience should be even more. Then as the field of propaganda entered the arena of time lack of critical thinking opened our mental susceptibility to a great many fallacies.
If this is the desired outcome of those in control it is highly effective.
agree, they want people to be sheep. easily lead.
I think mine sound awful on paper, but are great in reality :D
Propaganda is a very lose term. If I am 100% convinced of something is peddling it not propaganda as well? Ofc the show we see on TV news is really bad, I think we need to make a new worse word for it, "Fake News"maybe ? :D
And yeah critical thinking is a big part of the foundation of my believes and I wish it would be so for everybody. I hate it when people get lost in talking about prominent thinkers that are long dead...
Who needs Sokrates when we have @dwinblood !?
Uhm. Thanks for the compliment. I like to think. I like to treat people with respect. I wouldn't consider myself on par with Socrates. :)
I make a lot of mistakes.
I even made a mistake in trying to explain it to the person that inspired this post. I tried to come across as helpful rather than attacking, and I failed.
So as you see I have a lot to learn. I think I always will.
Every conflict has 2 parties. But I feel like many people want to get upset in discussions so they can use emotions ...
You are very open minded, when it comes to my radical views , welp I guess you have to as an Anarcho-Cap ;)
Speaking of them I would like to discuss an argument wíth you:
We are under absolute surveillance at least potentially and most likely factually. Wouldnt it be smarter to use those controls for good, ie every high official politician should be monitored 24/7 so his people know what he is doing?
Hehe... there is a science fiction book by John Brunner. It is called "The Shockwave Rider". It is one of my favorites and it was influential on me.
John wrote it after reading Alvin Toffler's book "Future Shock". Alvin was a futurist who tried to predict things in the future.
Much of what he predicted seems accurate now, but John wrote Shockwave rider before this was true. It has a difficult start, but the book is great.
In the end victory is achieved by sharing ALL INFORMATION with everyone. When it came to recorded activities there were no secrets.
I think it would alter the world quite a bit. I myself am not huge on needing my OWN privacy. I am very vocal about people having their right to their own.
Yet, that is because the government tends to use our private lives against us while we cannot peer into their corners to see what they are doing. This leads to further corruption.
So I myself wouldn't have a problem with your idea IF government were to continue to exist. Which I don't see ending anytime soon.
If everything were out in the open it would shake some people up. Some people might initially be embarrassed for some of their interests but, I believe we would learn to own up to who we are.
I am who I am. Like it or don't.
Wow, I thought we would disagree. You pretty much further explained the thoughts I had on this, thanks for writing them down :D
Gotta give Future Shock a try, even tho I hate reading books... well maybe there is an audiobook ^^
Just read the post I just wrote. :)
on it already ;)
I think it's safe to make a distinction between an ideology and a perspective. It is possible to share your perspective without producing propaganda. An ideology is a system of ideas and ideals. Once it becomes a "system," it's an ideology. Of course, you can define that word however you want, but I'm trying to draw a distinction between sharing ideas and trying to propagate ideas.
I see what you mean but I disagree. I am a proud Ideologue.
Every person should have his very own ideology in my opinion and it is ok to promote it. If you start manipulating information with 'evil intention' it becomes Fake News
If I take your definition of Propaganda and add my Fake News one, I would argue.
Propaganda = OK
Fake News = bad
morally
It seems like you're thinking of the word "system" in more individual terms than what I meant. I was thinking of large-scale systems that people subscribe to, buying into a bundle of ideas they haven't bothered to unpack and understand, then ending up under someone's control. If we're talking about systems we create for ourselves, I would agree with you. It's when we push our systems on others that our actions appear as an attack on one's free will.
Yes, we can try to help people by sharing what we've learned, but if they're not asking for help, you can expect resistance or even flat out denial. It is far more effective to respond to requests than to offer answers to people who have not yet discovered the questions. This also reduces the risk of making unintentional assumptions about the person you're trying to help.
signing your believes off to a certain group or massivly shared idea without questioning it makes a person literally retarded. (they effectivly lack part of their brain capacity)
But then I would only answer to posts and never make one :D
Making a post is not pushing people to conform to your system. It's simply sharing your perspective with anyone who chooses to read. Anyone who wants to can benefit from your perspective. Anyone who is not interested is free not to read it.
Forceful or extensive pushing of your own agenda is a very bad habbit, I agree. You should always be open minded to change your beliefs.
It sounds like this person is rather ignorant. Probably because government propaganda doesn't require you to think just follow the leader.
Not at all. He just is new here, and doesn't know me.
It is also VERY difficult to answer a statement like that and try to be helpful without seeming to be attacking them. I knew this as I was writing my response to him and tried to throw in some things so he would realize I was not attacking him. I failed.
Yet, he is new here and if he comes from the likes of reddit then this reaction does not surprise me at all, as there people would be attacking him.
Attacking people I consider a waste of my time.
Helping people and learning myself are another story.
This is really the reason why I love people on Steem so much.
Anywhere else when there's no accountability and reputation involved in an online settings. You see the most vile attacks against a person sometimes you question why overkill it so much.
But here, only the most kind hearted and positive person rises because of the value he has which everyone else recognizes, except for a few cases maybe.. Altho that user is indeed Steemit's resident asshole.
And I agree that for some cases it takes someone new some time to adjust to the positivity around here. I was lucky I only joined reddit recently a few years back through r/dogecoin, the Exception of reddit's norm. It's why I feel so at home here.
We're glad you are here. :) I'd enter the trenches on reddit. It sometimes felt like I was wading into a trench for warfare. It taught me some skills and I did benefit in some ways. I also learned things I will not do that are done there.
Name calling works though. Hatred is a far better motivator than love. Sometimes calling someone an idiot forces them to do more research on the topic. I'm not saying that's what you should of done in this case but It's just something to keep in mind.
Yeah I won't do that. For me if someone starts insulting me I feel like I won. If they have to resort to insults then they likely have nothing left in them. That may not be true, but that is my reaction to them.
Critical thinking is one of those things we all over-estimate how good we are at it but only because the base-line for it is so low. It wasn't until I really spent time learning it, as well as doing 'Think-Again' free 12 week course on critical thinking from Duke Uni [it's on the coursera site] that I started to see how easy it is to get it wrong.
A personal message I keep at the forefront of my mind always is 'the easiest person to fool is ourselves'.
Have you heard of Polya Patterns? They really speak to how easily people can be persuaded to believe something or find something to be true, and it has less to do with accuracy and more to do with inference and association.
I too think the world would be a better place if more people learned and cultivated better critical thinking skills; and it's something I use to help the people I work with especially with certain beliefs they have that they've never even considered challenging.
I have chosen to look at it as something that can never be mastered. It is like muscles in your body. Exercise makes you better at it, but does not make you a master, and it is something you should always be trying to improve yourself on.
It is unfortunate that when I point out critical thinking to someone I am thinking of it like someone telling you "You should try this new cardio program". I'm thinking of it as mental exercise, conditioning, training. I don't say it to attack someone or imply they are stupid in anyway. It is actually something I'd be willing to say to anyone... even myself. In fact, I do mentally tell myself the same thing. "Oops... I missed that one I better go do some more critical thinking exercises". People choose to see it as an attack when it is not. I actually am trying to be encouraging, but I have yet to come up with a guaranteed way to present it that is short enough they will read it, and that will work.
No I haven't... perhaps you should do a blog post on it and reply to let me know you did, so I don't miss it. I could google it. Yet it might be something more people benefit from.
The problems in the world we face are big ones. A lot of seemingly great ideas historically have been pushed as the solution.
I ultimately believe that none of our great big ideas will work if they are not built upon a foundation of people that are well versed and constantly practicing critical thinking.
It is too easy for corruption and propaganda to take hold and spoil any great idea. Critical Thinking is the only thing that I've seen that gives you an unbiased set of mental tools that increases your chance of seeing, noticing, and thus preventing such things before they take root.
I think because it starts at a very young age
It's an interesting conundrum... Voluntaryism requires critical thinking. But how can you make people volunteer to understand/adopt critical thinking?
I can't make people do anything. I can try to show people by example. That is typically what I do. That may have been my mistake here with the dialog that inspired this. I may have been interested enough in this guy that I decided to try to speed the process up. I likely won't be trying that again anytime soon. :)
Keep trying to influence others. Critical thinking is a skill that we all need to improve on. I enjoy your posts on the topic and it does make me research a little more. So, you might not have gotten through to one person (or you might have in a different way) but you have influenced me to research a little deeper.
Oh I won't stop. I just won't be so FORWARD with someone in a reply. I'll limit it to me posts, and answering specific questions when asked, so I don't come across as trying to force or attack someone.
Thanks @dwinblood great analysis -Every year I am forced to think more and challenge my programming at every level - its empowering and mind blowing!
Nice work; resteemed, and I will add it to the "critical thinking index" on my next reformat
the media = propaganda?
One arm of it. EDIT: and not all of it. A large portion of it these days though yes.
Very much so... research the history of propaganda and it becomes pretty obvious. At least I think it was obvious. I could be wrong.
I think this is the most entertaining way to explore this idea I've come across:
Nice video.
Media is a medium of communication. Propaganda is the following:
The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.
The rule of transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one's own ends.
The rule of unanimity: presenting one's viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: draining the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, by social pressure, and by 'psychological contagion'.
The rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.
Nuff said...
Excellent. Thanks for the nice break down. I'll freely admit I know about propaganda from the brief historical records, documents, and of course media pieces I've seen in my life. My view of the topic is formed by observation over several decades. Thus, it is very nice to see such a straightforward summary. I believe I may actually have seen similar information before, in fact I am certain of it, but as with many things these days... having so much information at our finger tips can make it easy to forget where you saw something.