It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Obama Orders Behavioral Experiments On American Public

page: 7
36
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Now the right is trying to paint the science of sociology as evil or what? I don't get it , could we please get a clear answer on what exactly they are doing wrong and what exactly you disapprove of.
edit on 18-9-2015 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

This is standard plotting course for conspiracy lore. It's kind of weird to watch people freak the heck out over something they don't actually understand.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Obama's BRAIN INITIATIVE is a big can of worms and it is a mix of good and bad. The Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research is a component of that initiative. Remember this thread? Some pretty worrisome stuff we are dealing with these days when powerful people think it is their duty to control everything by hook or by crook.

When benevolence is intermingled with malevolence, it is a real challenge to separate the two.

DREADDs --- Designer Receptors Exclusively Activated By Designer Drugs www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
Now the right is trying to paint the science of sociology as evil or what?.

I don't know where you get that from (although I may have missed something in the thread).

Problem with it for me (at least partially) is how fraudulent a lot of these "studies" often are. Remember THIS ?
edit on 18-9-2015 by eluryh22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Bring some hard evidence, or at least, reasonable fact-based supposition.


As for the former, do you really expect there to be an overt mention of nefariousness in regards to their plans?

Regards the latter, I would suggest perhaps re-reading the posts you may have been amused by.

I'm sure you're familiar with the idea of transference and should have been able to follow why I included the paper in my last post to which you responded:


You cite a reference to a philosophical concern in bioethics. To the bioethics community, I'm sure that's ... important.

The rest of your presentation is "could" "might be" "possibility" etc. As I suggested above, supposition.


And are attempting t onullify my supposition based on facts.

And yet you can say:


I have absolutely zero doubt that there are parts of our "government" (very loosely defined) that are at this very moment, for the last century at least, and likely for quite some time to come, doing things that would terrify-horrify us to our very souls.

No one who has the least amount of understanding of how absolutely power corrupts us could think otherwise.


If you want to know the real purpose of any government program or initiative, take what is said in public and reverse it, then you are close to the truth.

Un(not really)intended consequences always have greater impact than originally thought.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical


If you want to know the real purpose of any government program or initiative, take what is said in public and reverse it, then you are close to the truth.


So when Bush said he was going to invade, he was secretly planning not to invade Iraq?



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

They were doing it to bring freedom and prevent killing, weren't they?

Instead they got oppressed and killed anyway.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Typical Obama & his executive orders



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Jovenof93


Does anybody even follow those things?



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You know how often you are subject to this every day from companies trying to sell you something?

Is that Orwellian?



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 04:38 AM
link   
The way THIS science of sociology is evil, is that you and I will become products in the corpor...ahhhem...government business portfolio. It's wrong to wave an executive pen to accomplish it. I'd like to choose to decline.

Funny how social networking (post blogging) was trotted out right after 911 when we the people were fed up, scared and pissed off. Peoples egos were massaged and control regained. This time they know all we think and talk about. That nudging just gets easier and easier doesn't it?



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   
I do not get the general negative attitude towards such EO. One one hand people constantly whine about the ineffectiveness of the government. On the other hand, if government wants to do something about it by trying to be more effective, then the same people are outraged about it.

Every day all of us are affected by the extreme amounts of corporate advertising in order to people influence into purchasing more of their products, whether people need it or not, by using behavioral engineering to do so. This thing, the current EO wants to implement is a joke compared to what different private corporations are doing in order to increase their profit margin.

Of course, there are certain areas, where the difference between right and wrong depends on the personal choice. Yet there a fields where there just one right answer. Home violence, littering, staying healthy, recycling, polluting less etc are fields where there is just one answer... and these societal need to be addressed in the most effective manner. As there is no profiteering from such campaigns, corporations do not do it, so who should step in?

Round here different social campaigns ran by the city or government have been extremely effective, especially after very strong and emotional campaigns, especially geared towards children and broken homes, as well as staying more healthy and generally polluting less. People still have the right to make their own choices, although they are influenced towards the better ones. Corporations do the same things, although they just want you to choose their product. They do not give a fu*k whether you recycles, whether it has negative effects to your body, to your wallet, whether it might end you up being bankrupt, they just want you to buy it, as much as possible and they do it by using heavy marketing, heavy psychological strategies to influence people doing it.

Already there are certain strategies used, especially by laws to influence people doing something. For certain groups it helps avoid such things, for certain it doesnt. For example, in order to combat traffic jams and pollution in the city, the city here decided for making public transport free of charge. The buses/trolleys/trams come every 5-10 minutes with stops every 200 meters and special lanes were set out them where only they can drive. During 5 o clock traffic jams, for me as someones who usually walks or uses bicycle it makes me feel good watching all these drivers sitting in traffic jams while buses and bicycles just fly by on specially set lanes for them which car owners can not use.

I believe every child should receive strong education and encouragement towards staying healthier by moving more, eating less junk food, being responsible with finances etc. If parents do not do it and schools are not able to set as priority due to high workloads, social campaigns are needed address these issues. Certain laws do help as well, as banning selling unhealthy products in school territories and nearby shops.

If the person is dumb enough to not that he/she should do such these for his own sake, for his/hers family sake, he still has a choice to live as he wants, although at least he was informed rather than just doing some idiotic stuff and not knowing it is not good for him. He still has the right to choose.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cabin

I do not get the general negative attitude towards such EO. One one hand people constantly whine about the ineffectiveness of the government. On the other hand, if government wants to do something about it by trying to be more effective, then the same people are outraged about it.



The damaging impacts of government "effectiveness" is the problem.




posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
Yep.
My health insurance costs increase again on October 1st.
I know... it is the insurance companies doing it...

BUT MR. OBAMA PROMISED AN AVERAGE OF 2500 DOLLARS A YEAR IN SAVINGS PER FAMILY!

Government effectiveness strikes again.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: neo96

Completely irrelevant. Please read up on the subject. Not "MK-Ultra," Behavioral Economics. This EO is about funding Behavioral Economics research to benefit the people of the United States.


Who defines the good/benefit of the people? The immoral government? The people? Is it good and right to spy on neighbors? For kids to report that their parents have a gun at home? Are those for the benefit of the people? How about somebody being treated for mental illness being "pushed" to determine their snapping points so that becomes the new baseline for dangerous? Or how about learning what turns people off the most, to include in a bill, then create one far worse with better terms to pass? The honest thought of being an amoeba in a petri dish doesn't concern you?

Americans are sheep enough without being socially and behaviorally researched and/or modified. You do know what comes after research, right? Experimentation to validate the research.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Oh for heaven's sake, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!!!!!

Aside from Gryphon, DJWOOO1, and Benevolent Heretic, Cabin, (and anyone else who's tried to bring down the hysteria to an adult level)

This entire thread is INSANE thinking.

Sociology is not "experiments" - it is observation of how people behave. It's a valid subject for study, like anthropology.

Would you all prefer that the government do NOTHING to fix ANYTHING until it's a catastrophe? That is such backward, insane, hysterical thinking that I've been sitting here reading this thread with horror at how truly challenged you all are.

This is nothing sinister - this is looking at a large group of people and seeing what things WORK, and what things DON'T.

YOU ALL are refusing to see that it is a good thing.

Try an analogy - should a teacher, in any grade, have lesson plans, and structure for her classrooms? Should the kids be allowed to do whatever the hell they want as long as she's in the room? Is she just a babysitter there? Her job is to teach chemistry, for example...should she just turn the students loose in a lab full of volatile chemicals and bunsen burners, with no labels on anything, no books, no lessons - just tell them - "learn about chemistry for the next hour. I'll be over here smoking and texting my boo."

Or at a public pool or beach. Should the lifeguards just sit and wait until someone drowns or the shark bites someone or the lightning actually HITS someone before doing something????

What about when the fire is heading right for your house.... you gonna stand on the porch until it alights, making no preparation to put it out, and then be all surprised when you get scorched?

Should a hospital staff sit and do nothing until the "Code Blue" happens?


I could go on and on for days - but the bottom line is: your behavior and thinking is insane, paranoid, and totally counterproductive if you think there's something wrong with studying and understanding how humans respond to their environments. I hope NONE of you are parents, but if you are, get some help. You don't know what you're doing.


You all don't know how to ACT! THAT'S why you need someone making sure you don't run out in front of traffic, drink bleach, and stick a screwdriver into a light socket. GROW THE HELL UP.
Good gawd.


edit on 9/30/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Is it really obama making them raise it or just the companies themselves doing it?

I think the insurance companies love it, they can raise the prices all they want and obama gets the blame!



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: jadedANDcynical


If you want to know the real purpose of any government program or initiative, take what is said in public and reverse it, then you are close to the truth.


So when Bush said he was going to invade, he was secretly planning not to invade Iraq?



hey, hey, hey.....we do not make logical deductions on ATS....(full-on sarcasm)....



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jovenof93
Typical Obama & his executive orders


typical right-wing and their misinformation.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: butcherguy

Is it really obama making them raise it or just the companies themselves doing it?

I think the insurance companies love it, they can raise the prices all they want and obama gets the blame!

As I stated in my post...
You can blame the insurance companies all you want to, but the insurance companies didn't promise me anything... Obama did.
Lest we forget, the insurance companies existed when Obamacare was drawn up and they still exist today. If Obama's dream team that came up with his plan didn't figure that fact in when they came up with their plan.... AND HIS promises, sounds like they are woefully underqualified to do what they were doing.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join