Re: Mind Control, Psychology of Brainwashing, Sex & Hypnosis
Psychetruth made some errors which I pointed out in my video, for all who are interested. Also, suggested reading and free ebooks: Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control /by Kathleen Taylor Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense /by Jonathan D. Moreno “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true rulling power of our country.” opening lines of Propaganda /by Joseph Gasper II Battle for the Mind: A Physiology of Conversion and Brainwashing /by William Sargant Propaganda and Persuasion /by Garth S. Jowett Readings in Propaganda and Persuasion: New and Classic Essays /by Garth S. Jowett Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes /by Jacques Ellul (from Christian perspective) Techniques of Persuasion: From Propaganda to Brainwashing /by JAC Brown You can also find a free ebook titled, “Quotations: Propaganda, Persuasion, & Deception /compiled by Laird Wilcox” at facts4u.com
Video Rating: 3 / 5
888Kharami said,
Wrote on February 21, 2011 @ 1:56 pm
Psychetruth has great breasts and is doing fair work for the effect of positive results : ) I do like the error error verbal talk you do… I am formally steeling this. Thank You: )
unseenstrings said,
Wrote on February 21, 2011 @ 2:29 pm
I did notice I started getting flack from some Scientologists when I made the rebuttal to PsycheTruth. I started to suspect that PsycheTruth may have been a front for Scientology. I do know the channel is not the efforts of a single person but a group. I find some of the videos to be within reason while others remain wildly speculative, and some downright misinformative. Anyway, I’m not familiar with Youtube user, therealweeklynews. I usually don’t concern myself with sensationalism & sentiments
Lishy1 said,
Wrote on February 21, 2011 @ 3:10 pm
Have you seen the stupid videos of theirs about the h1n1 shot and about health? Geezes christ, whatever that old man’s name is, I want to slap him in the face for spreading such propaganda about it in this time is paranoia.
In short, Psychetruth is no better than therealweeklynews. Maybe you should make a video criticizing him too.
unseenstrings said,
Wrote on February 21, 2011 @ 3:54 pm
Cattle have instinctive mechanisms that help them adapt and function within a herd instead of as an individual. If a cow could talk, the glare of another cow might be referred to as peer pressure. However, no energy is transmitted from one cow to another by a glare. Instead, the cow instinctively reacts to the glares, glances, and body language of the other cattle. The same is true for the herd animal that is commonly referred to as the human being. And we once called the glare, “the evil eye.”
Pfsif said,
Wrote on February 21, 2011 @ 3:59 pm
How about pier pressure in work or organized religion. In churches they have prearranged seating, some “special” seats. The have professionl shamans whom you can’t question…..etc.
unseenstrings said,
Wrote on February 21, 2011 @ 4:49 pm
I can’t help but wonder if the misleading information she is expressing is one more of being ill informed than total ignorance. Although, admittedly, I’d rather be ignorant of certain facts than be persuasively misinformed or given shocking disinformation. Evolution, sex-education, and religion are three subjects that now come to mind. She sounds like a Fundamentalist Creationist trying to discuss the science of evolution.
oliveannie said,
Wrote on February 21, 2011 @ 5:45 pm
Thank you for ammending this work. It is clearly the work of a well-intended and intelligent woman, but her ignorance of the fundamentals of pschology is painfully evident.
She presents this as a teaching tool, and in this medium it attracts many viewers who will accept this misleading report as fact.
This is very irresponsible at best. A little information is dangerous, especially if it’s inaccurate.
unseenstrings said,
Wrote on February 21, 2011 @ 6:00 pm
My first impression was that you hadn’t watched the video and thus had merely got it mixed up with the video by user psychetruth. But then I noticed you are subscribed to her (psychetruth). So now I suspect you didn’t appreciate the fact my video showed psycheturth is prone to psyche error, as we all are. And since you seem obsessed with user, psychetruth, you evidently decided to leave a comment offensive to me, a man. Or else you were trying to inject an air of silliness into the discussion.
Danny4u2see said,
Wrote on February 21, 2011 @ 6:05 pm
The entire video made me see you as a very powerful, smart and pretty women. I am very sorry if any of this was out of line. But I figure I can send it in the name of science. After I typed this I started wondering if my reaction to this video is so far off that I should be worried about my mental health? or should I ask you out for a cup of coffee?
unseenstrings said,
Wrote on February 21, 2011 @ 6:49 pm
(Excite: 1. To stir into activity. 2. To call forth; elicit. 3. To arouse strong feeling in. 4. To produce increased activity or response in; stimulate. 5. a. To increase the energy of. b. To raise to a higher energy level.) I have no way of knowing how to reply to your comment since I have no idea what you’re talking about. (Excite?) What feature of the video excited you and what type of excitement are you referring to? I was merely correcting some errors of user, psychetruth.
Naturalism Org
Danny4u2see said,
Wrote on February 21, 2011 @ 7:15 pm
I was just wonderng, Was I suppose to get exicited? well i did. If I was suppose to can I see more. If not I am so sorry :)
unseenstrings said,
Wrote on February 21, 2011 @ 8:08 pm
Yeah, they wouldn’t allow me to comment on their video with this video. They never “approved” it. They must be creating propaganda for a specific purpose. I don’t know enough about Scientology to comment otherwise. Cognitive research has revealed that automatically, and clearly outside of conscious awareness, individuals register and acquire more information than what they can experience through their conscious thoughts. Thus, cognitive psychology is more about the unconscious than behaviorism.
SamLowry99 said,
Wrote on February 21, 2011 @ 9:05 pm
I think that the original videos are scientology propaganda, there were a few things there that hinted at it, but they deleted my comments pointing them out.
unseenstrings said,
Wrote on February 21, 2011 @ 10:01 pm
Conscious and nonconscious thoughts are not treated as separate functions by the science of behaviorism. Behaviorism is not a psychology of the unconscious. Behaviorism is the science of behavior.
And by the way, you have confused operant conditioning with a conditioned reflex. Operant conditioning is something Pavlov didn’t get the opportunity to learn about. (watch?v=I_ctJqjlrHA)
I once got sick from a ham-mayo. Nonconscious processes afterwards caused me to consciously choose not to eat ham
unseenstrings said,
Wrote on February 21, 2011 @ 10:10 pm
(3) or what might be better referred to as nonconscious thought, is the mental activity of the brain that is not mediated by conscious awareness. In fact, the highest probability is that nonconscious thought processes produce conscious awareness and not vice versa. As an analogy, consciousness would be similar to the output you see on your computer monitor, which is a phenomena produced by many processes you would be unaware of. Conscious and nonconscious thoughts are not treated differently.
unseenstrings said,
Wrote on February 21, 2011 @ 10:31 pm
(2) behavioral science.
A reflex is an automatic instinctive unlearned reaction to a stimulus. (Is that redundant?) Another definition is any involuntary reaction to a stimulus. In its simplest form, a reflex involves the stimulation of a nerve through a sense organ, followed by transmission of the sensation to a motor nerve, resulting in action of a muscle or gland. What can be construed as thought, unconscious or otherwise is not involved in reflexive behavior. Whereas the unconscious (GoTo3)
unseenstrings said,
Wrote on February 21, 2011 @ 11:27 pm
When I looked up YouTube User, t0kt0k’s Channel, he certainly didn’t seem like the idiot you made him out to be, unless you were making a self-diagnosis.
The video said the father’s of behaviorism here in the US were Watson & Skinner, which is true. The video further stated that Pavlov made a discovery that was equivalent to the apple that fell on Newton’s head. It was very important and one that lead to further investigation. But conditioned reflexes only account for a tiny fraction of (GoTo2)
crazykb said,
Wrote on February 21, 2011 @ 11:34 pm
As I was saying, a reflex happens at the unconscious level. Pavlov’s theory called Classical Conditioning is all about behaviour. For example: when I was a kid I ate pizza (my favorite food) once, and got food posioning. After that happened my ‘behavoiur’ changed (I didn’t like pizza for quite a few years). This is an example of Pavlov’s theory. And its a theory that is as much a part of behavioural Psychology as Watson and Skinner were…
crazykb said,
Wrote on February 22, 2011 @ 12:14 am
Pavlov, through his research, showed that the brain makes connections between stimuli in the environment and more innate impluses. For example, when the dog salivates to the bell, the bell is triggering the same brain response that would be triggered for food. That by defination is a ‘behavioral response’. The vid states that a reflex and a ‘unconscious thought processes are different’. However, they aren’t. A reflex happens at the unconscious level…
crazykb said,
Wrote on February 22, 2011 @ 12:18 am
“Wow look at these people who think you’re stupid. Maybe you should take the hint and stop posting comments.” Yes, idiots do leave stupid comments.However,if you want an example of ‘not knowing what you are talking about’, here we go.For example,the vid makes a comment stating that behavioral psychology is based on Skinner and Watson, However I would argue that that is only partly true. The vid seems to imply that Pavlov had nothing to do with behavioral science, however this is wrong.
unseenstrings said,
Wrote on February 22, 2011 @ 1:13 am
Well, I couldn’t help but notice the comments being left on your “Channel.” For example, “Wow look at these people who think you’re stupid. Maybe you should take the hint and stop posting comments.”
After reading some of the comments made about you, I tried to offer you some advice. I was just trying to be helpful. If you’ve got a problem with the video here you’re commenting on, please be precise as to why. Maybe I’ll change the video to suit you if you are logical and have sufficient reasons.
crazykb said,
Wrote on February 22, 2011 @ 1:18 am
I’m not employing a ‘tactic’. I just made an observation…
unseenstrings said,
Wrote on February 22, 2011 @ 1:41 am
Gee, that sure was a vague and generalized statement. You didn’t point out any fact you disagreed with. Also, you didn’t offer any logical rebuttal to the facts that were stated. And, since you don’t have any videos of your own, maybe now is the chance for you to get busy and create a video making your point. Wouldn’t that be great? Wouldn’t that be much more effective than the tactic you are currently employing?
Naturalism Org
FamilyLoveZone Com
crazykb said,
Wrote on February 22, 2011 @ 1:51 am
Who ever is making the comments in this vid, doesn’t seem to know what they are talking about…