• Advertisement

The Power of Suggestion (Psychology 101)

Discussions about Dental, Medical, Fitness and Mental Health
Knuckle
x 8

Re: The Power of Suggestion (Psychology 101)

Postby Knuckle » Sun Mar 15, 2015 2:03 am

Now most folks here know that I have been posting about Ukraine since the beginning of this conflict. Some even proclaim that I overzealous with posting about this. Yet they never seem to present alternative proof, but instead argue about the reliability of a YouTube video. Such a proclamation is just a generalization. That's like saying all unemployed people are just lazy! It is really an avoidance tactic only.

I admit I'd rather defend Canada's stand in this conflict. So I figure to do so immediately, as soon as someone finally explains a few of these issues that still bother me. Seems no one ever offers a decent answer to them and thus I am still troubled as to how you can accept the story that mass media tells....


Who Really Started This?

1. The protests may have started with the general public, but the coupe de' tat was nazi party backed and this effort soon earned them a seat at the table of those in power today.
2. Yet the EU quickly accepted this new regime anyways, somehow ignoring this nazi affiliation
3. Shortly after the Merkel recordings came out showing prior US involvement to insight this takeover. Seems the US Ambassador even joined in one of the protests to show US support. And later rumors were that many protesters were even paid by the US to protest.
4. A year later Obama himself outright admits having "brokered a deal to transfer power" behind Ukraine's leader at the time.

Conclusion: No brainer... conflict started by US, not Russia. So you should all realize that our media is actually lying each time they proclaim Russia of started this crisis!

Russia hasn't invaded Ukraine!

1. I presented US videos showing that NATO technology can spot anything (even as small as a rabbit) crossing this border, day or night, regardless of snow, clouds or sand storm.
2. East Ukraine obtained most armaments from it's factories stockpiles because they are the world's 7th largest exporter of military tanks and armored vehicles...seems our media always forgets to mention this info.
3. The east acquired the rest because many of the west hands it over to them as they don't want to fight. Seems censorship blocks us from seeing these surrenders anymore either.
4. If any Russian military equipment was EVER spotted crossing that border...the whole world would see the videos a hundred times a day!
5. Russia likely does provide soldiers as folks cross the border on foot daily so it's easy to do... dead bodies would be harder to hide though.
6. NATO continuously proclaims that they need to respond to Russia's "continued aggression". Since May, the only proven thing that this can possibly refer to is that Russia still has Crimea..... yet our media continues to use this ploy daily without ever presenting any new aggression by Russia....why? Because there is none!
Conclusion: seems NATO is likely the one invading Ukraine


The West plays the "Underdog Card"

1. If the west is undersupplied, why did their side always have men in matching uniforms, body armor, night vision goggles on proper helmets and actual combat boots? The rebels were always in runners and mismatched camo until winter came and Russian convoys gave them winter camo clothing. Follow back some of my links to confirm this.
2. Why do they call those in the east rebels when they are not rebelling, but simply defending?
3. Why during the prisoner exchanges, does the west receive soldiers in trade for the east mostly got civilians? Rewatch any of these exchanges before you argue...
4. Why do most of the rebels videos show then running around in cars and vans with no body armor?
5. Why did OSCE (or any other organization)not report on any of the hardships those in the east endured all winter and many areas had no heat or water, yet all fuel supplies from Russia were supposedly meant to only be used in tanks and such? Really? You believe that it wasn't maybe for their fuel oil stoves too?
6. The east obviously will incur far more casualties than the west from the continuous shelling and the lack of body armor. When don't the stats show this aspect honestly?

Conclusion: the east was always the underdog and still is.


Media Censorship Exists

1. How come west Ukraine made a ruling in September which prevents all news agencies from reporting anything that they don't approve of first? Also all reporters are now militarily escorted everywhere as were in Iraq.
2. Obama also had announced in September they'd initiate counter- propaganda to contradict how the east has used the web to their advantage..... seems it's alive and well!
3. Seems the only opposing news now that is allowed past our censorship these days is mild and no longer contains anything to implicate the west as the ones shelling the east. and now our media can proclaim that the rebels are bad people and they constantly shell their own people in the east. (ya, that is still hard to believe isn't it?)
4. Seems our media never interviews these people of the east when presenting who destroyed their town. I wonder why not?
5. Explain why Russia can't legitimately provide the east with weapons while somehow NATO can supply the west.....
6. We still deny that the west has nazi affiliations even after some 50,000 people in Kiez alone celebrated Bandera's birthday in January?
7. Do you notice our media ignores the videos of those tortured by nazi's and branded with swastika's , while professing the rebels tortured folks with absolutely no proof given in turn?
8. And why won't our media show the atrocities this war has inflicted upon those in the east? They are careful to show only a few areas without presenting the mass graves everywhere and the bodies piled high in the East's hospitals.

Conclusion:
our media is owned by those who want us to go to war...don't trust them!

I'm sure I have more questions, but even resolving some of these questions with reasonable answers would have me defending the west in a minute.....meanwhile I sit here pondering what crap our media will try spoon feeding next!
0 x

Knuckle
x 8

Re: The Power of Suggestion (Psychology 101)

Postby Knuckle » Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:08 pm

Let's Not Jump to Conclusions....

So try applying some logic to the present spiel being set forth by our media these days. Seems west Ukraine is unhappy with the present cease fire and wish more sanctions upon Russia.

Don't you ever wonder why they always blame Russia without ever any real mention as to the present conflict in the east itself? Is it maybe because doing so might draw attention to the fact that the Ukraine army has been shelling 3 cities in the east, Spartak, Doneck and Gorlovka? (according to the rebels anyway). Maybe now is the time to now reflect back on who has been telling the most lies up to this point....

So let's instead consider the present scenario and see what else might be really at play instead.

• there is constant mention that Russia wants to create a land bridge to Crimea
• there is constant mention that there is a possible risk of invasion to Mariopel
• and a constant mention that Russia wants to continue it's goal to world domination

They definitely want us to be afraid of Russia it seems. But what seems more obvious to me is these tactics also create justification for a NATO buildup as that is what is presently underway. And as usual, there is never any "Real" proof presented of Russia doing anything(as usual). Maybe this is just a tactic to hide their own preparations instead?

• Now there is indeed a Ukraine military buildup all around Mariopel as a defense to blocking Russia from supposedly invading. (Seems it could also block a Russian land rescue of Crimea too)
• and NATO now has accumulated a large armored force situated along the borders of Poland near Crimea(immediate backup forces)
• The US already has a fair sized fleet in the Black Sea to interfere with Russia resupply to Crimea(while providing water and air support too).

We have heard mention often enough that Ukraine wants to reclaim Crimea. Since Russia won't make any first moves to escalate things into another world war, what would they do if Ukraine were to repatriate it's "stolen" territory?
As soon as Russia attempts to defend this region from Ukraine attack, NATO would now have grounds to step in and defend west Ukraine from the bear they've been poking for so long!

Naw, NATO wouldn't want to start a fight.... their the Good Guys!
0 x

User avatar
Antsy
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:44 pm
x 6
Netherlands

Re: The Power of Suggestion (Psychology 101)

Postby Antsy » Wed Mar 18, 2015 4:02 pm

Please find attached.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MvOwqNB_CQ
Introduction to Psychology - UCBerkley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BweGI6TK5pQ
Introduction to Philosophy - Rationalism vs. Empiricism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XnLpRh7XOE
Understanding Science - Logical Fallacies
(06:15 - I think my idea is true because you can't prove that it is false)

I don't mean to derail this HEALTH thread by introducing psychology, philosophy and logic, given this threads record of ignoring them to date. I trust this post will be ignored by most.
0 x
Needs must when the devil drives.

Knuckle
x 8

Re: The Power of Suggestion (Psychology 101)

Postby Knuckle » Wed Mar 18, 2015 4:55 pm

The difference I hope folks note is that I provide the information on that which I base my conclusions. This approach at least removes doubt as to the validity of my sources. And since all we can do now is speculate what is going on due to censorship limitations of the media, that is what I am presently doing.

And instead of confusing folks with mind twisting manipulations many profess that psychology's true purpose is, I prefer to use psychology on prevalent matters without trying to add further confusion. And psychology is being used as a tool today to convince the masses that we are not provoking a crisis when it is obvious that we are. I had initially chosen the health section as this subject is an aspect of mental health and thus likely fits here as well any other area (but you already knew that as you played this card before).

I presented another possibility as a final conclusion because it seems no one else has mentioned it. Since it is more likely that today's censorship simply prevents us from seeing these conclusions, I figured that I should present this obvious possibility instead. I also do it as concise as I know how without trying to confuse those who are following along.
0 x

thecrownsown
Topic Leader
Posts: 637
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 10:27 pm
Location: SW Ontario, ON
x 132
x 24
Canada

Re: The Power of Suggestion (Psychology 101)

Postby thecrownsown » Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:45 pm

Antsy wrote:Please find attached.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MvOwqNB_CQ
Introduction to Psychology - UCBerkley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BweGI6TK5pQ
Introduction to Philosophy - Rationalism vs. Empiricism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XnLpRh7XOE
Understanding Science - Logical Fallacies
(06:15 - I think my idea is true because you can't prove that it is false)

I don't mean to derail this HEALTH thread by introducing psychology, philosophy and logic, given this threads record of ignoring them to date. I trust this post will be ignored by most.


I'm fairly confident your posts are not the ones ignored by most. ;)
0 x
Are you on Blackberry Messenger Channels?

Check out: Emergency Preparedness C00219488

Knuckle
x 8

Re: The Power of Suggestion (Psychology 101)

Postby Knuckle » Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:05 am

But I did in fact take the time to at least read enough under the author's writings to see which direction the given link chose to travel down and if it pertained to the topic....it didn't! And with Antsy's concluding statement " I think my idea is true because you can't prove that it is false" is a prime example of presenting an argument for the sake of argument alone.

Whereas I presented visual evidence(which should be considered real evidence)and proclaim it irrefutable proof to a past event. If you consider this statement is false, stay on topic and present your own evidence to the contrary. But when one simply presents a vague philosophical argument as a means of demeaning my stand on a given issue, it is a weak attempt to wrap all such accumulated evidence into a ball, proclaim it as only hearsay and toss it aside.

In reality, Antsy is indeed using psychology as a weapon to confuse the issue instead. He used this non-nonchalant approach as a means to convince others to simply toss the evidence aside too without realizing he hadn't presented any proper reason to do so....

Oh ya, it was on the premiss that anything I said "supposedly can't be proven false"....

Try playing that same card in a court of law and see how fast you find the door!

In fact, his above argument itself turns out to be a prime example as to how some persons try to use psychology to manipulate others opinions without offering a better answer in turn. And this same approach is often used by many,on a daily basis as a way of life, just thru simple gossip to others - about others!

So it seems I too know and understand these rules, I just prefer not to play the game!

Now Back to the Real Events instead!

While driving today and listening to CBC radio, the news states that Harper has mobilized our military forces to pursue ISIS from Iraq into Syria and they deem they don't require Syria's permission to do so. Now this statement too was done in such a way that many listeners will hopefully even conclude this action must then be justified. Think about it...

If you take military forces across a border into another country without permission from that country, that action is really seen as an invasion by many and thus isn't going to be viewed as acceptable by most nations who will hear of this. We do so on the authority of the US government only, knowing that most other countries won't openly oppose this action simply because they fear reprisals from the US and their allies.

Imagine how we'd paint this story if the roles were reversed and Russia was gallantly rushing into Syria? The difference is that Syria would likely welcome Russia's assistance whereas they are not even being asked for permission by what they might have thought once as "them nice Canadians".

Do you remember when US threatened Syria and was about to invade when Russia convinced Syria to allow US to snoop around and leave? I wonder how many people remember that Russia eventually gave Syria their older missile defense system while showing the world they had a newer system that could knock down these new high flying drones if they were to fly over Russian airspace. This act was in defiance of US aggression at the time and really created 2 lines of defense for Russia against air superiority. Overall, the US was on a rampage and were temporarily stopped in their tracks by Russian diplomacy. And it was here that many concluded Putin to be the better chess player.

The US didn't like this interference into their plans and so not long after, ISIL(an admitted CIA creation) became ISIS and the new terror threat we are all to fear. In fact, it is because of this new enemy that the US gave themselves the right to invade and attack down any region of the Middle East they deem an ISIS location.

I often wonder how ISIS seems to be totally unaware that their organization have become the US's main excuse to interfere and bomb their region....funny how it often seems they are still really helping the US instead of hurting them, doesn't it?
0 x

User avatar
Antsy
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:44 pm
x 6
Netherlands

Re: The Power of Suggestion (Psychology 101)

Postby Antsy » Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:43 am

Quote:
"Whereas I presented visual evidence(which should be considered real evidence)and proclaim it irrefutable proof to a past event. If you consider this statement is false, stay on topic and present your own evidence to the contrary. But when one simply presents a vague philosophical argument as a means of demeaning my stand on a given issue, it is a weak attempt to wrap all such accumulated evidence into a ball, proclaim it as only hearsay and toss it aside."

Thanks for that Knuckle. That's it in a nutshell. You actually believe that "you presented visual evidence(which should be considered real evidence) and proclaim it irrefutable proof to a past event"! You don't know the difference between causality and correlation; nor the difference between evidence and anecdote. You make wild assertions about your personal politics with little more than YouTube videos posted by unreliable - anonymous sources and loudly "proclaim it irrefutable proof..." It's hearsay. Another logical fallacy that you fall into again and again I noted from the logic video; you believe that your argument to be valid because I can't prove it false. Read, "present your own evidence to the contrary" Hint. In a court of law that is called presumption of innocence and burden of proof.

I don't mean to derail your rants by, using "this non-nonchalant approach as a means to convince others to simply toss the evidence aside too without realizing he hadn't presented any proper reason to do so..." Instead, I would like others to toss your "evidence" aside because they recognize the circular reasoning and fallacy stricken drivel for what it is, and that is opinion and conjecture. At their best, your opinions are myopic. At their worst, your opinions are willfully ignorant. All I'm doing is shining a little light on them. C'mon Knuckles, a little light never hurt anyone.
0 x
Needs must when the devil drives.

Knuckle
x 8

Re: The Power of Suggestion (Psychology 101)

Postby Knuckle » Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:16 pm

So once again you work with only criticism, to avoid pointing out any given detail to which you can disprove these videos I'd presented. There is constructive criticism where others show fault in a premiss and "politely" offer another possibility or just criticism where others tear down without offering anything viable as an alternative. Which is the approach you use most in this forum?

Why don't we instead start with one of the conclusions I'd presented earlier and debate my conclusion. How about "who really started the conflict in Ukraine"?

I showed "irrefutable evidence" that the US indeed started this crisis. I'm betting that most would indeed agree with this conclusion, especially because Obama eventually proclaimed it in a speech himself. So any denials of this fact thereafter by our media shows them as biased as they continue to feed the public that Russia was behind it.
Conclusion: You can't trust any media who states otherwise. They show themselves biased the minute they feed you bullsh*t and try to convince you it's pate'.

Now with this fact being proven, a logical person should be going Knuckle = 1 point Antsy= 0 points

So I attempt to walk the reader down the path of logic that if the media is known to lie, maybe they lie about other points too....

Has Russia Invaded Ukraine?

I present a YouTube video (which you immediately want readers to ignore) that is an American documentary showing the capabilities of the US drones and satellites. They are the ones bragging that nothing can avoid their detection, not me just proclaiming it. So any denial of this video is to deny the claims of the creators of the video, yet they show you "Visual proof".
Conclusion:If Russia had any armored vehicles cross into Ukraine, we'd see this video on every channel and in every newspaper proclaiming Russia is invading.

Yet our daily media often uses old pictures to show that Russia has crossed many times(though without US gov't confirmation). This approach allows the US gov't deniability if any of this evidence is eventually proven false, which some has definitely been proven so. Yet the accumulation of this type of evidence produces "information overload" so as to eventually convince the masses that Russia is indeed the aggressor even though logic shows they couldn't possibly be. But just the lack of US confirmation for many such articles should be the telltale that the story is false. Still the continual bombardment of false propaganda starts having it's determined effect on the masses and opinion is swayed to an irrational answer...

This is absolute misuse of psychology and yet we are being fed it daily...continually.... until some start to even preach it as proof. The fact that all our media presents nowadays is unsubstantiated BS no longer matters. The majority now thinks that pate' just tastes like this and everyone says it is good for you..... so eat up!
- Ignore that the people I've shown who are bombed proclaim it was the Ukraine who did it.
- Ignore the illogical concept that rebels are bombing regions occupied by their own civilians that they eventually seem to swap prisoners for.

So maybe logic can indeed overcome propaganda! Maybe the truth can be discovered if one looks hard enough! I titled this thread adeptly (IMO) as I continue to try and show people how to challenge the misconceptions offered by daily propaganda. I am even aware that speaking out thus about such things might soon have a penalty somewhere down this road we travel today.

We Canadians are no longer as free as we once were just a short time ago and then having media adjust our values to better suit the greed of the rich, they will take us all down a path of destruction. War is on the lips of our leaders and all they have left to do now is convince the public that their cause is just!

More pate' anyone?
Last edited by Knuckle on Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

RATTS
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Calgary
Canada

Re: The Power of Suggestion (Psychology 101)

Postby RATTS » Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:13 pm

Right or wrong on Knuckles position, he has shown through out this thread that the media should be questioned. If people think that they are getting the truth all the time from mass media it can be shocking to realize that they have been led down the wrong path. Antsy what exactly is your point? Is it that you want to argue about what is real evidence and what is not, or that unless it comes from a network approved media center it is not news? The news media uses the "Power of Suggestion" to get the masses to believe what they want them to believe, whomever it is that might or might not control the media? The managers of the networks or owners and editors have personnel feelings and biases and so do reporters and writers it all comes to a point that they all influence their work. Any intelligence collector will grab all the reports, all the ground evidence, and all of the gossip from an incident and filter it to discern a complete picture of the event. It is then sent forward and manipulated to get the results they want.
0 x

User avatar
Antsy
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:44 pm
x 6
Netherlands

Re: The Power of Suggestion (Psychology 101)

Postby Antsy » Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:49 pm

So once again you work with only criticism, to avoid pointing out any given detail to which you can disprove these videos I'd presented. There is nothing to disprove. I've shown that the problem is your reasoning. There is constructive criticism where others show fault in a premiss (sic) and "politely" offer another possibility or just criticism where others tear down without offering anything viable as an alternative. Which is the approach you use most in this forum? Like you, I don't know. I don't trust claims of "objective truth". Not from our popular media and not from you. Unlike you, I don't make claims I can't substantiate.

Why don't we instead start with one of the conclusions I'd presented earlier and debate my conclusion. How about "who really started the conflict in Ukraine"?

I showed "irrefutable evidence" that the US indeed started this crisis. Show me again... must of missed the "irrefutable" evidence from reliable sources. I'm betting that most would indeed agree with this conclusion, especially because Obama eventually proclaimed it in a speech himself. So any denials of this fact thereafter by our media shows them as biased as they continue to feed the public that Russia was behind it. Remind me what the US president proclaimed.
Conclusion: You can't trust any media who states otherwise. They show themselves biased the minute they feed you bullsh*t and try to convince you it's pate'. Draw me a picture where you make a claim, show me evidence which actually supports your claim, and then come to this conclusion.

Now with this fact being proven, a logical person should be going Knuckle = 1 point Antsy= 0 points I'm not seeing anything "proven" just yet.

So I attempt to walk the reader down the path of logic that if the media is known to lie, maybe they lie about other points too.... Logic doesn't deal in maybes.

Has Russia Invaded Ukraine?

I present a YouTube video (which you immediately want readers to ignore) I want readers to question) that is an American documentary showing the capabilities of the US drones and satellites. So the US can be dishonest about their politics but not their technological capabilities? They are the ones bragging that nothing can avoid their detection, not me just proclaiming it. So any denial of this video is to deny the claims of the creators of the video, yet they show you "Visual proof". Not "proof", conjecture.
Conclusion (sic):If Russia had any armored (sic) vehicles cross into Ukraine, we'd see this video on every channel and in every newspaper proclaiming Russia is invading. Your conclusion is not supported by your "evidence".

Yet our daily media often uses old pictures to show that Russia has crossed many times(though without US gov't confirmation).I thought I read that you don't watch TV, how do you know what the "daily media" shows? Who are the "daily media"? This approach allows the US gov't deniability if any of this evidence is eventually proven false, which some has definitely been proven so. Examples from reliable sources? Yet the accumulation of this type of evidence produces "information overload" so as to eventually convince the masses that Russia is indeed the aggressor even though logic (logic is a stretch) shows they couldn't possibly be. But just the lack of US confirmation for many such articles should be the telltale that the story is false. You make claim to understand the US governments motivations Still the continual bombardment of false propaganda starts having it's determined effect on the masses and opinion is swayed to an irrational answer...

This is absolute misuse of psychology and yet we are being fed it daily...continually.... until some start to even preach it as proof. Pot? Meet Kettle The fact that all our media presents nowadays is unsubstantiated BS no longer matters. The majority now thinks that pate' just tastes like this and everyone says it is good for you..... so eat up! This is not an argument, it's just filler.
- Ignore that the people I've shown who are bombed proclaim it was the Ukraine who did it. Anecdotal evidence at best. Hearsay. Not to be ignored, but certainly viewed with skepticism.
- Ignore the illogical concept that rebels are bombing regions occupied by their own civilians that they eventually seem to swap prisoners for. I hear that war is illogical

So maybe logic can indeed overcome propaganda! Maybe the truth can be discovered if one looks hard enough! I titled this thread adeptly (IMO) as I continue to try and show people how to challenge the misconceptions offered by daily propaganda. Do you mean aptly? An adept is someone who is proficient and knowledgeable. Okay, it's only your opinion. I am even aware that speaking out thus about such things might soon have a penalty somewhere down this road we travel today. You're fear mongering

We Canadians are no longer as free as we once were just a short time ago and having media adjust our values to better suit the greed of the rich, and will take us all down a path of destruction. This is a running sentence which looses coherence. Is this an appeal to popular opinion? War is on the lips of our leaders and all they have left to do is convince the public that their cause is just!

More pate' anyone?

Knuckle, I really don't care what your personal politics are. What bugs me is your messed up methodology for reinforcing your world view and your claims that you represent some kind of objective truth. You use words like "logic" and "evidence" like you have a clue that you know what the words mean despite the fact that it is clear that you don't. If you weren't so verbose I would ignore you, but you post this trite nonsense everywhere. You moved to the "Health" section when you had your hand slapped for posting antisemitic links in the "War" section. This isn't health. This is the ranting politic of an angry old retiree with too much time on his hands. Get off the soapbox Knuckle, we need the wood.
0 x
Needs must when the devil drives.


Return to “Health”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest