Some commenters here indicate that various modern technologies are mind traps, or something akin to that. The 2023 book, Freethinking: Protecting Freedom of Thought Amidst the New Battle for the Mind by Simon McCarthy-Jones. McCarthy-Jones, an Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology and Neuropsychology, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, argues that we are in the midst of a full-blown war for mind control. he focuses on the issue of freedom of thought, where new technologies and scientific advances are significant threats to mental autonomy. The idea may strike some as nuts, but mind control is real and powerful, but usually very subtle.
If one reflects a moment or two, it is obvious that external influences often or usually do influence thinking, often by limiting the scope of thoughts. What external influences? Demagoguery and dishonest speech generally, TikToK, Facebook, Faux News, The Federalist, tribalism, Christianity, brass knuckles capitalism, party loyalty, etc. All kinds of people really are trying to control your thoughts
McCarthy-Jones cites Curtis Yarvin to highlight the potential dangers of ideologies that seek to control thought. Yarvin, discussed here a few days ago [2], is currently a MAGA elite darling who proposes authoritarianism and thought control by a dictator in place of democracy. He critiques the notion that any form of thought control, even if proposed under the guise of efficiency or order as Yarvin does, fundamentally undermines the essence of free thought.
Yarvin's advocacy for thought control is rooted in his critique of modern democratic institutions and his vision for a more authoritarian form of governance where a strong leader, the "CEO of America", unencumbered by democratic checks and balances, could use technology to manage society's affairs more efficiently. He believes that this centralized control would bypass the inefficiencies and thought control mechanisms he sees in democracy, effectively replacing them with a different form of thought control under a single, powerful executive.
Although the freedom of thought concept is in international human rights law, McCarthy-Jones argues for a clearer definition and better protection of thought freedom in light of modern threats. He emphasizes the importance of mental autonomy, which involves the ability to control one's attention, engage in reflective thinking, and not fear punishment for one's thoughts. McCarthy-Jones argues that the right to freedom of thought should protect both internal thought processes and external actions like internet searches and diaries that are constitutive of thought.
A major problem in all of this is the messiness of defining "illegitimate" manipulation versus "legitimate" persuasion. Given human cognitive biology and social behavior, there is no readily apparent practical way to dissect those two messy concepts. Both of may be essentially contested concepts, but they are at least seriously contested. This point is a major problem in terms of trying to enshrine freedom of thought into law.
And that is why I keep pointing to personal good will and good faith in politics and rhetoric as core moral values. What is the only at least semi-objective difference between manipulation and persuasion? The speaker's state of mind. How can that state of mind be observed and practiced? One tactic that comes to mind is to be aware of and adherent to is the Principle of Charity in rhetoric.[1] That requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. But what if the listener does not also adhere to the Principle of Charity? In that case, the cognitive playing field is tilted heavily in favor of the bad faith player.
Being honest alone is hard, often unpleasant and less persuasive. Being dishonest is much more fun, easier and often more persuasive.
A couple of quotes from the book:
- Page 18, quoting from a 1901 article in Banker's Magazine, making the point that both government and business are in the mind-control game: The businessman seeks to shape politics and government in a way conducive to his own prosperity. As the business of the country has learned the secret of the combination, it is gradually subverting the power of the politician and rendering him subservient to its purposes. That government is not entirely controlled by these [business] interests is due to the fact that business organization has not reached full perfection.
- Page 92: Writing in 1913, the historian J.B. Bury believed the freedom of thought had been secured. In his view, a hopeful person could view this victory as permanent, with "intellectual freedom assured to mankind as a possession forever." But Bury was trained in history, not hope. Was there, he queried, a possibility of "a great setback"? For him, Christianity has "laid chains on the human mind." Bury worried that a new force emerging from the unknown could cause something similar to happen again. A century later, we see his fears realized. The cause of this setback is corporate power.
Footnotes:
1. Another way to distinguish good faith rhetoric from bad is to look for open-mindedness. Good faith players approach discussions with an open mind, willing to consider alternative viewpoints and adjust their stance based on the merits of the presented arguments. Bad faith players generally refuse to accept that they could be wrong or they might not be genuinely interested in understanding opposing viewpoints, focusing mostly or entirely on pushing their own narrative
2. Yarvin has coined the term "The Cathedral" to describe a set of institutions, including the press and universities, that he believes work in tandem with the federal bureaucracy to control thought. He argues that these institutions, despite having no central organizational connection, behave as if they were a single organizational structure, projecting illusions that keep American democracy running. He posits that the professors and journalists have sovereignty because final decisions are entrusted to them, and there is no power above them. He believes that only professors can formulate policy, and only journalists can hold the government accountable, effectively giving them control over strategy and tactics, which he equates to control over society.
