GENIUS FORUMS

A pop article in the New York Times, could be worthy of some comment:

Who’s Minding the Mind? (free subscription)
Edit: And here's a copy for reference

In a recent experiment, psychologists at Yale altered people’s judgments of a stranger by handing them a cup of coffee.

The study participants, college students, had no idea that their social instincts were being deliberately manipulated. On the way to the laboratory, they had bumped into a laboratory assistant, who was holding textbooks, a clipboard, papers and a cup of hot or iced coffee — and asked for a hand with the cup.

That was all it took: The students who held a cup of iced coffee rated a hypothetical person they later read about as being much colder, less social and more selfish than did their fellow students, who had momentarily held a cup of hot java.

And researchers do not yet know how or when, exactly, unconscious drives may suddenly become conscious; or under which circumstances people are able to override hidden urges by force of will.

Diebert,

The article seems to show that the less conscious a person is, the more easily influenced they are by inanities.

What did you find interesting?
.

I think it's interesting.
:)

I recommend reading Blink by Malcolm Gladwell if you're interested in this type of snap second decision making.

Some of Derren Browns stuff using the power of suggestion is mildly amusing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II_-QcW4Q4I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIIz2FAgwcw

Ataraxia,

Derren Brown is quite impressive if he is actually doing what he says he is doing. The clips don't appear to be set-ups, which would mean that he has worked out an extremely good technique by working with people's natural emotional desires.

This one is very telling, for it shows up just how powerful the emotions are.
Conversion

People fall easy victims to someone allowing them to surrender to their longing to belong to something larger and greater than them. And since hardly anyone has gone to the trouble to really think out their beliefs and values, they are naturally prime targets to have those beliefs and values altered in any way and in any direction by someone like Brown, or advertising companies, or con-men, or politicians, etc.

Yes, because people can't be bothered to take their own mind seriously, they are truly their own worse enemies.

.

Any dude who's ever lit a few candles to romance a lady knows that ambiance is important, but the article in question goes beyond that, and seems to suggest that ambiance has an unconscious effect on us. Does the information given in the article really demonstrate that though? Were the dudes who held the coffee cups really unaware of the effect it had on them? I'm not entirely convinced of that.

We wouldn't want to say that they later thought "oh, this dude I'm reading about sucks because I held a cold mug", but they were certainly aware of holding the cold mug, and probably the effect it had on their feelings, even if they didn't consciously acknowledge the connection. Or, perhaps, when introspecting we fail to remember just how much we are aware of at any given time, and do indeed consciously acknowledge even the most subtle of influences, even if it isn't a synapse altering experience.

On the flip-side, it seems somewhat misguided to suggest that we're fully aware of every process that we can imagine ever being aware of. Exactly how I go about directing my every movement is hidden from me, so why shouldn't I be unaware of the effects of some sensory experience on my emotions? It seems almost too easy to just say that we forget about it, but that hardly makes such a thesis a priori wrong. It seems to me that the psychologists in question may simply be forgetting about forgetting.

An important point to note here is that the research doesn't seem to suggest that seemingly small things have an effect on that which we might think of as an objective determination. The subjects weren't asked what color snow is, or the shape of oranges, or any questions of that ilk. Furthermore, it seems as if only those matters the subjects wouldn't be overly prone to care about in the first place were effected. It isn't as if the subjects were caused to uncharacteristically kick kittens by the temperature of a mug.

I'm not trying to denigrate the study, and am really doing the opposite, by demonstrating that there's quite a bit to think about here. Does the study only demonstrate that small things can have an effect on our subjective opinions or approach to insignificant matters, or does it provide evidence that subconscious stimuli play a much larger role in how we navigate the world then we might otherwise have suspected? Probably a little of point A, a little of point B, and a lot of some point C that I haven't thought of. Regardless, it is interesting.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Ataraxia,

This one is very telling, for it shows up just how powerful the emotions are.
Conversion

.

About 10 years ago i got to know a fellow who was one of the leading proponents of NLP in Australia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-ling ... rogramming

At the time i thought it was just another new age clap trap designed to bilk gullible people out of their hard earned and a way of taking advantage of the ever burgeoning buisness seminar scene.Now I'm not so sure.

It's interesting alot of these guys with T.V shows and some gurus all seem top have one thing in common,they studied this NLP.

It's seems to me a potentially dangerous tool in the wrong peoples hands.

[here's a copy of the article at the start, since it's now behind (free) subscription.]

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: The article seems to show that the less conscious a person is, the more easily influenced they are by inanities.

What did you find interesting?

To me it shows something of the world of the subliminal which I consider to be different from 'inanities' although gods and devils are always in the details, or not?

The subconscious deals way more with the symbolic as language, including gestures, pictures, rituals and so on, than normal conscious 'observing'. As the examples show the 'cold coffee' or the 'briefcase and a black leather portfolio' become symbols that cause alteration in our thought patterns.

To me this looks only as the tip of the iceberg. Our whole world is filled with subliminal sign language that continuously shapes our feelings, expectations and rationality. Ranging from geometric shapes of buildings and roads (beyond merely being functional and even pure functionality is suggesting something to us - some degree of purpose at work) to faces, art, media, letters, the way we smile, dress or not dress, put on a face or remain staring blank...

The only problem with this research is the complexity of cues (clues?) we're receiving at the same time and not as the article erroneously stated about "neural software programs that can only be run one at a time". So to measure how we are shaping and being shaped all of the time by these 'inanities' is an almost impossible thing to do for a scientist. He'd be fishing for gnats while continuously swallowing camels.

While I'd agree with how consciousness brings these things to the light and might divert the influence to a degree, I'd really doubt the rarity of this form of consciousness. Most of us just live in the shadows, unaware of our motives, having woven a whole fabric of justifications around behavior not really chosen by us at all.

Diebert wrote:

To me it shows something of the world of the subliminal which I consider to be different from 'inanities' although gods and devils are always in the details, or not?

Most people’s minds lack substance (i.e. a rational basis). This makes them easily influenced by both subtle and gross stimuli.

The subconscious deals way more with the symbolic as language, including gestures, pictures, rituals and so on, than normal conscious 'observing'. As the examples show the 'cold coffee' or the 'briefcase and a black leather portfolio' become symbols that cause alteration in our thought patterns.

A lot of information is naturally blocked out when your mind is focused on a rational basis. The “basis”, though consciously driven, affects all thought processes - making your mind more discerning and discriminating in an overall sense.

To me this looks only as the tip of the iceberg. Our whole world is filled with subliminal sign language that continuously shapes our feelings, expectations and rationality. Ranging from geometric shapes of buildings and roads (beyond merely being functional and even pure functionality is suggesting something to us - some degree of purpose at work) to faces, art, media, letters, the way we smile, dress or not dress, put on a face or remain staring blank...

Operating in a large herd as we do, we need to be highly tuned to what is happening in our environment. Both subtle and gross messages assist us to navigate through relationships and environments. But much of that information is completely superfluous when your focus is on what is real and true.

The only problem with this research is the complexity of cues (clues?) we're receiving at the same time and not as the article erroneously stated about "neural software programs that can only be run one at a time". So to measure how we are shaping and being shaped all of the time by these 'inanities' is an almost impossible thing to do for a scientist. He'd be fishing for gnats while continuously swallowing camels.

For sure. Scientist love this ‘open ended’ sort of intellectual endeavour; it keeps them employed and entertained.

While I'd agree with how consciousness brings these things to the light and might divert the influence to a degree, I'd really doubt the rarity of this form of consciousness.

“Rare”, but possible if your focus is concentrated solely on living more consciously.

It is logical that the more developed a consciousness is, the more capable it is to discern and discriminate. Knowing our psychology and what underlies our existence – and then applying it to our whole life – narrows down your chances of being hoodwinked (taken in by falsehoods). And even when you are hoodwinked, being more conscious means that you know it! – making it harder and harder to be hoodwinked again.

Most of us just live in the shadows, unaware of our motives, having woven a whole fabric of justifications around behavior not really chosen by us at all.

As you say, the justifications most of us give for our behaviour aren’t derived from any deep understanding of our psychology, or our true nature. Most people live without the slightest understanding of either. Their ignorance is what leaves them open to all manner of influences.

If they were more conscious, they’d naturally be more discriminating of what their mind indulged in. You wouldn’t need to weave “a whole fabric of justification”, because your responses to stimuli would be consistent with your understanding of your own true nature and the true nature of all things.

But, of course, most people find great happiness in inconsistencies and irrationalities. Like I said last post - people are their own worse enemies.

.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:This one is very telling, for it shows up just how powerful the emotions are. Conversion

Interesting. I think his techniques are pretty transparent in that one, though. A few observations:

# People attending a talk on "spirituality" are likely already open and vulnerable and most probably unconsciously looking for a conversion experience.

# Those people didn't so much have things they believed as things they felt. It's much harder to change what a person is thinking than what they're feeling.

# The gentle touch on the face technique would probably not have worked with any of the guys in the room. I reckon he picked that girl out specifically for that one. The fact that she went straight into the grandmother feeling hugged story was pretty revealing of her mental state, as was the fact that her entire family was religious. He also used an important technique on her that I'll address further down...

# The interesting part of what he did with the guy who he stood up in front was the way he made him stand - with his feet together. This is a very unnatural way to stand; it makes you automatically feel unstready and vulnerable, both physically and psychologically. They don't make you stand to attention in the military when barking orders at you for nothing. It's a posture that makes you vulnerable. He also put the idea of him falling backwards in his mind. Had he let that guy stand normally I don't think anything would have happened. From there it's just a matter of feeding the feelings that are generated by an event like that.

# Similar thing with the group. Get people standing that way and tell them to think about a force acting on the front of their body and their faces and the inevitable end result will be people being sat on their arses.

# Appeal to the child within - he used a very interesting technique with these people - he exhorts them to "be honest". He pushes that line multiple times. The effect of that is that deeper, niggling feelings will be expressed rather than feelings at the forefront of the mind, ones that may be informed and modified by the intellect. We tend to feel that not expressing those deeper feelings that we might otherwise suppress is less than honest. Basically by using that method he made them spew out notions they would ordinarily reject.

Mind you, in another video, how he gets that young girl to read the black guy's mind is something about which I'm utterly clueless.

[edit: actually I've just watchd a few others and the guy is pretty damn amazing]

Dan Rowden wrote:
[edit: actually I've just watchd a few others and the guy is pretty damn amazing]

It's especially interesting in the light of him being also "an artist who paints caricatures" and involved in taxidermy.

In a sense, that's exactly what he seems to be doing with his tricks. Very educational however or amusing or even revolting depending on how you see it.