I want to pose a weird question to the soap box, just to get the range of peoples' opinions.

Suppose you are in charge of America. Your job is to affect peoples' behaviors on a broad scale (getting enough people to fight in the military, getting enough people to be janitors, getting people to stop using heroin, etc.). How do you do it?

Suppose you have god-like powers, except you can't directly determine someone's will. In other words, you have to control some factors (whatever they are) to guide their behavior in a way that produces a just/good/groovy/whatever's-worth-doing society. What do you do? What levers are there, and how do you pull them? What motivates or drives people, and how do you structure things to get the "best" behaviors out?

7/2/2010 11:07:56 AM

Mandatory compliance or death.

7/2/2010 11:23:13 AM

^^ Oh, Christ (pun intended). Are you trying to get help with your academic work as it relates to free will?

7/2/2010 11:29:33 AM

How do you convince your goons to pull the trigger? You can't cop out on the human element or it makes the question uninteresting.

^ What? No, come on dude. I'm not even on the data collection end of things, I'm in analysis.

[Edited on July 2, 2010 at 11:33 AM. Reason : .]

7/2/2010 11:30:18 AM

^ Posted like a true secular humanist. Killing is fine--as long as the right people get killed.

7/2/2010 11:31:32 AM

just let it be. freedom and personal responsibility.

7/2/2010 11:31:43 AM

In your scenario, McDanger, are we accepting the premise that free will exists?

7/2/2010 11:34:53 AM

Quote :

"^ Posted like a true secular humanist. Killing is fine--as long as the right people get killed."

I'm not necessarily condoning killing, either. You could approach the question from the standpoint of figuring what circumstances would prevent killings (or, more realistically, minimize them).

Quote :

"In your scenario, McDanger, are we accepting the premise that free will exists?"

You could accept it or reject it and still answer the question. Doesn't matter, I figure. Either you decide that you can determine behaviors through material factors and answer the question from that perspective, or you could decide that free will exists but you can coerce or encourage behaviors (through -/+ incentives). It's up to you, I want to know what you think. Just curious.

7/2/2010 11:37:40 AM

I asked because this statement. . .

Quote :

"Suppose you have god-like powers, except you can't directly determine someone's will."

. . .jumped out at me. If we go big picture with this, of course, hard determinism vs. soft determinism are considerations.

And this. . .

Quote :

"you could decide that free will exists but you can coerce or encourage behaviors (through -/+ incentives)."

. . .sounds like a bit compatibilism to me.

[Edited on July 2, 2010 at 11:44 AM. Reason : .]

7/2/2010 11:41:51 AM

Maybe there are, but I don't intend for this to be a free will thread. I just wanted to write that bit in there to prevent answers such as "Just get everybody to do their jobs". I don't want direct control over the motivations of the people, just indirect control. Even in free will scenarios you can indirectly control peoples' motivations, such as by making them hungry.

7/2/2010 11:44:38 AM

Basically you can bypass all of the metaphysical stuff if you just think of the picture causally. What sort of factors are causally relevant, and how do you intervene on them? You can assume whatever you want in there, including whatever metaphysical assumptions you'd like to import.

7/2/2010 11:45:52 AM

I think you need to tighten the scenario quite a bit--there are just too many variables. I mean, generally speaking, in a just society, you'd try the carrot. In an unjust society, you'd use the stick.

Honest--and intended to be constructive--criticism.

[Edited on July 2, 2010 at 11:49 AM. Reason : BUT define "just" and "unjust." Define "carrot" and "stick." You see?]

7/2/2010 11:47:35 AM

The question is intended to be broad, though. I don't want to impose too much structure by determining what variables are relevant. I want to see what people think (about what's relevant). That's what the question's driving at.

7/2/2010 11:49:30 AM

^ Then can you give me a one-sentence question to answer?

7/2/2010 11:50:34 AM

Okay so approach it from some concrete scenario, then. Imagine you're in charge of Israel. You want to control the behavior of people in Gaza (no more rockets over the border). You're in full control of the material circumstances of Gaza. What do you do? What's relevant for maintaining the behavior you're interested in maintaining?

7/2/2010 11:51:14 AM

^ First, remove all rockets.

[Edited on July 2, 2010 at 11:55 AM. Reason : Seriously, I'll ponder this for a moment. ]

The following is what occurs to me at this time:

I would actually begin with a management approach: plan, implement, motivate, control. I would attempt to establish open communication with the stakeholders; encourage constructive input; fully explain initiatives--and stick to them; encourage the stakeholders to opt in early to plans, through incentives and so on; and control implementation going forward.

I would break up large problems into smaller problems and find areas of agreement. The more I can accomplish in this manner, the more I can accomplish overall.

I would effectively, efficiently, and equitably manage the governance process so as to achieve established and agreed-upon goals.

[Edited on July 2, 2010 at 12:07 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2010 11:53:49 AM

My entire government would be based around providing economic incentives for individuals to Do The Right Thing™.

Mostly capitalism, but socialism in places where the market has no incentive to go (ex: education of poors). If I want to tweak certain industries, I provide subsidies directly to individuals, never to groups. This way I max out the benefits of capitalism (the quick and the good survive) while eliminating the worst parts of socialism (subsidizing private corporate risk).


Economic self interest is the only reason most people do anything. They need an opportunity to make a living and do what they want with their money. The most fair way to secure them that opportunity is through education. A benefit everyone would have access to. Propping up old, dead, worthless skills only takes economic freedom from others and stifles innovation. That is the path to destruction.

In Israel I'd do much the same. Go in to Palestine with education and teach them to be self reliant. Remove restrictions on trade so they can bring in the materials neccesarry for establishing a functional economy. Once they have what they need to survive they'll focus more on gaining access to luxuries and less on killing other people. If Israel is a major trading partner responsible for my good fortune, I will oppose those who would fight for religious or racist nonsense.

[Edited on July 2, 2010 at 12:14 PM. Reason : a]

7/2/2010 12:12:12 PM

Al Gore already answered your question

you invent the internet

then plant your message in blogs, forums, tweets, etc

we've already had a thread discussing shifting average consensus through repeated extremism

7/2/2010 1:20:04 PM

I'd pull the lever that get's rid of all the humans. Just, equitable society follows

7/2/2010 3:08:28 PM

I suppose in the broad sense, if you want to change people's behaviors one needs to disrupt the status quo (make the present situation intolerable) and then provide the most attractive alternative.

Your military question was one that reminded me of a recent trend. Over the last decade, people were unwilling to joint the military during the middle of a bloody war. However, when the economy tanked, all of a sudden, most of the services were able to meet their recruitment quotas as well as increase the quality of their recruitment pool.

Gaza is trickier since you have a lot of different actors outside the region that are influencing what's happening on the ground (like Hamas leadership in exile). I'll think about that some more.

7/2/2010 3:36:17 PM

If you put targets in urinals, people tend to piss less on the floors.

7/2/2010 3:39:56 PM

Quote :

"you have to control some factors (whatever they are) to guide their behavior in a way that produces a just/good/groovy/whatever's-worth-doing society"

Unless we have god-like omnipotence how do we know what is best for society? Lacking that we only act in what we feel is our best guess as to what is best for society and societies that have attempted that on a massive and comprehensive scale have always disintegrated into dystopian reflections of the character flaws of the leader.

Seeing as we lack that omnipotence, we lack that answer and the question is unanswerable. If we had it, then the answer would be obvious and your question would not need to be asked.

7/2/2010 3:51:40 PM

Quote :

"Killing is fine--as long as the right people get killed."

How does that conflict with humanism, or any other moral philosophy for that matter, with the exception of pacifism? Is there a moral philosophy that promotes arbitrary killing?

7/2/2010 5:26:37 PM

In short:

Quote :

"just let it be. freedom and personal responsibility."

Quote :

"Economic self interest is the only reason most people do anything."

Quote :

"Unless we have god-like omnipotence how do we know what is best for society? "

Exactly.
We shouldn't be setting out to "affect peoples' behaviors on a broad scale". (This is why you hate freedom)
Decisions should be made individually, with a system of liberty and justice.
Enough people will fight in the military, because the military only engages in just actions (defense)
Enough people will be janitors, because of the market. (supply and demand)
People will stop using heroin, or not. (survival of the fittest)
People are motivated or driven by their liberty to serve society. (self interest)
The "best" behaviors are reached though individual choices, and not through external (read: coercive force) structure

Quote :

"Suppose you have god-like powers"

Is this what you liberals dream about?

7/3/2010 2:40:11 AM

^I know what I dream about is a day when we will not face discrimination by those who hold the levers of power on account of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, extraversion, or any other marker of "difference" that shouldn't matter nearly as much as it does; the desire for God-like powers, or at least the willingness to assume divine approval, is the province of the Right.

Quote :

"How does that conflict with humanism, or any other moral philosophy for that matter, with the exception of pacifism? Is there a moral philosophy that promotes arbitrary killing?"

hooksaw must have listened too much to Audrey II: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7SkrYF8lCU#t=03m48s

7/3/2010 2:57:38 AM

Quote :

"I know what I dream about is a day when we will not face discrimination by those who hold the levers of power on account of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, extraversion, or any other marker of "difference" that shouldn't matter nearly as much as it does"

I, too, oppose institutionalized discrimination: affirmative action, marriage law, etc.

7/3/2010 3:00:43 AM

affirmative action is at best a necessary evil IMO, necessary only to countervail the numerous sociological factors going against blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans

somehow I suspect you actually oppose same-sex marriage, whereas once I understood the debate was entirely about the civil aspect rather than the religious aspect I wondered why it hadn't been permitted already
the most visible (yet not quite most virulent) form of hatred of the "other" in American politics is homophobia, and liberals have led the charge against it

unfortunately, however, ending discrimination, even the institutionalized kind, goes beyond and is more difficult than equality under the law, as noted in this classic song (go to 3:08): http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1tn79_bruce-hornsby-the-way-it-is_music

7/3/2010 3:12:03 AM

Quote :

"somehow I suspect you actually oppose same-sex marriage"

Well, you're 100% wrong. The fact that you suspect that suggests that I'm right about your anti-right bigotry, though.
(You really don't understand the non-religious right, do you?)
In fact, I and other libertarians oppose the mixture of church and state. Any marriage law that restricts who can be married is such a mixture. I support same-sex marriage, polygamy, and any other social group that consenting adults wish to form.

Quote :

"affirmative action is at best a necessary evil IMO"

In my opinion, no evil is necessary. (at least you admit it's evil, though.)

Quote :

"the most visible (yet not quite most virulent) form of hatred of the "other" in American politics is homophobia, and liberals have led the charge against it"

And, well, libertarians -- who have always opposed inequality under the law. Libertarians oppose all "morals" legislation...
...and we're not liberals.

[Edited on July 3, 2010 at 3:30 AM. Reason : ]

7/3/2010 3:29:50 AM

I didn't realize you were a libertarian when you made that earlier post

I had thought that you were trying to spin efforts to legalize same-sex marriage as discrimination against heterosexuals or something with the phrase "marriage law"
I will admit that the retention of the term "marriage" for its civil aspect, rather than decoupling it from the religious aspect, is troublesome and makes the struggle for equality more difficult; I wish there were some way to do decouple it without making it look like a backhanded slap against homosexuals, like when a community forced to desegregate its public pool responds by closing the pool.

Also it may sound like a semantic distinction here, but the people leading the charge against homophobia largely are not libertarian, even though libertarians are IMO their allies and are even more strongly opposed than many a liberal. It was similar in the '50s and '60s, when on the one hand you had the socialist Martin Luther King Jr. (Glenn Beck isn't always wrong lol) as the public face of the movement to enforce the letter and spirit of the 14th Amendment, while on the other you had less-visible Republicans, including libertarians like Barry Goldwater, helping out on the legislative side (of course the reason Republicans voted more in favor of the Civil Rights Acts is that at the time most of the Southern legislators were still Democrats).
I should mention that Goldwater got a bad rap IMO by Southerners misinterpreting his principled vote against the 1964 act (I think he mentioned something about legislating morality) as an indication that he was "one of them"; he is the source of my Favorite Quote, late in life he gave what little support he could to the gay-rights movement, and if he had managed to defeat Johnson in '64 I believe the South would have instantly turned on him like the anti-war Left would turn on Obama once they realized he wasn't kidding about ramping up Afghanistan.

[Edited on July 3, 2010 at 4:09 AM. Reason : I know,

7/3/2010 4:08:14 AM

To lazarus and lewisje: Would you mind just responding to the OP and not attempting to make the thread about me? Thanks.

7/3/2010 6:03:08 AM

Quote :

"We shouldn't be setting out to "affect peoples' behaviors on a broad scale". (This is why you hate freedom) Decisions should be made individually, with a system of liberty and justice."

(1) I don't hate freedom.
(2) Even if you "love freedom" in some extreme, literal sense, you still need to convince other people to go along with your plans. How do you bring people to your viewpoint? (I wonder this a lot with respect to socially conservative religious people; I really think they could see that liberty would benefit them as well, but they're staunchly anti-freedom in the ways that fit their culture.)

Quote :

"Enough people will be janitors, because of the market. (supply and demand)"

Should janitors be assured a certain living wage? What if they're afforded such a small paycheck due to the market that they turn to crime?

Quote :

"People will stop using heroin, or not. (survival of the fittest)"

So no freely available education about heroin, and no treatment/rehab services? What about the mentally ill homeless that end up on heroin?

Quote :

"The "best" behaviors are reached though individual choices, and not through external (read: coercive force) structure"

Any structure is coercive, as it's defined by constraints.

Quote :

"Is this what you liberals dream about?"

(1) I don't really consider myself a liberal I consider them more in league with you
(2) No, because admittedly I don't have fully formed theory of what makes populations of people tick.

7/3/2010 10:45:17 AM

No one can model human behavior, and I don't know that it can ever be done. Every person on Earth has a difference list of priorities. Their wants and desires are partially a result of instinct and partially through social conditioning and life experiences. The factors are not easily observed even by the individual, much less some scientist or bureaucrat.

There are a few constants. People are self-interested. This is not to say all people act in a way that only benefits them and not others (fuck you got mine, as God would say). The word selfish is generally used as a pejorative, but I don't think looking out for your best interests is ever a bad thing. You've got one life to live. The other constant is human action; people form ideas about what they want and plan to accomplish those goals.

It's hard for me to imagine what "levers" I would pull. I wouldn't pull any levers. Doing so would make me a hypocrite. In a free society, anyone should be free to pursue whatever desires they wish, until they harm someone else. Any levers I would pull would be more material than anything else; make all resources abundant, eliminate disease, eliminate pollution, etc.

7/3/2010 11:35:08 AM

Quote :

"Any levers I would pull would be more material than anything else; make all resources abundant, eliminate disease, eliminate pollution, etc."

These lever-pulls carry realistic costs and constraints. Do you pull a level to make resources abundantly accessible if it eliminates the ability of an ultra-small elite to play in whatever way suits their whims?

7/3/2010 11:52:51 AM

Are you asking if I pull the lever to make all resources abundant even if it doesn't benefit the elite? Yes, of course. The source of conflict on this planet is scarce resources. There isn't enough for everyone to have everything they want.

7/3/2010 12:01:49 PM

Quote :

"Suppose you have god-like power"

I think the provision of god-like power makes the question rather easy to answer. You could get people to join the military by making them invincible. You could get people to be janitors by paying them with sacks of diamonds. You could get people to quit heroin by magically eradicating the opium poppy.

But it is an interesting question as to how one can indirectly guide another person's behavior. I guess you could say some possible "levers" would be to provide security and/or reward, or to somehow manipulate a vital component of whatever behavior you're looking to encourage (or discourage).

7/3/2010 12:03:40 PM

Quote :

"I know what I dream about is a day when we will not face discrimination by those who hold the levers of power on account of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, extraversion, or any other marker of "difference" that shouldn't matter nearly as much as it does;"

The best way to do this is to reduce the number of people who hold levers of power. It has always fascinated me that people continue to give power and grow their government. Everyone knows you don't get less of something by making more of it, yet it seems like so many people think that we can just legislate away corruption and inequality.

7/3/2010 12:15:00 PM

Quote :

"I think the provision of god-like power makes the question rather easy to answer. You could get people to join the military by making them invincible. You could get people to be janitors by paying them with sacks of diamonds. You could get people to quit heroin by magically eradicating the opium poppy. But it is an interesting question as to how one can indirectly guide another person's behavior. I guess you could say some possible "levers" would be to provide security and/or reward, or to somehow manipulate a vital component of whatever behavior you're looking to encourage (or discourage)."

Maybe god-like power is too much to make the question interesting. I mean to say imagine you have god-like powers given the real constraints of our situation. If you want people to join the military, you can't make them invincible; you have to motivate real people through real incentives and resources.

This question is mostly meant to probe what everybody thinks drives people (and especially, groups of people). When we adopt a certain system, it entails a certain set of societal consequences. How do we structure these? What factors are relevant (what physical and moral realities should these systems address)?

7/3/2010 12:26:36 PM

If you're trying to encourage a certain behavior, you'll probably want to create an environment that maximizes that behavior's contribution to a society's hierarchy of needs (assuming that environment doesn't already exist). In either case you'll probably need to demonstrate to society exactly how this behavior promotes and facilitates the fulfillment of those needs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

I think that idea is generally accepted. The difficulties lay in the particulars.

[Edited on July 3, 2010 at 2:19 PM. Reason : ]

7/3/2010 2:17:07 PM

Promise the men 72 virgins if they behave

/thread....

But seriously read up on Uncle Joe (I'd recommend "Stalin" by Robert service). The man killed/was responsible for the deaths of ~20 million (give or take about 15 million) and still managed to control 9 million square miles of real estate for some 3 decades.

7/3/2010 7:58:49 PM

To be sure, whatever levers you pulled would also depend on what society you were working with. I teach here in South Korea, and I recall we had a lecture in our "surviving college" class (which I and other profs were teaching) about types of thinking, and for exposure, we mentioned Maslow's hierarchy of needs. But in South Korea, a heavily Confucian society (though surely less so than it once was; however it's still heavily influenced by that, at least in contrast to American society), it struck all of us teachers - while we were preparing the lecture - that students might not easily identify with the hierarchy of needs. An example for your consideration is that a good deal of Koreans' identity seems to come from their relationships (and not precisely from status as it can be accrued in the U.S., though some parallels can be made).

As an example, our students (all university students, of course, and I teach mostly freshmen) refer to students who entered the university before themselves as "sunbae" (it means "senior" or "upperclassman" or, most specifically "person who entered university before me"). And in turn, they refer to people who entered after them as "hoobae". Regardless of whether that sunbae actually graduates before me, I will always refer to them as a sunbae. If that sunbae is a male, it's very unlikely they will graduate before me, as they'll have to complete their 2 year mandatory military service, and nearly all males want to do it during their college career. (ok I'm digressing) The sunbae status also conveys a number of expectations, responsibilities, etc. and is more than merely a label, in contrast to the nominal value of the label "upperclassman."

My point is that, although you have no doubt intended this to be based on American society as it's what you're going to know best, as others have pointed out, the question posed in the OP depends on a number of factors, including - ultimately - individual interests, which are also influenced by society. The levers one might pull in Korea would be to eliminate English as a requirement to get a "good" job, and other things as well. Or somehow erase the Confucian pressure to be a "scholar" - that is, a highly educated person - just for the sake of being one (I think we discovered that hella more people go to college here, though they don't all graduate and to be sure, they don't all need to be in college). The levers one might pull in the U.S. would be to eliminate some of the pressures/prejudices that might come along with religious beliefs, as they can be hard to eliminate and can influence people's behavior to a great extent (or, so has been my experience) - and, one might hope, would allow you to more freely influence people.

But, what do I know, this is my first foray into the Soap Box.

7/3/2010 10:37:03 PM

Quote :

"Should janitors be assured a certain living wage? What if they're afforded such a small paycheck due to the market that they turn to crime? "

Employment is very negatively correlated with criminal activity. As such, the surest way to turn janitors into criminals would be to assure them a "living wage" high enough to put them out of work.

Once unemployable due to your interventions, they will soon learn the desperation and dependency necessary to make criminal behavior cost effective to them.

Quote :

"Even if you "love freedom" in some extreme, literal sense, you still need to convince other people to go along with your plans. How do you bring people to your viewpoint?"

Offer them something they want. Perhaps some form of payment for services rendered to you.

Quote :

"So no freely available education about heroin, and no treatment/rehab services? What about the mentally ill homeless that end up on heroin?"

Human beings tend to care for each other, I think it is genetic. Anyway, if you want to provide these services for society then I suspect there are others just like you that would help you do so.

Libertarians believe you should not wait around for society to do what you are willing and able to do yourself. Only then can you be sure it got done.

[Edited on July 4, 2010 at 12:45 AM. Reason : .,.]

7/4/2010 12:36:21 AM

Ill bet that any statistics you've used to negatively correlate employment to crime have assumed a living wage.

7/4/2010 12:45:22 AM

behaving like your target demographic enables them to trust you more. there are some core beliefs you can play off on to control the decisions some people make ( religion, racism... etc.. ). of course you have to fit and look the role to fulfill maximum manipulation. its human condition to not trust someone that doesn't look like you, but there are ways around that. as it is, you can't will anyone to do anything but you can sure as hell influence how they behave and perceive their actions.

no one can play god, you can only play the devils advocate in this world.

7/4/2010 2:52:25 AM

Quote :

"Human beings tend to care for each other, I think it is genetic."

Quote :

"its human condition to not trust someone that doesn't look like you"

7/4/2010 10:14:20 AM

Quote :

"Exactly. We shouldn't be setting out to "affect peoples' behaviors on a broad scale". (This is why you hate freedom) Decisions should be made individually, with a system of liberty and justice. Enough people will fight in the military, because the military only engages in just actions (defense) Enough people will be janitors, because of the market. (supply and demand) People will stop using heroin, or not. (survival of the fittest) People are motivated or driven by their liberty to serve society. (self interest) The "best" behaviors are reached though individual choices, and not through external (read: coercive force) structure"

Wow, you're going to be an awesome parent some day.

7/4/2010 11:48:01 AM

Do you understand the difference between raising a child and forcing an entire society to live how you want them to live?

7/4/2010 1:49:49 PM

LOL at "forcing an entire society to live how you want them to live"

you're 2 steps away from joining a terrorist group that wants to overthrow the government.

7/4/2010 1:57:08 PM

Wait, what?

7/4/2010 1:59:01 PM

^^^^
Basically what ^^^ said.
There's a huge difference there -- I'm not sure why you even brought up parenting..... Unless you don't think people can (or should) separate their philosophy of the government of a nation from their philosophy of the government of a family.

I bet that's it. If you think about it, that could possibly explain a lot of one's support for a nanny-state.

7/5/2010 9:17:07 AM

Should we not discourage murder?

7/5/2010 9:24:00 AM