h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I just got out of a social psych workshop in which we were discussing the ethics of social interventions. Studies like Asch and Milgram has shown that you can make people act in a manner vastly different to their common sense through conformity and authority pressure respectively.

I was just wondering what h2g2 people think of the idea of using this sort of influence to modify peoples behaviour (Getting them to give up smoking, vote, give to chairty, donate blood and stop bullying were the examples that came up) Is it a good way to improve the way people react to society? Or is it just one step away from mind control?

Would seem to me, to be a little too draconian, and too close to mind control... I can't help thinking of Orwells '1984)... Though I guess* it could have benifical consequences, if used liberally, for only certain things. But who would control that limit?, and would we trust them to 'stop' at that point...

I get the impression this stuff is used a lot already. It could have a positive side but I hate the idea of it.

Did anyone see the Darren Brown episode with the advertisers, he completely steared their advertsing poster by events he staged on the taxi ride over, it was quite amazing. I think the advertisers were stunned to be so easily lead, especially as they try to do the same to us!

I'm of the opinion that you can't willingly make someone do something they don't want to do. You *can* force them against their will with threats of severe consequences, of course.

But back to social pressures influencing people... They may consider the social stigma of not conforming and decide they would rather conform than draw attention to themselves or be ostrasized from the group. Or they may decide that in order to get what they want, they'll need to compromise what they would prefer to do. That doesn't mean that they really wanted to do what they're being pressured to do, but the advantages outweighed the consequences of *not* giving in. They would just be doing it unwillingly, though.

In that case, it's definitley not *mind* control, but it would certainly be a way of controlling their *actions*.

The idea of coercian on young people being morally wrong strikes me as an unusual stance, after all what do parents and schoolteachers do?

That's exactly what we parents do (or should - I'm afraid all too many have abdicated that authority these days, but that's a different matter) - we make conforming to acceptable standards of behavior more attractive than misbehaving, via a reward system. Of course there are two different camps of thought there: Positive reinforcement - offering something good for good behavior and ignoring bad behavior - as opposed to negative reinforcement - threatening punishment (or carrying it out when necessary) for misbehavior.

Whichever way the parent chooses to teach their children right from wrong, they also have to realize that these are separate beings from themselves, and as such they will make their own decisions. The child may be thrilled to get a reward for good behavior, but then just about the time the parent decides they should be able to withdraw the reward and still expect good behavior, the child ups the ante by refusing to cooperate unless an even bigger reward is offered.

On the other hand, constant punishment can elicit an increasingly rebellious attitude in the child, leading to even worse behavior.

The most effective strategy seems to be a combination of the two methods, but no matter how you try to discipline the child, treating them first and foremost with such love that the child is more likely to understand that the parent only has their best interests at heart is the best way.... not easy to accomplish in the heart and mind of a child, admittedly.

I think each person has their keys that will get them to act in a certain way. With one person strict controls and draconian punishments are all that will ever work, yet with another person that approach is enough to ensure they will never again listen to or obey you.

On the other hand, if you understand someones thinking and construct a series of steps which progressivly narrow or guide their thinking to the goal you want then you can get them to do something they otherwise wouldn't, and quite often they will think it was their idea / fault (depending on how they view the outcome).

If you've invested a lot of time with a child and built up a close and understanding relationship then the possibility of persuasion or gentle coercian is possible. But for a relationship which is more distant or less understanding then the temptation is to use the big stick.

Behaviourist reinforcement is very different to interventions based upon social psychology. Social psychology does not offer anything tangible and generally is not very punishing (Hey we didn't feel the need to electrocute monkeys to find out about stress) It is simply manipulation od someones actions on an unconcious level.

For example there is one study in which they were trying to ascertain whether giving a reason for an action increased compliance. They compared:
"I need to make five copies, can I skip the que"
with
"I need to make five copies, can I skip the que, because the boss wants them on his desk in ten minutes"
Unsuprisingly they found more people complied (let the person push in) in the second case. 60% compared to 95% if memory serves.

Then they wandered if it was what the reason was or simply whether the reason was present. So they compated:
"I need to make five copies, can I skip the que"
with
"I need to make five copies, can I skip the que, because I need to make copies"
60% to 95% again.

Think about that for a minute. If there was only concious thought then both cases would have been the same - after all the semantics of both messages are the same. So they managed to change the actions of 35% of the people by changing the wording of their sentance.

This is a rather trivial example, but similar effects can be used to make people take much more drastic actions. There is no reward/punishment here. They are simply manipulating people on the unconcious level to get them to take a specific action.

Btw how do you spell que - I'm sure thats wrong but Im not sure what the right spelling is.

queue

We are all manipulated more easily than we would like to believe.

I used to sell for a living, and the assistant manager was a big jolly chap, you couldn't help liking. It took me a long time to see why he was also the top salesman - he manipulated people's desires. Nothing blatent, or overt, he just created the need, then offered the solution.

Bit scarey really.

I think the example above provides the answer - you can get people to do things they don't want to, or to promise to do things they know they have no control over and shouldn't be taking responsibility for, by the clever use of language - social engineering I believe it's called these days.

Like trying to get a password out of someone by pretending to need it for very good reasons or by being someone who should rightfully have access to it, and sounding very convincing by throwing in a few little bits of information which make it sound like you're part of the team/company. Like trying to get someone's phone number by saying that you're a personal friend and that it's an emergency. People really do fall for that sort of thing. If you find someone who's young, inexperienced, or easily influenced, you can get them to do almost anything if you act as if you have some kind of authority over them - you're a manager, a boss, a customer, an official of some sort.

I might say to a telemarketer 'I don't want to receive any more calls from your company and I want my name and number removed from your calling list. Will you confirm to me that this will be done?' If I say it in a firm enough tone of voice to an inexperienced person, I can get them to say yes to something they have absolutely no control over.

On the other side of the fence, I might persuade a sales assistant to do something which goes against the store's policy in the interests of good customer service because I've made a good case of not knowing what the policy was - something along the lines of 'I didn't see that posted anywhere around the store'. Next time I go in I might try the same ploy and once more get an initial refusal. 'Oh, but so-and-so let me do it last time I was here, so why won't you let me do it this time?', failing to add that the other assistant said to me at the time 'We'll do it just this once, but now you know what the policy is regarding this'.

On this second occasion I might be dealing with the manager or the owner, and the assistant who helped me out previously isn't there to answer for their actions. Next time the boss sees them they might get a bollicking for not upholding the store policy. All because I persuaded them by use of language, persistance, and persuasion to do something they shouldn't have done.

McKay, isn't that exactly what advertising is all about?


Someone creates a brand new product called a Veeblefrister, something totally different that's never been done before. In order to make money on the item, the inventor has to sell it, so he finds someone to create an advertising campaign for it, then the advertising executive creates that ad campaign.

You've never heard of such a product before, and have never thought about needing such an item in your life... What in the world are you going to do with a Veeblefrister? Who ever heard of a Veeblefrister? Why would you want one? Why would you need one anyway?

... *But* by the time this advertising campaign has run it's course, not only have you decided that you have a use for a Veeblefrister, you want one, and indeed you *need* one... and agonize over your utter lack of Veeblefristers until you can finally get to the store and buy one!

Advertisers make an art of this type of social engineering.

A Veeblefrister (TM) ? Wow! Where can i get one? I want one now Ive heard they are amazing, especially the blue/green ones.

*Told ya it works!

Ok, so we know this sort of thing is here. And it works.

Is it okay to use it to get rid of socially unacceptable behviours?


What if we could adapt it to help stop bullying?
Prevent people from ever stealing?
Stopping people smoking?
Stopping people spitting gum?

At what level is this sort of intervention acceptable?

Why *wouldn't* it be ok to use these methods to get rid of socially unacceptable behaviors?


It's already being done to us in order to make money - wouldn't it be better to use it to make people stop activity that is universally accepted as wrong?


Problem is, some people are so rebellious that any suggestion, even a subliminal or subtle one, will just provoke them to do the exact opposite of what you want them to do.

~Alas this type of thing is not 100% effective.

I suppose that morally its wrong, and I don't think there's anyone could be trusted with this sort of power.

' Stop smoking - be nice to your children - Oh and Tony's right you know'

Hang on, if this *is* just advertising then we already have advertising telling us to stop smoking? so what's the difference?

difference being one is advise other is suggestion, the difference is the "promise"or "premise" should you not follow the (advise) or (suggestion),confusedtoday we are being "advised" the "suggestions" of the "promises" suggested by the advertiseing that if you smoked "x brand" all would be....apparently this aint so

Has anyone here seen any of the emergency films tha will get played in times of national disaster to help keep the masses calm.

The reality is that the effects are not 100% and are only short lasing in the majority of cases.

In the Uk we already have riles about manipulation in adverts ie. boze adverts can not show the drinker being more attractive. However this is easy to get round eg the guy in the Baileys advert is kissed by anuknown Baileys drinker but he himself is not drinking the stuff. End result is that people who see that advert think that Baileys is a sexy drink.