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.
(visit the link for the full news article)
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.
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.
Jeez, man, psychologists have been studying how to change racial attitudes, political attitudes, consumer attitudes, health attitudes etc etc for decades. rofl.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
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
Psychology isn't Psychiatry.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
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
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.
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 environmenttheyhe claimsthey'rehe is trying to heal.
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.
I know what psychology is.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
If I read you wrong, please accept my apologies.
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
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.
In this case, the prevailing scientific and socio-political conditions have clearly determined that climate change and environmental concerns are an important issue.
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.
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.
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!
This is again pretty much irrelevant.
Psychologists are not climatologists. They are reacting to the socio-political climate.
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.
They would be showing them facts and evidence. The psychologists are attempting to show the facts and evidence most effectively.
Amazingly, I still smoke. Shocking innit?
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.
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.
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....
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?).
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.
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 also not their place to endorse said science.
Read my signature. Be careful what you ask for.
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