Core Beliefs
“ [the] ancient and magical force of the spoken word had led to victory.” — Nazi School of Propaganda [1]
“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas in disguise.” —Joseph Goebbels
Apologia: In this little article I ignore radical scepticism, the evidentialist principle, precursive faith, monism, epiphenomenalism, and most other philisophical -isms. I also particularly ignore the brain chemistry argument, which IMHO is just a modern form of ’the devil made me do it’ arguement. I ignore all of this because my argument is not a philosophical one, not even a mechanical one... indeed it is not really an argument at all. Rather this little page merely points out that from a utilitarian standpoint, core beliefs are not only malleable, but manipulable 
The border between fact and value was often a subject of Max Weber’s writings. Weber believed researchers in all disciplines must declare their bias (i.e. values) when either describing observations, performing experiments, and of course, publishing. As most postmodernists have come to believe, Weber felt that the separation of value and fact, between opinion and measurement, was impossible. Thus distinguishing of value from fact became a matter of opinion only, and not of measurement or science:
"We in particular succumb readily to a special kind of illusion, namely that we are able to refrain entirely from making conscious value judgements of our own.” [2, pp. 19]
This idea that fact is inexorably tied to value has studied in a number of experiments. For example using sensory deprivation followed by periods of selected value-laden images or audio can rapidly effect attitude (value), changing them even to the opposite of originally held beliefs [8, 30,31]. In the general area of propaganda study, several experiments [3,4,5,6] have shown that beliefs contrary to those formerly held can be implanted into individuals and groups by techniques which range from simple peer pressure to selective use of certain classes of drugs. Subjects so effected interpret fact laden evidence contrary to their new beliefs as value laden only [47] or merely, as false or falsified data.
So-called core beliefs, those at the foundation of other beliefs, are also a type of value judgement. They too are interpretations of observation combined with memory of previous observation. And so it should be of no surprise that like other beliefs, they are malleable and manipulable. This has been explored by a number of researchers [9,10]. Of particular interest is that the techniques used to change non-deeply held values may also be used to change deep core beliefs [11, pp. 84]. Even to the extent that adaptation of new beliefs need not be derivable from former values or predispositions.
"The psychologist can hardly do anything without realising that for him the acquisition of knowledge opens up the most terrifying prospects of controlling what people do and how they think and how they behave and how they feel" — Oppenheimer [32, pp. 18].
One almost trivial examples of how core beliefs can be engineered without the subjects realising it, lies in government created computer games. A trivial example: As early recruitment levels for U.S. armed forces began to fall, the military commissioned a computer game targeted specifically at children. The game, “America’s Army”, was released as a free download. This game allowed players to hunt down and kill state enemies and ’terrorists’ (none of whom spoke with an American accent - probably an accidental over-site). The game and its upgrades were downloaded more than 16 million times within two years of its release. It was also given away free of charge to children attending state fairs, community events, and even churches. Within two years of its release players had completed in excess of six-hundred million missions, and played over sixty million playing hours. It had become the most popular action game in history. Why would the government and military so generously give away an exciting computer game based upon killing and war rather than, say, a game requiring kindness, gentleness, and intelligence in a effort to ease the lot of the poor? Core belief engineering.
“America’s Army taps into so many of the longings of a boy who is coming of age... If they join the Army they’ll be part of a group outside their parents... They’ll feel powerful and important. They’ll be masculine and attractive. The game is working to create an image that bypasses the mind and gets to the soul.” [12]
That is to say, the ’game’ was allegedly designed to create a particular ontological outlook. Of course what the game simulation did not capture, is that in a real War with a capital ’W’, one cannot simply press the stop button and leave. The game has been alleged to be carefully constructed to create future soldiers already inured to the death and destruction they bring, but more importantly, to working in teams with clearly demarcated hierarchical command structures without question.
“The fact that the Army needs to recruit doesn’t mean it has the right to exploit children’s vulnerabilities, and do it dishonestly by glamorising violence and minimising or ignoring the other, more complicated facets of war.” [13]
But this is as I said, a trivial example. On a far more fundamental level core beliefs can be engineered both in the individual [14,15,16] and in groups [17,33] all with stunning rapidity even to the point of opposition to the originally held beliefs. The key element here is to design a pedagogical system which inputs toddlers and outputs an ignorant, broken, workforce [18]. Which of course is what Foucault, Bourdieu, and some of those academics involved in hidden curricula research have demonstrated so clearly. However popular culture believes the opposite to be the case concerning the pedagogical system, which is in and of itself perhaps the most clear mark of the success of many of the techniques employed. For as many postmodernists have pointed out, the more complete the acculturation, the more difficult it is to see clearly:
“For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practises of indoctrination. These are easy to perceive in the totalitarian societies, much less so in the propaganda system to which we are subjected and in which all too often we serve as unwilling or unwitting instruments.” --N. Chomsky [19]
No consumer of successful propaganda believes that her belief system is manufactured. Yet the billions of advertising dollars spent, and advertising and public relations firms actively funding research into neuroscience marketing are strong indicators this belief is incorrect.
Why? Well, in order to circumvent resistance to public relations, propaganda, and advertising messages, corporations and governments are actively funding neuroscience marketing. Using MRI brain scans, EEG, REMs, GSR, and similar techniques whilst subjects view or listen to corporate messages allows the messages to be more closely targeted, and to bypass normal conscious blocks [20].
“[MRI scans give] unprecedented insight into the consumer mind." — Adam Koval [21]
Neuromarketing began at the U.S.’ Harvard University in the late 1990s. It is now used by many major corporations such as Proctor and Gamble, the Royal Bank of Canada, General Motors, Coca Cola, and well, the list is a very long one. One of neurmarketing’s several techniques includes ZMET – a system using pictures to uncover associated common metaphors below the level of consciousness.
Using ZMET researchers have found that the power of brand labelling is sufficient to alter the hippocampus and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. These areas of the brain are said to be involved in recalling emotions and cultural memories. Even brief exposure to the Coke Cola label in ZMET studies for example, stimulated massive increases in activities in these brain areas, whereas other non-culturally pervasive labels did not [22]. The research strongly suggested that brand marketing has a direct effect on limiting the brain’s capacity to choose between available options.
On the other hand, dissonant messages, such as soft music coupled with violent images, cause the insula and orbital frontal cortex to activate. In other words, messages are examined and neural filters in the form or memory, etc. are brought into play to mediate the message. Neuromarketers posit therefore that it is much better therefore to remove dissonance and use cultural, social, or species metaphors to lull the frontal cortex into complacent sleep whilst messages are inserted without insula filters getting in the way. And so we see soft music, sounds of birds and running water, in department store soap sections or political advertisements. Or martial music, images of exciting flying and of comradely in U.S. army recruitment videos. All designed to shut down the filtering capacity of the frontal cortex and insert the underlying message directly into long term memory. That is, alter core beliefs.
The universities where corporations and military pay for this fMRI research to be conducted argue that they are only pursuing such research in the interests of pure science. For example, the Emory School of Medicine, where medical MRIs and fMRIs were used by a commercial firm to conduct brain scans in order to measure the effects of targeting advertising, stated that such research was only in the interests of science [23]. One can but assume therefore that the monies flowing to universities to conduct this research are of little interest to the academic management involved
.
Neuroscience marketing is currently being used rather more widely than the public or regulators are aware. For example, subjects are shown movies whilst in fMRIs. The responses are carefully studied. Movie studios then use those responses to determine which aspects of a proposed movie are more likely to penetrate deeply into a person’s memory and feelings, which in turn of course lead to more profits for the studios. Political campaigns carefully study the results of slogans and particular types of speeches on the brains of subjects in fMRIs, tailoring the campaigns so as to directly effect certain parts of the brains of unwitting voters, thus ensuring that meaningless slogans such as ’change you can believe it’ positively effect their candidates [29]. There is also considerable interest within the field of propaganda studies. There neuromarketing research is being used to determine which brain areas should be targeted so as to maximise probability of core belief changes - i.e. maximise acculturation to particular ontology [24,25,26,27,28].
The fundamental idea is that focus groups, questionnaires, and similar techniques always fail because subjects lie. Neuromarketing seeks to look at the brain using GSR, EEG, fMRI, and similar tools thereby, it is argued, allowing marketers to see right into a person’s consciousness and decision making process. What a wonderful gift science has given unethical corporations and unethical governments (but again, please see the caveats which I discuss
here.) Neuromarketing, whether to sell soap or sell war, seeks to bypasses the normal filters of belief and reason to directly effect the brain centres, and thereby create and engineer new core belief systems.
A caveat: It has been claimed in the literature that those who self identify as having liberal leanings have in general larger ACCs (anterior cingulate cortex) [34]. Those who self identify as conservative in outlook however tend to have larger amygdalas [35]. These two findings are consist ant with the hypothesis that the ACC helps mediate conflicting information and the amygdala helps in threat precept ion [36,37,38,39]. Of course many would disagree. In particular, it should be pointed out that many (and sadly, actual researchers in the area who should know better) resort to the the logical fallacy of "reverse inference". That is to say, they infer a subject’s state from patterns of brain activity. This cannot be done (yet?) for all the many reasons I address
here.. Correlation to self-reporting is interesting and worthy of further research, but it is far too simplistic. Neural nets are chaotic (in the mathematical sense) systems.
The real danger rather, is that nefarious groups from corporate CEOs to fatherland security enforcers use these studies, without any understanding of the science and scientific caveats involved, to set policy.
Finally, there are a number of interesting studies which show that the brain appears to be set up to make snap decisions about the worth of a person [40,41,42] without any real information about the person. This makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. For example: Should I allow that stranger carrying that scary looking spear into my cave, or kill him now before he sees me hiding behind this tree? But what is of particular interest in the current context is that such snap judgements seem to out-way all other considerations such as reason and deliberation.
It turns out that it is very easy to predict the outcome of societal decision, such as a vote, by using the data from snap judgements alone. Simply show a group of randomly selected young children brief images of election candidates. Then ask them which person they would choose to captain their boat. Invariably the children choose, with approximately 70% accuracy, the same candidates that later go on win elections [42,43]. This works with adults as well. For example, people where briefly shown a selection of people from a country they had never visited, and about whom they knew nothing. They where then asked to rate which of the faces seemed the most competent. They did not know that the faces they were being shown were of election candidates. Again, with roughly 70% accuracy, their choices matched those who were actually elected [44]. This has also been done, with about the same level of prediction, when people where shown pictures of candidates for 1 second only [45].
The conclusions drawn from this and other similar research has been that people are hardwired to make snap judgements. And that such judgements are consistent and moreover appear to receive more weight than election advertising, rational consideration, party platforms, and so on. Neuromarketers and propagandists are already hard at work on refining this research so as ensure their candidates appeal to the neural areas involved in these snap judgements. Policy takes a far distant second place [46]. The implications for advertising, film making, video games, social networking, and indeed democracy itself are far reaching.
The bottom line, is that the burgeoning field of core belief engineering has not merely philosophical implications, but societal ones.
Note: Please also see my short discussion of experiments on
Unconscious obedience, which show how to effect the actions of a person or group without bothering with the effort of altering their belief systems.
