= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
GLaDOS comments on How would you take over Rome? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (200)
Well, I'd start out as god-emperor and dictator for life, but I'd try to keep myself from having an actual successor... (even if it didn't really work, just introducing the notion would eventually cause it to stabilize to that effect.)
Indeed. Luckily these folks would not yet have been immunized to Nazi-style propaganda campaigns or other forms of indoctrination. This is one additional reason why I focused on propaganda and publication. I'd expect to face certain failure in achieving the total optimal result, but could at the very least implement a tendency towards these models.
If I treat myself as an aberration to the system, and create a power structure that could survive me -- assuming I had a good fifty or so years to institutionalize it in the eyes and ears of mankind, I could spend the last ten or fifteen years gradually introducing the parliamentary rule; handing over more and more political power to the Senate in a graceful manner, until I'm seen as more of an advisory role than an actual power figure. That would be an end-state goal, though.
I'm having a hard time thinking of any population that is. I mean sure we won't see a rise in Nazism in our life times but that's because the Nazi's lost the war, not because people became immune to their propaganda techniques. If anything modern propaganda techniques are much better and we are even more helpless against them.
Immunized != Immune.
It's an arms-race. Nazi-style propagandizing included use of radio and television, and control over print media, as well as sponsored postings of visual posters and the like in public spaces. These things are what I was referring to; and people today are relatively immune to such "crass" techniques, which is why modern propaganda techniques are so much more sophisticated: the "old" ones stopped being sufficiently effective.
If we consider propaganda a form of virulent memeplex, then the immunological model describes quite well the history of and reactions to various forms of propaganda by the common populace over time: first there is exposure to a new "strain", and then people become resistant to it in a very similar manner to how we become resistant to various viruses.
I wonder if anyone has ever studied Third World propaganda campaigns over time to demonstrate an 'evolution' which recapitulates Western evolution in propaganda?
(I mention this because I saw recently the old example of Liberia's Charles Taylor who was elected when he 'campaigned on the slogan "He killed my ma, he killed my pa, but I will vote for him."'. Of course, his landslide was probably due to "the belief that he would resume the war if he lost." which is why one would want multiple countries. Do they all show this sort of phenomenon where laughably crude propaganda and campaigning works initially and is slowly replaced by subtler psy-ops, or is there no evolution because crude propaganda works best on those of low IQ, say?)
I would imagine that any researcher who confirmed such an effect would refrain from publishing, and instead become the supreme dictator of some third world country.
Dictator? You mean campaign manager.