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.

 

Obama is Hypnotising the Masses -Theory

page: 2
58
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


You didn't read the paper, I take it.




posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Professor Tomorrow
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


You didn't read the paper, I take it.


All 60 pages of it? No. Did you? Because if you did that is quiet an achievement.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I've read half and I will finish it..

It's actually kind of suspicious, I'm gonna wait till it's done to make up my mind, but so far it's pretty interesting.

~Keeper



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
OK

I read some

I took a hypnosis workshop for fun once

The very things in the TOC in the document can also be used as a basis for negotiation,
SPEECH DELIVERY, advertisements, crisis negotiation... In other words the writer is assigning general components of successful interaction and persuasion as a manner
to point to hypnosis, disregarding the fact that he is also just pointing out most communicative aspects of successful human communication. In other words the basis of his analysis could also describe how to get laid more frequently, same components basically. He does have his terms and concepts down of some degree, but he completely bypasses the universal nature of many of the concepts he deals in...



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I will admit, like most serious academics trying to get through something quickly, I didn't read the whole paper.

I read the footnotes, mostly, and checked back to the arguments that he was presenting and checked forward on his sources. It's pretty heavily footnoted. It helps that I'm fairly conversant in the subject matter.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Professor Tomorrow
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I will admit, like most serious academics trying to get through something quickly, I didn't read the whole paper.


Ofcourse you didn't.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Really you would consider speeches that can last up to an hour, and rarely less than 5 minutes to be ‘a’ brief moment?


No. The writer of the document said we are in "hypnosis" many times a day, whether for a brief second or longer. My point is, if we are "hypnotized" many times a day, sometimes by a book or our own thoughts, then what's the danger of being "hypnotized" by listening to a speech of Obama's? What's the difference that makes HIS speeches somehow dangerous? Especially since I view the government with a critical eye...

Basically, if Obama is "hypnotizing" us and it shouldn't be allowed to happen, should we outlaw books, driving, elevators and television, to prevent ourselves from being "hypnotized" by these things that the writer admits "hypnotize" us many times a day?



Once the mind has become corrupted with an idea it accepts, it remains corrupted in perpetuity.


So, once I am "hypnotized" by a book I'm reading and I become sad (as the writer suggests) I will be sad the rest of my life???


Originally posted by Professor Tomorrow
Your credentialism will not brook here my friend.


I am not giving you credentials. I told you that so you'd know that I'm familiar with hypnosis. I have been hypnotized many times.


The television is a hypnosis box.


So, you're saying that everything I watch on TV is hypnotizing me? I just watched an episode of Glee. Is my life forever changed and I'll never be able to critically think about a glee club in high school again? Or is it just the Obama speeches?

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make logical sense.


[edit on 4/17/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I probably should have been more specific: did you, at all, approach the paper critically, or did you dismiss it on its face due to your bias? It all just came out as a shorter, more nuanced question the first time.

Or, phrased another way, do you think that the OP's examination of Obama's speech techniques follow a demonstrable Ericksonian pattern? Why or why not?

Or, phrased another way, do you at all care for the truth or are you only interested in enhancing your reputation as a demagogue?



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Did you see the sources for this document? Blogs


People are so desperate to believe.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



what's the danger of being "hypnotized" by listening to a speech of Obama's


Did you really honestly type that with a straight face? I mean, I know you intended it as a rhetorical question and all, but really... What's the danger in having a politician intentionally and programatically hypnotize his constituents?

I bet, if you worked hard at it, you could come up with at least one or two things.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Did you see the sources for this document? Blogs


People are so desperate to believe.


Should we believe or dismiss your "blog" post here on ATS simply because it's a blog post? It's a well documented fact that Hitler used the same techniques. The article presented to us through the OP is spot-on. I suggest you read it and do a little research. (points finger...)



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Professor Tomorrow
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I probably should have been more specific: did you, at all, approach the paper critically?


And how exactly would somebody who supported the president in 2008 approach a document that claims they were hypnotized? If somebody wrote a document saying that you are scientifically an idiot for voting in somebody, and to make it worse they source blogs, how would you approach it?


do you think that the OP's examinations


The OP clearly didnt examine anything. He made it clear that he thinks all Obama supporters are irrational and thats that. Hardly looks to me like an examination, it look more like a smear to me.


Obama's speech techniques


The president is a good speaker. That does not mean his using hypnosis. To imply such a claim would be to assume every single good speaker in the world the power to control people.

And let me guess, conservatives were not hypnotised because they are smart and informed? Why didnt the hypnosis work on 57 million voters out of the 128 million?



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Professor Tomorrow
What's the danger in having a politician intentionally and programatically hypnotize his constituents?


No. That's not my question. I already said:

The question, then, is how does he know that Obama is purposely doing this with the intent to "hypnotize" us? Is he measuring every movement, every intonation, every gesture of his speeches with the intent of making us believe something we otherwise wouldn't? Or is he doing his very best to appear eloquent, compelling, attractive, competent and intelligent so that people will like him and vote for him and support his policies (campaigning, as SG said)? If it's the former, I'm going to need a lot more proof than this paper. If it's the latter, and that's what this author is calling "hypnosis", then I'll agree.

I don't mind having a discussion where we disagree, but if you're not going to bother reading my posts so that you know my position, then I don't see much point in going in circles for the entire thread.

If Obama is purposely hypnotizing us, then we have a big problem, but if he's just being compelling (like every other politician, TV show, book, preacher, motivational speaker) and this writer of this document is CALLING all of this "hypnosis", then what's the problem?



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Professor Tomorrow
 


I don't really think that was necessary..

Look reading through this, and I understand the language, it's certainly interesting and intriguing. Makes me pose a few questions about politicians in general and how they speak now a days.

Although I would not consider the sources that great, or even great at all. Let's not just look at the one side of the issue. This would take a lot of effort. It would take years to condition somebody to do this all the time, flawlessly.

Another thing, I don't really think the people of the US need somebody to intentionally hypnotize them to follow along like good little constituents. Most of the United States is too busy with television, movies and our "creature comforts" to really give a damn anyway.

Seems fairly obvious that with enough propaganda and truth suppression by 24/7 News Media alone, you can make anybody whose never been taught to think critically believe anything.

~Keeper



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





So, once I am "hypnotized" by a book I'm reading and I become sad (as the writer suggests) I will be sad the rest of my life???


Similiar or prompting events will trigger sadness the rest of your life, yes, and even conjure the other similiar things back up and their combined sadness.

I think maybe where you are confused, is that these things are designed to kick in at key points in the internalization and decision making process.

You are suggesting a magicians hypnosis where people walk around in a daze until someone snaps their fingers, the whole while barking like dogs.

Where as I am talking about how people can implant key factors in your subconscious in how you will then later view, and react to extermal stimuli.

For instance I think some people lack true objectivity in discussions like this, and that is somehow based on their decision making process.

What internally led them to be less than 100% objective, and mostly selective?

Something did, and it came from somewhere!

This article is about where some of these things come from, and how they are imparted to us, and that it's not then accidental when people become selective instead of objective.

Thanks.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
Should we believe or dismiss your "blog" post here on ATS simply because it's a blog post?


SG is giving his opinion, not using faux-science to accuse someone of a heinous and illegal act. If I'm to believe a scientific paper, I don't want the sources to be blogs...

[edit on 4/17/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


Well i heard a lot stupid conspiracy theories...but this one must be among the top three...and peoples who believes stuff like this...Well they are beyond reason...



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I think the most interesting aspect of this document is the notion that hypnosis can be ideological. I was always under the impression that hypnosis works regardless of ideology so in this we have nearly 130 million voters/supporters and yet 57 million of them, all or the vast majority who happen to be ideologically conservative, who somehow did not give into this hypnosis?

Great scott! We may be onto something here BH! I see a connection!



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 
This would explain why after all his eff ups he still has over 40% approval. 40% of the population are googly eye over him. reminds me of the battered wife syndrome.



[edit on 17-4-2010 by joey_hv]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


So you're not at all interested in meeting the OP on his own terms. You'll just continue to denigrate his motives.

At least you are methodologically consistent. Bravo for that.

Dissemble away. The people who 'agree' with you will continue to do so, and the serious thinkers will move on to greener pastures.

You really limit your audience when you are a demagogue, is what I'm trying to tell you here.



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join