# Can someone be subconsciously manipulated non-paranormally?



## Xander416 (Oct 31, 2019)

Or does there _have_ to be a paranormal (psychic, telepathic, etc) means?


----------



## bdcharles (Oct 31, 2019)

Xander416 said:


> Or does there _have_ to be a paranormal (psychic, telepathic, etc) means?



It happens all the time. Any politician, sales person, sociopath, or just plain good manipulator will tell you that. Actually they probably won't, because keeping you in the dark is one of their handy tricks. But, yes, I would say that in my view, all of this sort of thing is always non-paranormal, and has its roots in rhetoric. It's actually a useful social mechanism. Problems only arise when the one doing the people management doesn't have the people's best interests at heart.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Oct 31, 2019)

Check out the film "The Manchurian Candidate." It may be right up your alley.


----------



## CyberWar (Nov 2, 2019)

Absolutely. It's called marketing/propaganda.

If you mean manipulation Manchurian Candidate-style, then the general answer is no. CIA studied that kind of brainwashing/manipulation extensively in their MKULTRA program during the 1960's and failed to produce consistent or reliable results, leading to the whole program being scrapped. The general conclusion was that human brain is surprisingly resistant to forced indoctrination and reverts back quickly if the indoctrinated beliefs are not constantly reinforced.

Other studies have confirmed these findings, determining that successful indoctrination requires at least some degree of conscious cooperation on part of the subject. In one experiment, subjects were hypnotized and instructed to perform various tasks. It was determined that suggestion under hypnosis was only effective in inducing the subjects to perform simple tasks that do not require higher thought processes, and would not work with more sophisticated tasks that required analytical thought or moral judgement. When instructed to perform immoral tasks, such as punching another participant, most test subjects refused or hesitated.

So long story short, creating brainwashed assassins who would activate on a specific trigger, perform their task and then forget all about it. It is, however, possible to gradually nudge the subject's thoughts in the desired direction through subtle subconscious manipulation, which is the basis of all propaganda and marketing techniques. The key to successful indoctrination is gradually leading the subject to consciously accept the desired ideas. The presented idea must not be patently false or starkly in contrast with the subject's existing knowledge and system of beliefs, nor should it be presented too aggressively and obviously, or the subject will reject it regardless of reinforcement efforts. The purpose of propaganda and marketing is, after all, to trick the subject's mind into thinking it came to a certain conclusion all on its own.


----------



## BadHouses (Nov 2, 2019)

People are spot on with the marketing suggestions.

I was pointed to an article just recently that deals with a subject you might find relevant: https://ideas.ted.com/dont-get-fooled-or-conned-again-here-are-the-5-tactics-to-look-out-for/

Basically, it points out a few strategies people use to get what they want from you: Creating a sense of urgency, misdirection, etc.  These might not be the kind of mind-control you're thinking of, but they might be the closest thing in reality.

I'd also like to point out (and the article touches on it) that social media can be used as a manipulation tool as well.  Facebook has been caught upping/censoring material related to elections.  And while I haven't read anything about this for some time, I've often thought about the sheer power wielded by a tool as universal as Google.  If it was their want (And I'm sure it is), they can direct any inquiry they like in any direction they like.  I believe they have a history of "correcting" their search results when they tread into badthink.  At the minimum, they have said that pornographic material is suppressed unless specifically requested.


----------



## seigfried007 (Nov 2, 2019)

I second everything here. There are tons of ways to manipulate people, but pretty much all of it is a gradual process (especially if you want the effect to stick). Marketing, politics and manipulative psychological disorders are good places to look into. 

However, there's nothing wrong with using mystical paranormal and sci-fi jazz hands to get what you want in a story either 

(^^^This is a tactic I'm taking with my WIP. However, there's some deep metaphorical & psychological shizznit going on with it. It's either the case of a Cthulu-incubus learning the art of manipulation from nasty humans and then applying said arts to devastating effect... or one man battling his own insanity, past and alter personalities).


----------



## Phil Istine (Nov 2, 2019)

bdcharles said:


> It happens all the time. Any politician, sales person, sociopath, or just plain good manipulator will tell you that. Actually they probably won't, because keeping you in the dark is one of their handy tricks. But, yes, I would say that in my view, all of this sort of thing is always non-paranormal, and has its roots in rhetoric. It's actually a useful social mechanism. Problems only arise when the one doing the people management doesn't have the people's best interests at heart.



Therapists do it frequently, but for positive reasons.  There can be a tendency to regard manipulation as a bad thing, but it isn't necessarily so.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Nov 2, 2019)

Xander416 said:


> Or does there _have_ to be a paranormal (psychic, telepathic, etc) means?




If you are writing fiction then it can be whatever you want it to be.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 2, 2019)

It is especially effective when the subject is in some sort of trance like state; a full hypnotic trance, or a light trance like state such as many people appear to adopt in supermarkets. People like Milton Erickson were exploring it way back and the commercial potential has lead to more development. But everyone from ancient greek advocates, to modern advertisers with every sort of therapist in between has explored the possibilities of influencing their clients.


----------



## JustRob (Nov 2, 2019)

Presumably so. It's the only explanation for a lot of marriages.


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 3, 2019)

Hypnosis is a fairly well-established, scientific method. Often misrepresented and exaggerated in effect...but in fiction, you can do what you want so long as it sounds plausible. There are plenty of good sci-fi and psychological thriller type books that explore mind control through hypnotic methods.


----------



## JustRob (Nov 3, 2019)

Sustrai said:


> The paranormal is ficticious.  It was invented by people taking advantage.  If something exists it cannot be beyond or past normal reality (the meaning of paranormal) as it would be part of normal reality.  There can't be a paranormal, just as the laws of physics won't allow _magic_.  But, put them in a book and people eat it up!
> 
> So, your full question lacks validity.  Everyone is answering the first part of the question:  Can someone be subconsciously manipulated...?



Ah, now the question is whether you are trying to manipulate my subconscious into responding or simply don't know the extent of the experience of WF members. As someone who has experienced prescience I have had to consider the nature of free will, so at this point I could choose to ignore your remarks or respond to them. Which would be seen as my having been manipulated though, responding or not doing so as a negative reaction. That is the dilemma of both free will and subconscious manipulation, that neither the manipulator nor the manipulated can be sure what would have happened had the manipulation not occurred. 

No advertiser really knows how well their product would have sold had they not spent a fortune on an advertising campaign. There was an occasion at the company where I worked when a computerised mailshot targetted at a specific group of people went awry and sent the mailshot to a large group of wrong people. Subsequent analysis of the results showed that sales to this group exceeded those to the target group, so the targetting was actually counterproductive, having been an attempt to tap a resource already overexploited.

We are here answering the first part of the question because paranormal influences _aren't_ essential, but that doesn't mean that we agree that they never occur, at least to the extent that most people loosely use the word _paranormal_. However, if you have read my many posts on the subject then you will know that I prefer not to call my own experiences paranormal but rather preternatural. If you look up that less frequently used word you may find out that it is sometimes equated to the word _magic_, which you have also deprecated. This interpretation of the word, as opposed to that used by Thomas Aquinas in a religious context, refers to _apparently_ magical phenomena that are actually achieved by natural phenomena acting in unusual ways. Hence things like ball lightning, stones crawling across a desert, mirages and so on are preternatural. So in effect I agree with you that there are preternatural phenomena which may appear to be paranormal but are in fact quite normal. In the case of prescience, effectively the future influencing the past, we simply don't know how it happens but if, as many have discovered even under controlled scientific circumstances, it does happen then it must be a normal phenomenon, not paranormal.

In my own case I discovered that I was subconsciously manipulated into writing an entire novel despite never having had any ambition to write any fiction and the manipulator was in fact my own future mind, i.e. the one that I an using to write this post. That puts another twist into the free will debate. In 2011 I decided to give in to the overwhelming manipulation in order to understand its cause. My angel wife thought that I had gone mad, suddenly sitting down and writing a novel out of the blue. However, now I do understand that this was something that I would want to do, or rather have done in the past, in the future, i.e. now. (I apologise for the time-mangling nature of a statement like that but it is inevitable when using a language not designed to convey such concepts well.) So, where does a person being subconsciously manipulated by their own future self come in this discussion? In fact where do we draw the line when talking about "self"?

We are each entitled to our own opinions and to express them here as well, so it is quite in order for us to differ on this matter, but incidentally I wonder why your signature specifically refers to matters of the soul when your post suggests that such a concept is beyond your self-imposed limits of credibility. I have written a layman's scientific explanation of what some might call the soul for want of a word and it possibly relies on quantum concepts that I barely comprehend, but with my personal experiences I am obliged to have something like that to hand to reassure myself of my integrity as a rational being.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 4, 2019)

> No advertiser really knows how well their product would have sold had they not spent a fortune on an advertising campaign


.

I suppose in absolute terms this could be so, but I would cite the early experience of the advertising company asked to deal with a poorly selling cake mix, they found that women felt bad about feeding their family out of a packet, so they recommended removing some of the dried egg powder and putting a flash across the packet saying 'Simply add one fresh egg'. The advice was followed and was followed by an eighteen hundred percent increase in sales. Now I agree it could be that all those women coincidentally fancied a quick, easy, cake. But the correlation convinces me that the advertisers manipulation was successful.


----------



## Ma'am (Nov 4, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> .
> 
> I suppose in absolute terms this could be so, but I would cite the early experience of the advertising company asked to deal with a poorly selling cake mix, they found that women felt bad about feeding their family out of a packet, so they recommended removing some of the dried egg powder and putting a flash across the packet saying 'Simply add one fresh egg'. The advice was followed and was followed by an eighteen hundred percent increase in sales. Now I agree it could be that all those women coincidentally fancied a quick, easy, cake. But the correlation convinces me that the advertisers manipulation was successful.



ITA. And just because people _think_ they're not subliminally influenced in no way means they're not, either!


----------



## JustRob (Nov 5, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> .
> 
> I suppose in absolute terms this could be so, but I would cite the early experience of the advertising company asked to deal with a poorly selling cake mix, they found that women felt bad about feeding their family out of a packet, so they recommended removing some of the dried egg powder and putting a flash across the packet saying 'Simply add one fresh egg'. The advice was followed and was followed by an eighteen hundred percent increase in sales. Now I agree it could be that all those women coincidentally fancied a quick, easy, cake. But the correlation convinces me that the advertisers manipulation was successful.



I would call that a change in the product rather than simply an advertising campaign. 



Sustrai said:


> Well.  I can help you here.  I'm _always _trying to manipulate your subconscious...even when I'm _not_!



Perhaps you are being manipulated by your own free will then. The freedom of free will implies that it cannot necessarily be justified by any rational argument and it may not even be beneficial to the person wielding it, so it can in a way be regarded as an external influence just as much as one emanating from another person. As usual it is difficult to discuss a subject like subconscious manipulation without defining the term. How is the manipulation identified? If a person acts in a way detrimental to themself or beneficial to another or quite haphazardly, for example, then they may just be exhibiting their own free will. 

There was an intriguing experiment done which involved using electrical impulses to cause a subject's limbs to move involuntarily, the interesting aspect being that the way it was done the subject claimed that they had actually moved the limb intentionally themself. In a rewrite of a chapter of my novel someone was told not to move although they remained at liberty to exercise their free will. When they got an itch they were puzzled whether scratching it or not doing so would be exercising their free will. The instruction not to move was clearly an external influence but was the itch also one? This was slightly different from that experiment but only in the detail regarding how much was conscious thought. Deciding which influences emanate from oneself and which from elsewhere involves resolution of the self/other distinction that is at the heart of individuality. I recently happened to be reading about the self/other mechanism on Dr. Charles Whitehead's website www.socialmirrors.org on social science that I've already mentioned HERE.

I am not a number. I'm a free man. (_The Prisoner_ 1967) Well, a lot of people have probably said that since that series was broadcast. In fact I may be number 2316... to do so. At the heart of that series was the conundrum of what ultimately constitutes free will. At the end the prisoner attained his freedom simply because he thought he had, even though throughout the series he had occasionally thought that only to be proved wrong.


----------

