Round 2: visible_villain vs schrodingers dog: Psychological Health For Physical Health?, page 1

Opening Statement

Thanks once again are expressed to the organizers, moderators, judges, contestants, and followers. A special tip of the hat to my respected opponent, Shrodinger's Dog.

May our contest be an enjoyable one and informative for all.

---

A few ( ? ) words on Debating Strategy

Having already framed my opening statement it has become clear it will be a rather brief one, so since I have a lot of extra characters left over, if you will, in the budget of this opening statement, I thought it would be ok to say a few words here about my overall view of stragey in a debate of this kind.

Events during the last few decades having conspired to place me frequently in the company of various Tibetan lamas, I seem to have acquired, without even having been aware of it, it appears, a rather distinct feel for the best way ( for me at least ) to participate in a debating contest.

This fact has become apparent to me during a review of my performance in round one of the current tournament.

As the reader may well be aware, debate is one of the major training methods employed in monestaries during the long educational process of aspiring Tibetan monks. Over the years I have been exposed, innocuously, I must say, and without really realizing it, to the notion of how to conduct a debate.

They take it really seriously. They demonstrate their mastery ( or, alas, the lack thereof ) of whatever topic is at hand. They, that is to say both the contestants and the observers all enjoy the contest immensely. And those who observe are able to learn perhaps a very great deal, especially in the case of the younger monks who may have only recently just begun their studies, about the topic being debated.

As I say, maybe in the manner an unmagnetized piece of steel, when placed in contact or proximity with another magnetized piece of steel, becomes magnetized itself, I hit the ground running, as it were, with an already acquired style I wasn't even aware I had.

Now, I took some heat from one of the anonymous judges in round one for answering those SQ's posed to me with simple and direct yes/no responses. And I have been contemplating why this may have been so and I would like to mention here some of my thoughts about this.

It has been my pleasure, or misfortune, whichever the case may be, to have worked in technical occupations during my long and mostly uneventful career. In the course of my work I learned to appreciate the simplicity and indeed the eloquence and suprising utility and power, of course, as always within certain rather narrow bounds, of Boolean reasoning. You know, sequences and combinations of on/off, yes/no answers leading inexorably to a logical either/or result.

I am comfortable with such an approach to reasoning, and would like to believe I understand the process rather thoroughly.

Furthermore, it seems to me an ideal manner in which to conduct Socratic Questioning. For this reason I try my best to frame my SQ's in such a manner that a boolean result may be obtained.

Additionally, long experience has demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that in any kind of adversarial dialogue, when it comes to things said, that old adage, 'less is better,' is definately the truth.

But, wait - there's more ...

I now realize, after having reflected upon the progress of said first-round debate, that there is a certain balance, if you will, between the coldly-logical and admittedly ruthless pursuit of victory for its own sake, and the kinder, gentler, perhaps even warm and fuzzy, style of contest.

Mentioning long experience once again, but this time in reference to the unfortunate fact that this contestant has, alas, never ever been what might be referred to as a quick learner, I nonetheless would like to say here that I will do my best to achieve that certain something which will result in the aforementioned more balanced and friendly style.

---

The Positions

Round 2: visible_villain vs schrodingers dog: Psychological Health For Physical Health?

The topic for this debate is "Psychological Manipulation Of The Public Is Justifiable To Insure Physical Security."

visible_villain will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.

Source : OP

Not being in any way informed about the technical definition of physical security, I had to look it up -

Physical Security

Physical security is the protection of personnel, hardware, programs, networks, and data from physical circumstances and events that could cause serious losses or damage to an enterprise, agency, or institution. This includes protection from fire, natural disasters, burglary, theft, vandalism, and terrorism.

[1]

Hence, it would appear this debate will focus on the merits, or the lack thereof, of the government's use of Psychological Manipulation on its own population to achieve the goal of enhanced or improved National Security.

---

SQ

1. Does the following recasting of our debate topic meet with your agreement -

"The government's use of Psyops on its own population for the purpose of optimizing national security is ok."

---

End of opening Statement

As per usual, greetings and gratitude my fellow readers, judges, and debate moderators, and welcome to yet another round in this, a most noble ATS tradition, the intellectual deathmatch.


Prologue

I see my opponent has chosen to bypass a substantive approach as it relates to his debate position in his opening post. I however choose to take a more traditional approach and use my opening statement to frame my position in this debate, lest of course I be accused of being "warm and fuzzy" myself.

Of course my opponent could be in the midst of a psychological ruse against yours truly to help him lubricate his thoughts and to make me "l'enfent du poster" of debate topic itself. If so, we shall see how far this hypothetical pursuit might take him. Mind you, it is not that I don't enjoy a good debate strategy soliloquy, and I am as monastic as the next guy, but I think for now I'll just stick to the matter at hand.

Which is to say "Psychological Manipulation Of The Public Is NOT Justifiable To Insure Physical Security."


Opening Statement

Jesus said "...you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:32

1

Such a simple and apocryphal awareness.

Written in a book that has been the instrument through which those who, in the name of God, and with the self proclaimed interest of saving mankind's soul, have manipulated a great deal of the population for the great part of the last 2000 years, much of it at a great cost to their physical security. Of course I just use this as an example as I have always found the teachings of Jesus to be moving and profound. I am pointing more to the purposeful manipulation of said teachings by Men who always proclaimed to have Man's interest at heart but instead used them to further their own interests. This has historically led to everything but physical security. In fact many religions advocate personal physical insecurity on this plane of existence to increase one's chances of eternal "security" in the next.

We will delve into this further as the debate unfolds, but I plan to show how when the few manipulate the many, more often than not do so in a strictly Machiavellian way and have in fact little or no interest in the security, physical or otherwise, of those they manipulate.

At a micro level, individuals constantly try to justify manipulating those around them in order to further their own interests. Declarations of "I did it for your own good" or "ignorance is bliss" are often thrown around to justify this behavior, when in fact it provides the one subjected to such manipulation to no greater security.

At a national level one need look no further than the manipulative foundations of the "Patriot Act." It stands as a primary example of how governments can manipulate the populace, via instruments such as fear and hope, to willfully give up their own liberties in the hope of greater security. Again, I will deconstruct the cynical methodology of such contrived constructs as the patriot act and show that the only security they provide is to those who conspire to implement them and not to the subjected public.

In the end my, my opponent is in a difficult position, dare I say in a no win situation. The only way to adequately defend his side of the argument, he would have to prove to us two things:

1. That psychological manipulation of the public is and has been effective in insuring its physical security.

2. That psychological manipulation of the public is not only necessary but the only way to insure the public's physical security because, considering the historical cost to humanity of such manipulations, only the above reasons would make such cost "justifiable."

I plan to show that neither of these cases can be made, hence "Psychological Manipulation Of The Public Is NOT Justifiable To Insure Physical Security."

---

SQ1: Does the following recasting of our debate topic meet with your agreement -
"The government's use of Psyops on its own population for the purpose of optimizing national security is ok."

Of course we are sure to discuss the above at length, however I do not see a reason to narrow the topic to this extent. There are plenty of apt historical and geographical references to be included. However, fell free to "recast" your own position as you may see fit.

---

Socratic Question 1:

You are championing the position that "Psychological Manipulation Of The Public Is Justifiable To Insure Physical Security."

My question is: Justifiable by whom?

1st Reply

I see my opponent has chosen to bypass a substantive approach as it relates to his debate position in his opening post.

Source : schrodingers dog Prologue

---

Apologia

Ok, ok, ok ...

What I am still struggling with, as I did in my first debate, is the uncertain scope of the topic at hand. In my mind it can mean multiple things to multiple people. And since there are only two people involved in this particular contest, I again endeavored to reach agreement on the narrowest possible interpretation. For me this objective is desireable because it would allow both sides to zero in on the object to be refuted ...

Ok, pretty naive of me, I guess, because it amounts to asking my opponent for some help, at least in terms of seeking an agreement to reduce to some degree the available amount of wiggle room.

Ok, I think I'm starting to get it ... actually trying to learn something here ...

On the other hand, again perhaps only within the purview of my own quite possibly maladjusted brain, such a narrowing of scope or tightening of focus, as it were, would, of necessity, apply equally to both sides, thereby equilibrating aforementioned procedural efficiencies, perhaps going so far as to achieve an equivalent structural optimization of the debate for both sides.

Whatever ...

So, the way it looks to me at this point is each contestant draws his line in the sand and there he makes his stand, apparently ( and I'm still having some trouble with this part ) without regard for where the other has drawn his own line.

If this were only a perfect world, alas, I realize, indeed, then we could both draw our lines in precisely the same spot, and then face each other from opposing sides ...

Of course, as always, if life were logical, men would ride side-saddle ...

Oh, well, in any case I think I get it now ...

Moving on -

---

... my opponent could be in the midst of a psychological ruse against yours truly ...

No, not intentionally at all, honorable colleague.

Furthermore, in light of such evidence as the, so to say, hard boiled sentiment conveyed by the above quoted remark, I can at this point assure my praiseworthy opponent he need not be concerned in the least about any possibility of unwarranted accusations concerning his excessive warmth and fuzziness which might originate from my corner of the ring ...

---

Here I would like to point out that it has become rather apparent to me that in terms of public relations potential, I am really going to end up looking like the bad guy here, since to argue in support of the premise I will essentially be taking on the persona of somebody like, say Joseph Goebbels, for instance. And why not, Goebbels ? After all, by most accounts he was pretty good at his job ...



I mention the above simply in passing only to bring to the attention of the reader at large the fact that they may very well find themselves to be unconciously biased against me if for no other reason than the fact that my role in this debate will require me to take on said aforementioned bad guy persona ...

Oh, well, some things just cannot be helped - so here goes ...

---

My opponent has taken the initiative with a well constructed and impressive opening statement which has quite concisely expressed what appears to be, at first blush anyway, a workable and quite defensible presentation of his position.

Beginning with a powerful example from the Bible he illustrates, perhaps for lack of a better way to put it, that the truth may not always be the truth.

---

Perception and the Cultural Milieu

Here in the West, specifically America, the culture in which this contestant was born and raised, we have all been taught, since very early childhood that we live in the land of the free -

The Star-Spangled Banner

O! say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming.
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming.
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

emphasis added
[2]

And are all naturally endowed with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -

United States Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...

emphasis added
[3]

So, it's only natural we Westerners might have a few issues with something once said by my freshly acquired alter ego, that is to say, the Chancellor of WWII Germany, the aforementioned, and even, to say the least, somewhat photogenic Herr Goebbels -

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels

[1]

Indeed, such an approach to American government, for instance, would almost seem un-American. On it's face, however, Goebbels' statement does not seem to be technically at variance with the US Constitution.

Now, way over on the other side of the world, indeed nine-and-a-half time-zones to the east we have the mysterious and enigmatic Indians, living in thier own cultural, rather, for lack of a better term, unAmerican milieu -

Maya in Hindu philosophy

In Advaita Vedanta philosophy, Maya is the limited, purely physical and mental reality in which our everyday consciousness has become entangled. Maya is held to be an illusion, a veiling of the true ... Many philosophies or religions seek to "pierce the veil" of Maya in order to glimpse the transcendent truth, from which the illusion of a [phenomenal] reality springs ...

emphasis added
[4]

So, it seems that, depending on which neighborhood one has grown up in, one either expects it's all some kind of fiction or they do not, that is to say, they believe they are entitled to being spoon-fed the unadulterated truth ...

---

In the end my, my opponent is in ... a no win situation.

---

Socratic Question 1:

You are championing the position that "Psychological Manipulation Of The Public Is Justifiable To Insure Physical Security."

My question is: Justifiable by whom?

Answer - "The Nation."

---

Back to you respected colleague.

---

Conclusion of 1st Reply

... I am really going to end up looking like the bad guy ...

One might even say visibly villainous.


1st Rebuttal

Allow me to begin by addressing my opponent's two word response to my socratic question.

My question is: Justifiable by whom?

Answer - "The Nation."

I will leave it to the readers and judges to decipher what this most ambiguous and deeply unsatisfactory response is pointing to.

Nationhood is an ethical and philosophical doctrine and is the starting point for the ideology of nationalism; a nation is a form of self-defined cultural and social community.

Though "nation" is also commonly used in informal discourse as a synonym for state or country, a nation is not identical to a state. The people of a nation-state consider themselves a nation, united in the political and legal structure of the State. 1

So there's that.

I honestly don't see how "The Nation" can justify anything. A nation is merely a community of culturally bound individuals. Within it one finds the same manipulative dynamics, psychological and otherwise, that one would observe within a family, a corporation, a state, or a religion. Thus "the nation" is nothing more than a descriptive term of social aggregation, and is unable by definition to have a qualitative disposition such as justification.

For example, take the descriptive term "the family." Individual members of "the family" can choose to justify themselves/each other/their actions or not, they can even choose to justify their social grouping under "the family" term, but "the family" as concept is nothing more than that, a concept. And concepts cannot justify anything.

Simply put, by assigning the justification for psychological manipulation to such an abstract concept as "the nation," my opponent has all but tacitly conceded that he cannot identify a single proponent for the psychological manipulation of the populace as a just undertaking other than those who choose to inflict it. Thus we're back to that most Machiavellian of dispositions where those few in power inflict psychological manipulation under the disingenuous pretense that "it is for the good of the people/country/economy/soul/family."

So I will ask the question again in a different way ...

Socratic Question 1.

Other than the perpetrators, psychological manipulation of the public is justifiable by whom?

---

1st Post

What is psychological manipulation?

In simple terms it is the manipulation of another person or group of people by another person or group of people via psychological means in order to motivate, influence, and persuade the former to get what the latter wants. It is in essence a way of convincing others under false pretenses, that what you want is in fact what they want and need.

Psychological manipulation in any form is disingenuous, hostile, propagandistic, aggressive, violating, and deceitful. At its core it is a game of confidence, a poker bluff, a twist of premise based on an illusionary construct in order to manipulate the subject onto desiring what the perpetrator desires.

It is the selective and controlled dissemination of knowledge and information to manipulate the choices and will of the public into the desired end result of the perpetrators.

PSYOP alone may offer the opportunity to compel the enemy to do our will without fighting, both horizontally and vertically across the spectrum of conflict. . . . Give opponents alternatives to conflict. If the enemy no longer resists, he will do our will. 2

(emphasis mine)

In this case and in the context of this debate the public is the enemy of those who will manipulate it to further their own interests.

Psychological manipulation is fundamentally a lie, a big fat passive aggressive lie, it is a form of mental abuse, and is both unjust and unjustifiable!

And whereas the truth shall set you free, the lie will keep you in bondage.

Bondage into those who will psychologically manipulate the public to achieve their own ends whilst convincing the same public via deception that it is acting in its own interest.

And make no mistake about it, none of it ensures the public's physical security. For if did, there would be no need for deception.

I hear you say, I agree with you that the psychological manipulation of the public is morally reprehensible and unjustifiable, but does it increase the public's physical security?

The simple answer is once again a resounding NO!


Difference between being safe and feeling safe.

I have brought this statistic up in another debate but I will point to it once more as I believe it crystalizes the historical cost that has had to be paid when the leading few have psychologically manipulated their populaces into physical destruction under the pretense of physical safety.

The cumulative historical death toll, to the degree that it can even be accurately calculated, for Soldier/Civilian/Genocide deaths is: Lowest Estimate = 306,351,885, Highest Estimate = 736,637,812 Conflict Death Toll

So there you have it!

Hundreds of millions of dead in the process of embracing manipulated abstract constructs such as political ideology, religion, nationalism, ethnicity, etc, when the real ambitions of those who manipulated them are cynical ambitions of territorial expansionism, personal glory, power, and financial reward.

Humans taking arms against other humans for no other reason that they have been psychologically manipulated into believing that such action would further their own safety.

Physical security indeed.

---

I will pause for now and await my opponent's response.

As my presentation unfolds in my subsequent posts, I will dig deeper in various forms of psychological manipulation, their use as a weapon against the public, and the effects of such use.

Ultimately it will be proven beyond a doubt that "Psychological Manipulation Of The Public Is NOT Justifiable To Insure Physical Security."

2nd Reply

---

A Review of the Answer to My Opponant's First SQ

I was somewhat taken aback at the degree of vilification to which my honorable opponant subjected my answer to the his first SQ -

I will leave it to the readers and judges to decipher what this most ambiguous and deeply unsatisfactory response is pointing to.

He then proceeds to provide a definition from Wikipedia which is rather supportive of his negative opinion. I would like to point out this Wiki page has been marked for cleanup, may not represent a worldwide view, and is currently in dispute.

Ernest Gellner, one of the most important scholars of nationalism, provided the following definition in his book, Nations and Nationalism (1983), which remains one of the most important scholarly references in the field.

What is a Nation

1. "Two men are of the same nation if and only if they share the same culture, where culture in turn means a system of ideas and signs and associations and ways of behaving and communicating.

2. "A mere category of persons (say, occupants of a given territory, or speakers of a given language, for example) becomes a nation if and when the members of the category firmly recognize certain mutual rights and duties to each other in virtue of their shared membership of it."

[1]

In hindsight, perhaps this debater, admittedly sadly lacking in erudition, may have been better advised to answer, "The Nation-State." Which, evidently, now that I have looked into the matter in detail, puts a rather finer point on it.

To sum up my defense, I rely on the good will of the reader to discern that the intended meaning of my answer is entirely congruous with Gellner's authoritative definition provided above.

My apologies for any confusion this may have caused the forum.

---

Socialization of the Individual

When a newborn infant is delivered at long last into our world kicking and screaming by virtue of that sublime yet violent ( and pretty messy too ) miracle called childbirth, it is, to say the very least, profoundly and entirely helpless.

This veritable little bundle of joy and brand new human being will acquire, if all goes well, those absolutely fundamental prerequisites of independent existence, that is to say locomotion, speech and basic bathroom habits, not to mention a small measure of manners, hopefully, primarily from it's first tutor and Commander-In-Chief, mom ...

Eventually, and quite importantly it turns out, dad gets involved as well, in what is for this new arrival that all important, indeed extremely critical period of initial human development referred to ( as I just only found out quite recently ) in the literature as -

Primary Socialization

[which] occurs when a child learns the attitudes, values, and actions appropriate to individuals as members of a particular culture.

[2]

This early training, that is to say the transformation, as it were, of this completely self-centered assemblage of raw animalistic desires, reactions, manipulations, bodily functions, rages and delights into a more or less appropriately behaved youngster, usually around five years of age and ready to walk through the doorway of his first kindergarten class painfully alone, is typically accomplished in no other way than through the use of what is called, 'the carrot and the stick.'

Operant Conditioning

... is the term used by B.F. Skinner to describe the effects of the consequences of a particular behavior on the future occurrence of that behavior. There are four types of Operant Conditioning: Positive Reinforcement, Negative Reinforcement, Punishment, and Extinction.

[3]

Once our youngster is off to school, mom and dad are no longer immediately involved in his direct supervision and training. Now there is a new Commander-In-Chief, the school teacher.

There is a legal term for this orderly transfer of power over our bright-eyed youngster's management and training -

In Loco Parentis

The term [is] Latin for "in the place of a parent" or "instead of a parent," refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent.

[4]

As long as we are on the subject of the education of our young citizen-in-training it may be prudent to review the opinion of at least one notable sociologist regarding the attributes of an ideal education.

Émile Durkheim was a French academic who is considered by many to be the father of sociology and his views on education are now presented due to their particular relevancy -

Durkheim's Ideal Education

1. To reinforce social solidarity - Pledging allegiance: Makes individuals feel part of a group and therefore less likely to break rules.

2. To maintain social role - School is a society in miniature. It has a similar hierarchy, rules, expectations to the "outside world". It trains young people to fulfill roles.

3. To maintain division of labor - School sorts students into skill groups, encouraging students to take up employment in fields best suited to their abilities.

[5]

Sound familiar ? It sure does to this contestant. Although nothing is mentioned in regard to the aforementioned carrot and stick, we can all attest to the fact, at least this writer certainly can, that there was quite a good deal of that part involved in the administration of his ideal education as well.

---

Rebuttal to My Opponant's 1st Post

Beginning with his preferred definition of psychological manipulation, my opponant proceeds with a rather lengthy diatribe cataloguing a veritable laundry list of many nefarious and otherwise negative attributes, at least from my opponant's viewpoint, of psychological manipulation.

One example from what amounts to little more than an emotionally based rant is the following -

It is in essence a way of convincing others under false pretenses ...

How could it be false pretenses for a mother to inform her youngster, as this writer's own did for him, that if he would like to avoid being turned into, "a splotch of blood," her words, not my own, I swear, "in the middle of the street," then he had better always be sure to look both ways before stepping off the curb ...

How this psychological manipulation, perpetrated, as it were, by one's own mother to protect the life and limb of her own flesh and blood could ever be construed as to be made under false pretenses, is entirely beyond the realm of possibility, at least in the mind of this debater.

Further on into the statement, we have -

Psychological manipulation in any form is disingenuous, hostile, propagandistic, aggressive, violating, and deceitful.

In addition to the counterexample of one's guardian, or Commander-In-Chief, or however one would prefer to express it, and for the purposes at hand let us just remain with the original choice, mom, already furnished regarding the quite justifiable training on the best way for her child to safely cross the street, let me add the following one -

I once knew a youngster in junior-high school, and for goodness sake it may have even been yours truly, although I would never admit to such an unfounded accusation publicly, who was sentenced by his principal to remain after school for the grossly unjust period of 40 hours, sweeping the halls of all things, for the incredibly minor offense of merely lighting a few fires at the back of his study-hall classroom.

Talk about tyranny ... but, I digress ...

In any case, how such a punishment could ever be construed as being, "disingenuous, hostile, propagandistic, aggressive, violating, and deceitful," again referencing my opponant's statement, also lies outside the boundaries of this humble debater's admittedly limited understanding.

My opponant concludes by inferring hundreds of millions have died as a result of psyops, buttressing his claim by mere hand waving and hystrionics. These wild claims are only his opinion and may be all refuted on that basis.

---

Answer to My Opponant's SQ

SQ1 - Other than the perpetrators, psychological manipulation of the public is justifiable by whom?

Answer - "Other than that subgroup of the people who carry out such operations, said manipulations are clearly justifiable by those who who have mandated the formation and existence of said subgroup."

---

Socratic Questions

SQ1. Would you agree that a three year-old's mom is his Commander-In-Chief?

SQ2. Would you agree that parents are justified in using operant conditioning ( short of extinction, of course ) to train their three year-old to stay out of the busy road ?

SQ3. Just as parents are the traditional guardians of their children at least during the period of their primary socialization while still living in the family household, would you agree that Clans, Tribes, and Nations each have their own corresponding traditional roles of highest authority ?

---

End of 2nd Reply

Answers to Socratic Questions/Rebuttal/2nd Post.

My opponent has asked very good questions which go to the heart of this debate and which I was going to address within this post. Therefore I find it useful, for the purposes of this post, to roll my answers to his questions, my rebuttal to his position, and my own thoughts into one framework. Although this post will take the form of answers to Socratic Questions, it includes all the above titled prerequisites of the debate.

SQ1. Would you agree that a three year-old's mom is his Commander-In-Chief?

Hem no, I would not agree.

A commander-in-chief is the commander of a nation's military forces or significant element of those forces.

The term "commander-in-chief" (president) derives from the Latin imperator. Imperatores (commanders-in-chief) of the Roman Republic and Roman Empire possessed imperium (command) powers.1

I suppose that a three year-old's parent (mother/father/older sibling/ant/uncle) is indeed an authority figure but to call them a "commander-in-chief" is far from an accurate representation of most families' dynamics. In fact were a parent to assume such a rigid and authoritative role, one might easily describe their actions as psychologically abusive. A parent is hopefully primarily a source of love and kindness, a mentoring figure who bases all their actions on what is at the best interest of the child, none of which are related to commanding anything.


SQ2. Would you agree that parents are justified in using operant conditioning ( short of extinction, of course ) to train their three year-old to stay out of the busy road ?

Operant Conditioning is by definition psychological manipulation and as such is both reprehensible and unjustifiable in this fighter's humble opinion.

From your source defining the four elements of Operational Conditioning deduced from rat testing:

In Positive Reinforcement a particular behavior is strengthened by the consequence of experiencing a positive condition.
In Negative Reinforcement a particular behavior is strengthened by the consequence of stopping or avoiding a negative condition.
In Punishment a particular behavior is weakened by the consequence of experiencing a negative condition.
In Extinction a particular behavior is weakened by the consequence of not experiencing a positive condition or stopping a negative condition.2

Let's also take a look at a definition of OC not provided by your source named Negative Reinforcement University, in fact let's return to our good friend Wikipedia.

Operant conditioning is the use of consequences to modify the occurrence and form of behavior. Operant conditioning is distinguished from classical conditioning (also called respondent conditioning, or Pavlovian conditioning) in that operant conditioning deals with the modification of "voluntary behavior" or operant behavior.3

(emphasis mine)

In essence, Operational Conditioning is the exaggeration of consequences, be they negative or positive, to manipulate the subject into a desired behavior. One might even say that instilling fear into a population under the false premise of an exaggerated consequence of further terrorist attacks in order to take away their liberties through such vehicles as The Patriot Act, is in fact Operational Conditioning on a grand scale and it is a nefarious use of psychological manipulation to further the agenda of the few at the expense of the public at large.

My opponent asks if Operant Conditioning is appropriate psychological manipulation from a parent to a child. Once again my clear answer is No! In fact it is not appropriate under any circumstances, whether the subject is a child, a populace, or even a poor lab rat.

It is fundamentally, as in all forms psychological manipulation, a lie to induce a desired affect.

And though there surely is a difference of degree when a parent says "the bogeyman will get you if you don't brush your teeth" and a government telling the public "the terrorists will get you if you don't let us tap your phones," they are essentially the same thing. In fact the former probably sets the acceptance at an early developmental stage for the latter.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that Operational Conditioning is either required or effective in increasing the physical security of the subject, be it child or populace, thus it is merely a tool of manipulation and control to the ends of the perpetrator rather than a vehicle through which the subject attains physical security.


SQ3. Just as parents are the traditional guardians of their children at least during the period of their primary socialization while still living in the family household, would you agree that Clans, Tribes, and Nations each have their own corresponding traditional roles of highest authority?

Again with the children.

My opponent is obviously attempting to confuse the issue of nurturing and socialization of a child with the overt acts of governmental and institutional psychological manipulation of the public.

I once more will answer my opponents question once more with a resounding No!

On the surface aspects of family dynamics such as protection and wish for prosperity may resemble clan/tribal/national objectives, but in reality they are in fact driven by completely different underlying intents. The family structure is driven in humans as in most species by a fundamental instinct of emotional and personal attachments. This mitigates in most cases nefarious intent on the part of the authority figure.

No such attachments are present in a greater social grouping. In fact that is precisely why abstract constructs such as nationalism (as per your earlier stated "the nation") have to be created by governments and "authorities" so as to effectively manipulate the public. They serve to create an artificial emotional and psychological attachment to a contrived notion such as patriotism in order to manipulate said attachment to the perpetrating party's ends, resulting in the public often acting against its own interest and security. After all, it takes a great deal of psychological manipulation to convince someone to willingly take arms and risk physical harm and even death just because someone else drew some lines on a map.

Yet one more example at to why "Psychological Manipulation Of The Public Is NOT Justifiable To Insure Physical Security."

3rd Reply

The rather powerful and well expressed polemics of my esteemed colleague's second reply have clearly defined the lines of demarcation of what has become for this contestant at least, a very interesting debate.

On the one side, my opponant's, we see the impassioned, and with all due respect, rather naive idealism of the humanist, while on my own side that of the existential realist. If this latter impression has not already been formed in the minds of our readers, then I fully expect all doubt to have been removed by the conclusion of this debate.

---

A Critique of My Opponant's Socratic Replies

SQ1. Would you agree that a three year-old's mom is his Commander-In-Chief?

Hem no, I would not agree.

If we consider the Commander-In-Chief to be equivalent to the president, and also that the president is, "one who presides," then for our three year-old, at least during the overwhelming preponderance of human history, mom indeed, is and has been the Commander-In-Chief.

I say, 'vast presponderance of human history,' because only recently, that is to say since the mid-60's anyway, beginning shortly after Jack Kennedy's assasination as it happens, as both parents ( meaning, 'now mom, too' ) were forced to seek gainful employment to meet the rising costs of living and of upward mobility here in the advanced western cultures like America for instance, while incidently at the same time paying a lot more taxes to the government now on their combined wages ( but I digress ... ), children's daycare has become an inevetable and lamentable part of the equation.

Certainly it is undeniable, at least with respect to her traditional social role, mom has always been the first line of defense when it comes her youngster's physical security.

In any case, as far as the issue of mom, in her traditional role of Commander-In-Chief goes, which I have just shown is a reasonable statement, my opponent and I shall have to simply agree to disagree.

SQ2. Would you agree that parents are justified in using operant conditioning ( short of extinction, of course ) to train their three year-old to stay out of the busy road ?

Operant Conditioning is by definition psychological manipulation and as such is both reprehensible and unjustifiable in this fighter's humble opinion.

Clearly, the prime biologic imperative of a parent is the physical survival of its offspring. In the face of the certain death or other severe physical consequences of a toddler's natural tendency to wander anywhere it pleases, such as into a busy street conducting high speed traffic, any measures, up to and even beyond mere psychological manipulation are undoubtedly justified.

Hence, because the consequences are nothing short of a youngster's life and death, my respected colleague's reply that OC, prima facie, is unjustified is complete balderdash and unadulterated nonsense.

Without question, practically any measures one might take to ensure the survival of one's children are absolutely justified.

Once again, my opponant and I are at an ideological impasse.

SQ3. Just as parents are the traditional guardians of their children at least during the period of their primary socialization while still living in the family household, would you agree that Clans, Tribes, and Nations each have their own corresponding traditional roles of highest authority?

My opponent is obviously attempting to confuse the issue of nurturing and socialization of a child with the overt acts of governmental and institutional psychological manipulation of the public.

I once more will answer my opponents question once more with a resounding No!

Choosing my words carefully, and again with all due respect for my honorable opponant, I must proclaim my absolute innocence of the charge he lays before this forum of my, "attempt to confuse the issue."

Indeed, based upon the sentiments he expresses, it may very well be he himself who evidently is confused. Furthermore, he seems to have layed himself open to the dreaded charge of, excessive warmth and fuzziness, ( ) for he obviously has mixed-up the issues of "nurturing," to use his own term, with the obviously intended one, that of the child's own physical survival.

Then, immediately following this clearly misguided interpretation, perhaps deeply awash in his own quite obvious indignation at what are admittedly the hard facts of life, he pronounces his answer to my own SQ3 to be a, "resounding No!"

Every schoolchild knows that both clans and tribes have their respective traditional forms of chieftainship, while Nations have their own forms of supreme leadership, variously designated by such elevated titles as, der Führer, the President, Pharaoh, Prime Minister, Shah, Grand Poobah, the King, etc.

Hence, my opponant's reply for SQ3 is false as well as nonsensical.

---

A Wee Bit More About Operant Conditioning

My esteemed colleague repeatedly trivializes the nature and indeed major relevance of this ubiquitous technique of psychological manipulation with such observations as the following, for example -

... defining the four elements of Operational Conditioning deduced from rat testing ...

The implication here obviously being that OC may be an effective technique for training "lab rats," but its effectiveness with the higher primates, specifically human beings is undetermined.

The following citations are here offered to ease the reader's conscience in this regard -

DOES THE NEGLIGENCE PENALTY INCREASE TAXPAYER COMPLIANCE?

B.F. Skinner (Science and Human Behavior, Macmillan, NY 1953) conducted thousands of studies to better understand the parameters of operant conditioning. Punishment, in the case of the IRS the use of penalties and audits, is intended to teach citizens to avoid non-compliant tax behavior, or to teach citizens to become compliant taxpayers. Most behavior modification systems are built on operant conditioning models.

emphasis added
[1]

BEHAVIORAL CONSEQUENCES OF REWARD REGARDING EMPLOYEE ABSENTEEISM IN AN INDUSTRIAL SETTING AN OPERANT CONDITIONING APPROACH

Certainly the work of B.F. Skinner (1953) has been the fountainhead for most of the studies using operant conditioning as a means to alter employee behavior (Nord, 1969).

[2]

EXERCISE: HOW SHOULD MERIT RAISES BE ALLOCATED?

“Behavioral Consequences Of Reward Regarding Employee Absenteeism In An Industrial Setting: An Operant Conditioning Approach” [Kustin , 1981], and “Executive Bailout At Shake & Spear, Inc.” [Sanders, Veiga and Yanouzas, 1984].

emphasis added
[3]

Selecting a better carrot: organizational learning, formal rewards and culture--a behavioral perspective.

Operant conditioning is the process by which behavior is modified by manipulation of the contingencies of the behavior (Bushardt, Fowler, and Debnath, 1988; Organ and Hamner, 1982; Skinner, 1971; Skinner, 1969) ... "The culture continuously monitors behavior and offers timely rewards through the members of the organization who mete out rewards and sanctions" (Bushardt & Fowler, 1987, pp. 33-34). Future rewards tend to be administered to members of a culture on a variable ratio reinforcement schedule and sanctions tend to be administered on a continuous reinforcement schedule ... (Rodriguez, Perez, and Pardo del Val, 2003).

[4]

An Operant Analysis of Prompting in a Sales Environment

Customers who did not order french fries were used as subjects and either did or did not receive a purchasing prompt depending on their treatment condition. The results demonstrated that prompts are associated with a significant increase in consumer purchases.

[5]

Clearly, there is overwhelming evidence in the literature that OC is the psychological technique of first choice for the training and control of human beings in addition to mere laboratory rats.

---

Is a Nation Just an Abstract Idea?

My opponant continues to take strong exception to my use of the term, "Nation" -

... abstract constructs such as nationalism ...

I find this mystifying. Nations have existed on this planet for thousands and thousands of years. There's nothing abstract about them at all.

---

SQ's

SQ1. Would you agree that the primary imperative of life is survival ?

SQ2. Would you agree that the primary imperative of parents is the survival of their children ?

SQ3. Would you agree that survival is the primary reason for maintaining physical security. ?

SQ4. Would you agree that nature teaches us the weak are killed and eaten ?

SQ5. Would you say that survival justifies itself ?

---

End of 3rd Reply

Answers to Socratic Questions


SQ1. Would you agree that the primary imperative of life is survival ?

I would agree that a humans' most fundamental instinct is self preservation, yes. Yet we see humans "sacrifice" of themselves, their safety, and often their life for others. Altruism has a significant place in the nature of humans, thus I won't concede to the generalization.

SQ2. Would you agree that the primary imperative of parents is the survival of their children ?

Though it seems to contradict your above proposition I would agree that that is the case for a lot of parents, unfortunately for others self preservation still trumps offspring protection. This is of course also the case across the animal kingdom where some species nurture their offspring and others don't. I'm not sure how this variation is applicable to your debate position.

SQ3. Would you agree that survival is the primary reason for maintaining physical security. ?

Survival depends on a lot of variable, physical security being only one of them. Just as important, if not more so, is emotional and psychological security.

One simply cannot sacrifice one for the others.

This is a paramount truth that my opponent simply does not distinguish and I will elaborate more on it further along in this post.

SQ4. Would you agree that nature teaches us the weak are killed and eaten ?

Like I said above, nature takes many forms. In a lot of bird species one offspring will peck the other to death shortly after being born to ensure its own odds of survival,this is obviously not the case in humans. We must thus be careful when drawing on "nature" at large to rationalize specific human behavior as nature is incredibly varied and we humans are but one unique ingredient in the soup of life.

To answer your question a little more directly, no I am not a Social Darwinist. Though it is true that in most cases nature favors the strong, in humans that strength is measured in more than just physical prowess. Due to our complex nature, physical strength has taken a much less important role in our survival than say, intellectual, emotional, and psychological strength. Thus our security and survival are much more dependent on our mental and emotional strength than our physical one.

To go back o the mother and child example, when a mother uses Operant Conditioning on her child she is essentially abusing and perverting that one human quality which the child will most likely need to ensure its long term physical security and indeed its survival. The psyche should be the most nurtured quality in a child not the one that is sacrificed in the hope that it will increase the child's physical security.

SQ5. Would you say that survival justifies itself ?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this question. Most acts of self defense are justifiable if they are proportional to the real threat, but that's not what we're talking about in this debate. Psychological manipulation is the construct of a contrived threat, not a real one, in order to modify the subject's natural assessment of that threat so that the subject reacts to said manufactured threat in the way that the perpetrator wishes them to. If the threat was valid to begin with no manipulation wold have been required.

---

Rebuttal

My opponent has gone to great lengths to make his case for the justified use of psychological manipulation drawing on the parent/child dynamic as an example for its necessity.

First of all, I have already shown that psychologically one's child one is harming the very tool which the child will need most to ensure its physical security.

Second of all, the debate topic is premised on "the public" and I am sorry to say that the public are NOT children.

That is to say that the "commander in chief" or the "president" or the "general" is not our mother.

There is a vast difference between raising a newborn child onto this world and protecting it until it is old enough to do it his/herself, and being in charge of a society of adult humans each possessing their fully developed free will.

In those countries which elect their leaders democratically we do so to represent us, not to "mother" us.

So even if one was to concede, which I am not, that there is justification for the manipulation of a child under the "its for its own good" premise, that justification does not extend to the public at large.

The public is entitled to nothing less than the whole truth so that it may decide accordingly as to the path it wishes its elected leaders to take.

The propagandistic distribution of information by the leaders of a state in order to psychologically manipulate the public sentiment to serve the perpetrators personal agendas at the expense of the public interest is NEVER justifiable.

Closing Statement

The character budget for this post is critical, so I will just begin -

---

The Notion of Scale-Invariance

Self-similarity

In mathematics, a self-similar object is exactly or approximately similar to a part of itself (i.e. the whole has the same shape as one or more of the parts) ... [they] show the same statistical properties at many scales.

Scale invariance is an exact form of self-similarity where at any magnification there is a smaller piece of the object that is similar to the whole.

[1]

At this point I would ask the reader, in the spirit of true objective inquiry, for a moment to suspend his disbelief and bear with me to hear out the remainder of my reasoning.

---

Infantile Trust and Invariance of Scale

What I have been driving at throughout the presentation of my position during the previous three posts is that any community of individuals, that is to say "the people," at whichever scale ( in the sense of the above citation ) one would like to view the matter, generally manifests very similar characteristics.

Arguably, in some sense, a nation of hundreds of millions, or a tribe of thousands, or a clan of hundreds, or even at the fundamental molecular level of the family, we see some characteristics of behavior and perception which map, more or less identically to those of the individual, who might be said to represent human nature at the atomic scale.

My opponant has pointed out in one way or another on more than one occasion that I have allocated a large percentage of my character budget on a seemingly inane discussion and presentation of infancy and the subjective description of the mother-child relationship.

My intention has been to lay the groundwork for the following claim -

The People tend to unconsciously trust authority, at whatever scale of social organization, because of those imprints established between the infant and its mother during the first eighteen-months of childhood.

Precisely in the same way as the modern operating systems in our ubiquitous personal computers have a ring-zero execution kernel, on top of which all other system functions are built, so also, this tendency to trust authority is the ring-zero of the higher biologic organism, including human beings.

This tendency is no accident, it is totally irrational and subconscious, and it helps us all, of whatever species we happen to be, to survive.

Nature has programmed into us our tendency to trust authority.

Q: Are people really so ignorant of their own essential nature that they don't know this about themselves ?

A: Certainly !

Just because statesmen and politicians, or the ruling class, if you will, have learned how to hack into our ring-zero kernels through the use of the supremely effective method of psychological manipulation doesn't make it unjustified.

In fact, because it has been demonstrated people are so infantile, and indeed so stupid by nature that it is the leadership's duty to coerce control in this manner for the good of said people.

Finally, my claim is that it enables the ruling class to better do the jobs we mandate them to do, that being, specifically to ensure the physical security, and hence, the survival of the nation.

---

A Reponse to the Answers to the SQs

Because I am almost out of budget I will now state my position on the questions, en masse, without elaboration.

1. Suvival is always justified by life, at the macro scale. People may have notions about altruistic motives, but survival of the species always takes precidence over other, necessarily lesser considerations.

2. Show me a parent who won't take a bullet for their child, and I'll show you a parent who is somehow sadly incomplete.

3. In a competative and indeed a militarized world, survival is not possible without physical security.

4. Anyone who claims nature does not teach us the weak are killed and eaten isn't living on the same planet as the rest of us.

5. And, finally, in terms again of survival of the species that survival is always justified.

---

The Existential Justification

The exstential view claims the world, "is what it is," without any regard for moral or ethical considerations. Generally speaking existentialism, as a distinct school of philosophy may be regarded as a reaction to humanity's increasingly rationalistic world-view since the mid-19th century. It is basically a way to justify the apparently contradictory and absurd events and developments in today's modern world.

It is for this reason that I have chosen to argue from the existential perspective that psychiological manipulation of the masses to achieve physical security is justifiable.

Taking such a position relieves me of any necessity of justifying the ethics or morality of such manipulations. By merely proving such manipulations result in physical security for the masses, I prove my position absolutely.

---

The Ubiquity of Psychological Manipulation in Modern Culture

As I have shown in previous posts, psychological manipulation, in the form of Operant Conditioning ( OC ) is used everywhere in today's world.

There are also the straight up classical techniques of propaganda in use as well.

From early childhood our parents use OC to teach us to survive such common everyday threats to our physical security as the simple act of crossing the street. From there OC is used on us with great efficacy to optimize the outcomes our educational experience. Once beyond the classroom, I have shown that sanctions and rewards are applied with overwhelming frequency in training adults to do a good job paying their taxes, to show up for work in a timely and reliable manner, and even in ordering those nice tasy french fries at our favorite fast food outlets.

Propaganda, on the other hand is endemic as well, and merely serves the purpose it always has, establishing the perceptual status quo for the masses.

Certainly, OC and propaganda in general are, a condition endemic to human existence.

---

National Security For Suvival of the People

Just as individuals compete in the world for limited resources to maintain their survival so also do tribes, clans and nations.

Because the world does indeed teach us, the weak succumb to the strong, that nation which is strongest will have the best chances of survival. If strength can be equated to efficiency then it is fair to say, the most efficient nation is the most likely to survive.

Taking America, a nation of about 300-million individuals as an example, it is fair to say America is strongest when we are all pulling in the same direction.

How can this alignment of individual efforts be accomplished ?

Broadly speaking, the answer is to accomplish the goal of getting everybody thinking the same way, at least about the core issues. Issues like, for instance, what are the right things and the wrong things for an American to believe and for an American to do.

To find a way of illustrating the problem here perhaps the example of a simple compass will serve.

Let us say, just for the purposes of discussion, that an individual person is like a compass having a magnetized needle which always points toward magnetic north exactly in the manner of an actual compass.

Now, anyone who's ever used a compass will know that it doesn't always point to the same north everywhere. The device actually responds to the local magnetic field.

Now, in our example, to get all the people pulling in the same direction is equivalent to getting 300-million needles all pointing in precisely the same direction regardless of their location.

This means we need everywhere the same stable, consistent and homegeneous background field.

I suggest that for the people this background field is established by no other means than psychological manipulation. The more effectively this field is applied, the more efficiently the national body will perform, and hence, the stronger it will be, and the better will be its physical security.

Of course the way this field is established everywhere is via the mass media and the institutional use of OC. It is through the media and institutionalized OC that the thinking and perceptions of myriad individuals are all brought into alignment.

---

Psychological Manipulation of the People for Physical Security is Justified

Because our leaders know we tend to automatically trust authority, for all the reasons mentioned above, they exploit this fact to get us all pulling in the same direction.

In the name of national security, which is to ultimately say for the surivial of our nation, we have elected our leadership and given them the mandate for doing so.

Hence, such manipulations are absolutely justified.

I now rest my case.

---

This has been a very rich and interesting topic and one which I found to be suprisingly deep and full of new info. My research into this topic was rewarding and informative for me and I hope for the readers as well.

I now await my esteemed colleague's final post and the panel's judgement of our efforts.

Thank you all !

---

End of Closing Statement

schrodingers dog has won through majority and will advance to the Third Round.

Round 1: Opening Statements

9-8 Schrodinger’s Dog

I cannot believe I actually read the whole story about your argumentative style, but something about Tibetan Monks always grabs my attention. So that was interesting to say the least. Also, I do not believe I have ever actually seen anyone use the word utility in a sentence. Well done.

On to my judging of the first round:

Opening rounds generally don’t affect my points at all, but I do need to get some idea of what people are going to be discussing. I suppose that is what visibile_villian was doing also – trying to confirm the topic. I won’t dock too many points for it.

Also, schrodinger’s dog, have you ever seen this study? Mostly just kidding, but seriously, tone it down a bit. I hate looking up every other word. And I’ll be damned if I know any French.

Round 2: Rebuttals and Support

10-8 Schrodinger’s Dog

My first impression, and I am judging this as I go, is that visibile_villian is a bit unsure of how to tackle the objective presented. It is a tough topic, but much of what he has relayed so far would be better to keep to himself, such as the relating his position to that of the Nazis. Perhaps, and maybe we were all thinking it, but the last thing you should do is confirm it for us. At this point, since you have told me your position is akin to the Nazis, you have to convince me that the Nazis had it right.

Schrodinger’s Dog had a fantastic reply. The only word I can use to describe his style so far: blunt. My favorite style.

Quote of the Round:

Originally posted by Schrodinger’s Dog
The cumulative historical death toll, to the degree that it can even be accurately calculated, for Soldier/Civilian/Genocide deaths is: Lowest Estimate = 306,351,885, Highest Estimate = 736,637,812

Round 3: Rebuttals and Support

10-10 Tie (Great job both)

Immediately visible_villian comes out with some fire by redefining nation. I must say that was impressive. Overall, after reading the post, visible_villian appears to have rebounded completely and turned this debate back onto the offensive.

Schrodinger’s Dog did exactly as I have come to expect, and quickly deflected his opponent’s attacks and responded by going straight back on the offensive. Due to this, I must call this round a tie. Good job by both fighters.

No quote of the round. The winner goes to one of visible_villian’s sources.

Round 4: Rebuttals and Support

9-9 Tie

This was fairly similar to the last round. Both fighters did a good job attacking their opponent, but I left it at 9-9 because I felt each of them were missing something that round. I agree with Schrodinger’s Dog that visible_villian needed to take his connection of school and home to a more grand social view.

Closing Statements

10-8 visible_villian

Wow. Visible_villian absolutely smashed it that round. Unfortunately, due to the first two rounds, visible_villian could not catch schrodinger’s dog. I would, however, like to convey that this debate started out luke warm and finished with a bang. Both fighters:

Well done. Impressive battle. Congrats to schrodinger’s dog for my vote.

Quote of the Debate

Originally posted by visible_villian
Just because statesmen and politicians, or the ruling class, if you will, have learned how to hack into our ring-zero kernels through the use of the supremely effective method of psychological manipulation doesn't make it unjustified.

Judgment for: shrodingers dog

An interesting topic for debate the could have easily, in my opinion, been blown wide open into an epic battle. Unfortunately visible_villain's newness to debating forays seemed to stall him quickly and too long. He did make some worthwhile points and progress later in the match with his points on Operational Conditioning as well as the Mother/Child analogy. But he never stretched far enough to make them work and never overcame the greatest obstacles in presenting a winning argument.

In this case, in my opinion, the overcoming of at least one obstacle could well have been achieved with broadening rather than narrowing of the topic's elements. In particular the concept on "manipulation" which is a broad word with rather narrow, and negative, connotations. Opening up the root word, manipulate, to its primary and broadest definition might have served to gain more ground.

I appreciate his attempt to find common ground on which to battle with his opponent, but with the privilege of opening, may have been better served by staking an immediate claim and setting the tone.

But this rings out a lack of experience rather than ability and so I personally will look forward to visible_villian's future debates as he finds his footing and chooses his tactics more carefully. And hopefully without painting himself as a Nazi next time.

Schrodingers dog did not simply rest on his laurels though and presented fine rebuttals even if his point were largely unmet, though that again may have been a lack of experience on his opponents part. So while visible_villian do lose the match through his lackluster arguments, schrodingers dog equally won the match with his counters and attacking arguments.

Edit for quote tags.

[edit on Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:06:30 -0500 by MemoryShock]