I find it interesting that the word change appears four times in your text (change X3, exchange X1). Not only that, but there are lines that seem peculiar such as the fact that, on my pc at least, the words 'a different' and 'mix' end up on top of each other. If you were planning on using this post to persuade some towards Obama it probably worked.

I don't have a solid answer to your ethics question. It's the one class I got a D in during college.

In the sense that hypnosis is just another form of persuasion, it could be argued you have an ethical RESPONSIBILITY to change people's minds.

It could be argued that it's unethical if you believed that most voters have deeply held beliefs based on a rational and thorough investigation of how they weight various issues and come to a personal conclusion. That, of course, is laughably wrong...

The majority of voters hold their beliefs on a whim or through previous unconsidered bias, and a large portion of voters vote against their own self-interests as well as the interests of their loved ones.

When I first started reading this, I thought you were talking about Obama. Either way, I do think that it's unethical, but I also think it's a problem that people are so easily swayed.

It's very difficult to measure the difference between manipulating someone and simply being very good at making people see both sides of the coin. I believe that if you can make the other person see your side of the issue, and convince this person that the benefits of your point of view outweigh the downsides to a greater degree than those of the other person, that would be ethical. If, however, you use subliminal cues and other NLP and hypnosis tricks to make the other person believe something he/she normally wouldn't believe - then that would be unethical.

Humans do have free will - but there's no doubt it can be bound, if only for a relatively short while.

I left the advertising industry (copywriter) in 1983 because I realised that my ability with words was influencing people to want and buy things that were at best unnecessary and at worst, evil. Sweets, colddrinks, alcohol, cigarettes, bigger cars, weirder clothes, miracle cures and magic skin creams, hair shampoo made from Natural Spring Water and Daffodils... it was all complete nonsense and at 23 I loved making it all up. Anyone that dumb deserved to be bankrupt.

I don't know why, but the last straw was a double headed toothbrush - I tried it. It didn't work at all. When I told the marketing client that actually it was impossible to use without getting bleeding gums and bruising, he said what did that have to do with selling it. The marketing message was "twice as effective as a single brush" - and the fact that it was an outright lie didn't bother him, because legally the word "effective" isn't considered scientific enough for dispute.

I went into industrial publishing where I was just informing people, mostly qualified engineers, about what products are on the market.

I don't consider myself much of a moral person, but I saw it as an unfair competition between my skill and experience with words that push buttons, and the unsuspecting consumer who really does WANT to believe there is a miracle cure for his/her problems.

Advertising, politics and society in general are driven by the consumers desire to believe in magic - that they too can be rich, famous, thin, educated, popular and respected without putting in any time or effort. A strong work ethic linked to some basic education immunises you to the effects of "hypnotism".

I believe that your opinion can only be swayed if it is confronted by enough reason to contradict it. If you are unsure of your opinion, and someone with charisma comes your way, he may be able to sway you to his side if you are unsure of your own opinion. However, if one is sure of his opinion, the only way that opinion can be swayed is with enough evidence to contradict the reasoning the other person is currently using to support his position, and not merely suave wording.

Morality is not a issue here. What you describe is no different from advertising and spin-doctoring and euphemism and politically correct speech: all are attempts at manipulating the listening/reading mind so that it will accept the information as you would like them to accept it, i.e., with your bias attached instead of someone else's.

And after reading Jonathan M Gitlin's "Does ideology trump facts? Studies say it often does"

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080924-does-ideology-trump-facts-studies-say-it-often-does.html

I'd say that unless one could turn a listener/reader into an order-taking and directions-following moist robot, there is no point wasting time trying to persuade anyone to change their opinions. Opinions are based upon emotions, not logic or reason or fact. I knew that before reading Gitlin's article, but he expresses it more convincingly than I have ever been able to.

I'd also like to know, Scott, why you think that there is a difference between what you call "a normal exchange of views and an outright manipulation of another person's brain". In America, only the latter exists. On the Internet in chat rooms and Usenet news and Google Groups, only the latter exists. If you disagree with me, you're an idiot; if you agree with me, you're a genius too.

Humans are emotional beings. Only Vulcans (Mr Spock) are logical beings. Feelings always trump logic. Therefore, it is irrelevant to worry about morality. The moralistic don't worry about when they commit crimes. Why should anyone else?

If I "could change the opinion of an average person simply by [my] choice of words", I would buy television time, newspaper space, and billboard space everywhere and do it (and then convince all my readers and listeners to send me money to reimburse me for the cost of the advertising). I would make movies and have all the actors do it in their dialogs. I would make speeches everywhere in every language, or have others do it for me. Then I would be able to control the world, and, much like Wiley's little Danae, would believe that the world would be much better off not only thinking that I am always right about everything, but also when they do what I tell them to do rather than doing what they feel they must do because some non-existent source of moral guidance tells them to do something totally different.

Someone once said something on the order of "Come, let us reason together" -- I just checked it and it's "Isaiah 1:18 'Come now, and let us reason together,' Says the LORD," -- but whoever it was, he was merely mocking the inability of human beings to use reason in any reasonable way except to manipulate the minds of others.

Finally, babies are the best manipulators, and they don't usually speak for the first year or so after they are born. Manipulation is the best way to survive. It's probably much safer than killing all your enemies.

Ethics, Shmethics, bah! Fire when ready, Gridley!

I'll wager not enough registered American voters who read this blog compromise enough to matter in a general election, so why not?

If you are fully competent and have absolute belief in your abilities, the best way to pull this off is not tell anyone about it.BTW, how could you tell or measure if you were successful or not? That's a problem.

Also, current election advertising is another form of hypnotic persuasion, if you're already committed to one brand of candidate, the broadcast message merely cements one's convictions. A core number of people believe the advertising about the brand candidates, the outer core are less susceptible to the more outrageous claims, the uncommitted are completely turned by off all the advertising, believing themselves either to be above it all, more intelligent than other groups, suspicious of mainstream cultural values being dictated by mainstream media outlets, and on and on. That group would be most susceptible to subliminal messages, wouldn't you think?

Unethical and immoral.

I think it would be ethical. At least for me. Because I wouldn't trust the rest of you with anything more dangerous than a spoon.

I think it would be ethical. At least for me. Because I wouldn't trust the rest of you with anything more dangerous than a spoon.

If this is unethical, then ABC, CBS and NBC are unethical.

I personally believe that good guys have the better arguments. Given equal effort, the good guys will win because their weaponry is better. However, bad guys can win if the good guys don't care enough. Hence the phrase: Evil wins when good people do nothing.

However, there is no automatic assurance that the good guys do have the better arguments. I believe that because I believe in a God who is good and has more power than that of his adversary. Therefore at the bottom of everything, good has the advantage. When evil wins, it is not because evil is more powerful. It is because the good guys weren't good enough or didn't care enough. But if you do not believe this scenario, then you have no reason for believing that good has better arguments going for it. As you said, you have no reason for believing in "good" or "evil" at all.

There's a great way to change people's minds without adding any new information. It's called Reason. Most of the time disagreements are not disagreements about facts and information. The majority of disagreements are in interpretation of and argumentation from the same set of data. I would have no problem with the kind of "manipulation" you are talking about. To me, that's just part of argumentation. You seem to be drawing some sort of line in the sand though. Like using reason and logic or "new data" is ok but choosing your words for maximum effect is not. I'm not sure there's a definite difference nor do I believe either one is inherently moral or immoral.

Reason, logic and words are the backbone of any argument. An argument is a sword. It can be wielded by the bad guy just as well as it can by the good guy. "Reason" is neither good nor bad. It's simply a tool. If you are looking for some sort of morality, you will need to look elsewhere.

This first became a HUGE issue in the 50's, when marketing became a science (Oglvy and the like). Many thought it was immoral to trick folks into buying things with catchy jingles and tested words. Science has been far ahead of humanity ever since. Food science can trick your body into liking food that it has no business desiring, marketers can greatly increase sales of items even when no actual information is transferred (rock music, flashy lights, ooooh, get me THAT car...).

You asked a moral question though. If you think you're doing right, then it's moral to YOU and all morality is personal first. The more interesting question is "should society approve of it" and we clearly do. We allow it all the time and accept it as part of the dialog. So persuade away!

BTW, I think we have a general belief that if we get tricked into something bad, then it's not our fault, but if we get tricked into changing our mind and it turned out to be a good idea (or one we can convince ourselves is good), then we take the credit.

Ethically, I think persuading morality is due to the expected expertise of the folks in the conversation. Two doctors trying to persuade each other that their treatment is best is fine, but a doctor trying to persuade a sick person that they need a new test they don't need is not fine. (Banks giving loans to folks who can't afford them is another example, the ethical problem there is on the banker who is supposed to be the trusted expert).

answer: yes.
you could use the skill to convince a candidate to Nuke Pakistan.

You're getting sleepy, very sleepy.

Now! Moist robots -- send me all your money!

Shaka

Couldn't you perhaps manage to hypnotize a certain candidate to quack like a duck every time he hears the word Maverick? That would be awesome.

The topic under discussion is exactly what Obama is doing.

As is the case in every election, both sides are trying to manipulate those that can be manipulated ... but Obama is doing a much much better job of it. McCain is at the disadvantage due to his affiliation to the existing party being blamed for all the bad things happening. This too is normal, but things are looking exceptionally bad/unpredictable so the blame is worse than normal.

Obama likely cannot deliver on most of the things he is promising. But he is very smart and just by convincing the majority of people that he is confident and that he will fix everything, he appears to be a leader. Is it ethical to convince people that you can fix things that you know you can't fix? If you are smart and you make the appearance of trying to initiate actions that are either unpractical or that you know will fail then you can blame the other side for not doing their part.

This is not just an Obama thing or a democrat thing, but at the moment he is the best at it.

Do I believe McCain is better than Obama? I'm not sure. Intellectually I think McCain is probably better. Emotionally, I'm somewhat willing to give Obama the opportunity to walk the walk.

Do I believe McCain is more ethical and would tend to promise things he knows he can deliver versus promising things that sound good? Yes.

Is it ethical to convince the convince-able? Debatable.

Does convincing the convince-able make a lawyer, car salesman, or politician good at their job? Definitely.

I sure wish we had completely different candidates than the ones we have on both sides.