We Need to Change Our Strategy for Influencing or Converting Others: (New Short Version!)

[hazek]

So I'm guessing their beliefs is "there should be health care for everyone!"?

If that's the case I'd try this:

I agree with you! But let me ask you, are you happy the way health care works right now? (I assume they'd say No) Ok, and who runs health care right now? (since it public, I assume they'd say The government) So the government is running it and you have all these complains about how they're running it?

(first I agree with their value of health care for all, then I expose their pain, and expose the source of the pain)

Ok let me tell you what I think. I think everyone should have a cellphone with affordable rates and guess what?! we already do! Now imagine if I said this to you in say 1970s when they were developing the very first actually cell phones? People would call me crazy.

So how is it that just 40 years later every kid has a cell phone with a all these crazy features? How are cell phones different from health care? I'll tell you how, one is provided by the government through centralized planing and the other is provided from the free market by competing companies. So I'm with ya! I want health care for all, just like I want cell phones for all. But the wasteful full of incapable bureaucrats government can never provide what the free market can do through competition!

(then I'd present them with an alternative that they already hopefully associate with pleasure and just drive the point home)

------------------------------------------------------
I think the important think here is that you don't say: No, you can be against public health care.
If you do that you've already lost them because anything you say past that they'll filter out. What you have to do is break it down to what public health care actually means to them and then show them an alternative, less painful option

 

[StilesBC]

Hmm, yes. Again, asking questions and letting them basically answer them on their own probably proves most effective.

I guess the key is to have the correct questions ready at all times, remaining non-combative and not being condescending with how they're asked.

This is unsurprising for me. As a tennis teacher, I found asking questions to be the most effective way of communicating abstract concepts like court positioning.

 

[LeifEiriksson]

Great post Sentinel. I read it all.

I've been exposed to this material before but I have to admit, either because your article further ingrained in my mind this concept or because it was probably the most concise, readable article I've read on the subject, this was super helpful. I have read books like Think and Grow Rich and I am familiar with some of the concepts the seduction community which rely heavily on changing one's limiting beliefs, and I can attest to everything you have said. To all the doubters out there, this shit really does work and will change your life. It's really up to you.

I took out your most enlightening paragraphs and pasted them in the word document for future reference for myself.

When we're old men (and women) and if we look back at our life as a failure, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We are so fortuitous to be living in the 21st century when science can explain to us exactly what we need to do if we want to change our lives. And the most exciting thing that science has proven is that we CAN change our lives. It's ultimately up to us, not to fate.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.


p.s. Back in the day I was a huge Metroid fan myself.

 

[hazek]

I guess the key is to have the correct questions ready at all times, remaining non-combative and not being condescending with how they're asked.

The most important thing to keep in mind is when asking question is to think about what people REALLY want. Public health care is a clever name for a specific service which they may think will provide something that they actually want. So you need to find out what they actually want.

So whenever they support or disapprove of something, don't start with the name of the program or service but rather the product. In the case of public health care it's probably "affordable health care for everyone" and then you can actually find common ground because we want the same thing essentially just through different means.

 

[hazek]

Strong national defense is another one. So what do people who favor strong national defense actually want? Well it's probably very simple and it's most likely to have a secure country, protected from foreign invaders. As soon as you agree with someone on this, you can start changing their beliefs on how to get what they want.

Same goes for department of education, they probably want affordable school for everyone which is basically the same thing as public health care....



Another thing to keep in mind is that for every public program, the government needs money to run. And since they don't have any money, they either tax, borrow or print it. And then you can employ the "against me" argument:

 

[Sentinelrv]

The most important thing to keep in mind is when asking question is to think about what people REALLY want. Public health care is a clever name for a specific service which they may think will provide something that they actually want. So you need to find out what they actually want.

So whenever they support or disapprove of something, don't start with the name of the program or service but rather the product. In the case of public health care it's probably "affordable health care for everyone" and then you can actually find common ground because we want the same thing essentially just through different means.

This is an example of what I talk about in the main article being used in action. There are both means values and ends values. Ends values are the actual end goals themselves, while means values are what they will use to get there.

 

[NewName]

Very good stuff here! I have also spent the last year studying psychological stuff after finally realizing that trying to talk to people logically won't work. I had not yet gotten into some of the stuff you've mentioned Sentinelrv and hazek, thanks for the research! You seem like you're on the same track as me. I've been studying different stuff and it's great to put it all together! I would definitely recommend to keep studying the seduction community, it's extremely relevant and there are some very good insights to be found. http://www.fastseduction.com/guide/

In keeping with our scientific mindsets we should try to only rely on empirical evidence, things that have been tested in the real world, not just what we think should work. For example, we thought that trying to logically explain things to most people would work, but as those of us that have tried to apply that belief in real life have hopefully learned by now, it will not work.

I think belief change will require more research and it should not be relied on until it can be reliably empirically tested. Rand Paul's campaign has already successfully empirically tested tailoring the message to preexisting beliefs. Strategically, we will have to continue research on belief change, and that is what will have an actual long term effect on society, but for current political campaigns we have to tailor the message. So we should look more closely at what Rand did in his campaign.

Unfortunately it may be it was simply that Rand Paul is Rand Paul, and Ron Paul is not. If you learn how people's unconscious minds perceive people then you will understand that Ron Paul doesn't convey the alpha male traits that Rand Paul does, and thus even if people can be brought to listen to him he will turn them off emotionally. Because of that it may be necessary to really, really get people emotionally excited for liberty before introducing them to Ron Paul to counter balance Ron Paul's lack of ability to emotionally engage them. :/ Most people also seem to lack the courage to be self directed and so they seek a strong leader, and Ron Paul doesn't convey that image. There are whole mountains of psychological problems that people have that would have to be solved before they could really be ready to support Ron Paul. :/ And the elite are more than happy to manipulate people through their problems and make them worse.

Recently my research has been on what are the preexisting beliefs that people have and where do they come from? I've found some very interesting studies that you should read through in full, real eye openers:

http://pluto.huji.ac.il/~hassin/Hassin_etal_2007_PNAS_Ideology.pdf
http://cornellpsych.org/people/trav...licit Nationalism as System Justification.pdf

They're fairly new though and need to corroborated with other studies, so they could be false but they seem to fit in with everything else I've studied about the unconscious mind, but we should still take them with a grain of salt. Strangely, I found these links on the hebrew version of the subliminal stimuli wikipedia page here. There was also another interesting study there but the web site (apparently the only place to read the study for free) says it's "services may not be available indefinitely"... The study is "Affective Habituation: Subliminal Exposure to Extreme Stimuli Decreases Their Extremity" I have it saved if anyone wants it. The abstract describes it well enough I guess: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.167.6846

From all the research into NLP you start to see that something like this may also be possible: http://cryptogon.com/?p=19867

Anyway, please keep up the research into preexisting beliefs and keep us updated! Maybe we could even set up our own survey thing like the researchers did for those studies so we can do our own studies of beliefs and what influences them. I remember hearing about a free survey software that we could install if someone gets some webspace with the right setup.

What happens if someone takes a test with a peace sign in the background? Each person probably interprets things differently so you have to find the "lowest common denominator" trigger that will affect the most people.

To reiterate the best points mentioned so far:

"The goal here is to avoid the filtering -- or distortion -- of the ideas before they can be registered in the nervous system and associated with either pain or pleasure."

"the name Ron Paul or even Republican should perhaps be completely avoided in these kinds of discussions. The names could even be removed from campaign material - with only a numerical website address for the target to investigate after the fact. If this seems peculiar to the person, the response, "We believe politics is more about ideas than personalities," should do the trick to keep them engaged."

"Asking questions to potential converts may be a better use of a campaigner's time than simply starting to talk about any given issue and hoping a light bulb goes off in their head. "What are the issues that concern you most?" "What qualities are most important for you in the next president?" No matter what the answer, a response can then be tailored for the target. I guess the main goal is to avoid, for as long as possible, any negative neural emotions which would effectively distort the remainder of the information given."
- StilesBC

Here are some of my writings on all of this, they're kind of old and not necessarily in line with my current knowledge but I don't have time right now to update them but they still seem correct enough:

Yes, it has to be subtle. I've heard of people coming around just from casual info given to them and eventually they see it's true. Expect nothing when sharing any info.

I'm still working on solidifying my ideas but here are some of my thoughts:

It may be useful to study the basic theories/principles of influence and "Neuro-Linguistic Programming" (NLP). "Influence" by Cialdini is a good view into some techniques of how people were manipulated into believing the things they do, and anyone attempting to challenge those beliefs is going to have to understand what they are dealing with. It also includes advice on how you can identify and avoid being manipulated by the techniques. "Propaganda" by Bernays is a good view to the strategy of how things became as they are.

The core of NLP is basically effective techniques for talking to people. Some people learn the techniques in the natural course of their life, and some people learn them intentionally through study, and some people never learn. In NLP studying someone and copying their techniques is called "modeling" (as in "role model"). The premise is that if one person can do something then someone else can do it too. There isn't anything that is specifically "NLP", it's just a term used to describe identified/modeled techniques dealing with interpersonal communication. The techniques of NLP are tools, and as such can be used for "good" or for "evil." Whether you know about them or not they can and probably have been used on you in your life. The best way to counter techniques used for bad intentions is to know about them.

Look into rapport and "pacing and leading," which are very important techniques. Rapport is basically the feeling that the people know each other really well and feel like they are on the same side. If you are in rapport with someone they will be more likely to favorably consider the things that you say. There are techniques for building the feeling of rapport quickly in other people. One is "assuming rapport" by treating the other person like a good friend and if it works they follow the pattern of responding by feeling like they're good friends with you. Pacing and leading is basically matching (pace) something of the other person like ideas/posture/movement/behaviors/everything/anything/etc and they will then start to subconsciously follow your ways that are similar to their own, and then you slightly change your behaviors/ideas/etc incrementally to lead them to where you want. You can't make it too obvious or sudden though, like copying every movement they make or they will probably be offended/feel bad/break rapport with you.

More advanced NLP techniques deal with the subconscious mind, which can be talked to through metaphor without the conscious mind being aware of the message. Most people go through life allowing themselves to be guided by their subconscious mind. Therefore someone's subconscious mind can be influenced to think certain things without their conscious mind knowing they are being influenced, and then they will follow whatever their subconscious has been "programmed" with. Everyone's subconscious mind is always being influenced by everything around them, whether it's random or through someone's intention. Through practice you can control your subconscious mind's impulses with your conscious "self." You can consciously influence what your subconscious does or does not think about. It's useful to consider whether the things your subconscious mind is thinking about are useful to you (like some negative thoughts), and if not then replaced those thoughts with more useful ones. Another technique is "sub-modalities", basically imagined sensory input like sight/sound/touch/scent/taste. Changing the characteristics of the "sub-modalities" can change the feelings associated with them, usually positively or negatively (light/dark big/small near/far,loud/quiet,rough/soft,bad/good,sweet/bitter). For example if you kept saying something negative about yourself when you made a mistake, do you consciously really think that or is it something unuseful that your subconscious mind just happens to say(maybe repeating from some unuseful past incident)? Instead, try imagining that the voice sounds funny so you don't take it seriously and can feel better and quickly move on to thinking about something more useful like how to fix/avoid the problem in the future.

Talking to people does have some overlap with "pick-up" as well, so many of the same principles apply: warning: do not click Parts such as "inner game," confidence, initiating conversations, fluff talk and getting past it, eliciting values.

"How to Win Friends and Influence People" also has some ideas for gaining rapport, although these and NLP are all tactics. In "seven habits of highly effective people" the author talks about how the in 20th century the persuasion and influence fields focused on quick tactics to make people like you, rather than being a genuinely good person that people would actually like. Some of the "pick-up artists" talk about this too, how some people focus only on quick and easy "outer game" tactics to quickly break through social conditioning, rather than having "inner game," being a likable person which takes time and effort to develop. Both are needed though, you shouldn't be just an influencing machine that can get someone to like you immediately but have nothing else to offer, nor should you be just a great person but have to spend years to really talk with someone.

Here's an interesting analysis of different types of people and ideas for how to talk to them: http://neithercorp.us/npress/?p=287

In the end there's no way to force someone to change, they have to follow their own path to seeing the truth. All you can do is keep pointing out the nearest rabbit holes, it's up to them to go down.

I think Influence and NLP are things that every free human is going to have to learn to identify and use to avoid being manipulated and controlled. Elites have been using these techniques for millennia to control the masses, and it doesn't look like they're going to stop on their own any time soon.

I'm sure that's a satisfying idea that many Libertarians have tried for a long time. I know I've tried it many times before. It feels good to win an argument. Most people connect their political affiliations and what those are claimed to stand for to their core identity. "*I* am a _________(D/R/G/L)." Emotionally they "feel" that any attack on a party or their beliefs is an ad hominem attack on their self. Emotions react faster than reason and logic, so an emotional response blocks any rational thought. The mind cannot emotionally tell the difference between an imagined attack and a physical attack, so they emotionally respond to a verbal attack just as you would emotionally respond to a physical initiation of force against your body. With a lot of practice and willpower a person can control their emotions. If someone has never taken the time to practice and control their emotions then logic and reason will have no effect on their beliefs. Most people do not know how and have not taken the time to learn how to control their emotions. Therefore most of the time attacking in any way something that people hold as part of their identity will make them emotionally reject any argument, even if it is true.

I now believe the best way to reliably change people's beliefs is by subtly directing their good intentions to new beliefs. Everything everyone does and believes is because they have good intentions, so identify their good intentions and start with agreeing on those.

The general idea is to "pace and lead". Pace, like in a jogging pace, means meeting them at their current pace of ideas so you can talk meaningfully, otherwise you're running too fast for them. When you have paced them and they feel good about talking with you then you are in 'rapport' with them. People feel good when they are in rapport so they will try to be courteous to not break rapport by breaking their pace with you. Then you can try going a little further and they will try to keep their pace with you to keep talking. If they follow then you are leading them, and you can start leading the way back to liberty. If not then drop back down until you have enough rapport.

Going straight to liberty can be difficult for most people, so you need to go slowly along a path that they can follow. The steps on the path to liberty are:

1. Wanting to Believe: Everybody has good intentions and wants to do things that make them real. So agree that anything that can make those good intentions happen is good. Since everyone wants to do good then we can agree that things that do the least bad and the most good should be done.

2. Becoming Open to Believe: We can agree that since no one knows everything then maybe there are things that we haven't yet thought of that make our good intentions happen with the least bad.

3. Currently Believing: Be aware that beliefs in liberty come into conflict with beliefs that require initiating force, so those beliefs must be let go of to move on to liberty. It is critical to pace people's beliefs that are holding them down so that you can help show them the way to liberty, otherwise you might break your pace with them and lose rapport. Say, "you're right. I agree. Initiating force is good in that situation." Unironically. Then carefully, while making sure they are following you in other ways, start to say that you are slightly conflicted about those beliefs because of something someone else (unknown to them) said, to deflect any unpleasantness directed at those beliefs away from yourself so you don't break rapport. Then judge if they are following and if you can keep appearing to change your beliefs.

4. Becoming Open to Doubt: Becoming open to doubt a belief can be difficult for someone who has held on to it for a long time and doesn't know that it can be let go of quickly. Find the good intention of the belief, and then recognize that there could be many ways of accomplishing that good intention.

5. The 'Museum of Personal History'- Remembering What We 'Used to' Believe: It's easier to become open to doubt a belief in some emotional states than in others. Getting into a good emotional state before approaching these beliefs is very important. Try remembering the feeling of having old beliefs that you now know are no longer true. Remember jolly old saint Nick and how you felt about him as a child and maybe your beliefs today are in a different part of your heart.

6. Trust: Trust is an essential part of moving forward with your beliefs. Trust is an "assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something." "People trust, for instance, that a person will 'be true to his word.' or that 'things will turn out for the best.' ... Emotionally, trust is related to hope. ... The feeling of trust, however, is often stronger than hope. It has to do with the expectation that something will happen, rather than simply the belief that it could happen. Trust, in fact, is often something we must rely on when we have no proof. In this sense, trust extends beyond belief to the level of identity or even spiritual experience. In the natural cycle of belief change, 'trust' is typified by a state that allows us to go beyond our beliefs; to the state from which our beliefs are formed." Maybe ask them that if there were someone that has consistently been dedicated and correct on liberty if they would maybe trust that person.

While I haven't empirically tested this yet, I have tried the other way and it has not worked.

Some material to look into:
Robert Cialdini - Influence Science and Practice (excellent info)
How to win friends and influence people (a classic, but you need some understanding of NLP and rapport first to fully understand it.)
For NLP and rapport you can study the basics here: http://www.fastseduction.com/guide/ It's notable that they strongly encourage actually testing out everything they do, so there is a lot of empirical testing behind a lot of it.
Neil Strauss - The Game (an interesting intro to the seduction community, apparently all empirical)
Sperm Wars (it didn't sound important when I first heard of it, but once you start understanding a lot of NLP and stuff it makes sense)
48 laws of power (some important points, it mostly lines up with NLP and seems fairly empirical, don't take it too seriously though)
Walden (I just recently read this, it gives a good historical perspective that the things going on today have been going on for a long, long time. People have basically always been pretty messed up. Perhaps with NLP we now have a chance to change that.)
Robert Dilts - Sleight of Mouth - The Magic of Conversational Belief Change (interesting, but not really much empirical evidence to support it)
Of course look into stuff that Richard Bandler has done.
Malcolm Gladwell - The Tipping Point (some interesting ideas, I'm not sure how empirically tested they are though)
Edward Bernays - Propaganda (I haven't actually gotten to finishing this one, but from what I've read it's creepily timely)
Human Resources: http://cryptogon.com/?p=19116 (best film at putting all the pieces together)


Also, anon, if you study NLP and all the studies about the unconscious mind, you might find the actual way that most people could interpret of your quote to be different from what you might expect. The unconscious mind isn't complex enough to interpret syntax or order, it only sees very simple links of whatever is literally there:

"Americans, our soldiers, deserve better. Stop The Waste! Ron Paul, for a stronger and more effective military"

"americans our soldiers deserve" = Our soldiers deserve their very own Americans
"better stop"
"waste ron paul for a stronger and more effective military"

asking questions and letting them basically answer them on their own probably proves most effective.

Unfortunately that won't work either, you can almost see their brain jumping through hoops to try and not come to the logical conclusion. Here's what I remember of a conversation that I had with a very smart former Army Sgt and Lawyer:

Lawyer: "So what should the government do to help the economy?"
Me: "They could stop the banks from committing fraud, that could help the economy."
"None of the banks have committed fraud."
"... so if someone makes mortgage loans to someone that they know won't be able to pay them back and then package and sell those mortgages as investments to other people as a good investment, is that fraud?"
"Yes that's fraud."
"Isn't that what the banks have been doing?"
"Yeah that's what the banks have been doing."
"So have the banks been committing fraud?"
"Well yeah when you put it like that then yeah the banks have been committing fraud."
"Ok, so the government should stop the banks from committing fraud and that should help the economy."
"No. You're wrong."
"... What?"
"None of the banks have committed fraud though."
"... but, I just... you just said... nevermind."

There are all kinds of things that people have subconscious opinions about, and you have to avoid all of them. For example the lawyer had been subconsciously emotionally programmed that "banks = good" and no amount of logic will ever change that. You must be extremely indirect in making emotional associations.

 

[hazek]

Nice post, I read most of it.

If people who read this thread and are introduced to this material for the first time take away one thing from it, it should be the fact that we are creatures of emotions and convincing people to join our movement based on reason will never work unless they already have very positive emotions associated with our ideas.

 

[Sentinelrv]

You seem to have delved much more into the NLP aspect of all this. The only NLP that I've really been exposed to were Tony Robbin's two books Unlimited Power and Awaken the Giant Within. That little bit though has seriously influenced my understanding of the mind. All my most important understandings, such as the mental filters, RAS and "The map is not the territory" came from Tony. The problem though, especially with Unlimited Power was that it seemed overly complicated. The syntax chapter alone made me want to put the book down. Most of the major info that influenced me in that book was in the first couple chapters. The syntax chapter and other stuff in the book seemed too difficult for the average person to use, one of the major reasons why I wrote my own article about it.

I think I have a different kind of understanding of the subject than most people do. Most people have figured out this information by reading books on NLP. I was only influenced by NLP to a certain degree. The rest of my understanding on the subject came from me trying to piece it together all by myself. Because of this, I think I have a different understanding of the material and provide a different perspective on it, rather than the complicated books on NLP. This also means though that I don't have a complete understanding in how the subject affects everything. For example, that video you posted of the guy hypnotizing people in the shopping mall, I had no idea something like that was possible. I know a lot about the subject because of my own analysis, but I don't know how it applies in every circumstance, and I don't completely know all the crazy uses for this technology like that shopping mall video.

Each person probably interprets things differently so you have to find the "lowest common denominator" trigger that will affect the most people.

One thing I've found while writing my article is that people can use different labels to describe things and not even know they are speaking of the same thing. For example, your quote above would be worded differently if I was explaining the same thing.

Each person interprets things differently because we all have our own set mental filters working on that sensory data in different ways. What you call "the lowest common denominator trigger," I would call your ends values. Value = Emotion. There are means and ends values. Ends values are the emotional states themselves where means values are vehicles used to help you reach your ends values. Values along with beliefs are also mental filters used by your RAS, which delete, distort and generalize the sensory data coming in. So in your language, you'd say "Why do you need to find the lowest common denominator trigger in order to affect the most people?" In my language the question would be "Why do you need to find common ends values in order to affect the most amount of people? In my language, the answer would be because people have different means values or vehicles used in order to reach their ends values. A neocon uses undeclared wars, nation building and control as a vehicle in order to provide security for America. A libertarian uses non-interventionist foreign policy and a strong national defense as a vehicle to provide security for America. Both are vehicles used to get an end result. They're both means values. But they both seek to accomplish a common goal. In the end, both political philosophies seek common ends values. In your words, it would be the lowest common denominator trigger. When attempting to influence someone, it's more effective to work off of your common ends values, because you may come into more conflict with the person's means values.

"How to Win Friends and Influence People" also has some ideas for gaining rapport, although these and NLP are all tactics. In "seven habits of highly effective people" the author talks about how the in 20th century the persuasion and influence fields focused on quick tactics to make people like you, rather than being a genuinely good person that people would actually like. Some of the "pick-up artists" talk about this too, how some people focus only on quick and easy "outer game" tactics to quickly break through social conditioning, rather than having "inner game," being a likable person which takes time and effort to develop. Both are needed though, you shouldn't be just an influencing machine that can get someone to like you immediately but have nothing else to offer, nor should you be just a great person but have to spend years to really talk with someone.

Before I studied all this stuff, the pickup community confused me. I'd hear people using the techniques getting all these great results and others that used them completely failed. I knew it had to be the actual person that was doing something wrong, but I just didn't understand it at the time. What made it worse was that there were pickup companies offering completely opposite solutions. There was scripted routine based game and then there was natural game. Which one do you pick and why? What I recently realized was that you need a balance of both. The people that relied completely on scripted game had psychological problems, limiting beliefs and they used the techniques to cover up their flaws in order to get laid. These people can't keep the girl though, because their true identity would be revealed after they ran out of routines to use. The natural game people on the other hand focus on building up their inner game with strong attractive beliefs, but their problem is that they have no structure to their game, so they're all over the place. It's hit and miss for them. I now believe a balance is needed. A strong attractive inner game is needed along with a stucture to guide you through the initial interaction. After the initial pickup, your strong magnetic identity will allow you to hold onto the people you've managed to attract into your life.

Most people connect their political affiliations and what those are claimed to stand for to their core identity. "*I* am a _________(D/R/G/L)." Emotionally they "feel" that any attack on a party or their beliefs is an ad hominem attack on their self. Emotions react faster than reason and logic, so an emotional response blocks any rational thought. The mind cannot emotionally tell the difference between an imagined attack and a physical attack, so they emotionally respond to a verbal attack just as you would emotionally respond to a physical initiation of force against your body. With a lot of practice and willpower a person can control their emotions. If someone has never taken the time to practice and control their emotions then logic and reason will have no effect on their beliefs. Most people do not know how and have not taken the time to learn how to control their emotions. Therefore most of the time attacking in any way something that people hold as part of their identity will make them emotionally reject any argument, even if it is true.

This is similar to what Eckhart Tolle talks about, where people identify with their beliefs, values, titles, roles, physical things, etc... For example, I used to get so upset when my cousin used to tell me that my favorite TV show Lost was stupid. I began to realize that my reaction was as if he attacked me personally, instead of something completely separate from me. Eckhart Tolle would call it going unconscious. I would say now that your nervous system's pre-programmed habitual responses kicked in and took complete control of you. It's the same thing, again just different words to describe the situation. I associated much pleasure to this show and the belief that it was some of the best quality TV ever created. It was so far ingrained in my nervous system that him attacking the show was just like him attacking me personally. He was attacking my entire reality, and my subconscious habitually took over and reacted to defend it. The same thing was happening when people would criticize me for being an atheist. It was as if they were threatening my entire reality, and as a result I lost control of my emotions and habitually reacted in defense of my belief. Now after my research, I realize that if I lose control of my emotions, it means that I lost control of my focus of attention. Controlling your focus, or your own meaning creation or interpretation of the situation will help prevent you from habitually acting out these patterns. Only the conditioning of new habit patterns into your nervous system will ensure that you'll habitually react the correct way next time the same trigger sets you off.

 

[NewName]

Again, these are very important studies:
1. Subliminal exposure to national flags affects political thought and behavior

2. http://cornellpsych.org/people/trav...licit Nationalism as System Justification.pdf

America as a nation has self-perpetuating needs that do not always align with the needs or beliefs of individual Americans. As much as Americans may love their country and way of life, they do not always explicitly agree with the policies that best serve to bolster and perpetuate the nation, such as unyielding diplomatic stances, unilateral military action, or giving up civil liberties in exchange for security. How then does a country with such diverse explicit opinions maintain its national power structures and the support of the populace? System justification theory contends that members of a system have an implicit motive to justify and bolster that system (Jost, Banaji & Nosek, 2004). Based on recent work on the implicit nationalism, we argue that the types of information that become associated with the nation in memory are the same types of information that help bolster and perpetuate the American system. In the present study, we find that a subtle reminder of America increases system justification for those with some moderate exposure to the political media, regardless of their explicit ideology. We argue that the implicit activation of information associated with America ultimately serves a nationalistic function, and more broadly, the system justification motive.

...

Overall, we propose that these findings support the broader point that the information that tends to become associated with America in memory appears to be the same type of information that, when activated, supports the general motive to bolster the system and support the status quo. It also suggests that people may develop these associations through exposure to the U.S. political news media, but apparently not because of any specific news source.

...

One interesting aspect of the findings reported here and in other work on implicit nationalism (e.g., Carter et al., 2009) is the apparent dissociation between implicit associations and explicit beliefs. We obtained significant positive correlations between the system justification scale and scores on patriotism, nationalism, and conservatism (see Table 2), but none of these variables moderated the influence of the prime. Instead, the American prime (seeing a picture of the US flag) tended to increase system justification (support for "unilateral military action, or giving up civil liberties in exchange for security," etc), regardless of participants’ explicit political beliefs ( whether "liberal," "conservative," or "libertarian"), provided they had at least some moderate exposure to U.S. political news.

...

Intriguingly, strong patriotic displays themselves may create something of a positive feedback loop. Threats to the system increase displays of national unity, including displays of national symbols such as flags. Exposure to national symbols increases support for the system, which may itself increase the desire to display national unity. Although there was considerable division in public opinion regarding the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, it is possible that without a year and a half of increased flag displays in the aftermath of 9/11, the degree of American popular support for the Bush administration’s decision to invade might have been considerably weaker.

Sentinelrv: By "lowest common denominator" trigger I meant the most common ends value that people share, and the most common emotional interpretation of words to get them to emotionally associate that ends value with liberty/Ron Paul/etc. "Emotional interpretation" is the "feeling" that a word or image creates. For example people have different emotional interpretations of what "libertarian" means, to some people it means corporations controlling everything, to others it means atheistic decadence or something. Basically most people emotionally interpret "libertarian" as something painful. People have all kinds of different emotional interpretations of words. So we need to figure out which words are emotionally interpreted negatively and avoid associating in any way with those words, and which words are emotionally interpreted positively and then use those words to associate them with liberty/Ron Paul/etc.

tl;dr - Words and images have either good feelings or bad feelings for people. "Libertarian" is a bad feeling for most people. We need to try and only use words and images that have good feelings for most people.

Images/icons/logos also make people subconsciously support what they think the image represents. So we need to find out what images can make people subconsciously have good feelings about supporting liberty/Ron Paul and how to make new images like that.

 

[pacelli]

How would you practically employ your theoretical construct to appeal to someone that believes the following?

"Ron Paul is too old to be president".

"Ron Paul isn't presidential material, therefore, I won't waste my vote on him".

Please apply your personal approach to managing these statements, rather than Stefan Molyneux's, since Molyneux's personal thesis is to walk away from voting entirely. Thank you.

 

[Petar]

I'm not sure if this is ironic, but the sheer volume of information in this op, was at first glance, enough to cause a type of seething pain in my own psyche.

I didn't continue reading.

 

[Sentinelrv]

I'm not sure if this is ironic, but the sheer volume of information in this op, was at first glance, enough to cause a type of seething pain in my own psyche.

I didn't continue reading.

That's why I included a short version, for people like you. That's your loss if you don't have the drive in order to learn what's necessary in order to win this election. The long version is a self-help article while the short version is mainly what you need to know. You can read the long version for clarification if you want. You can't go through life with this kind of attitude and expect to get good results.

 

[NewName]

pacelli: Most people only follow their feelings and no amount of logic can change them. Those are probably just "rational-lies-ations" to justify the person's feelings. You have to change their feelings and then their thoughts will follow.

For example, if you have very good, good feelings about reading then no amount of text is too much fun to read. Now, with the first post, that's a lot of text and the question is, how much fun is it to read? A lot of people might say that that much might bother them. Not with you or me, though, I think that much fun is great.

You can also try practicing NLP and see if it helps.

 

[pacelli]

pacelli: Most people only follow their feelings and no amount of logic can change them. Those are probably just "rational-lies-ations" to justify the person's feelings. You have to change their feelings and then their thoughts will follow.

For example, if you have very good, good feelings about reading then no amount of text is too much fun to read.

So you are essentially saying that if someone is emotionally disgusted by the mere mention of Ron Paul's name, the practical application of your theory is to change disgust to enjoyment? How specifically will you change someone's disgust for Ron Paul into a state of non-disgust? Or do you neglect that person entirely and move on to the next?

Again, I'm asking for practical applications and not more theory.

 

[Sentinelrv]

Sentinelrv: By "lowest common denominator" trigger I meant the most common ends value that people share, and the most common emotional interpretation of words to get them to emotionally associate that ends value with liberty/Ron Paul/etc. "Emotional interpretation" is the "feeling" that a word or image creates. For example people have different emotional interpretations of what "libertarian" means, to some people it means corporations controlling everything, to others it means atheistic decadence or something. Basically most people emotionally interpret "libertarian" as something painful. People have all kinds of different emotional interpretations of words. So we need to figure out which words are emotionally interpreted negatively and avoid associating in any way with those words, and which words are emotionally interpreted positively and then use those words to associate them with liberty/Ron Paul/etc.

tl;dr - Words and images have either good feelings or bad feelings for people. "Libertarian" is a bad feeling for most people. We need to try and only use words and images that have good feelings for most people.

Images/icons/logos also make people subconsciously support what they think the image represents. So we need to find out what images can make people subconsciously have good feelings about supporting liberty/Ron Paul and how to make new images like that.

Ok, when I wrote my post I was talking about the actual ends values themselves. You're talking about that plus the words used to represent them, since people have different neuro-associations of pain or pleaure linked to different words. That's a very good point and something we need to keep in mind also.

 

[NewName]

pacelli, I'm just a beginner at this, and I hope you join me in learning and trying to figure out how to use this knowledge effectively. For examples of practical applications of this knowledge, see my other post. I'm still trying to figure out exactly how to find out what words and images are linked to what feelings. If we can find a way then it would be very powerful, like this post shows. We have the same goals. And we believe in our hearts in the same things. Will you help us in trying to find out how to help liberty?

Ok, when I wrote my post I was talking about the actual ends values themselves. You're talking about that plus the words used to represent them, since people have different neuro-associations of pain or pleaure linked to different words. That's a very good point and something we need to keep in mind also.

That's right!

 

[Sentinelrv]

That's right!

Is this why NLP is more about how our language affects others? Remember, I haven't studied NLP. I just got some of my main ideas from it and used them for my article.

EDIT: And also yes, we figured out the theory of our strategy so far. What we're doing now is trying to figure out how to apply the theory in an effective way. We don't know how to completely do this yet, so we're trying to figure it out. If anyone wants to take a crack at solving Pacelli's original question, you're more than welcome to.

 

[NewName]

The core of NLP is basically effective techniques for talking to people. Some people learn the techniques in the natural course of their life, and some people learn them intentionally through study, and some people never learn. In NLP studying someone and copying their techniques is called "modeling" (as in "role model"). The premise is that if one person can do something then someone else can do it too. There isn't anything that is specifically "NLP", it's just a term used to describe identified/modeled techniques dealing with interpersonal communication.

So yes "Neuro Linguistic Programming" is about using language to affect/"program" your/others brains, and it's easier to produce (write/say) for creating emotional effects. I guess the visual parts of the brain are even more influential but I think it's harder to produce influential images with the same effects as NLP. Ideally they are both used together for maximum influence.

 

[Petar]

That's why I included a short version, for people like you. That's your loss if you don't have the drive in order to learn what's necessary in order to win this election. The long version is a self-help article while the short version is mainly what you need to know. You can read the long version for clarification if you want. You can't go through life with this kind of attitude and expect to get good results.

Thank you for considering those of us with less than expansive attention thresholds, and for including an abridged version of your text.

I'm sorry that the short version was still too long/complex to illicit my interest, perhaps you can narrow it down to one sentence, or maybe just a single character?

[/SARCASM]

Your thoughts and information are very interesting, but also quite esoteric.

I don't know if it's my reticular activating system at work, but I'm focusing on some other things at the moment.