The Deception of Real-World Inception

BY David Sirota

How are ideas deposited in people's minds, and how incurable are those ideas when they are wrong?

For all of its “Matrix”-like convolutions and “Alice in Wonderland” allusions, the new film “Inception” adds something significant to the ancient ruminations about reality’s authenticity – something profoundly relevant to this epoch of confusion. In the movie’s tale of corporate espionage, we are asked to ponder this moment’s most disturbing epistemological questions: Namely, how are ideas deposited in people’s minds, and how incurable are those ideas when they are wrong?

Many old sci-fi stories, like politics and advertising of the past, subscribed to the “Clockwork Orange” theory that says blatantly propagandistic repetition is the best way to pound concepts into the human brain. But as “Inception’s” main character, Cobb, posits, the “most resilient parasite” of all is an idea that individuals are subtly led to think they discovered on their own.

This argument’s real-world application was previously outlined by Cal State Fullerton’s Nancy Snow, who wrote in 2004 that today’s most pervasive and effective propaganda is the kind that is “least noticeable” and consequently “convinces people they are not being manipulated.” The flip side is also true: When an idea is obviously propaganda, it loses credibility. Indeed, in the same way the subconscious of “Inception’s” characters eviscerate known invaders, we are reflexively hostile to ideas when we know they come from agenda-wielding intruders.

These laws of cognition, of course, are brilliantly exploited by a 24-7 information culture that has succeeded in making “your mind the scene of the crime,” as “Inception’s” trailer warns. Because we are now so completely immersed in various multimedia dreamscapes, many of the prefabricated – and often inaccurate – ideas in those phantasmagorias can seem wholly self-realized and, hence, totally logical.

The conservative media dreamland, for instance, ensconces its audience in an impregnable bubble – you eat breakfast with the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, you drive to the office with right-wing radio, you flit between Breitbart and Drudge at work, you come home to Fox News. The ideas bouncing around in this world – say, ideas about the Obama administration allegedly favoring blacks – don’t seem like propaganda to those inside the bubble. With heavily edited videos of screaming pastors and prejudice-sounding USDA officials, these ideas are cloaked in the veneer of unchallenged fact, leaving the audience to assume its bigoted conclusions are completely self-directed and incontrovertible.

Same thing for those living in the closed-loop of the “traditional” media. Replace conservative news outlets with The New York Times, NPR, Washingtonpost.com and network newscasts, and it’s just another dreamscape promulgating certain synthetic ideas (for instance, militarism and market fundamentalism), excluding other ideas (say, antiwar opinions and critiques of the free market) and bringing audiences to seemingly self-conceived and rational judgments – judgments that are tragically misguided.

Taken together, our society has achieved the goal of “Inception’s” idea-implanting protagonists – only without all the technological subterfuge. And just like they arose with Cobb’s wife, problems are emerging in our democracy as the dreams sow demonstrable fallacies.

As writer Joe Keohane noted in a recent Boston Globe report about new scientific findings, contravening facts no longer “have the power to change our minds” when we are wrong.

“When misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds,” he wrote. “In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs.”

What is the circuit breaker in this delusive cycle? It’s hard to know if one exists, just as it is difficult to know whether Cobb’s totem ever stops spinning. For so many, meticulously constructed fantasies seem like indisputable reality. And because those fantasies’ artificial inception is now so deftly obscured, we can no longer wake up, even if facts tell us we’re in a dream–and even when the dream becomes a nightmare.

David Sirota, an In These Times senior editor and syndicated columnist, is a bestselling author whose book Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now—Our Culture, Our Politics, Our Everything was released in March of 2011. Sirota, whose previous books include The Uprising and Hostile Takeover, hosts the morning show on AM760 in Denver. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com or follow him on Twitter @davidsirota.

More information about David Sirota

  • Reader Comments

    It seems to me that a fine example of Sirota’s premise is militarism’s closed loop multimedia dreamscape which bore a recent public assertion that Wikileaks’ founder ‘has blood on his hands’ for posting the ‘Afghan War Diary’—perhaps implying that the perpetrators, participants, and perpetuators of that war are as pure and white as the driven snow and that any deaths preceding the release of information to the public were incidental to righteousness—a judgment that appears tragically misguided.

    Posted by John Danilow on Jul 31, 2010 at 5:58 AM

    Anyone who has ever worked in advertising knows this is so. Likewise when trying to get a “new” idea accepted by your immediate at work superior.

    The best way I can think of to personally combat the tendency is to read read and explore ideas and concepts from as many points of view as possible and then, as I always told my kids, “question everything” (even me).

    Posted by whattheheck on Jul 31, 2010 at 7:07 AM

    Adolph Hitler wrote that anything, if repeated often enough with a tone of authority, will be accepted as fact by the masses.
    Our govt embraced this strategy, it appears, with the help of mass media, starting with the Reagan administration.

    Take a single social issue— welfare.  By sheer repetition, we were taught that welfare recipients enjoyed such generous benefits that getting a job would mean a reduction in income. We (repeatedly) heard about their “easy lifestyles.” In reality,  benefits remained below the poverty line (i.e., the minimal income needed to cover the costs of basic needs).  We repeatedly heard that women got pregnant to get more welfare benefits.  In reality, the increase in benefits was a fraction of the amount needed to provide for a baby, so an additional baby left families much worse off.  The leading reason for ending AFDC was that it created a “culture of dependency;” in reality, over 80% of recipients quit welfare for work as soon as their children began school. The remaining 20% had barriers to employment (illiteracy, illness, disability). By sheer, numbing repetition, we disregarded the facts to embrace beliefs that defied all logic.

    Progressives are as vulnerable to this sort of training as conservatives, and have dropped the issue of poverty.  A line was drawn between the “poor” and the “working poor”, one deserving and one undeserving.  As you still have a job, you matter.  Fall below that point, and you become a non-person.  By the power of repetition, we were taught to believe that our socio-economic structure is so perfect that Americans can be poor only as a matter of “lifestyle choice.”

    When can’t discuss US poverty beyond calling for jobs, as we’ve been trained to do. We’ve been doing this since the Reagan administration. Welfare “reform” created a glut of super-cheap (replacement) labor at the same time that hundreds of thousands of jobs have been draining out of the country. Far more workers, far fewer jobs.  We’re still stuck at calling for jobs, unable to consider anything else. 

    Reality: Not everyone can work, and it will be years (if ever) before there are enough jobs for all who need them. The last I heard, for every job opening, there are six people desperate for a job.  What should we do about those for whom there are no jobs today? That’s not a rhetorical question. People have, indeed, died as a direct result of our chosen policies. 

    Can we break past our training to start discussing this?

    Posted by dhfabian on Aug 11, 2010 at 10:46 PM
  • Posting Security

    To participate in our forums, please register for a free account