Reinforcement, a learning mechanism based on reward and punishment to sculpt the behavior of dogs, children, employees, etc., produces individuals that suppress behavior which is incorrect for a given context. Long-term, they conform to a set of rules dictating what is good within a given system.
The desires or goals of the individuals converge to a commonly shared set of values, minimizing the expression of ideals viewed as divergent, by negatively reinforcing such behavior.
Punishment can be formal as in the prosecution of an individual who has broken the law, or informal as in the condemnation of ones behavior from other individuals.
In both, the actions taken by an agent are considered through the lens of a standardized collection of beliefs and assumptions. That which is not valid from the standpoint of this rule set is a violation on the system because it demonstrates a refusal to abide by the constraints accepted by the majority.
These constraints provide ‘tools’ with which to interpret a wide variety of experiences without the need to acknowledge ambiguity, in many cases, and by deliberately not acting in accordance with these rules one implicitly demonstrates the possibility of contradiction between the ideals used to frame experience and the mechanics of the world from which those experiences are formed.
The response to deviancy seems to be one of offense at some level, as if the one carrying out such behavior does so out of spite for the shared ideals of the majority.
When a belief system is shared by many, it becomes more and more difficult to question the validity of assumptions without the hostility and disapproval of those who accept them. Again, the desires of an individual converge with those of the system, and a perceived attack on the system may be seen as an attack on the individual, based on one’s magnitude of conformity.
Human societies require ideological systems in order to regulate a large number of people and to aggregate in the first place. Belief systems are not a negative thing or an anomaly of society, in fact to accept ideas that repeatedly appear true is human nature, as it is inefficient to expend energy processing something that is easily inferred and understood.
Nothing would every get done if we had to consciously think about each step, for instances, instead of just assuming the ground will be there when our foot goes down.
However, people are social by nature, and social reality is just as real to us as the physical. In other words, social interactions can have similar effects as physical first-hand experience.
If someone tells you a story about a bear attack, especially if it happened directly to them, the response of the listener is prompted by an emotional experience based on empathy that results from an imagined experience. The speech of the story teller has recreated a partial experience in the listeners head, using various sounds produced by the mouth in a particular order that are known to signify certain objects/events/qualities/feelings, and the result is a complete change of the subjective experience of the listener, as if they had really been there.
The point is that language in human society is the vehicle through which virtually all information, influence, and control is transmitted. We‘re incredibly sensitive to speech as something that holds immense power with potentially serious consequences in the external world. Automatic cognitive changes happen when we experience a speech act, and thus language can guide the subjective reality of an individual.
Just as when taking steps we no longer consciously process the events taking place or their meaning, when hearing a statement repeatedly over a long period of time, we are no longer aware of the implications, meaning, intent, or validity in a larger context. The foundation on which its founded no longer plays a role, as it becomes an axiom. That is, something that is self-evident, i.e. true by definition.
When there is no accountability for speech, and knowing human beings are capable of engaging in extremely destructive behavior when given a sufficient amount power that goes unchecked, it is not difficult to infer the implications of, say, someone with a large platform who’s in a position to influence the beliefs of many people. This is especially true if there exists asymmetry between the broadcaster and the audience in terms of their access to academic resources.
That person is faced with a complex situation where exerting their power via pushing narratives that skew the understanding of the listener toward a predisposition that aligns with the broadcasters self-interests would not be a difficult task. This power through language can be dangerous when the consumer of media is not equipped to distinguish between the expression of genuine beliefs and the manipulation of other human beings to be used as a sort of trojan horse that allows certain ideas to be propped up in public discourse.
Those consumers of media do not support these ideas to enhance the broadcaster’s wealth. A genuine belief system predicated on the trust of the broadcasters sincerity is formed, which leads to ideological goals in the mind of the viewer. Thus, the desire of the viewer will converge with those of the ideology, i.e. the broadcaster’s self-interests.
The viewer is being used as a parasitic host, who goes on to spread their ideas like eggs, originally lain by a powerful person acting in bad faith. Accountability is absent for the most part here, and the viewer believes that the broadcaster is truly on their side.
Unfortunately, the qualifications that allow one to have such a platform today involve being able to hold the audiences attention long enough to get to the next ad read, and not much else. That’s at least in part a result of the type of media produced now and the instantaneous distribution, but it does not excuse the fact that the bad faith actors are under no obligation to resist taking advantage of their (often young) audience.
Along with adapting regulations to fit the more anarchic platforms of media such as youtube, as it seems relying on the private sector won’t sufficiently yield beneficial results (companies don’t tend to act against their own interests through self-regulation. who knew!) one thing i strongly believe is that educating children and adults to consume skeptically, whether it be an ad on tv or a political commentator, because in either case a narrative is being sold, and it is probably further-reaching than it appears.
Building Intelligence 