Crooked Hillary, Multi-Million Dollar Law Suits and Mind Control
In times like this I greatly value the fact that I am not a reporter, having no duty to check my facts, read books and be truly informed on issues. Today I shall, as only someone who is truly living in the most modern parts of 2016 (except for Snapchat, I don't do Snapchat), talk about something I heard on a podcast, without fully being able to quote what I heard. In spite of that, I will offer opinions and conclusions. If I were a journalist, it would be irresponsible. As a blogger, it is "analysis."
Let's go back and forth, shall we? The subject, is the 12/2/16 episode of On The Media. On The Media is a podcast that sounds like it is on NPR, but is really on WNYC. I'm from Wyoming. I don't know the significance of WNYC. I assume, however, that because it is a New York City thing, it must be prestigious. On The Media intends to cover the coverage. I believe it is supposed to generally be a meta-discussion of how the media is operating. They are interested in the manner in which significant events are being covered. As a guy with a communications degree (communications, is phony degree), I have dabbled in communications theory (I got semi-aroused in Arrival when they talked about the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis), and so I care about how messages are relayed and I care about what message the medium itself relays, regardless of the content. On The Media does a pretty good job (they actually do a great job, as they have top notch content with excellent editing and production, I don't know of another podcast that is on their level). I really love the podcast, because it is smart, thorough and reasonable. By reasonable, I mean that while it clearly has a liberal bent, it acknowledges it and, I think works hard to tell the truth. I am able to get behind the majority of what this podcast discusses, even though I am technically a conservative guy.
On 12/2/16, the podcast was a further rumination (albeit a frantic one) on the impending Trump presidency. It also included a segment with George Lakoff, a cognitive scientist. Mr. Lakoff (I would assume he is a PhD, but I couldn't confirm it with less than 10 minutes of internet research, so I am calling him Mr.) talked about how Trump pulled of his victory, in spite of being a) not very conservative, b) not very likable and c) not good a traditional campaigning (I made this list, not Mr. Lakoff). The reason Trump could overcome these problems, according to Lakoff, is the manner in which Trump communicated. In his article (which covers in more depth the subject covered in the podcast), he discusses 10 different factors that made Trump's message a winning message this election. Lakoff identifies things like framing (only referring to his opponents with perjorative terms to affect the way people who quote him view his opponents, e.g. "crooked Hillary."), repetition, grammar and more were part of his non-exhaustive list. The Reader's Digest version is this: Trump's campaign (and I have to assume that this was not an intentional strategy, rather, the serendipitous result of when Trump's own personality and cognitive science bump into each other in an subway, neither recognizing the other) had the effect of mind control. While that may sound dramatic, if you listen to the tenor of the podcast, I perceived that there was a belief that these cognitive phenomena actually had a measurable (though I bet it has not been measured) effect on the election.
The result of this belief, is a sort of panic among the liberal media. When confronted with an opponent who appears to be using scientific witchcraft to convince the unwashed masses (and maybe a few of the washed ones, too) to vote for someone who appears to be a cross between a sociopath and a horny teenager (sorry, I guess that's redundant), they now wonder if they now need to resort to this witchcraft as well. The media, at least On The Media, in this podcast wonder, do they need to shed the attempts at objectivity and begin to charge their words with cognitively powerful terms to affirmatively influence people at a subconscious level to counter the same things that are being done by the Trump machine? This is no small issue. The value of journalistic objectivity (Conservatives believe the media are liberally biased, communications scientists know that no media is unbiased and the liberals think the media is objective, but ineffective in convincing others of the truth) is a sacred cow. It is one of the main dogmas of the journalist. Bob Garfield, one of the On The Media hosts, has explicitly proposed that the media drop objectivity and actively fight against Trump. This instance of a leopard proposing to change its spots is significant.
Let's leave the media problem now, and talk about Plaintiff's lawyers. While I am a sometimes Plaintiff's lawyer, I am only one in the sense that I represent Plaintiffs from time to time. Doctrinally, however, I am more of a defense lawyer. I believe that the law, as currently constituted, is generally acceptable and that if that law were interpreted consistently, all parties could benefit from the predictability and reliability of the application of that law. The law would, over time, refine itself and become close to perfect. My "defense lawyer" brain believes that, in general, trials should focus on facts and evidence.
But, were I a Plaintiff's lawyer (by genetics or indoctrination), I would have a very different viewpoint. I would believe that even though I am typically the richer of the two types of lawyers, somehow, I am the underdog. Even though my client typically has a two year head start when any case is filed in court, the deck is stacked against me. I believe that the people that make up juries biased and are not that good at evaluating facts. As such, I need passion in order to sell my case to the jury. Further, my perception of inherent disadvantage (which is not all-the-way made up, Plaintiff's do have the burden to prove their case to a certainty of more than 50%), means that I believe the law is stacked against me and needs to tweaked to favor me. These are the stereotypes of personal injury law.
The Plaintiff's bar, while they purport to fight for the "little guy" do not believe that the little guys on the jury panel can properly evaluate facts in a fair way. They believe that the insurance industry and large corporations in general, have corrupted our jury pool to a bunch of pro-corporate drones. As such, they have poured significant resources into strategies and theories that will trick a jury into giving them lots and lots of money. Let's be clear, Nevada is almost a judicial hellhole (Las Vegas, is on the watch list, as of 2013-2014, meaning it is a prime candidate to become a judicial hellhole, but has not yet been bestowed that honor.) A judicial hell hole, by the way, is one where it appears the judiciary has a solid leaning toward the Plaintiff's bar. In my opinion, and I think a number of journalists would agree, there are some serious issues in Nevada with how judges are selected (public elections are bad for judges) and how Clark County judges interpret the law. I bring this up only to show that in spite of being the group that usually wins, attorneys want predictability, they want to eliminate the risk of a loss. Thus, even in one of the most Plaintiff friendly jurisdictions in the US of A, the Plaintiff's bar has meetings a plenty to see how they can guarantee a win. This leads me back to cognitive science.
One of this jurisdiction's most infamous practitioners of the Plaintiff arts, has been instrumental in advancing the "reptile theory" into our Court system. This theory (summarized by people smarter than me here), refers to cognitive and "neuroscience" (I've listened to some of the seminars) theories that certain decisions are made in the primitive or "lizard" portions of our brains. The idea is, that if you can cause the decision to be made in those parts of the brain, the decisions will be based not on a conscious evaluation of the facts, but a primitive response to fear. Thus, the reptile theory purports to subconsciously scare juries into giving millions of dollars to Plaintiffs in order to protect themselves. As a guy who is mostly a defense attorney, my industry has been in a tizzy lately, because we have been presented with the Plaintiff's bar doing witchcraft to trick juries into ignoring the facts. We have mobilized to understand the theory and counter it, as best we can, with law and facts.
Here's why both the media and the Defense bar, are maybe a bit more worried than they need to be. When I was a kid, I was told that my sweet rock and roll records were chock full of satanic messages. Now, I never heard those, but I was told that if I played the records backwards (which I still don't know how to do), Satan himself would give me instructions. The theory was that somehow, my subconscious was able to hear Satan's instructions, even though I only listen to my rock and roll frontwards.
The Manchurian candidate (both movies and the book), Conspiracy Theory (the Movie with Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts), the Bourne movies, all talk about people being made into super soldiers or assassins by using imagery and subliminal messaging to manipulate the subconscious. Yet, world leaders aren't assassinated every other day by a mindless super soldier who had recently gotten a phone call where the activating word was stated (mine would be "kumquat").
Advertisers hoped that subliminal messaging would be the key to tricking consumers, by activating their primitive subconscious, into spending inordinate sums on unnecessary goods. Yet, I do not buy fragrances advertised using sexual subtexts and imagery. I don't really like to go to Carl's Jr., even though they have girls in bikinis washing cars and the like in their commercials.
In the end, it is my understanding that these things don't really work. Why? Because I believe that when it comes down to it, all of these cognitive theories, while true, overstate their power. How do I know this? Because the reptile theory is not infallible - juries still listen to the facts. Because I haven't been following Satan's messages that were supposedly encoded on my rock and roll. Because I heard Trump's speeches, interviews and more, but I declined to vote for him.
So, On The Media, Defense Bar and fellow little people, there are influences out there. It's true. Just like you were taught in your public speaking class (primacy, recency, etc.), there are theories that can maximise the effectiveness of your communication. However, these mechanisms do not cause our eyes to glaze over and we turn into mindless, reptilian reactors who have no conscious say in their decisions.
The fact that these cognitive mechanisms don't work to completely subjugate free will is important to decision makers, because it means we can still hope and we can choose to communicate deeply. We used to do this. Neil Postman has written comparisons about how dense the communications were to the average American during elections in the 1800's versus the modern era. The 1800's communications were denser, longer and harder to follow. But people followed, thought and made decisions. While Trump has lowered the communication bar significantly (his speeches, according to someone, maybe it was McWhorter, were written at about a 2nd grade level), we do not have to accept this as the standard. So, to the media I say (as though they were listening), do not sacrifice your ideals to fight the orange comb over-monster. Like Voldemort, his power lies, to a great degree, in how much power we give him. By deeming him worthy of abandoning the time honored (and useful) ideals of the press, we cheapen ourselves and empower him.
I have seen juries ignore impassioned pleas from Plaintiff's attorneys when the facts did not support the Plaintiff's case. Those "twelve bales of hay" can do a lot of analysis and will analyze the facts, if you show them you trust them to do so. I have had civil discussions, using multisyllabic words with people who disagreed with me on Facebook. I have opened up private communications with people whom I have begun to have openly contentious public disagreements, and resolved the dispute, causing our public communications to return to the civil and courteous discussion that I instigated privately.
Bob Garfield, don't be afraid. If you are a spiritual person, have faith. Have faith that whatever power you believe in has imbued humanity with potential. Believe in that potential. If you are not a spiritual person, look at examples of humans exceeding expectations and outliving their demography. It's happened before and it can happen again. Also, if humans are just drones who cannot exercise conscious reason and logic, why do we care who manipulates them? If you depose Trump and replace him with a "benevolent" more liberal leader, the public is nothing more than a will-less vehicle driven by the powerful. In such a world, it doesn't really matter which "side" is driving the car. People have free will. Even oppressed people can have free will.
This lesson can be applied everywhere. I admit, my view on this issue is seen through a spiritual lens. But I think a secular mind can reach the same conclusion. If there are metaphysical values, if there are worthwhile ideas, if there are ideals, they are not weakened by placing every day people in a position to embody them. Ideals are weakened when they are suspended, in the false hope that they can be reinstated after the crisis with the same vitality. The only world worth living in, is one that risks everything, to allow each person exceed the bounds of their "programming." It's scary, but life is scary. In fact, life should be scary, to some degree.
Even if you aren't a journalist, a demagogue or a worldwide influencer, take a look at your communications. What are you communicating with your communications? Are you communicating that you do not trust people to make good decisions" Are you communicating that people are stupid and unworthy of self-determination? Or do you empower people to grow by your communications? Do your engagements and discussions acknowledge that the viewpoints of others could have value? The new year is coming and the problems that we face are human ones. Whether you are concerned with immigration, climate change, civil rights or terrorism, in the end, it will require other humans to fix the problem or the perception that there is a problem. Think about the impact of your comments. Read your articles (and maybe their sources from time to time), check them with Snopes and consider whether they strengthen people or strengthen dogmas before you share it on Facebook.
These are things we can do without damaging our own beliefs. Really. Don't be afraid of ideas and the people that hold them. It can make a big difference.
Let's go back and forth, shall we? The subject, is the 12/2/16 episode of On The Media. On The Media is a podcast that sounds like it is on NPR, but is really on WNYC. I'm from Wyoming. I don't know the significance of WNYC. I assume, however, that because it is a New York City thing, it must be prestigious. On The Media intends to cover the coverage. I believe it is supposed to generally be a meta-discussion of how the media is operating. They are interested in the manner in which significant events are being covered. As a guy with a communications degree (communications, is phony degree), I have dabbled in communications theory (I got semi-aroused in Arrival when they talked about the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis), and so I care about how messages are relayed and I care about what message the medium itself relays, regardless of the content. On The Media does a pretty good job (they actually do a great job, as they have top notch content with excellent editing and production, I don't know of another podcast that is on their level). I really love the podcast, because it is smart, thorough and reasonable. By reasonable, I mean that while it clearly has a liberal bent, it acknowledges it and, I think works hard to tell the truth. I am able to get behind the majority of what this podcast discusses, even though I am technically a conservative guy.
On 12/2/16, the podcast was a further rumination (albeit a frantic one) on the impending Trump presidency. It also included a segment with George Lakoff, a cognitive scientist. Mr. Lakoff (I would assume he is a PhD, but I couldn't confirm it with less than 10 minutes of internet research, so I am calling him Mr.) talked about how Trump pulled of his victory, in spite of being a) not very conservative, b) not very likable and c) not good a traditional campaigning (I made this list, not Mr. Lakoff). The reason Trump could overcome these problems, according to Lakoff, is the manner in which Trump communicated. In his article (which covers in more depth the subject covered in the podcast), he discusses 10 different factors that made Trump's message a winning message this election. Lakoff identifies things like framing (only referring to his opponents with perjorative terms to affect the way people who quote him view his opponents, e.g. "crooked Hillary."), repetition, grammar and more were part of his non-exhaustive list. The Reader's Digest version is this: Trump's campaign (and I have to assume that this was not an intentional strategy, rather, the serendipitous result of when Trump's own personality and cognitive science bump into each other in an subway, neither recognizing the other) had the effect of mind control. While that may sound dramatic, if you listen to the tenor of the podcast, I perceived that there was a belief that these cognitive phenomena actually had a measurable (though I bet it has not been measured) effect on the election.
The result of this belief, is a sort of panic among the liberal media. When confronted with an opponent who appears to be using scientific witchcraft to convince the unwashed masses (and maybe a few of the washed ones, too) to vote for someone who appears to be a cross between a sociopath and a horny teenager (sorry, I guess that's redundant), they now wonder if they now need to resort to this witchcraft as well. The media, at least On The Media, in this podcast wonder, do they need to shed the attempts at objectivity and begin to charge their words with cognitively powerful terms to affirmatively influence people at a subconscious level to counter the same things that are being done by the Trump machine? This is no small issue. The value of journalistic objectivity (Conservatives believe the media are liberally biased, communications scientists know that no media is unbiased and the liberals think the media is objective, but ineffective in convincing others of the truth) is a sacred cow. It is one of the main dogmas of the journalist. Bob Garfield, one of the On The Media hosts, has explicitly proposed that the media drop objectivity and actively fight against Trump. This instance of a leopard proposing to change its spots is significant.
Let's leave the media problem now, and talk about Plaintiff's lawyers. While I am a sometimes Plaintiff's lawyer, I am only one in the sense that I represent Plaintiffs from time to time. Doctrinally, however, I am more of a defense lawyer. I believe that the law, as currently constituted, is generally acceptable and that if that law were interpreted consistently, all parties could benefit from the predictability and reliability of the application of that law. The law would, over time, refine itself and become close to perfect. My "defense lawyer" brain believes that, in general, trials should focus on facts and evidence.
But, were I a Plaintiff's lawyer (by genetics or indoctrination), I would have a very different viewpoint. I would believe that even though I am typically the richer of the two types of lawyers, somehow, I am the underdog. Even though my client typically has a two year head start when any case is filed in court, the deck is stacked against me. I believe that the people that make up juries biased and are not that good at evaluating facts. As such, I need passion in order to sell my case to the jury. Further, my perception of inherent disadvantage (which is not all-the-way made up, Plaintiff's do have the burden to prove their case to a certainty of more than 50%), means that I believe the law is stacked against me and needs to tweaked to favor me. These are the stereotypes of personal injury law.
The Plaintiff's bar, while they purport to fight for the "little guy" do not believe that the little guys on the jury panel can properly evaluate facts in a fair way. They believe that the insurance industry and large corporations in general, have corrupted our jury pool to a bunch of pro-corporate drones. As such, they have poured significant resources into strategies and theories that will trick a jury into giving them lots and lots of money. Let's be clear, Nevada is almost a judicial hellhole (Las Vegas, is on the watch list, as of 2013-2014, meaning it is a prime candidate to become a judicial hellhole, but has not yet been bestowed that honor.) A judicial hell hole, by the way, is one where it appears the judiciary has a solid leaning toward the Plaintiff's bar. In my opinion, and I think a number of journalists would agree, there are some serious issues in Nevada with how judges are selected (public elections are bad for judges) and how Clark County judges interpret the law. I bring this up only to show that in spite of being the group that usually wins, attorneys want predictability, they want to eliminate the risk of a loss. Thus, even in one of the most Plaintiff friendly jurisdictions in the US of A, the Plaintiff's bar has meetings a plenty to see how they can guarantee a win. This leads me back to cognitive science.
One of this jurisdiction's most infamous practitioners of the Plaintiff arts, has been instrumental in advancing the "reptile theory" into our Court system. This theory (summarized by people smarter than me here), refers to cognitive and "neuroscience" (I've listened to some of the seminars) theories that certain decisions are made in the primitive or "lizard" portions of our brains. The idea is, that if you can cause the decision to be made in those parts of the brain, the decisions will be based not on a conscious evaluation of the facts, but a primitive response to fear. Thus, the reptile theory purports to subconsciously scare juries into giving millions of dollars to Plaintiffs in order to protect themselves. As a guy who is mostly a defense attorney, my industry has been in a tizzy lately, because we have been presented with the Plaintiff's bar doing witchcraft to trick juries into ignoring the facts. We have mobilized to understand the theory and counter it, as best we can, with law and facts.
Here's why both the media and the Defense bar, are maybe a bit more worried than they need to be. When I was a kid, I was told that my sweet rock and roll records were chock full of satanic messages. Now, I never heard those, but I was told that if I played the records backwards (which I still don't know how to do), Satan himself would give me instructions. The theory was that somehow, my subconscious was able to hear Satan's instructions, even though I only listen to my rock and roll frontwards.
The Manchurian candidate (both movies and the book), Conspiracy Theory (the Movie with Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts), the Bourne movies, all talk about people being made into super soldiers or assassins by using imagery and subliminal messaging to manipulate the subconscious. Yet, world leaders aren't assassinated every other day by a mindless super soldier who had recently gotten a phone call where the activating word was stated (mine would be "kumquat").
Advertisers hoped that subliminal messaging would be the key to tricking consumers, by activating their primitive subconscious, into spending inordinate sums on unnecessary goods. Yet, I do not buy fragrances advertised using sexual subtexts and imagery. I don't really like to go to Carl's Jr., even though they have girls in bikinis washing cars and the like in their commercials.
In the end, it is my understanding that these things don't really work. Why? Because I believe that when it comes down to it, all of these cognitive theories, while true, overstate their power. How do I know this? Because the reptile theory is not infallible - juries still listen to the facts. Because I haven't been following Satan's messages that were supposedly encoded on my rock and roll. Because I heard Trump's speeches, interviews and more, but I declined to vote for him.
So, On The Media, Defense Bar and fellow little people, there are influences out there. It's true. Just like you were taught in your public speaking class (primacy, recency, etc.), there are theories that can maximise the effectiveness of your communication. However, these mechanisms do not cause our eyes to glaze over and we turn into mindless, reptilian reactors who have no conscious say in their decisions.
The fact that these cognitive mechanisms don't work to completely subjugate free will is important to decision makers, because it means we can still hope and we can choose to communicate deeply. We used to do this. Neil Postman has written comparisons about how dense the communications were to the average American during elections in the 1800's versus the modern era. The 1800's communications were denser, longer and harder to follow. But people followed, thought and made decisions. While Trump has lowered the communication bar significantly (his speeches, according to someone, maybe it was McWhorter, were written at about a 2nd grade level), we do not have to accept this as the standard. So, to the media I say (as though they were listening), do not sacrifice your ideals to fight the orange comb over-monster. Like Voldemort, his power lies, to a great degree, in how much power we give him. By deeming him worthy of abandoning the time honored (and useful) ideals of the press, we cheapen ourselves and empower him.
I have seen juries ignore impassioned pleas from Plaintiff's attorneys when the facts did not support the Plaintiff's case. Those "twelve bales of hay" can do a lot of analysis and will analyze the facts, if you show them you trust them to do so. I have had civil discussions, using multisyllabic words with people who disagreed with me on Facebook. I have opened up private communications with people whom I have begun to have openly contentious public disagreements, and resolved the dispute, causing our public communications to return to the civil and courteous discussion that I instigated privately.
Bob Garfield, don't be afraid. If you are a spiritual person, have faith. Have faith that whatever power you believe in has imbued humanity with potential. Believe in that potential. If you are not a spiritual person, look at examples of humans exceeding expectations and outliving their demography. It's happened before and it can happen again. Also, if humans are just drones who cannot exercise conscious reason and logic, why do we care who manipulates them? If you depose Trump and replace him with a "benevolent" more liberal leader, the public is nothing more than a will-less vehicle driven by the powerful. In such a world, it doesn't really matter which "side" is driving the car. People have free will. Even oppressed people can have free will.
This lesson can be applied everywhere. I admit, my view on this issue is seen through a spiritual lens. But I think a secular mind can reach the same conclusion. If there are metaphysical values, if there are worthwhile ideas, if there are ideals, they are not weakened by placing every day people in a position to embody them. Ideals are weakened when they are suspended, in the false hope that they can be reinstated after the crisis with the same vitality. The only world worth living in, is one that risks everything, to allow each person exceed the bounds of their "programming." It's scary, but life is scary. In fact, life should be scary, to some degree.
Even if you aren't a journalist, a demagogue or a worldwide influencer, take a look at your communications. What are you communicating with your communications? Are you communicating that you do not trust people to make good decisions" Are you communicating that people are stupid and unworthy of self-determination? Or do you empower people to grow by your communications? Do your engagements and discussions acknowledge that the viewpoints of others could have value? The new year is coming and the problems that we face are human ones. Whether you are concerned with immigration, climate change, civil rights or terrorism, in the end, it will require other humans to fix the problem or the perception that there is a problem. Think about the impact of your comments. Read your articles (and maybe their sources from time to time), check them with Snopes and consider whether they strengthen people or strengthen dogmas before you share it on Facebook.
These are things we can do without damaging our own beliefs. Really. Don't be afraid of ideas and the people that hold them. It can make a big difference.
Comments