This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Just seen this brilliant programme which starts with how normal brains interact and then looks at how things can go wrong, in particular how ordinary people can take on psychopathic traits and become involved in genocide. The changes in an empathy pain experiment after just adding labels is amazing (and highly worrying).
I've always wondered how many normal people (including myself) can behave so badly at times. This is a real insight into the causes and how to deal with such problems.
Highly recommended:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b070ss9x/the-brain-with-david-eagleman...
Post edited at 16:11
3
In reply to Offwidth:
Thanks for posting, didn't realise this was on iplayer. I've read the book that accompanies this series, which is excellent (but not nearly as well written as say Ramachandran, but it's a picture book thing that reads rather like A Brief History Of Time, i.e. not very well).
Eagleman's one of those "charismatic" academics who spends a lot of time on TV but when you actually look at the stuff they've published it's not quite what you were led to believe. But I'm fascinated by the stuff he talks about and I generally agree with his positions on stuff like free will, consciousness, strong AI etc.
Thanks for posting, didn't realise this was on iplayer. I've read the book that accompanies this series, which is excellent (but not nearly as well written as say Ramachandran, but it's a picture book thing that reads rather like A Brief History Of Time, i.e. not very well).
Eagleman's one of those "charismatic" academics who spends a lot of time on TV but when you actually look at the stuff they've published it's not quite what you were led to believe. But I'm fascinated by the stuff he talks about and I generally agree with his positions on stuff like free will, consciousness, strong AI etc.
In reply to Offwidth:
I believe it's a fundamental part of Human nature that people want to be led and told what to do, which is how newspapers work as well as religions, sects and dictatorships. A wise friend once told me there are only a million people on the planet who really matter; perhaps they are the ones who do the telling.
I believe it's a fundamental part of Human nature that people want to be led and told what to do, which is how newspapers work as well as religions, sects and dictatorships. A wise friend once told me there are only a million people on the planet who really matter; perhaps they are the ones who do the telling.
2
1
In reply to Offwidth:
I've had a microcosm of an insight into purportedly smart people bowing down to authority recently.
We no longer have a TV aerial, or watch or record live TV. Gone for the Netflix/Amazon Prime approach. I was outraged at a piece of harassment sent to us by Capita on behalf of BBC TV licensing. It was carefully and maliciously designed to give the impression that we were being taken to court, but when read carefully and critically it actually said only three things - (1) you need a licence to watch or record TV live (2) you can take a piece of paper in to a court hearing and (3) they have no idea who I am ("the legal occupier") so they can't bring a court case even if they had sufficient evidence to pass over to the CPS.
I was well put out by their tactics which I consider should be illegal under several laws relating to harassment. I filed it with the dozen other letters to "the legal occupier" in my wood burning stove. I intend to keep doing this and to let them piss other people's money away on harassing and threatening me. Who do they think they are, expecting me to declare myself to not be breaking the law to them, a private company - including full disclosure of my identity and address.
In discussing this with others I have had several people object quite strongly to this and tell me how simple it would be to contact them and stop the letters (no, they just come addressed to you by name then, and they're still liable to send a goon round to visit) and who seem to take the view that I am in the wrong, or that I am causing trouble, or are concerned about the trouble that will come down on me.
This is a private company with no law enforcement powers of its own sending these letters , yet purportedly intelligent people perceive them as authority, and bow down to them, and consider it right and normal that they harass and intimidate members of the public who refuse to follow their perverse world where we have to declare ourselves innocent of a crime every two years, or receive monthly harassment though the post.
It was a bit of an insight into how many people disengage all critical faculties and kowtow to perceived authority by default. God only knowns how these people would react if TV licensing started wearing leather outfits by Hugo Boss with natty little red arm bands and declaring that people without TVs should have some symbol painted above their door.
Head down, follow the leader, bow to authority, be a good little person. I'm by no means an anarchist and recognise the need for a power structure and law enforcement, but that doesn't work when the masses don't engage critical thinking on a regular basis. And the people at the top know this.
I've had a microcosm of an insight into purportedly smart people bowing down to authority recently.
We no longer have a TV aerial, or watch or record live TV. Gone for the Netflix/Amazon Prime approach. I was outraged at a piece of harassment sent to us by Capita on behalf of BBC TV licensing. It was carefully and maliciously designed to give the impression that we were being taken to court, but when read carefully and critically it actually said only three things - (1) you need a licence to watch or record TV live (2) you can take a piece of paper in to a court hearing and (3) they have no idea who I am ("the legal occupier") so they can't bring a court case even if they had sufficient evidence to pass over to the CPS.
I was well put out by their tactics which I consider should be illegal under several laws relating to harassment. I filed it with the dozen other letters to "the legal occupier" in my wood burning stove. I intend to keep doing this and to let them piss other people's money away on harassing and threatening me. Who do they think they are, expecting me to declare myself to not be breaking the law to them, a private company - including full disclosure of my identity and address.
In discussing this with others I have had several people object quite strongly to this and tell me how simple it would be to contact them and stop the letters (no, they just come addressed to you by name then, and they're still liable to send a goon round to visit) and who seem to take the view that I am in the wrong, or that I am causing trouble, or are concerned about the trouble that will come down on me.
This is a private company with no law enforcement powers of its own sending these letters , yet purportedly intelligent people perceive them as authority, and bow down to them, and consider it right and normal that they harass and intimidate members of the public who refuse to follow their perverse world where we have to declare ourselves innocent of a crime every two years, or receive monthly harassment though the post.
It was a bit of an insight into how many people disengage all critical faculties and kowtow to perceived authority by default. God only knowns how these people would react if TV licensing started wearing leather outfits by Hugo Boss with natty little red arm bands and declaring that people without TVs should have some symbol painted above their door.
Head down, follow the leader, bow to authority, be a good little person. I'm by no means an anarchist and recognise the need for a power structure and law enforcement, but that doesn't work when the masses don't engage critical thinking on a regular basis. And the people at the top know this.
4
2
In reply to wintertree:
I used to be a TV Licence investigator. We were not all bad. Not sure what the current set up is though - things seem to of changed after the law bought into full disclosure, you can no longer write serious mental/health issues on the top of the form to help those making a decision as to whether to prosecute or not.
I used to be a TV Licence investigator. We were not all bad. Not sure what the current set up is though - things seem to of changed after the law bought into full disclosure, you can no longer write serious mental/health issues on the top of the form to help those making a decision as to whether to prosecute or not.
3
In reply to wintertree:
I've had the same thing with my mother's house, which I rent out, as it is the only way that I can afford to pay the mortgage. Yet there have been times when the house has stayed empty for a long time, and that was when I had the TV license harassment. I just did not respond. I agree that there is a perceived obligation to give in to these pseudo-authorities.
I've had the same thing with my mother's house, which I rent out, as it is the only way that I can afford to pay the mortgage. Yet there have been times when the house has stayed empty for a long time, and that was when I had the TV license harassment. I just did not respond. I agree that there is a perceived obligation to give in to these pseudo-authorities.
2
In reply to Dave the Rave:
A company working for the BBC threaten and harass people who do not need a TV licence. If you identify your name and address to this company, and state that you do not need a TV licence, they put you on a separate, reduced harassment list for a little while. Then they start harassing you again.
Many people seem to think that not cooperating with a random company who sends you harassing mail is wrong, because they perceive the company to have authority. They have none. That is why they resort to harassment techniques.
If smart people disengage their critical thinking and kertow to perceived authority when it comes to a company working for the BBC, they are highly likely to disengage their critical thinking and do what they are told by people who are in a more real and elevated position of authority, even when their actions undermine any right to that authority.
> Sorry, please could you explain that again ?
A company working for the BBC threaten and harass people who do not need a TV licence. If you identify your name and address to this company, and state that you do not need a TV licence, they put you on a separate, reduced harassment list for a little while. Then they start harassing you again.
Many people seem to think that not cooperating with a random company who sends you harassing mail is wrong, because they perceive the company to have authority. They have none. That is why they resort to harassment techniques.
If smart people disengage their critical thinking and kertow to perceived authority when it comes to a company working for the BBC, they are highly likely to disengage their critical thinking and do what they are told by people who are in a more real and elevated position of authority, even when their actions undermine any right to that authority.
3
2
In reply to wintertree:
Sorry, but you've lost me?
> A company working for the BBC threaten and harass people who do not need a TV licence. If you identify your name and address to this company, and state that you do not need a TV licence, they put you on a separate, reduced harassment list for a little while. Then they start harassing you again.
> Many people seem to think that not cooperating with a random company who sends you harassing mail is wrong, because they perceive the company to have authority. They have none. That is why they resort to harassment techniques.
> If smart people disengage their critical thinking and kertow to perceived authority when it comes to a company working for the BBC, they are highly likely to disengage their critical thinking and do what they are told by people who are in a more real and elevated position of authority, even when their actions undermine any right to that authority.
Sorry, but you've lost me?
3
1
In reply to wintertree:
My interaction with the TV licence people has been much more painless than other people's, I've always quietly thrown the letters away without really pondering them too much, with not having a TV, and then one day there was a knock on the door and a guy in plain clothes asked if I was the house holder, and sort of glad of the distraction from studying I said 'Who....why....what? That depends...who wants to know?' in a cheerfully cryptic way, and he suddenly looked awkward and pulled out some ID to explain who he was and quickly checked my front room ('Are you studying then? There's lots of papers'), and I felt a little bit bad and gave him a friendly pat as he left my front door, and that was that. He was a nice enough guy, and they were only bits of paper, it wasn't like I was going to be fined.
My interaction with the TV licence people has been much more painless than other people's, I've always quietly thrown the letters away without really pondering them too much, with not having a TV, and then one day there was a knock on the door and a guy in plain clothes asked if I was the house holder, and sort of glad of the distraction from studying I said 'Who....why....what? That depends...who wants to know?' in a cheerfully cryptic way, and he suddenly looked awkward and pulled out some ID to explain who he was and quickly checked my front room ('Are you studying then? There's lots of papers'), and I felt a little bit bad and gave him a friendly pat as he left my front door, and that was that. He was a nice enough guy, and they were only bits of paper, it wasn't like I was going to be fined.
Post edited at 01:13
3
In reply to Timmd:
So you let a random agent of a sub contractor of a broadcasting company into your house to check you were not a criminal, with the unspoken assumption that they consider you a potential criminal.
Rather nicely illustrates my point about perceived authority.
They have no authority, their actions fly in the face of innocent until proven guilty, there are many documented cases of wrongful behaviour of these people, yet flash an ID badge and use a word with serious sounding connotations but the use of which is not controlled ("inspector") and people let them walk right in. You even felt bad for them. If it helps, he's paid a commission if he sells you a licence or gets enough evidence to incriminate you in court (or in documented cases frames you...)
So you let a random agent of a sub contractor of a broadcasting company into your house to check you were not a criminal, with the unspoken assumption that they consider you a potential criminal.
Rather nicely illustrates my point about perceived authority.
They have no authority, their actions fly in the face of innocent until proven guilty, there are many documented cases of wrongful behaviour of these people, yet flash an ID badge and use a word with serious sounding connotations but the use of which is not controlled ("inspector") and people let them walk right in. You even felt bad for them. If it helps, he's paid a commission if he sells you a licence or gets enough evidence to incriminate you in court (or in documented cases frames you...)
6
2
In reply to Offwidth:
Blind trust in authority is what makes people so easy to mislead, especially older folk who grew up in an era when on the whole, people could be trusted. I was child in a small Oxfordshire village in the 60s and can remember the atmosphere of the time; most people knew most people, there was a village hierarchy of Vicar, Doctor and the rich man up the road who ran the parish council as well as a few others, it all ticked over fairly cosily like in The Archers. I'm not naive enough to claim there weren't abuses because I'm sure there were; people like Jimmy Saville profited from blind trust in authority as did many other fraudsters and abusers.
Nowadays people are more willing to question but religious fatalism is doing much damage especially in developing countries and in African for example Christians and Muslims alike blame their misfortunes on God's will.
Blind trust in authority is what makes people so easy to mislead, especially older folk who grew up in an era when on the whole, people could be trusted. I was child in a small Oxfordshire village in the 60s and can remember the atmosphere of the time; most people knew most people, there was a village hierarchy of Vicar, Doctor and the rich man up the road who ran the parish council as well as a few others, it all ticked over fairly cosily like in The Archers. I'm not naive enough to claim there weren't abuses because I'm sure there were; people like Jimmy Saville profited from blind trust in authority as did many other fraudsters and abusers.
Nowadays people are more willing to question but religious fatalism is doing much damage especially in developing countries and in African for example Christians and Muslims alike blame their misfortunes on God's will.
1
In reply to wintertree:
Sometimes a thread will pan out in unexpected ways I guess. It is true that this episode dealt with why people do bad things on behalf of an evil authority. Auntie beeb knows best on revenue collection whether you use it live or not. The dark side of a national treasure?
Sometimes a thread will pan out in unexpected ways I guess. It is true that this episode dealt with why people do bad things on behalf of an evil authority. Auntie beeb knows best on revenue collection whether you use it live or not. The dark side of a national treasure?
2
In reply to Offwidth:
<paranoia on> You can see the defer to perceived authority mindset in the dislikes I've got </paranoia off>. It's not even "use it live" for us, it's "use it at all.". There are plenty of stories of vulnerable people - especially the old - buying a licence they categorically do not need (e.g. no TV set at all) out of fear of the perceive authority that is TV Licensing and their "enforcement officers"
I think the BBC has more than one dark side, don't you? We'll see when the Dame Janet Smith Review is released.
> Sometimes a thread will pan out in unexpected ways I guess. It is true that this episode dealt with why people do bad things on behalf of an evil authority. Auntie beeb knows best on revenue collection whether you use it live or not.
<paranoia on> You can see the defer to perceived authority mindset in the dislikes I've got </paranoia off>. It's not even "use it live" for us, it's "use it at all.". There are plenty of stories of vulnerable people - especially the old - buying a licence they categorically do not need (e.g. no TV set at all) out of fear of the perceive authority that is TV Licensing and their "enforcement officers"
> The dark side of a national treasure?
I think the BBC has more than one dark side, don't you? We'll see when the Dame Janet Smith Review is released.
In reply to Dave the Rave:
The BBC and their agents act with perceived authority to harass and intimidate innocent people. Many other people choose to blame the innocent people being harassed and intimidated because they side with the perceived authority. This to me demonstrates how easily many people will turn off critical thinking and follow an authority - real or perceived, good or evil, just because they perceive it to have authority.
> Sorry, but you've lost me?
The BBC and their agents act with perceived authority to harass and intimidate innocent people. Many other people choose to blame the innocent people being harassed and intimidated because they side with the perceived authority. This to me demonstrates how easily many people will turn off critical thinking and follow an authority - real or perceived, good or evil, just because they perceive it to have authority.
In reply to wintertree:
Stuff dislikes... thats more about immaturity or laziness than deference.
Every big organisation has dark sides. On revenue collection I think the licence is bonkers in a modern digital world... public broadcasting should be part of general taxation. Those who suffer from the licence payment collection system include many of those least ahle to cope and yes that is very bad news. The BBC also has bloated management structures, has failed in all sorts of areas for all sorts of reasons and is still the best public broadcaster in the world if you look at a range of independant international views.
Stuff dislikes... thats more about immaturity or laziness than deference.
Every big organisation has dark sides. On revenue collection I think the licence is bonkers in a modern digital world... public broadcasting should be part of general taxation. Those who suffer from the licence payment collection system include many of those least ahle to cope and yes that is very bad news. The BBC also has bloated management structures, has failed in all sorts of areas for all sorts of reasons and is still the best public broadcaster in the world if you look at a range of independant international views.
Post edited at 12:22
1
In reply to wintertree:
At the time I hadn't really considered the matter that seriously, it was a sunny day and he was a nice guy and had shown me his ID, and I think it's fair enough to have to pay a TV licence, I just saw it as helping with their paperwork.
I have dug my heels in when other people have tried to assume authority over me, but it's not like he's rounding up disabled people or being darkly evil.
> So you let a random agent of a sub contractor of a broadcasting company into your house to check you were not a criminal, with the unspoken assumption that they consider you a potential criminal.
At the time I hadn't really considered the matter that seriously, it was a sunny day and he was a nice guy and had shown me his ID, and I think it's fair enough to have to pay a TV licence, I just saw it as helping with their paperwork.
I have dug my heels in when other people have tried to assume authority over me, but it's not like he's rounding up disabled people or being darkly evil.
Post edited at 13:08
1
In reply to Timmd:
Regardless of "fair enough" it's breaking the law not to have one if you meet certain criteria. I always paid mine when I required it - fair enough. Then I realised it was funding the systematic harassment of 80,000 innocent people a day, as well as rather more unsavoury stuff. I am lucky that I could legally divest myself of funding this.
It isn't, though. They're commission based sales people who get paid more if you buy a licence or incriminate yourself. If I decided to set up some company that launched civil law suits on behalf o musicians whose works have been illegally copied, would you help me with my paperwork by letting me in to check your music collection? Because I have precisely the same rights and standings as the TV man knocking on your door. (Unless it's the very very rare one with a warrant)
He was however presuming you to be guilty and using perceived authority to demand you show your innocence. Actuallty pretty dark stuff when you stop and think about it - but again you hit my point, project the right amount of authority and people want to be helpful without really questioning it
Various companies operate such shady tactics with utter impunity in the UK. What that says for the wider world and the future, I dread to think.
> At the time I hadn't really considered the matter that seriously, it was a sunny day and he'd shown me his ID, and I think it's fair enough to have to pay a TV licence
Regardless of "fair enough" it's breaking the law not to have one if you meet certain criteria. I always paid mine when I required it - fair enough. Then I realised it was funding the systematic harassment of 80,000 innocent people a day, as well as rather more unsavoury stuff. I am lucky that I could legally divest myself of funding this.
> I just saw it as helping with their paperwork.
It isn't, though. They're commission based sales people who get paid more if you buy a licence or incriminate yourself. If I decided to set up some company that launched civil law suits on behalf o musicians whose works have been illegally copied, would you help me with my paperwork by letting me in to check your music collection? Because I have precisely the same rights and standings as the TV man knocking on your door. (Unless it's the very very rare one with a warrant)
> I have dug my heels in when other people have tried to assume authority over me, but it's not like he's rounding up disabled people or being darkly evil.
He was however presuming you to be guilty and using perceived authority to demand you show your innocence. Actuallty pretty dark stuff when you stop and think about it - but again you hit my point, project the right amount of authority and people want to be helpful without really questioning it
Various companies operate such shady tactics with utter impunity in the UK. What that says for the wider world and the future, I dread to think.
Post edited at 13:28
2
In reply to wintertree:
This thread has been food for thought about private companies and assumed authority.
This thread has been food for thought about private companies and assumed authority.
1
1
In reply to Timmd:
This nearly always happened when someone didn't have a TV. It was very rare to get sworn at or thumped by someone who didn't have a TV.
This nearly always happened when someone didn't have a TV. It was very rare to get sworn at or thumped by someone who didn't have a TV.
In reply to Timmd:
Don't be too hard (if you are) on private companies when I worked for TV Licensing it was part of the Post Office - all the same tactics to get people to comply with the law were used then and all the same stories and rants about how bad we were still happened. Approx 20 yrs ago.
Don't be too hard (if you are) on private companies when I worked for TV Licensing it was part of the Post Office - all the same tactics to get people to comply with the law were used then and all the same stories and rants about how bad we were still happened. Approx 20 yrs ago.
In reply to Eeyore:
I think I was enjoying that my house is actually mine now, too. Kind of fun to be cheerfully cryptic with unknown people from behind your own door.
> This nearly always happened when someone didn't have a TV. It was very rare to get sworn at or thumped by someone who didn't have a TV.
I think I was enjoying that my house is actually mine now, too. Kind of fun to be cheerfully cryptic with unknown people from behind your own door.
Post edited at 18:54
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...