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.

 

Psychologists enter the 'ECO Green' fight!

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Psychologists enter the 'ECO Green' fight!


pajamasmedia.com

Psychologists Want to Purge Your Brain of Un-Green Thoughts!Somewhere between 1968 and 2008 the social messaging wires have gotten tangled.

Forty years after enlightened baby boomers and academics decried conformity and told the world to ignore “the establishment,” to not kowtow to “the man,” to “rap about problems to find solutions,” and to “not guilt-trip or judge other people’s life choices,” those same sorts — the now firmly ensconced “establishment” pretending otherwise — are wondering why they can’t get people to fall in line and do as they’re told to do and think as they’re told to think with respect to the environment and the “crisis” of “climate change,” the “crisis” which used to be called “global warming” until the news got out that the earth has been cooling for the last ten years and the arctic ice is refusing to melt.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
If this doesn't smack of Socialist tactics nothing does. To have people who are there to guide people that have certain problems by propaganda of the green movement should be investigated. This has to be one of the more amoral instances of fraud and medical malpractice I have encountered in a long time.

pajamasmedia.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Awesome find. If one looks at the timing and wording of all of the stroies on Global Warming, it becomes apparent (to me anyway) that we are engaged in a war, not for blood or lives, but for our minds.

This is a response to the latest salvo of misinformation. It wasn't received very well, so the next move is to make us all mentally handicapped if we choose to think for ourselves on the issue. And the reference to the hippie movement of the 60s (in which those now in power rebelled against the establishment) was priceless!



TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
If this doesn't smack of Socialist tactics nothing does. To have people who are there to guide people that have certain problems by propaganda of the green movement should be investigated. This has to be one of the more amoral instances of fraud and medical malpractice I have encountered in a long time.


Don't be silly.

The article is full of errors about climate science (cooling for 10 years; arctic ice not melting, heh), and then whines about psychologists studying attitudes and attitude change. They've been studying it for decades.

They are just applying it to one pressing relevant issue. For example, it takes the all the fundamental findings in climate science and need to act as accepted - and they should, they are psychologists not climatologists. They then accept that studying what approaches to convey the issues are most effective is a relevant question for psychology - and it is.

Hence, calling someone a 'planet-raping dumbass' doesn't work that well. Having the media provide some false sense of equivalence between the few vocal contrarians with their flaky BS and the weight of the scientific evidence and climate science community in some pathetic attempt at 'fairness' is bad news.

Jeez, man, psychologists have been studying how to change racial attitudes, political attitudes, consumer attitudes, health attitudes etc etc for decades. rofl.

If you dont like it, get out and do some climate science. Moaning about psychologists reacting to established contemporary issues isn't gonna help you and your bugbear.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin

Jeez, man, psychologists have been studying how to change racial attitudes, political attitudes, consumer attitudes, health attitudes etc etc for decades. rofl.


Let's hope they have as much success in this endeavor then.


We still have all those problems you mentioned. And worse, we have more psychological problems per capita, it seems, the more psychiatrists we have practicing. I always understood the practice of psychiatry to be the attempt to cure the mind of ailments. Since when is not listening to what someone tells you a sickness?

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Let's hope they have as much success in this endeavor then.


Hey! Some work great....in the lab, heh.

Psychological study does speak to these issues. Sometimes successfully. Thus, when Luntz advised the GOP how to obfuscate and reframe global warming and environmental issues, he wasn't doing this from a vacuum.


We still have all those problems you mentioned. And worse, we have more psychological problems per capita, it seems, the more psychiatrists we have practicing. I always understood the practice of psychiatry to be the attempt to cure the mind of ailments. Since when is not listening to what someone tells you a sickness?

TheRedneck


Psychology isn't Psychiatry.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin

Psychology isn't Psychiatry.

The difference is a medical degree. Think of psychology as psychiatry light.

Both are in the psychological field of study. My daughter is going for a psychology degree first, then completing med school to make it a psychiatry degree. No credits will be lost in the conversion.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Good to see you're still with us Melatonin. Long time no see, but I've been gone a lot myself. I was afraid you'd gone mad or to jail.


I hope the shrinks start with Al Gore to help us all understand his hypocrisy. Lear jet/limo liberals with private jets, mansions and yachts
aren't really very helpful to the environment they claim they're trying to heal.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The difference is a medical degree. Think of psychology as psychiatry light.


And I suppose biology is medicine light.

No thanks...

I know what psychology is.


Both are in the psychological field of study. My daughter is going for a psychology degree first, then completing med school to make it a psychiatry degree. No credits will be lost in the conversion.

TheRedneck


Aye, in the UK med students can do an accelerated short psychology degree during their med course.

Psychology is the science of mind and behaviour. Psychiatry is the medical field focusing on mental illness and clinical disorder. Psychiatry is one small field within psychological science, and essentially an applied one.

Psychiatry is completely irrelevant to the issues of this thread. Shrinks are too busy pushing pills and arguing over nosology to worry about important social issues like attitudes and attitude change, they leave that to psychologists.


Originally posted by TheAvenger
Good to see you're still with us Melatonin. Long time no see, but I've been gone a lot myself. I was afraid you'd gone mad or to jail.


Hey there. Nice to know you care.


I hope the shrinks start with Al Gore to help us all understand his hypocrisy. Lear jet/limo liberals with private jets, mansions and yachts
aren't really very helpful to the environment they he claims they're he is trying to heal.


Gore's problems with potential cognitive dissonance are not mine.

I think the internet needs some sort of equivalent to Godwin's law for mentioning Gore. Pretty tedious really. How about Bigus Fatus Goreus' law? Bit long. Could be abbreviated to BFG's law, however.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
If we're going to study why humans do what they do, then it makes sense to study how humans react to outside stimuli - thus studying "environmental consciousness" (or the lack thereof) is a sensible subject to look at.

If there were a bunch of people who proudly insisted there was "no provable health risk" from habitually defecating on their living room carpets, and took to proudly smearing excrement about their homes, I'd want to know why


I doubt, however dire the implications implied by the commentary, you are going to be sent to a shrink for littering anytime soon


The original article is in fact a lot more informative and a lot less inflammatory.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





During a four-day meeting that begins today in Boston, an expected 16,000 attendees will hear presentations, including studies that explore how people experience the environment, their attitudes about climate change and what social barriers prevent conservation of resources.

Link.



This is subversive, how?


Frankly, I realize the distinction between manipulation and advocacy can sometimes be hard to discern, but I hardly think the aims of this conference alone are an example of some conspiracy to manipulate the masses.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by loam]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin

I know what psychology is.

Mel, I am not sure if we're disagreeing or not. It sounds to me a bit like you are placing psychologists above psychiatrists; if this is the case, you really should contact the Universities here in the US and set them straight. They have psychology as a BS or MS degree; psychiatry is a MD, including med school and internship in addition to the psychological courses required to become a psychologist.

If I read you wrong, please accept my apologies.

reply to post by loam
I don't remember saying it was 'subversive' on the strength of one conference, but I do suggest that it is interesting that psychiatrists are being brought into the GW debate, and apparently for a specific purpose:

Armed with new research into what makes some people environmentally conscious and others less so, the 148,000-member American Psychological Association is stepping up efforts to foster a broader sense of eco-sensitivity that the group believes will translate into more public action to protect the planet.

“We know how to change behavior and attitudes. That is what we do,” says Yale University psychologist Alan Kazdin, association president. “We know what messages will work and what will not.”

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Source: pajamasmedia.com...

Come to think of it, that does sound a bit subversive. "Stepping up efforts" to "change behavior and attitudes" because "that is what we do"?

TheRedneck

Edit to add source


[edit on 10-9-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Has anyone actually seen any data showing global warming is a problem created solely by us humans, and is not just a natural process?


Ice melts at around zero degrees Celsius. That ice has been melting since the ice-age is no mystery. That it has been getting warmer since the last ice-age is no cause for alarm.

All I see is a bunch of politicians and eco-activists telling me I should be worried, but none of them are producing any data I can look at.

It's BS. I know when I'm being manipulated, and this is one of those times.


Starred and flagged!



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Is it realy so hard to believe that the PTB would use the psych industry to convince the folks that are legitimately in need of help and those that someone wants to mold to further they're agenda? This isn't a new idea. Its been done before and we all know it. Children of parents who deny GW are the targets next and they are the most vulnerable. Every school has a child psychologist now and if they all are of the same political bent, our children are in dire need of help. This is what the Nazi's did and what the Soviets did and what the radical Muslims do to indoctrinate they're children. Its not a joke. Its real and its happening here...now..as we post!!!

Zindo



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
If I read you wrong, please accept my apologies.


You did. I will.

You implicitly suggested that psychology = psychiatry. Then explicitly suggested that psychology is 'psychiatry light'.

The biology being medicine-light comparison should be sufficient to show why you are wrong. Many students in the states study biology before MDs. So by your rather inane reasoning, biology is medicine-light.

Please...

Psychiatry is one applied field within the psychological sciences. Psychology is the umbrella: psychological sciences - the science of mind and behaviour. It covers everything from social psych to clinical psych. From developmental psych to personality psych. From consumer psych to organisational psych. From educational psych to health psych. From neuropsych to biological psych.

It's a pretty easy concept. And psychiatry is still completely irrelevant to this discussion.



Come to think of it, that does sound a bit subversive. "Stepping up efforts" to "change behavior and attitudes" because "that is what we do"?

TheRedneck


Again, these research psychologists do not change the attitudes, except in research. We study the prevailing attitudes, the paradoxes and areas of interest, and then methods by which attitudes can be changed and messages most effectively conveyed.

Then whoever might like to use this information can do so. Thus, research psychologists study consumer behaviour. Companies use this information in the advertising campaigns. So do politicians. So do government establishments.

For example, psychologists might want to study how to change risky sexual behaviour to help reduce the number of STDs. Studies are performed, We find how to convey the relevant messages most effectively. Health organistations hopefully use this information.

In this case, the prevailing scientific and socio-political conditions have clearly determined that climate change and environmental concerns are an important issue. Attempting to inform people of the negative effects of their behaviour (disposing of oil in a local stream, using landfill for man-made materials, driving fuel inefficient cars) and changing said behaviour can readily be acheived through changing attitudes. Thus, psychologists study this issue. Organisations will hopefully use such information.

Psychologists study this stuff. Other people use it. The indignation is pretty pathetic ('psych industry', rofl). Nothing subversive about it. Indeed, the Rovians are pretty good at using the information from psychology. Pity the dems don't use it so well.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin

Then whoever might like to use this information can do so. Thus, research psychologists study consumer behaviour. Companies use this information in the advertising campaigns. So do politicians. So do government establishments.

That is my concern. I do not want government agencies using psychological tricks to inform me of what I should be doing. Public service education is fine, but beyond that is mind control.


In this case, the prevailing scientific and socio-political conditions have clearly determined that climate change and environmental concerns are an important issue.

Here is where we disagree. I do not think enough evidence has yet been presented by scientists to justify sweeping environmental regulations that would change every aspect of our lives (I believe) for the worse.

It's a very simple philosophy. I believe that individuals, when shown facts and evidence, can make intelligent decisions. I do not believe we need 'professionals' to tell us what to eat, what to drink, what to drive, when to shower, when to shave, where to work, etc., etc., etc. We especially do not need such 'convincing' when all evidence points to a massive taxation scheme rather than a solution to an actual problem.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
That is my concern. I do not want government agencies using psychological tricks to inform me of what I should be doing. Public service education is fine, but beyond that is mind control.


They are not psychological tricks. It is finding the most effective way to convey information.

Essentially, you just don't want information conveyed. I guess you'd rather live in your own fantasy bubble where evidence means what you want it to.

This very site uses information from psychology. It uses a token economy to shape behaviour. Ooooh! Subversive!


Here is where we disagree. I do not think enough evidence has yet been presented by scientists to justify sweeping environmental regulations that would change every aspect of our lives (I believe) for the worse.


This is again pretty much irrelevant.

Psychologists are not climatologists. They are reacting to the socio-political climate. It doesn't matter that a few contrarians like to use information from psychology on how to most effectively spread doubt.

All the relevant scientific organisations are aware of, understand, and accept the situation and evidence. The UN is well aware of the situation. Governments (most) are well aware and accepting of the situation.

It is not the place of psychologists to question a science outside their area of expertise. They are reacting to the socio-political climate.

As I said earlier, get out and do some climate science if you're not happy.


It's a very simple philosophy. I believe that individuals, when shown facts and evidence, can make intelligent decisions. I do not believe we need 'professionals' to tell us what to eat, what to drink, what to drive, when to shower, when to shave, where to work, etc., etc., etc. We especially do not need such 'convincing' when all evidence points to a massive taxation scheme rather than a solution to an actual problem.


They would be showing them facts and evidence. The psychologists are attempting to show the facts and evidence most effectively.

For example, for years people smoked freely. Then we understood the health consequences. The socio-political climate suggested that we need to effectively convey the information and attempt to reduce the number of people suffering the consequences. The companies decided to play the doubt and uncertainty game, spreading flaky science, misrepresentations of science, doubt doubt uncertainty doubt. Ignoring them, government and health organisations pushed for labelling of tobacco products, removal of advertising, reducing sponsership. It did work, less people die of tobacco -related disease now.

We went from simple worded warnings of the risks to explicit pictures of the consequences. All this was informed by psychological findings.

You think that was subversive? You think the information should not have been conveyed? That a government should just let thousands of its population take such a risk without full* informational awareness to potentially die on the alter of tobacco company profits?

...

Amazingly, I still smoke. Shocking innit?

*if only people were able to readily process such complexity, heh.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin

They are not psychological tricks. It is finding the most effective way to convey information.

It depends on the personal agendas of the psychologists involved. You know as well as I that people like to be led. It's more convenient to listen to an 'expert' than to search out truth.


Essentially, you just don't want information conveyed. I guess you'd rather live in your own fantasy bubble where evidence means what you want it to.

Aw, mel, you can do better than unfounded personal attacks. Come on now, play nice.


I will stand on my record here at ATS to refute that statement.


This very site uses information from psychology. It uses a token economy to shape behaviour. Ooooh! Subversive!

Yes it does, and no it is not. There is a huge difference between ATS and the world at large today: at ATS, both sides are allowed to express their evidence and opinions. In the world at large, denial that Global Warming is completely man-made, due to CO2 emissions, and can only be solved by the payment of a tax, is considered nothing short of heresy.

Did someone mention restricting information? Oh, yeah, that was you....



This is again pretty much irrelevant.

Irrelevant? To what, pray tell? Science has been subjugated by economic and governmental policy for at least the past decade. Now, apparently since their bullying of scientists isn't working, we get to be spoon-fed false information from psychologists as well as paid-off climatologists and slick 'spokesmen' (yes, I am thinking of Al Gore. He just doesn't seem to go away, does he?).


Psychologists are not climatologists. They are reacting to the socio-political climate.

You just proved my point, thank you very much. These are not experts in any field save how to get people to swallow whatever pill the ptb are pushing today. And they are not pushing a pill from any scientific standpoint, but rather from a socio-economic one.


All the relevant scientific organisations are aware of, understand, and accept the situation and evidence. The UN is well aware of the situation. Governments (most) are well aware and accepting of the situation.

I hope I misunderstand you. Surely you are not stating that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is irrelevant?

If so, you make yourself irrelevant in any scientific discussion. Review and verification is the single greatest tool for finding truth in the scientific arsenal. To deny it is to deny science and embrace ignorance.


It is not the place of psychologists to question a science outside their area of expertise. They are reacting to the socio-political climate.

It is also not their place to endorse said science.


As I said earlier, get out and do some climate science if you're not happy.

Read my signature. Be careful what you ask for.


They would be showing them facts and evidence. The psychologists are attempting to show the facts and evidence most effectively.

Again, I must point out the phrase used by Alan Kazdin, associate president: ""We know how to change behavior and attitudes. That is what we do,”

That is not a statement made by someone who wants to disseminate information effectively. It is a statement that indicates a desire to subliminally enforce opinions on an unsuspecting public. You can call it 'showing facts and evidence' all you want, but that doesn't change what it really is. Read the article.

As for the smoking issue, the jury is still out on exactly how dangerous cigarettes are, and if second-hand smoke is anything more than a nuisance. I won't debate that here, as it is off-topic, but there are mountains of evidence which have been suppressed and experiments which have been conducted under highly suspicious (to be tactful) conditions.

I can only assume you work in the psychological field.


Amazingly, I still smoke. Shocking innit?

So do I.
At least we can agree on something...

TheRedneck


[edit on 11-9-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
It depends on the personal agendas of the psychologists involved. You know as well as I that people like to be led. It's more convenient to listen to an 'expert' than to search out truth.


Eh? The psychologists will just be studying methods of conveying the information.

Again, if we look at the tobacco issue, which is a comparable earlier situation, the psychologists just studied the most effective way to convey the information - risks and consequences.

Same will happen here.

Whether people listen to experts or not is, again, rather irrelevant. They are just as likely to unquestionably consume information that fits their pre-conceived beliefs, search out information consistent with beliefs, view evidence inconsistent with beliefs as flawed etc etc.


Aw, mel, you can do better than unfounded personal attacks. Come on now, play nice.


I will stand on my record here at ATS to refute that statement.


Don't take it personal. However, you are essentially suggesting that information on such issues should not be provided. That we shouldn't study the most effective way to convey important information. There is nothing subversive here at all.

Perhaps we should use some free-market approach and let this stuff regulate itself. Whilst scientists just wrote a few scientific papers and the odd book, we should have left tobacco companies to sell their product using the knowledge gained conveying tobacco as cool and sophisticated straight to their brains via TV and popular media in nice readily incidentally learned ditties and soundbites (well-established to be effective in psychology).

Of course, the people would ignore the TV and media campaigns and . direct to the library to search for information about the health consequences of their addiction. rofl.


Yes it does, and no it is not. There is a huge difference between ATS and the world at large today: at ATS, both sides are allowed to express their evidence and opinions. In the world at large, denial that Global Warming is completely man-made, due to CO2 emissions, and can only be solved by the payment of a tax, is considered nothing short of heresy.

Did someone mention restricting information? Oh, yeah, that was you....


There is little difference. Rewards are given for good behaviour, sanctions for bad. It is a method of shaping acceptable behaviour. Indeed, it is more invasive/pro-active than just making effective information readily available.

You're flailing here, RD. Both sides of what?

Both sides of the tobacco issue? The one were the evidence was clearly showing the health consequences of smoking tobacco?

Both sides of the climate change issue? The one where the evidence is clearly showing the potential consequences of smoking fossil fuels?

This relativism sucks. This is the sort of thinking that plays the notion that the evidence for the earth being 6000 years old and Adam and Eve talking to snakes is of equivalent validity to the scientific evidence that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old and snakes don't talk.

The way to fight these issues is to go out and collect new evidence that supports your contention and bring it to the scientific table. Make it scientifically credible.

Otherwise, we'll be teaching all kinds of crap in schools, conveying all sorts of tripe as equivalent to well-supported positions. Jeez, man, they barely have enough time to get over the worthwhile stuff.

Made up stuff isn't equivalent to well-established scientific findings.


Irrelevant? To what, pray tell? Science has been subjugated by economic and governmental policy for at least the past decade. Now, apparently since their bullying of scientists isn't working, we get to be spoon-fed false information from psychologists as well as paid-off climatologists and slick 'spokesmen' (yes, I am thinking of Al Gore. He just doesn't seem to go away, does he?).


To the topic of this thread.

You can try to shift this to another tedious discussion of how all the scientific organisations are bumming greenpeace, want to make the US into Outer Mongolia, take your fweedom; Al Gore wants to rule the world and takes your money, and a few freedom fighting scientists are fighting for troof in the media but can't be bothered doing science...

However, I think the thread was about psychologists studying attitudes and attitude change towards well-established and widely accepted environmental concerns.


You just proved my point, thank you very much. These are not experts in any field save how to get people to swallow whatever pill the ptb are pushing today. And they are not pushing a pill from any scientific standpoint, but rather from a socio-economic one.


What are you on about? Come on, RD.

So if we found evidence that a new STD is spreading through the population causing concerns about health, psychologists should just ignore the problem.

That if we see increasing racial violence in society, psychologists should just ignore it?

Jeez, who'd have thunk it...


I hope I misunderstand you. Surely you are not stating that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is irrelevant?


No, that's your inability to understand context. You've done it repeatedly thus far.

It is irrelevant to the psychologists. They will take problems in human society and try to help. It is not their place to do the job of climate scientists and other fields outside their expertise.

I think psychologists have enough to do.


If so, you make yourself irrelevant in any scientific discussion. Review and verification is the single greatest tool for finding truth in the scientific arsenal. To deny it is to deny science and embrace ignorance.


Yeah, whatever...

I don't think it would be wise to be sending articles on climate science to be reviewed by a researcher in attitude change.


It is also not their place to endorse said science.


They are taking a pressing socio-political issue and acting on it.

Again, using the now tiresome tobacco example, what you are saying is that when biomedical sciences were clearly showing the health consequences of tobacco smoking, psychologists should have ignored the issue.

I suppose psychologists can't act on social issues until we have 100% of people in the world satisfied it is relevant. Gee, hope we can get racists to agree that studying methods of reducing racism is a worthwhile effort...


Read my signature. Be careful what you ask for.


Okie doke.


Again, I must point out the phrase used by Alan Kazdin, associate president: ""We know how to change behavior and attitudes. That is what we do,”


Yeah, psychologists study how to change behaviour and attitudes. It's what they do.

What's the surprise? It's the science of mind and behaviour. I think psychologists would be missing a very relevant phenomena if we didn't study such things.


That is not a statement made by someone who wants to disseminate information effectively. It is a statement that indicates a desire to subliminally enforce opinions on an unsuspecting public. You can call it 'showing facts and evidence' all you want, but that doesn't change what it really is. Read the article.


Subliminally?

Don't be silly. Subliminally like putting explicit risk warnings in letters or a nasty picture of a big dirty tar-stained lung on tobacco products?

I'm not sure you know what subliminal means.


As for the smoking issue, the jury is still out on exactly how dangerous cigarettes are, and if second-hand smoke is anything more than a nuisance. I won't debate that here, as it is off-topic, but there are mountains of evidence which have been suppressed and experiments which have been conducted under highly suspicious (to be tactful) conditions.


As a smoker, I'm very happy (probably not the right word, heh) to accept the evidence that smoking is a health risk to me and others. The evidence is obvious for my own health and fairly clear for passive smoking.

Psychologists would not be doing their job if they didn't study how to convey the information on tobacco, risky sexual behaviour, drug abuse, and environmentally negative behaviour (amongst many other things) over to the public.

It would be unethical. It is a psychologists responsibility.


I can only assume you work in the psychological field.


Perhaps, but irrelevant.



Amazingly, I still smoke. Shocking innit?

So do I.
At least we can agree on something...

TheRedneck


But doesn't that say something? And I don't mean I'm a great example of walking talking cognitive dissonance (which I am, heh).

All psychologists are doing here is study how to effectively convey the information. If the information is conveyed effectively, it will help to change attitudes. If we can alter attitudes, we can sometimes change behaviour. They aren't going to perform forced aversive conditioning, in some Clockwork Orange type scenario, on people who refuse to accept such information.

They are doing exactly what you are saying you want to happen. Get the information out. They study how to do so effectively. They have done so to help tobacco companies advertise (and still do so in consumer psych), they have done it to highlight the risks of tobacco products.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


The problem with this is the same problem with psychologists pushing things like "multi-cultural acceptance." The "climate change" issue is a non-scientific one; it takes a matter of minutes to undercut the very basis of the issue. What keeps it alive is that it is a RELIGIOUS issue, a matter of faith in the prophets of science, and the church of naturalism is the highest power in the education system.

Thus, just like with insisting we must respect and accept cultures that we find repulsive and debased, these psychologists are pushing their OPINIONS onto others. I don't think I need to explain why that is horrible. I am curious to see how long it takes before the assault begins on the "irrational and dangerous" mental disorders of spirituality and religion. But then, I suspect it probably is already happening, and I've just not heard of it yet.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join