7 ms·

Is there any better way to change someone's mind, to change their fundamental mode of thought, to alter their perceptions and manner of reason than to educate t

Is there any better way to change someone's mind, to change their fundamental mode of thought, to alter their perceptions and manner of reason than to educate them? Here's an even better question: if your enemy thinks like you, talks like you, acts like you, shares your values and views the world the way you do, is he your enemy? Can he be your enemy? Why would he be your enemy? Let's consider a central question.You espouse a belief in freedom, a nation built on liberty. Your enemy denies this, proclaims you a tyrant, and endeavors to make war against you. How do you respond? One method undercuts your enemy's message, reaffirms your core values, and has the potential to alter and modify your enemy so that he is predisposed to be united with you. The other affirms his message, strengths his position, and emboldens those who follow him. This leads to the last question: what is your objective? Is it victory, or something else? What better path to victory then to alter the mind of your enemy until he is incapable of fighting you? Our educational assets ought to therefore be shared. To sensor them in the name of security is foolish.

true_religion 13y ago
> if your enemy thinks like you, talks like you, acts like you, shares your values and views the world the way you do, is he your enemy? Can he be your enemy? Why would he be your enemy? Sure. Previous to the 20th century, most wars were fought over control over resources, land, and prestige.
- scottdw2 13y ago
  In war, identity is a defined "negatively". That is, not by describing positive attributes to you, but by describing negative attributes to the enemy. "We are the opposite of x", hence we fight. If you neutralize the ability of the enemy to define you (because he is like you) he can't define himself, and so he cannot fight you. Thus, there is no enemy, and hence no war.
  - true_religion 13y ago
    I can accept that, but at the point you've already gone to war... it is pretty easy to point at any difference between you and the other country, and say that your way is better. (e.g. First World liberal democracy U.S.A looks down upon 1st world liberal democracy U.K. because U.K. has socialized healthcare thus clearly is insane).
- ekianjo 13y ago
  most of these were driven by governments and empires, not people. as an ndividual you have everything to lose to go to war.
- wozniacki 13y ago
  Sure. Previous to the 20th century, most wars were fought over control over resources, land, and prestige. Or over spurious differences like incompatible belief systems and divinities. Spurious differences but holding a great deal of emotional charge. edit: added quote.
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    From the 1974 The Four Musketeers: Porthos: I mean, what are we killing them for? Because they sing psalms in French, and we sing them in Latin? Aramis: Porthos, have you no education? What do you think religious wars are all about?
- aaronem 13y ago
  "Previous to the 20th century?"
joyofdata 13y ago
The reason why the US government prevents export even of a cultural kind to countries like Cuba and Iran is to reinforce and foster the believe in americans that people from Cuba and Iran are enemies.
fmavituna 13y ago
Maybe they've got petrol, then they are your enemy.
127 13y ago
I don't operate on the assumption that the US government wants to be friends with the aforementioned countries. I see it more as a political game. If they wanted for friendly relationships, they would do as you described. It's obvious, and a reason why I think the US goals are not in line with being friendly with those countries.
yodsanklai 13y ago
If the US wanted to help or "be friend with" all the countries they've been persecuting over the years, they could easily find cheaper and more efficient ways than what they've been doing. Clearly, the goal is not to help.
- wozniacki 13y ago
  What better path to victory then to alter the mind of your enemy until he is incapable of fighting you? Our educational assets ought to therefore be shared. To sensor them in the name of security is foolish. they could easily find cheaper and more efficient ways than what they've been doing. Clearly, the goal is not to help. The mind-jarring implication here is that somehow that the peoples of those nations are eager sucklings for our aid, material assistance of any kind and general goodwill. That they would freely and openly welcome our help, without suspicion of malice or harm. [1] [1] Pakistan halts polio vaccination campaign in response to Islamist violence against health workers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xkPDLw7E_Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xkPDLw7E_Q Pakistan polio vaccination under high threat http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2ouBgZmpnI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2ouBgZmpnI edit: formatting
  - Elrac 13y ago
    Your argument is without merit, because you're conflating concepts that don't belong together. You are telling us that some of Pakistan's leaders, including of course religious leaders, are resisting American aid in the form of polio vaccination. The rest of this discussion, though, is about offering education to individuals, not to the often dunderheaded leaders who try to control them. These are two different target groups, and ironically empowering individuals will actually help de-legitimize the leaders we have a problem with. Since you chose the example of polio vaccinations, I think it would be fair to mention that Pakistani leaders have an excellent reason to oppose polio vaccinations. It turns out, and you can easily Google for this, that the CIA set up a fake vaccination program in Pakistan to get a hold of Bin Laden's DNA. It's bad enough that there are false allegations, mostly religion-based, against Western medical intervention in these countries. But to actively feed this distrust by abusing what little trust these people had, just to accomplish a public symbolic victory over a terrorist organization, was an utterly despicable act on part of the US administration.
thaumasiotes 13y ago
> if your enemy thinks like you, talks like you, acts like you, shares your values and views the world the way you do, is he your enemy? Can he be your enemy? Why would he be your enemy? This seems like a fairly, um, naive set of questions. Let's imagine a hypothetical guy who shares all my values and views. Everything I like, he likes too. Everything I dislike, so does he. I like Thai food. He likes Thai food. I like Settlers of Catan. He likes Settlers of Catan. I like reading Orson Scott Card. He likes reading Orson Scott Card. I'm gunning for a promotion at work. He's gunning for the same promotion. Oops. I like a girl called Susan. So does he! When you consider just how alike we are, it's clear (?) that there is no room for conflict between us. > What better path to victory th[a]n to alter the mind of your enemy until he is incapable of fighting you? You're going to end up with fundamentally different modes of thought and perceptions afterwards, since this is you fighting the other guy but removing even the capability from him. It's more of a Brave New World alpha-epsilon relationship than a peer-peer relationship.
- vacri 13y ago
  This is a 'Reduction to Absurdity' fallacy, a ridiculously overwrought interpretation of the parent's position.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    There's nothing absurd about that reduction. It's a statement through example about how being similar doesn't necessarily preclude conflict, and in fairly common situations would cause it. Conflict isn't caused by cultural difference, even though it's an easy, stupid explanation. Conflict is primarily caused by incompatible goals. When resources are scarce, incompatible goals are plenty. Is that so ridiculous, or is the theory that if the Iranians get steeped in American culture that they'll want the Shah back the ridiculous one?
    - vacri 13y ago
      I don't understand why you don't see the link between an increase in cultural dissimilarity and an increase in incompatible goals. The more similar you are, the fewer incompatible goals you have. The parent comment was a bit hyperbolic, but it wasn't absurd, and there's truth to it. Claiming that the parent meant everyone was gunning for Susan (that it, turning it into an argument about identical individuals) was absurd.
Udo 13y ago
Neither of the systems or nations involved are keen on liberty, the only difference is one side has redefined what the word means in order to continue using it in elections, while the other outright believes personal freedom is a sign of decadence. At the core both believe in steep authoritarianism. Looking at things from the outside in, both the USA and the ideologies it fights have striking similarities. Both have values centered on abject ignorance and strict religious ideas, both are warlike and hierarchical, both are conservative with strong reactionary tendencies. Sure, a good argument can be made that a culture based on Islamic fundamentalism is philosophically and ethically much worse than living under the droning malevolence of Christianity, but in reality there's little honor in being second place when both ideologies come with followers who run a big part of the world with money, advanced weapons and technology. And I agree, one of the few concepts that could offer a way out of this is indeed education, hopefully paving the way for rationalism and humanism.
- bananacurve 13y ago
  While this claptrap will get you lots of up votes, the idea that the US is intentionally preventing the education of citizens of these countries is laughable. It is one of their stated goals to use education to undermine these regimes. The more educated they are they harder it is for their governments to keep control of them.
  - Udo 13y ago
    I don't think you've read that "claptrap" in its entirety, otherwise you'd have seen that I agree the undermining of those regimes is pretty much only achievable with education. If you're from the US, that includes your regime as well, which I'm guessing is the point you're disagreeing with. If you really want to hear something controversial from me: I don't think the problem is political at all, at the core it's all about religious ignorance and religion-inspired values. Politics has a way of resolving itself, religion does not (except, again, through education hopefully). Also I'd like to point out that I don't write comments to get upvotes - although it's nice to see people agreeing with me on stuff, I'm really here for the discourse. I fully expect my comments on this thread to turn gray shortly, to be honest.
zmk_ 13y ago
I agree, for conflicts to escalate wars to be had there needs to be a clear division into "us" and "them". Due to educational efforts like these people are on the same page, their mobility increases, I would even venture that it makes it more probable for people to seek economic connections with the outside world too. It's like France and Germany -- you can keep the us/them divide and have a war every few decades or you can tie their future together (Coal and Steel, EEC, EU) and they will have too much to lose not to be nice to one another.
- Elrac 13y ago
  Further to what you said, it has been pointed out that (with very few exceptions, meanwhile) there has never been a war between two countries that both had MacDonald's franchises.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 13y ago
While many American leaders paint this as an ideological war, it's not, or at least not primarily an ideological war. America is just a country, looking out for its best interest, as is the sovereign right of all countries to do. We have no obligation to help other countries if we don't want to, or share with them information if we believe they threaten our security. We have no obligation to educate them or lift them up. Our objective is not to win these countries over. It is to keep them from posing a threat to our oil supply, key allies, etc.

true_religion 13y ago

> if your enemy thinks like you, talks like you, acts like you, shares your values and views the world the way you do, is he your enemy? Can he be your enemy? Why would he be your enemy? Sure. Previous to the 20th century, most wars were fought over control over resources, land, and prestige.

scottdw2 13y ago
In war, identity is a defined "negatively". That is, not by describing positive attributes to you, but by describing negative attributes to the enemy. "We are the opposite of x", hence we fight. If you neutralize the ability of the enemy to define you (because he is like you) he can't define himself, and so he cannot fight you. Thus, there is no enemy, and hence no war.
- true_religion 13y ago
  I can accept that, but at the point you've already gone to war... it is pretty easy to point at any difference between you and the other country, and say that your way is better. (e.g. First World liberal democracy U.S.A looks down upon 1st world liberal democracy U.K. because U.K. has socialized healthcare thus clearly is insane).
ekianjo 13y ago
most of these were driven by governments and empires, not people. as an ndividual you have everything to lose to go to war.
wozniacki 13y ago
Sure. Previous to the 20th century, most wars were fought over control over resources, land, and prestige. Or over spurious differences like incompatible belief systems and divinities. Spurious differences but holding a great deal of emotional charge. edit: added quote.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  From the 1974 The Four Musketeers: Porthos: I mean, what are we killing them for? Because they sing psalms in French, and we sing them in Latin? Aramis: Porthos, have you no education? What do you think religious wars are all about?
aaronem 13y ago
"Previous to the 20th century?"

joyofdata 13y ago

The reason why the US government prevents export even of a cultural kind to countries like Cuba and Iran is to reinforce and foster the believe in americans that people from Cuba and Iran are enemies.

fmavituna 13y ago

Maybe they've got petrol, then they are your enemy.

127 13y ago

I don't operate on the assumption that the US government wants to be friends with the aforementioned countries. I see it more as a political game. If they wanted for friendly relationships, they would do as you described. It's obvious, and a reason why I think the US goals are not in line with being friendly with those countries.

yodsanklai 13y ago

If the US wanted to help or "be friend with" all the countries they've been persecuting over the years, they could easily find cheaper and more efficient ways than what they've been doing. Clearly, the goal is not to help.

wozniacki 13y ago
What better path to victory then to alter the mind of your enemy until he is incapable of fighting you? Our educational assets ought to therefore be shared. To sensor them in the name of security is foolish. they could easily find cheaper and more efficient ways than what they've been doing. Clearly, the goal is not to help. The mind-jarring implication here is that somehow that the peoples of those nations are eager sucklings for our aid, material assistance of any kind and general goodwill. That they would freely and openly welcome our help, without suspicion of malice or harm. [1] [1] Pakistan halts polio vaccination campaign in response to Islamist violence against health workers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xkPDLw7E_Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xkPDLw7E_Q Pakistan polio vaccination under high threat http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2ouBgZmpnI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2ouBgZmpnI edit: formatting
- Elrac 13y ago
  Your argument is without merit, because you're conflating concepts that don't belong together. You are telling us that some of Pakistan's leaders, including of course religious leaders, are resisting American aid in the form of polio vaccination. The rest of this discussion, though, is about offering education to individuals, not to the often dunderheaded leaders who try to control them. These are two different target groups, and ironically empowering individuals will actually help de-legitimize the leaders we have a problem with. Since you chose the example of polio vaccinations, I think it would be fair to mention that Pakistani leaders have an excellent reason to oppose polio vaccinations. It turns out, and you can easily Google for this, that the CIA set up a fake vaccination program in Pakistan to get a hold of Bin Laden's DNA. It's bad enough that there are false allegations, mostly religion-based, against Western medical intervention in these countries. But to actively feed this distrust by abusing what little trust these people had, just to accomplish a public symbolic victory over a terrorist organization, was an utterly despicable act on part of the US administration.

thaumasiotes 13y ago

> if your enemy thinks like you, talks like you, acts like you, shares your values and views the world the way you do, is he your enemy? Can he be your enemy? Why would he be your enemy? This seems like a fairly, um, naive set of questions. Let's imagine a hypothetical guy who shares all my values and views. Everything I like, he likes too. Everything I dislike, so does he. I like Thai food. He likes Thai food. I like Settlers of Catan. He likes Settlers of Catan. I like reading Orson Scott Card. He likes reading Orson Scott Card. I'm gunning for a promotion at work. He's gunning for the same promotion. Oops. I like a girl called Susan. So does he! When you consider just how alike we are, it's clear (?) that there is no room for conflict between us. > What better path to victory th[a]n to alter the mind of your enemy until he is incapable of fighting you? You're going to end up with fundamentally different modes of thought and perceptions afterwards, since this is you fighting the other guy but removing even the capability from him. It's more of a Brave New World alpha-epsilon relationship than a peer-peer relationship.

vacri 13y ago
This is a 'Reduction to Absurdity' fallacy, a ridiculously overwrought interpretation of the parent's position.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  There's nothing absurd about that reduction. It's a statement through example about how being similar doesn't necessarily preclude conflict, and in fairly common situations would cause it. Conflict isn't caused by cultural difference, even though it's an easy, stupid explanation. Conflict is primarily caused by incompatible goals. When resources are scarce, incompatible goals are plenty. Is that so ridiculous, or is the theory that if the Iranians get steeped in American culture that they'll want the Shah back the ridiculous one?
  - vacri 13y ago
    I don't understand why you don't see the link between an increase in cultural dissimilarity and an increase in incompatible goals. The more similar you are, the fewer incompatible goals you have. The parent comment was a bit hyperbolic, but it wasn't absurd, and there's truth to it. Claiming that the parent meant everyone was gunning for Susan (that it, turning it into an argument about identical individuals) was absurd.

Udo 13y ago

Neither of the systems or nations involved are keen on liberty, the only difference is one side has redefined what the word means in order to continue using it in elections, while the other outright believes personal freedom is a sign of decadence. At the core both believe in steep authoritarianism. Looking at things from the outside in, both the USA and the ideologies it fights have striking similarities. Both have values centered on abject ignorance and strict religious ideas, both are warlike and hierarchical, both are conservative with strong reactionary tendencies. Sure, a good argument can be made that a culture based on Islamic fundamentalism is philosophically and ethically much worse than living under the droning malevolence of Christianity, but in reality there's little honor in being second place when both ideologies come with followers who run a big part of the world with money, advanced weapons and technology. And I agree, one of the few concepts that could offer a way out of this is indeed education, hopefully paving the way for rationalism and humanism.

bananacurve 13y ago
While this claptrap will get you lots of up votes, the idea that the US is intentionally preventing the education of citizens of these countries is laughable. It is one of their stated goals to use education to undermine these regimes. The more educated they are they harder it is for their governments to keep control of them.
- Udo 13y ago
  I don't think you've read that "claptrap" in its entirety, otherwise you'd have seen that I agree the undermining of those regimes is pretty much only achievable with education. If you're from the US, that includes your regime as well, which I'm guessing is the point you're disagreeing with. If you really want to hear something controversial from me: I don't think the problem is political at all, at the core it's all about religious ignorance and religion-inspired values. Politics has a way of resolving itself, religion does not (except, again, through education hopefully). Also I'd like to point out that I don't write comments to get upvotes - although it's nice to see people agreeing with me on stuff, I'm really here for the discourse. I fully expect my comments on this thread to turn gray shortly, to be honest.

zmk_ 13y ago

I agree, for conflicts to escalate wars to be had there needs to be a clear division into "us" and "them". Due to educational efforts like these people are on the same page, their mobility increases, I would even venture that it makes it more probable for people to seek economic connections with the outside world too. It's like France and Germany -- you can keep the us/them divide and have a war every few decades or you can tie their future together (Coal and Steel, EEC, EU) and they will have too much to lose not to be nice to one another.

Elrac 13y ago
Further to what you said, it has been pointed out that (with very few exceptions, meanwhile) there has never been a war between two countries that both had MacDonald's franchises.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 13y ago

While many American leaders paint this as an ideological war, it's not, or at least not primarily an ideological war. America is just a country, looking out for its best interest, as is the sovereign right of all countries to do. We have no obligation to help other countries if we don't want to, or share with them information if we believe they threaten our security. We have no obligation to educate them or lift them up. Our objective is not to win these countries over. It is to keep them from posing a threat to our oil supply, key allies, etc.