You heard it here first, folks! The Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has already begun research into "finding ways to generate versions of events that could be used in attempts to persuade people not to support the enemy." If you were wondering who the "enemy" is and who the "people" are, your guess is as good as mine... I wasn't suspicious at first, but after reading the almost 10 references to mind control, I knew something was up. Still not convinced? Skeptics click here.
In actuality, DARPA is funding a project called Narrative Networks which is essentially the study of "why are we grabbed by some stories and not others." In theory, research into the effects of narratives on the human mind could help reduce conflict in places like Afghanistan. This idea was tested by a study that took Palestinians and Israelis, and asked them to write about the difficulties caused by the ongoing conflicts that they were facing. What was the end result? The study showed that "attitudes of the Palestinians towards the Israelis improved more when
they were allowed to tell their stories, rather than listening, whereas
Israelis' attitudes about Palestinians improved more after they listened
to Palestinians describing their experiences." Now why does this program matter? The U.S government already spends more than a billion dollars a year trying to convince foreign audiences of its benevolence. That is a hefty bill to pay, especially when considering that the "research is starting to show that what might be most effective would be the ear of America." In other words, we should begin to let foreigners tell us their stories.
The question remains... if "you could somehow reliably change peoples’ minds so that they didn’t want to kill anymore, should that be done?" So, what do you think, yeah you!? Would this violate our rights or would it be an acceptable price to pay? Do you think this type of research should be endorsed by the government?
You can find the article here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I can't think of any sort of precedent for this that would help clearly, legally define what a violation I think this is. However, I think there is a very thin line between using this for "good" and using this to attempt to brainwash, as you said. Who decides where that line even is? When propaganda gets to this level its just dangerous, and reaches a level of manipulative which I don't think should be allowed.
It's hard to call this project "brainwashing"; while it might influence one's state of mind, it doesn't actively convert their beliefs, unless they choose to do so. I believe that the project's goals can be justified. All conflicts seem to erupt out of misunderstandings or an unwillingness to compromise, all of which could be more easily rectified if both parties simply talked more. By using a device that would ease public relations and avoid increasing tensions, it would be much easier to achieve peaceful discussions. In addition, although people do seem more susceptible to persuasion in tranquil states of mind (e.g. hypnotism), being properly cynical can go a long way towards defending against any type of propaganda. So long as we set our bounds and do not use it to deceive, I think its use is reasonable.
I agree with what Ivan said. What is said in the article is not about outright changing, but just influencing people's minds. No one is being forced; a dialogue just brings people closer together. Though I think a better way to say being properly cynical would be to say cautious against everything.
I don't think further research for the Narrative Networks would have negative effects mental freedom. This seems like a study about persuasion and the intentions seem legitimate. Moreover, I feel like this research isn't actually as innovative as the name suggests. In psychology we learned that cooperation is the best way to alleviate tensions between antagonistic groups when working towards a common goal. When different groups come together, they find more subjects to identify each other with, leading to less future conflict. This is also known as the mere exposure effect.
Post a Comment