Dr. Forbush Thinks

When we think about the though police, we think of some future society in George Orwell’s 1984 where Winston Smith is actually arrested by the thought police that can actually read the minds of public and search for illegal thoughts. The government determines which thoughts are allowed and which thoughts are not allowed.

Currently our world is not so clever as to invent a thought reading device. Some people however are able to identify what others may be thinking. They are able to infer their likely thoughts based on their demographics. This is how elections are so very predictable that candidates need to change their public opinions in order to win over a fraction of those who are unaware of a candidate’s past thoughts.

If we look at a large group of people with a similar background and we offer them a selection of two candidates with extremely different opinions we can certainly predict the outcome of the election in advance. If we offer the same two candidates to a completely different group of people the opposite outcome could be very likely. In a democracy we certainly hope that this is the case, because that is how we believe the system should behave.

Now, if we turn the tables and carefully craft a candidates that says what we know that the electorate wants to hear then we stand a high chance of electing any candidate that is willing to read the speech. It doesn’t really matter what the candidate believes. It is what he is willing to say that can get him elected. And, that is the state of politics today.

Many people have much time and energy invested in this strategy of containment of political power. Many regions of our country have been determined to lean one way or the other, and there is fear that some number of people might change their thinking and be swayed to vote differently. Those who fear a change in thinking would like to control the thoughts of those that live around them. Politicians who have invested their careers into thinking in one particular way would like to maintain a base of supporters who continue to think the same way. Supporters of a candidate that is making laws in favor of them would also like to maintain a solid base of people that continue to think the same way. So, the question becomes - How can we get people to continue to think the same way?

Well, a real life thought police isn’t going to happen very soon, because our ability to read thoughts is only at a very infant stage. So, we resort to other forms of thought control. Peer pressure is probably the first form of control that comes to mind. We all want our friends to agree with us. Because, if our friends didn’t agree with us we would feel obligated to argue with them, and arguments might lead to conflict that might damage our friendship. So, we feel obligated to agree with our friends when we can and save the fights for the really important issues. If a friend likes a political candidate and we don’t have an opinion we might find ourselves supporting the candidate in an effort to prevent an argument.

This type of peer pressure may be extended to acquaintances and neighbors as well. A neighbor who knocks on the door and offers information on a candidate that they support might influence a person who does not have an opinion on a certain candidate.

Peer networks may also use single “frightening” issues to influence how people think that they should think. A “frightening” issue may become a handle for an entire political agenda. The Religious Right may want to change civil laws into religious laws, but the general public wouldn’t allow that to happen outright. But, if the majority of the public dislikes homosexuals, then gay marriage could be the issue that allows the religious right to grab onto a larger segment of society. A candidate running on gay marriage as political issue might be elected with a cohort of similar religious animals and pass a religious law banning divorce for anyone because Jesus told us how bad it is. Or, perhaps they could ban sex outside of marriage, or wearing bikinis in public. Or, perhaps they could even pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting the use of alcohol. Who knows where it would end?

People who have an ideology support their opinions on a set of supporting evidence. Sometimes the evidence that they use comes under fire. Sometimes the evidence itself is merely an opinion supported by only faith that the opinion is correct. Sometimes the arguments can not be supported by any logic at all. How do ideologies like this maintain support?

The older people who support a particular idea will eventually die. Younger people are always being born into the group, and the ideology of the group depends on converting the children to the ideology. This happens in religions all the time. Parents take their children to church, temple or meeting week after week and they hear the same stories year after year. Before they know it the children believe the stories before they can support the stories with reality based logic. If the story tells us that Hercules held the world on his shoulders while Atlas took a break, then the children will know and believe the story until reality bring it into question. When space science shows us that the world is a sphere floating in space the children ask the question: Where does Atlas stand? They won’t ask if Atlas is a real being, they already know that he is. They just want to know where he could stand.

Obviously the ideology that requires the largest “contortions of reason” in order to “believe” in the ideology requires the most defense. And, with that being said it is obvious that children need to learn the “facts” early, and avoid anything contrary to the “facts” until the ideology is hardened like cement. This is where the parents must become the thought police of their children. Parents actually have the power to create the thoughts in their children’s heads. At this point parents can either create thinking questioning children, or accepting faithful unquestioning children. Or, at least many parents believe that they can.

To be fair, this type of indoctrination is by no means restricted to religions. If we think about family history, we all know that there are stories that tell us the injustices suffered in our families. Sometimes these injustices lead to family feuds in which hatred in passed to future generations. Family feuds are extended into national or cultural feuds in some cultures. “Remember the Alamo,” has been passed future generations and remembered to provoke hatred at the future generations of Mexicans. When children are told about this defeat they are instilled with hatred and some are even provoked to feelings seeking revenge. Of course children don’t only react to the story, but they also react to the feelings that their storytellers evoke when telling the story. Stories of the burning of Atlanta evoke emotions of hatred toward the soldiers that burned that large swath of land. But those who burned that land are no longer alive to pay for that deed. Do Atlantans praise this action as an action that shortened that war, or do they hate the Northerners who inherited the responsibility of that action? The answer lies in who tells the story, and how it is told. Children are taught how they should feel from the stories they are told, long before the time when they can weigh all the evidence.

This may explain the seemingly crazy reactions of parents to the history lessons taught in school. History can never take into account of every person’s perspective. It is almost impossible to imagine every injustice that has been perpetuated throughout history. Young men have often been forced into battle to fight for ideas that they didn’t believe in. People have been forced into slavery and conditions that border on slavery. People throughout history have been cheated out of property and forced into tragic conditions. If you personally suffered these tragedies, then it is easy to understand the pain and suffering. If you are a family member from a family with a member who has personally suffered, then it is easy to feel empathy for that person. And, if a member of you local regional culture, ethic culture or national heritage, then you have heard the stories and you are sympathetic for your extended family. And, similarly people outside of this circle get much less sympathy. People with the agenda of passing down the hatred from generation to generation want each generation to feel extreme empathy for their own people and less or no empathy for those outside the circle. Regardless of the truth, the emotional feelings of empathy for one culture over the other is an agenda of some people. The cultural thought police form the young minds of children to pass these feelings to future generations.

And the thought police don’t want you to know this.






-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection