I am a woman born 1949 and my quest is to find a mindmate
to grow old together as a mutually devoted couple
in a relationship based upon the
egalitarian rational commitment paradigm
bonded by intrinsic commitment
as each other's safe haven and secure basis.

The purpose of this blog is to enable the right man
to recognize us as reciprocal mindmates and
to encourage him to contact me:

The entries directly concerning,
who could be my mindmate,
are mainly at the beginning.
If this is your predominant interest,
I suggest to read this blog in the same order
as it was written, following the numbers.

I am German, therefore my English is sometimes faulty.

Maybe you have stumbled upon this blog not as a potential match.
Please wait a short moment before zapping.

Do you know anybody, who could be my mindmate?
Your neighbour, brother, uncle, cousin, colleague, friend?
If so, please tell him to look at this blog.
While you have no reason to do this for me,
a stranger, maybe you can make someone happy, for whom you care.

Do you have your own webpage or blog,
which someone like my mindmate to be found probably reads?
If so, please mention my quest and add a link to this blog.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

362. Influenceability - Suggestibility - Persuasibility

362.   Influenceability - Suggestibility - Persuasibility

So far, I defined gullibility as behavior based upon a belief without evidence either in the existence in some being or power, or in claims in contradiction to science or due to oblivion of science.   Gullibility is either due to lacking rational faculties or caused by strong urges to alleviate some pressure deactivating rationality.

In previous entries, I have been speculating, that gullibility is the phase in the development of a child, before the brain has developed the faculty for rational thinking.    But using the word gullibility was a bit misleading, I should have better called it suggestibility, which includes gullibility.  
Suggestibility includes being prone to all changes of the personality as a response to external influences, not only to adopt believes, and not only behavioral responses.   
Suggestibility is unfortunately a very strong detrimental force impeding people from being themselves in accordance to their own innate traits and needs.    Media in general and commercials especially deform people's minds by manipulation for the purpose of modifying tastes, needs, attitudes, preferences by imposing fashions upon them for maximizing profits.
Consequencity is rational behavior based upon premises under the exclusion of believes.    Persuasibility is the ability to be convinced logically by evidence while refuting believes and manipulation.   

People as social beings are under the influence of others, but they differ widely in how much their behavior and their cognition is changed as the consequence of being exposed to external influences.   
Influenceability means being the perceptive and receptive target of external influences.   Lack of influenceability means that the input channel is blocked, except when the person is purposefully focusing the attention upon accepting input.   In entry 341 I described the extreme case as a robot.  
Interactions with others are a two step process: 
  • Step 1:  An information of any kind, a stimulus, sensory perception, claim, statement, evidence, reaches the conscious mind as an option to react upon.    This is an influence.   
  • Step 2:  The information is processed by   
  • gullibility as irrational behavior
  • consequencity as rational behavior  
  • suggestibility as a change of attitude, taste, preferences, opinions, either without being aware or by imitation instead of evaluation
  • persuasibility as a change of cognition due to being rationally convinced  
  • independent thinking as the rejection of an insignificant and irrelevant influence.  

The following scenario is an illustration:   Three persons A B and C are sitting in an office.    Person A complains about having a headache.   B offers A a painkiller, describes it as new and as helpful by own experience and mentions the name.     C is present but not involved in the conversation and C had not heard of that pain killer before.   C has sometimes strong headaches.
  1. No influenceability:
    C does not consciously notice the conversation.   The information does not reach C's conscious mind.
  2. Independent thinking:
    C is not interested and will continue to use the habitual painkiller. It is satisfactory and therefore there is no need to change the habit.
  3. Suggestibility:
    C is inclined to change the choice as soon as needing a pain killer.
  4. Gullibility in absence of rationality.
    C buys the new painkiller by imitation.
  5. Gullibility stronger than rationality: 
    C is interested and reads some very strong claims on a web page praising this painkiller as a new homeopathic remedy and buys it.  
  6. Consequencity:
    C buys the new painkiller (which of course in this case is not homeopathic) after carefully reading scientific research . 
  7. Persuasibility:
    C carefully reads scientific research and decides to buy it as soon as C needs a pain killer (which of course in this case is not homeopathic).
  8. Persuasibility:
    C reads claims praising it as a new homeopathic remedy and discards it as quackery.