Pavlov's Dogs

Norsemaiden

barbarian
Dec 12, 2005
1,903
6
38
Britain
To what extent are Pavlovian mind conditioning techniques used to control the minds of populations today, making people behave and think in ways that our rulers want us to?

In the late 19th century, Ivan Pavlov, a Russian Nobel Prize winner, conducted some experiments on dogs. When dogs are hungry, their mouths water if they see food. Pavlov conditioned the minds of the dogs so that they would salivate when they heard a bell ringing. This was achieved by ringing the bell when the dogs were given food. After many repetitions of this, the dogs' mouths watered upon hearing the bell, whether there was food or not.

According to Joost A.M. Merloo, M.D., Instructor in psychiatry and previous Columbia University Lecturer in Social Psychology: "From this and other experiments, Pavlov developed his theory of the conditioned reflex, which explains learning and training as the building up of a mosaic of conditioned reflexes, each one based on the establishment of an association between different stimuli. The greater the number of learned complex resposnes also called patterns the greater the number of conditioned reflexes developed. Because man, of all the animals, has the greatest capacity for learning, he is the animal with the greatest capacity for such complicated conditioning.

Pavlov's experiments were of great value in the study of animal and human behavior, and in the study of the development of neurotic symptoms. However, this knowledge of some of the mechanisms of the human mind can be used as we have seen already, like any other knowledge, either for good or for evil. And unfortunately, the totalitarians have used their knowledge of how the mind works for their own purposes. They have applied some of the Pavlovian findings, in a subtle and complicated way and sometimes in a grotesque way, to try to produce the reflex of mental and political conditioning and of submission in the human guinea pigs under their control

It is acknowledged that, under Stalin, the Russians used these techniques, and held the view that all human emotions can be reduced "to a simple mechanistic system of conditioned reflexes".

We must come to grips with the fact that these techniques are being used today to control us. For our rulers, the political task is to mold our minds so that our comprehension is confined to a narrow concept of the world. This is done by REPEATING SIMPLE IDEAS and WITHOLDING ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION OF REALITY. (That is now challenged by the internet to an unprecedented extent).

If someone says something that goes against the mental conditioning of another person, the conditioned person reacts with an automatic rebuttal - akin to a dog's bark. Their programming tells them to reject this new idea, but for some it drives a wedge into the conditioned reflex. Instead of a bark, they may try to give a clearly reasoned argument against the new or controversial idea. In so doing, they break the spell, and begin to see more clearly (even if they disagree with the idea).

A lot of the time however, such advances in getting people to awaken will be lost within days, as the conditioning from the popular newspapers, magazines, TV, cinema, books, education system,the Church and peer pressure (all part of the spreading global monoculture that is to enslave us all) throws them back into their conditioned reflex.

Hopefully the belief that critical function and verification in human thinking can be suppressed is not entirely correct. The training and conditioning of people requires constant effort to be put into keeping them in that state. People feel the danger of dissent, but in the end human rebellion may not be suppressed. They only need one breath of freedom to wake up.(Albeit temporarily).

As Merloo says "the idea that there exist other ways to truth than those he sees close at hand lives somewhere in everybody. One can narrow his pathways of research and expression, but a man's belief in adventurous new roads elsewhere is ever present in the back of his mind. "

All quotes from "The Rape of the Mind" by Joost A.M.Merloo M.D.
 
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this kind of thing over the past few years. I think it makes a lot of sense, and find that when I began to pay attention to my reactions, question how I responded to things, I found that many of my own responses did indicate some kind of conditioning. I've spent a lot of time recently trying to distance myself from these conditionings.

I see both the government (largely with the cooperation of the education system), organized religion, and the media, as facets of a world in which people are taught not to think for themselves in a truly boundless manner, but to passively enforce the values of those who exert power over them.

Now, this is all just speculation, and I don't want people to react too harshly too it.I believe there is great potential that goes unseen in many people because they cannot see past what is shoved in their faces, but I do not know the extent to which people think for themselves. There will always be people who support the dominant ideology of our time for their own reasons, and as usual, it is rarely a black and white issue. The purpose of all this speculation for me is that it allows me to work towards a lifestyle in which the influences of these outside sources are minimized. I do believe the internet has acted as a catalyst to this process, allowing alternative parties to have some kind of voice.
 
Awareness of such conditioning within a higher functioning mind (I am aware behaviourism and its evolved forms would explain it all away as responses to stimuli) surely makes its effects less forceful?

When I'm aware that coke, pepsi, Gap etc are all trying to rape me of my money, then I can counteract the stimuli with a firm "fuck you pepsi!".

Flippant and useless response, go me.

Weigh in speed, you always sound more eloquent at bitching about the world than I do :p
 
Actually this fascinates the hell out of me Norsemaiden. Do you have more sources?

Also, what about visually? Food (ala mcdonalds) and drug wise--through dopamine recepters? Do you have any scientific info on these topics?
 
I'll see if I can find some more information relevant to the subject.

Regarding Mc Donalds - I suppose they'd like everyone to salivate and think happy thoughts when they hear the name McDonalds, more than if we heard the name of another brand. They might achieve that by constantly reminding us of McDonalds and showing pictures of happy people eating there, until the name itself brought on the desired response.

An interesting thought is that perhaps popular representations of what attractive female figures look like can produce a conditioned response in the male. At its most extreme, and unrealistic or unhealthy shape could be conditioned into the mind so that it was considered most desirable. This must have been happening just as a result of culture for centuries. Just the way that the Chinese men used to think deformed, bound up feet were a turn-on or the African tribe that puts many hoops around the neck of women. Their culture has conditioned their minds to require these unnatural characteristics in order to prefer a particular female. Women who use plastic surgery to achieve an unnatural result are also both victims of and perpetuators of ideas of how females should look. Female perceptions of male bodies have never been as affected by these kind of trends. It can affect a population in that if very few women look the way that men have been programmed to expect, it makes for more single people who haven't found the partner that they have been programmed to expect. It can influence the birthrate of a population.

It seems obvious that less intelligent people would fall for the simple advertisement conditioning much more than intelligent people. If you're aware of what they are trying to do (like Derek is) it will be less effective. Those who "live a life unexamined" are particularly prone to mental conditioning. They can't, or won't, explain the attitudes they have and are more swayed by emotions (which are the main focus of the conditioned reflex). Thus they are programmed and unlikely to break out of this. It's scary how an increasing proportion of people are being born into this easily manipulated category. Something that must be useful to the ones doing the manipulating. But intelligent people are manipulated too. Everyone is being trained to take certain ways of seeing the world as beyond question, and if someone challenges this the response is automatic and emotional. Scientists themselves have this response when the orthodoxy is challenged by a discovery that could cause a paradigm shift. The whole thing about Kennewick man, and how it is slowly becoming accepted that Solutreans from the South of France must have been the first people to settle in America is a very good example of this. Especially as the government has spent millions trying to suppress the idea and using shockingly underhand tactics.
 
I think we have to look beyond media and conglomerates, both to parents and to the education system, to understand where such conditioning takes root earlier in life. I attended Catholic school in Canada from 1989-2003, as well as being raised in a marginally religious household. We rarely went to church or actively practiced many of our supposed faith's doctrines aside from many of the moral implications. It seems that "faith," at least some instances within the Catholic faith, are used to instill a profound sense of guilt in children, teaching them, as Norsemaiden has pointed out, very particular ways to live from a young age. The other options are rarely discussed, and often enough hidden completely, constructing a stultified, skewed view of the world.

Having become aware of the extent to which what I have learned during my childhood represents an unsatisfactory view of my surroundings, I have decided to change. This is a pretty problematic and grand undertaking, necessitating an overhaul of pretty much every area of my life and beliefs. Mindfulness of myself, others and my surroundings has been an important step. The wisdom of many philosophies, including Buddhist writings, have been wonderful tools in facilitating my adoption of an inclusive, understanding worldview beyond the biases which were hammered into me from such a young age.

I do not aim to or ever believe it possible to exist perfectly outside the sphere of bias and conditioning. Even if this possible, I'm not sure it is practical or even possible to be aware of existing in such a state. I don't suppose there's much hope for larger scale change either :erk:
 
You're right that we can't fully escape from conditioning, but the best way to know whether what you think is as a result of conditioning or not is to try to properly reason it out and be prepared to change your mind. Don't just hold a view because you are going to be threatened or shunned by other people if you disagree with them. Ask yourself whether they really have thought about the issue themselves or are they simply programmed.

Like when Galileo discovered that the Earth revolves around the sun, people just barked at him that he was wrong and a blasphemer, and some of them could back this up by talking about God or some half-baked observations which didn't match his own scientific evidence. He was killed for his observations. If you ask yourself whether your reactions are like the people who denounced Galileo, and actually thought that he was evil and deserved death, or whether things are not so simple, then at least you stand a chance of not just believing what you are conditioned to.
 
Yeah, that is pretty much what I try to do. Except that I respect that others are doing the same and don't resort to calling their ideas "halfbaked," etc.
 
Demilich said:
Yeah, that is pretty much what I try to do. Except that I respect that others are doing the same and don't resort to calling their ideas "halfbaked," etc.

It would be wrong to simply call someone's ideas half baked without full justifiaction of course - slinging insults is usually a sign of not having properly thought things through, although it can be just that someone can't be bothered to explain. If the conditioning from the church gives a person a set argument to use against someone who claims that the sun is the centre of the solar system, that argument will be presented automatically - but no actual thought about the opposing view or its validity will be entered into, and the response will be generally hostile and not open to question. So just because someone has an argument it doesn't mean its not still a conditioned response. That's the trouble! But its not in our power to decondition people, they have to choose to do that themselves, and most probably don't want to.

Skinner, the leading exponent of behaviourism, which is largely based on Pavlov's conditioned reflex, says that we learn to choose or avoid behaviours based on what the (repeated) consequences are. Skinner developed the idea of "shaping". If you control the rewards and punishments which the environment gives, (eg. social approval or disapproval, as suggested through exposure to mass media and eventually,consequentially, peer pressure) then you can shape behaviour. This is termed "behaviour modification".

I tend to think that if particular ideas are often repeated by the media, and opposing ideas are either suppressed or misrepresented, and having these ideas is associated (by conditioning) with fitting in, being popular, having a good time, etc. this will certainly condition the minds of people into prefering these ideas. If the misrepresentation of a conflicting idea is repeatedly associated with unpopularity, having a bad time, being unsuccessful, misery or threat - it will further ingrain the behaviour that the subjected person is intended to have.

The possible use of subliminal imagery must be considered also. Subliminal images (an image that pops up on screen so briefly that you don't consciously notice it, but it influences your subconscious) are supposed to be illegal on TV, but this is unenforceable. They would work on a Pavlovian level, as when a certain subject is discussed, a subliminal image that is either very pleasant or horrible can be flashed up, making the subconscious mind give you good or bad feelings about something.

Having feelings is important to us as humans. It is just a shame you can't trust them.

More information: http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/psy/behav.html
 
There was a really great example of this during the congressional hearings on NSA surveillance. Several times during the hearings, the chairman took time to point out that so-and-so, whose brother was on the plane that hit the pentagon on 9/11, was sitting in the audience.




and to correct a very minor error which I can't bring myself to ignore: Galileo was not killed by the Roman church; he was put under house arrest.
 
I think that is true, but I am interested to hear why I am wrong. I think that the female has always and universally had a preference for tall men who have a good strong muscle tone, but not to the extent of Arnold Schwarzenegger, and I don't think there have been any influences that have made women as a group, desire fat men (the way fat women are desired in some 3rd world countries) or ridiculously pumped up men, or short men or white men with blonde hair, or black men with wooly hair, or anything in between, or men with a particular deformity. Can you tell me about any fads that have conditoned the female mind to be turned on by a particular appeareance in men, other than this basic healthy shape that instinct alone would universally make a woman prefer?

Mormagil, I see you are correct.

A summary of things women do or have done to them to fit an unnatural demand, which is reinforced by conditioning, making men expect it from women: 1)female genital mutilation (about 2 million a year) in Africa, and some Eastern countries. 2) severely restricted weight gain in pregnancy - some European countries 3)Low levels of breastfeeding - in the west 4) Breast implants and most interesting of all: 5) Dry sex practices (removal of vaginal fluid with absorbant materials, because female secretions are abhorrent to men in these cultures and because they think it improves sensation for men) very widespread in Africa with 80% of women in Zimbabwe, also in Latin America, Southeast Asia, etc. Recommend you read the details of this. http://www.rho.org/html/hthps_overview.htm