Our thoughts are controlled by changing external stimuli.

[GarrotTheThief]

Our thoughts are susceptible to external influence, even against our will -- ScienceDaily

The news is out.

What do you think?

 

[Qlip]

Haha, I think this doesn't come as a revelation to your run of the mill ENFP. We kind of ride in that, leverage it. It seems a preposterous notion to me to have complete control over one's thoughts.

 

[Cygnus]

Holy shit, 777th post. GOD TRIPS GET.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

Holy shit, 777th post. GOD TRIPS GET.

my sentiments exactly Nihilogen...we are like two lost brothers hugging from a distance now.

 

[laterlazer]

Idk why but I feel like this is obvious without research...

More concerned about why, and if it's even possible to detach our thoughts completely from influences of our environment.

 

[tkae.]

Have you not seen the sitcom bit of someone trying to think of a fake name and saying, "Dr. (first object they see around them)"?

But the study isn't going so far as to say our thoughts are controlled by our environment. That's a bit of a leap. It's just saying that there's an observable effect caused on our unconscious processes by the environment, which only shows that we aren't processing nearly as much unconsciously as they thought. It has nothing to do with subliminal control of our thinking.

 

[grey_beard]

Our thoughts are susceptible to external influence, even against our will -- ScienceDaily

The news is out.

What do you think?

What makes you say that?

 

[Chthonic]

Not really news at all. Yes it demonstrates how easy it is to influence the untrained mind. I would like to see though a study in which half the participants were untrained and the other half had spent years in intentional mindfulness of some description. Merely causing other people to have a mental knee-jerk isn't reason enough to say that people are ultimately controlled by their environment. There are many instances of people in hideous environments who failed to succumb to their conditions. This is evidence of the mind (if strong or focused enough) being able to direct itself into a different place than the conditions would suggest.

Furthermore the study only measured the initial response, not the internal processing of that response and the resultant follow up thoughts, which is a bigger indicator of how that image in going to affect the person's behaviour and psyche.

 

[Lark]

Haha, I think this doesn't come as a revelation to your run of the mill ENFP. We kind of ride in that, leverage it. It seems a preposterous notion to me to have complete control over one's thoughts.

I think people commonly underestimate the unconscious, illusionary thinking, cultural triggers etc.

Although all that said I cant help but firmly believe that people remain responsible or at least need to be treated as though they are because that has proven to be such a useful social construct.

Kant back in the day was already positing hard determinism, I'm not sure whether or not he believed that people were automatons, which may be the conclusion of more and more of this material, but despite all that he believed that everyone should treat each other as though there were free agents and affirmed consequentialism no matter how much it proved not to actually be the case.

A hell of a lot of people out there are looking for excuses, anyone else would have done what I did, I would do it again in the same circumstances, I am not to blame and neither is anyone else for anything they may do. I think its a dangerous message and I think the reality that there is no one what so ever who suggests otherwise with any kind of force is dangerous too.

Instead what about prevailing over stimuli, consciously choosing with insight to make certain choices, what about not giving in to temptation? I know there's situations that I've struggled with but prevailed, so I know its within anyones powers who is remotely like me and I am no saint and not exceptional.

 

[indra]

Have you not seen the sitcom bit of someone trying to think of a fake name and saying, "Dr. (first object they see around them)"?

Pea....

Tear....

Griffon.

Peatear Griffon.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

Have you not seen the sitcom bit of someone trying to think of a fake name and saying, "Dr. (first object they see around them)"?

But the study isn't going so far as to say our thoughts are controlled by our environment. That's a bit of a leap. It's just saying that there's an observable effect caused on our unconscious processes by the environment, which only shows that we aren't processing nearly as much unconsciously as they thought. It has nothing to do with subliminal control of our thinking.

The study indicates that by changing certain external factors we can control the flow of thoughts in a large number of people.

 

[Cellmold]

The study indicates that by changing certain external factors we can control the flow of thoughts in a large number of people.

So action/reflection = reflection/action?

Somehow I had an inkling.

 

[sprinkles]

If you have metacognition you can thought control your own self.

 

[Lark]

The study indicates that by changing certain external factors we can control the flow of thoughts in a large number of people.

That's not difficult at all, you should read about the use of trigger men and trigger phrases in the northern ireland troubles, its continuing still but its less easy to manage than it once was.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

First of all, the test itself doesn't seem terribly different from the old "don't think of an elephant" bit that George Lakoff came up with. It's maybe one degree removed. Although the impact of the length of the word on which action the subject takes is kind of interesting, if not surprising.

The incredibly broad conclusion in the title, however, is extremely obvious and can be demonstrated in countless ways. It should not be news to anyone.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

That's not difficult at all, you should read about the use of trigger men and trigger phrases in the northern ireland troubles, its continuing still but its less easy to manage than it once was.

interesting. is this a trigger as in stimulus that causes some sort of mental anguish or effect?

 

[GarrotTheThief]

First of all, the test itself doesn't seem terrible different from the old "don't think of an elephant" bit that George Lakoff came up with. It's maybe one degree removed. Although the impact of the length of the word on which action the subject takes is kind of interesting, if not surprising.

The incredibly broad conclusion in the title, however, is extremely obvious and can be demonstrated in countless ways. It should not be news to anyone.

it's not broad in certain situations. for example exposing children who are fatherless and suffering extreme poverty to violence has an increased effect and correlation in them comiting violent acts where as the same violence shown to affluent children does not have the fact.

By this logic it is possible to literally know for a fact how many new inmates you will produce using game theory and and economic model of thought. In other words the media contributes DIRECTLY to increased crime rates.

But why that is not considered a crime? Double standards.

For example: someone can know for a fact that if they expose child group B to video game X it will produce for certain a criminal within a certain amount of years given the child group is also exposed to crime, lack of parent, poverty, and other media channels that portray the child of the demographic as a certain type.

This is why we have the biggest prison industry in the world and in history and why the prison industry is worth billions. For those who don't know inmates here are used as free labor. The public is unaware of this but you can easily discover it by calling your local institution. North Carolina for instance would have been a failed state if it weren't for prisons. That state exists because prisons do, no other reason.

So yes...thoughts and actions can be controlled using media for a certain type of impressionable person. This is science and fact and consciously used to support the economy.

 

[Lark]

First of all, the test itself doesn't seem terribly different from the old "don't think of an elephant" bit that George Lakoff came up with. It's maybe one degree removed. Although the impact of the length of the word on which action the subject takes is kind of interesting, if not surprising.

The incredibly broad conclusion in the title, however, is extremely obvious and can be demonstrated in countless ways. It should not be news to anyone.

Well, well, well.

Magic mo foing Poriferan.