Post here anything related to Psychological warfare phenomena. Here is an example :
Psychological Warfare
Post here anything related to Psychological warfare phenomena. Here is an example :
I think it seeped into the culture here.
Women are seen as poor innocent victims and they keep dishing out towards men, accusing them of atrocious stuff at times. Any defence men try to put up is shut down by called them the problem, the reason why society isn't evolving...
It's gotten scary, there's a lot of anger and hatred going around, if none of it gets resolved it could get ugly.
Most women I know are usual gaslighters, I've seen women in group testing each others with gaslighting techniques to try to have things going under their rules. It's odd because women portray this cooperative ideal but there's a lot of subtle, underhanded power struggle going on, kind of bucket of crab mentality.
If I said any of the things I write here, I'd get called nuts, told all this is in my head, that there's more important things than that, and it would all be done under the guise of being considerate, caring, empathetic, telling poor disillusional me how life really is... been this way since I was a child.
I've often thought the people here are hypocrites, putting on a pretty mask is seen as very important and it's destroying the place. It started a long time ago, it was a mean to survive: present a nice face to the ones in power but curse them behind their backs kind of thing. We aren't there anymore but the mentality hasn't evolved yet, people, mostly women, are still in this survival mode when they aren't in danger as they were so it's like they are testing the limits by torturing each other or something.
In steretypical socionics terms, it's like a sweet alpha mask on top of the worst beta traits.
Of course there's always individuals who don't fit the current average.
Nobody sees women that way unless they are incredibly naive - or are they trying to do the white knight thing where they are pretending to protect women just so they can get inside their pants.Women are seen as poor innocent victims and they keep dishing out towards men, accusing them of atrocious stuff at times.
Women will abuse u more in private while showing a 'good girl image' to the rest of the world. Men are more likely to abuse others in BOTH situations- that's why society is still up woman's ass- even though everything you said was right.
Yeah the reason why 'womyn power' doesn't exist is women are often their own worst enemies, and drag other women down in the mud - and gaslight/abuse decent men and encourage the right type of douchebag male to exist. The problem is the women who are advocating for feminism are often also bolstering up abusive men. But males still bully/troll others too much, pick on ppl who don't deserve it themselves, are narcissistic and sadistic themselves. People suck, and it isn't all that gender related lol.
So fucking true. Then they complain "oh he doesn't support me!!1! he's mean to my kids!!1!" They want the abusive man but leave him vecause he's too irresponsible or doesn't give a fuck about supporting them financially. Men do use women too. Straight people, I feel so sorry for you also kinda not really. Gay people still have more domestic violence in their relationships statistically.Originally Posted by Warm Soapy Water
Honestly I'm at a point where I don't care about romance or dating. I never really liked anyone that much anyway, I feel like if I'm going to do anything for that person, they're going to have to give me something in return. Don't get used
I think everyone's only in it for themselves and they enjoy the drama it follows. That lifestyle is draining and I no longer find people entertaining. People suck. It's better to be a lonereven the quality of friendships have gone down hill
True, but a lot of times they make themselves appear vulnerable so they can take advantage of sympathy rather than use brute force. Even weak men do so, by acting all pathetic in hopes a pitiful woman will sleep with him. Lazy or weak people baby themselves, others will either make fun of or pity them.
Also take into consideration that women get away with less when attacking men, versus vice versa. A smaller build wouldn't be able to do much damage, unless armed, but then men are ashamed of hitting women regardless if it was out of self defense. I mean today's culture devalued men despite being the majority in hard labor jobs, military, etc. Politicians want a society that is split, so it's easier to control, etc.
Indeed, there was this one chick who apparently liked me, but she basically began to spread rumors about me in hopes that I'd be all alone and she would be the only one who would be there for me. My friends caught on and outed her. Type of chick to poke a hole in the condom if she was straight. But now we don't talk at all, not after she forced herself onto me and a bunch of other girls. Thing is no one expected her to be that way due to her "christian holy" persona and looks.
Also, there are very specific details that you have to look out for when separating venomous snakes from the snakes that aren't venomous. Because they are much easier to provoke, and much more likely to ruin your life.
I should have written that people MUST see women as poor innocent victims or else. It's actually really bad for women who try to overcome trauma, having been victim of something or victim mentality, it's like being pushed back into it by social coercion, it's a status quo thing. I was shut down many times for standing up to men, all in the name of "safety".
I also yelled at men out of frustration towards women.
There's also this thing of treating incapable, heinous women as capable and loving. More status quo.
I'm pretty sure it's only in this particular part of the country where I live, and it's not the usa. People here tend to pick up aberrations from the usa to justify this tho.
A lot of it comes from people shooting themselves down, that's true.
To psychology relate thoughts, emotions. An info which makes worse may go by these ways.
As wrong info. As info which makes emotions worse or not appropriate (as to wish what is harmful).
To this term fit common intentional influences.
Terms "psychological war", "informational war" are often used in politics. As a harmful informational influence - for opponents or for some of what they do. It's matched with one of applications of propaganda. Which has the aim that people do what you prefer and did not do what you don't want.
Why do we have women's prisons then if people always see them as the victim? When it really matters- I don't think that's true at all. Well males still get punished more for the same crime I think, but the gap is becoming less and less as equality can be a 'double-edged sword' like that lol. Olivia Benson noted that women can be just as violent and hurtful as males when explaining sexual abuse to people.... People who are responsible for protecting society... don't buy into that ime. Though I guess 'Lady Liberty' is biased to females. I suppose to be PC it should be an asexual intersex robot that's blind only out of just one eye. Maybe you need other women to call out other women's BS so people can't accuse them of women bashing, but that thing already happens enough naturally as it is.
Women try to manipulate... but people can see through manipulations. Women probably also have to manipulate more because they lack the strength and intimidation of males usually.
/naive face. Why can't people be judged as individuals rather than what's between their legs? I am biased- I want to bash women with y'all cuz I know they are cruel manipulative two-faced losers who go after the bad boy narc doucheboy too much. But my own inner woman does the same thing to a lesser degree.... I don't want to hate or fight what I see in myself kinda. And then I see the way most men treated me in life. They did NOT accept me or treat me kindly all that well either... but certain INDIVIDUALS did. And it had nothing to do with whether they were a man or woman or if they were gay or str8.I also yelled at men out of frustration towards women.
Yeah - don't get me started on other gay men. Str8 relationships are often insufferably sadistic like that. I think over all... gay relationships can kinda lack that consistent sadism. BUT I mean, we have to watch out for Jeffrey Dahmer types (LOL) and ... what sucks is when I meet a guy who is properly dominant but he's into shit or other gross things I'm not into. I am tired of gay men asking if they can poop on me. They are just proving the homophobic Ugandas right... lol. I love domination and kink... but no feces honey.So fucking true. Then they complain "oh he doesn't support me!!1! he's mean to my kids!!1!" They want the abusive man but leave him vecause he's too irresponsible or doesn't give a fuck about supporting them financially. Men do use women too. Straight people, I feel so sorry for you also kinda not really. Gay people still have more domestic violence in their relationships statistically.
Honestly I'm at a point where I don't care about romance or dating. I never really liked anyone that much anyway, I feel like if I'm going to do anything for that person, they're going to have to give me something in return. Don't get used
I think everyone's only in it for themselves and they enjoy the drama it follows. That lifestyle is draining and I no longer find people entertaining. People suck. It's better to be a loner
Psychological warfare is one of the most archaic phenomenon of humanity. It's consequent to modern human cognition, a survival imperative. We encounter it everyday in our daily life. Remember that one of the greatest fear of human kind is that of ostracisation which equal to a death condemnation for a gregarious species like Humans. People have always struggle to get what they want (I mean it in terms of Ego satisfactions) while not being rejected by the group.
Now, think of the psychotypes and the Persona. The very existence of a "social mask" attests that there is a play going on in society. One the overall theme of that play is of course that of "survival" and social integration. People practice psychological warfare just to maintain their persona and reputation intact in the jungle that is society. I would add that a similar kind of war is taking place within the Psyche itself. Indeed we all know about the compensatory phenomena that maintain the integration of the psyche, the conscious and the unconscious are at war for supremacy and with no holds bared from the unconscious.
One thing we all know here is that people are different, tensions between personalities have always existed. Think about rivalry, intrigues, conspiracies, all the archaic and negative feeling coming from the shadow of our psyche. This is the everyday life kind of psychological warfare everybody knows about. Yes, the term has been used to describe what you talked about (propaganda, lies, Psychological thrillers, espionage and counter-espionage, etc..) but at the end of the day the world is made of people and their psyche regardless of the size of their circle of influence.
I think this video speaks volume about psycho-genesis. To me what is taking place in the mind of this gorilla is in terms of discovery of no equivalence. It's very moving to see where we as a species once were and how the awareness of our own mortality was the very spark of all our creativity.
Hey I like your video but I hope I don't embarrass you by saying that "news station" really is a trollstation. The Onion is a joke page that has ironic humor meant to make jest of actual news stations.
Proof: watch their other videos or read the sentences. "...plans to become fist gay astronaut to learn to make sex with men." Lmfao
No. Before was physical war.
Psyche has developed later and among other useful, have became a mean to compete without direct physical influence, including a killing. It's used a part of "soft war".
In a simple example. When you are feeling an anger - it's often more reasonably to remove unwished behavior by an insulting (emotional influence) or misleading (thoughts influence), than by making physical pain and harm.
If you'd was yourself lesser "psyche" and deal with lesser "psyche" developed kinds - then you had lesser means to change their behavior by psyche influence. You'd need physical influence for the same, what is generally lesser flexible (and so less profitable), takes more of your resources, creates more risks for you.
About profits. In one region you compete and in other you cooperate. Psyche influence have allowed higher flexibility, more narrow and lesser destructive opposing to arise the sum usefulness of people interactions.
If you'll compare more technologically developed (and hence who higher able to stay alive) societies - they have higher "psyche" influence to control people. More developed religions, more complex hierarchy, more complex behavior rules, more need to know to act in such societies. As having higher flexibility to get from other human what you want, they also loose lesser resources in more "archaic" physical competing. Not only allow more means for cooperations.
More archaic human kinds of the past had lesser means for psychological influence, including in a competing (war). Lesser "civilized" societies of today have them lesser too. There you'd got "archaic" physical influence with higher chance and in more degree.
The higher level of psychological competing (war) is without inspiring negative emotions and without noticable misleadings, as this should be lesser destructive and to give lesser risks for you.
But even lower style with emotional insulting is doubtful to name as archaic. Lesser developed is better term. As near always stays physical kinds of war, which are not so archaic in reality.
Last edited by Sol; 06-21-2023 at 10:04 AM.
Really?I was convinced it was true because I knew that this gorilla was able to communicate with sign language so I didn't expect a trolling ! Maybe I wanted to believe it deep inside even though I did think "how come this information hasn't gone viral since the video seems a little old like late 90's early 2000's ??
"...
Yes, I do feel embarrassed of course ahahah !! I can be very naive sometimes, It happened to me to fall in those kind of traps before. Thank you for the info anyway !
Interesting, when I say "archaic" (in humanity) it didn't mean archaic humans but archaic as "a very old instinct inscribed in the modern human (homo sapiens sapiens) psyche". Therefore the Psyche in this instance is already formed. Besides, "war" is a sophisticated concept it emplies strategy , tactics, and forward thinking therefore it doesn't make sense for archaic humans to conceptualize it without a mature psyche (i.e. fully formed) even if the war is physical. Indeed, we can not possibly accept that war in human behavior precedes the formation of the psyche albeit undeveloped. We have the same brain (and psychic) structure as those men from 40 000 years ago who indulged in warfare, hunting and gathering.
Think of it this way, When cavemen returned from hunting and war, who was waiting for them at "home"? Women and children. How did women who were less physically strong (in those days, most women were, ahah!) survive the "brutality" of men? By developing their emotional cognitive functions. You guessed it, I'm talking about Fe (and Fi)! So from this point of view, the development of the psyche of modern "men" and women is concomitant with that of the first psychological war which is probably a women "invention". Let's not forget the rivalry between women or "the tribe" and the "archaic instinct" or desire to seduce the alpha male etc...In a simple example. When you are feeling an anger - it's often more reasonably to remove unwished behavior by an insulting (emotional influence) or misleading (thoughts influence), than by making physical pain and harm.
If you'd was yourself lesser "psyche" and deal with lesser "psyche" developed kinds - then you had lesser means to change their behavior by psyche influence. You'd need physical influence for the same, what is generally lesser flexible (and so less profitable), takes more of your resources, creates more risks for you.
Fair enough.About profits. In one region you compete and in other you cooperate. Psyche influence have allowed higher flexibility, more narrow and lesser destructive opposing to arise the sum usefulness of people interactions.
If you'll compare more technologically developed (and hence who higher able to stay alive) societies - they have higher "psyche" influence to control people. More developed religions, more complex hierarchy, more complex behavior rules, more need to know to act in such societies. As having higher flexibility to get from other human what you want, they also loose lesser resources in more "archaic" physical competing. Not only allow more means for cooperations.
More archaic human kinds of the past had lesser means for psychological influence, including in a competing (war). Lesser "civilized" societies of today have them lesser too. There you'd got "archaic" physical influence with higher chance and in more degree.
Yes, that's the Fe I was talking about above. The more that psychological function developed in men the more creative they became in its usage. Here are some very recent example of Fe applied to warfare...The higher level of psychological competing (war) is without inspiring negative emotions and without noticable misleadings, as this should be lesser destructive and to give lesser risks for you.
But even lower style with emotional insulting is doubtful to name as archaic. Lesser developed is better term. As near always stays physical kinds of war, which are not so archaic in reality.
Lack is the Muse of all Poets
Noam Chomsky on Nim Chimpsky and the Emergence of Language - YouTubeReally?
Yes, I do feel embarrassed of course ahahah !! I can be very naive sometimes, It happened to me to fall in those kind of traps before
I honestly think their brains were a broken version of ours, not merely a simplified one. I know you've thought about the idea of fully-formed modern humans predating cavemen because you're Muslim. For most people I'd have to bring up another idea like Atlantis. Jews think all Jewish souls pre-existed on Mount Sinai. If I look at the idea of a morphology of thought rather than simply going with "earlier is more natural, later is more artificial" my own mind seems much more naturally-developed than Grog the Caveman's. Hear how I say "naturally-developed?" More fully developed. But the development is a part of nature as the germination of a plant is the part of nature, it's not somehow artificial or wrong for a plant to germinate, grow, bloom, and bear fruit.Interesting, when I say "archaic" (in humanity) it didn't mean archaic humans but archaic as "a very old instinct inscribed in the modern human (homo sapiens sapiens) psyche". Therefore the Psyche in this instance is already formed. Besides, "war" is a sophisticated concept it emplies strategy , tactics, and forward thinking therefore it doesn't make sense for archaic humans to conceptualize it without a mature psyche (i.e. fully formed) even if the war is physical. Indeed, we can not possibly accept that war in human behavior precedes the formation of the psyche albeit undeveloped. We have the same brain (and psychic) structure as those men from 40 000 years ago who indulged in warfare, hunting and gathering
I want to call out Sol for seemingly not understanding Jung. Didn't Jung said that the reason primitive people were more likely to see all these gods, demons, ghosts and the like than modern people is because they were less-developed? Psychological warfare seems orders of magnitude easier when literal magic is an option. However, forget Sol, Sol is a nobody. I'm going to call out Jung for not understanding Goethe instead. Jung gets his ideas of Urtyp (archetypes) partially from archaeology (insert Indiana Jones music here) and partially from Goethe's Urphänomen such as Urpflanze, Urlicht, etc. but he doesn't understand that Goethe always referred to the idea of development in his understanding. He wasn't like Jung, just trying to excavate the past to see what's more "natural" and therefore "better." You might as well say an embryo is less "natural" than an adult or that the blue sky is less "natural" than the yellow Sun. Jung's sources never would've drawn half the conclusions from his own work that he did.
Socionics is dumb and I feel dumber for having read it. I apologize to Noam Chomsky, Goethe, and even Jung for mentioning them on the same site as socionics.
Well, I consider the religious version of history as an alternative version in which I don't believe but use as a main paradigm when I'm interacting with most people I know (namely family members) who happen to be Muslims. I have my own "Prime directive" and I'm very careful when I'm interacting with people. I considered myself as an "agnostic" Muslim i.e. giving Religion the benefit of the doubt which was the best compromise for me because If it's true then I'll be eventually "saved" anyway (and incidentally covered my gluteus maximus !) and If not true I would have acquired some knowledge by studying it anyway (and incidentally survive and avoid ostracization in an Islamic environment). As you know, the very word "Muslim" just means "submitted" that doesn't imply the belief in God but requires the practice of Islam.
"the Prophet (saws) designated three degrees of the religion. The pinnacle is excellence (al-iḥsān), its middle is faith (al-īmān), and its base is Islam. Thus, every good-doer (muḥsin) is a believer and every believer is Muslim, but not every believer is a good-doer and not every Muslim is a believer."
Source : " Al-sahihayn : "Al Bukhari and Muslim" but really just a random first link in google search !
I use the term "Agnostic" because it's an in-between "al-īmān" and "al- islam" degree that doesn't really exist. Like I said, that's the degree I was in for the most part of my Islamic life. Now and since about five years, I am leaning more in another degree between "al-islam" and "The show must go on !". Most of my family assume that I am a "believer" even though I openly say to whom wants to hear it that I'm not, but rather that I'm just a "Muslim" which might seem paradoxical.
That said, my older brother and I used to discuss about some anachronisms (let's put it that way) between modern knowledge and the Religious Paradigm. I came up with the idea that Adam and Eve were some kind of Humans 2.0 creation and that after these two extraterrestrial entities fell into disgrace they found themselves on Earth in which Humans 1.0 were still active and has corrupted humanity with bloodshed and corruption, as attested in the following verse :
Quran 2:30 (Surah : Al Baqara (2) verse : 30)And when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am about to place a viceroy in the earth, they said: Wilt thou place therein one who will do harm therein and will shed blood, while we, we hymn Thy praise and sanctify Thee? He said: Surely I know that which ye know not.
My take on this is very simple ; all societies development are limited by the rigidity of their culture's worldview. Even in more advanced society like medieval Europe the limit of their reasoning was limited by the unanimously accepted premise or worldview in which God, angels and demons do exist and therefore everything was explained through the prism of Religion. When the limit of logical explanation (causes and effects) of natural phenomena is reached imagination takes over but always within the confines of the zeitgeist's paradigm so that whatever imagined explanation one comes up with stays coherent with that paradigm (My little theory above is an example of that) . That's true for anonymous cavemen and that's also true for Blaise Pascal, René Descartes, Spinoza etc... The pursue of knowledge implies experimentation and so called "divergent thinkers" willing to take all the risks to find answers that satisfy they thirst for truth and understanding.Didn't Jung said that the reason primitive people were more likely to see all these gods, demons, ghosts and the like than modern people is because they were less-developed? Psychological warfare seems orders of magnitude easier when literal magic is an option.
Yes, but really, you don't even perceive anything other than what you can imagine. That's how illusions even work. I think that's the whole pitfall of the idea of "empiricism" as well and the root of the replication crisis. Have you heard that supposedly Deryl Bem started the replication crisis in psychology and the broader social sciences? I'll let you look up what he's known for. Empiricism has eaten itself. Even the self-styled guardians of mainstream science say they can accept basically anything that evidence points to but oh no, not that. I'm not arguing in favor nor against Deryl Bem's hypothesis here. I'm simply stating that even the most ardently self-confessed empiricists will back out of empiricism when it proves things that seem inherently unempirical. And what Deryl Bem is arguing for I think would undermine the idea of empiricism itself, empiricism being the method of formulating hypotheses based on sense perception and Deryl Bem arguing for, well, what Deryl Bem infamously argues for.
Want to know more about why this all matters? This is why it all matters: https://acit-science.com/alchemy-and...odern-science/
But I think, what's really happened is, New Age "woo" communities aside, a certain model really has been disproven. Oh, so you're an empiricist. Is your model a sense datum? No? OK then. Isaac Newton wouldn't have been obsessed with sense data in the same way. You think people really see much anything with their eyes? I don't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY
'In his study on color (Farbenlehre), Goethe challenged the view observers can look devoid and naive of theoretical context; likewise, challenging the assumption of shared common neutral language in science research and innovation. Rather Goethe believed every act of looking at a thing turns into observation, every act of observation turns into mentation, every act of mentation turns into associations. Thus it is evident we theorize every time we look attentively out into the world." In support of Goethe, Feyerabend wrote: "Newton... did not give the explanation [of light] but simply re-described what he saw...[and] introduced the machinery of the very same theory he wanted to prove."'
Goethean science - Wikipedia
Is seeing believing? Believing is seeing. These might be logically equivalent on one level, but on another level, the causation goes in a completely different direction.
Socionics is dumb and I feel dumber for having read it. Posting about models of science is not worthwhile on a socionics site, but here it is.
I didn't who Deryl Bem was so I took some time to inform myself about him. I also got familiar with the so called "replication crisis".
Just before reading your post I was watching a debate about the 2023 edition of the Shanghai World University Ranking in which the argument was made that the number of publications was one of the main criteria in the ranking but that a certain amount of the students/researchers who are published are foreign so we don't know if the ranking is really fair...
Interesting indeed. A great deal of what is said in this article aligns with the point I made.Want to know more about why this all matters? This is why it all matters: https://acit-science.com/alchemy-and...odern-science/
But I think, what's really happened is, New Age "woo" communities aside, a certain model really has been disproven. Oh, so you're an empiricist. Is your model a sense datum? No? OK then. Isaac Newton wouldn't have been obsessed with sense data in the same way. You think people really see much anything with their eyes? I don't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY
I'm familiar with that monkey Business illusion. The brain can't consciously focus on multiple tasks. I think that focusing is like zooming, it optimizes the center and blurs the periphery. In fact a great deal of our peripheral vision is a construction of the mind, literally a simulation of reality. I think that when we focus, that peripheral simulated reality disappears because it's irrelevant to the task.
Empiricism as "seeing is believing/knowledge through senses" etc.. is obsolete, esp in our modern age of advanced technology . The senses are no longer the main instruments used in acquiring empirical data, we invented instruments that transcended our senses and made the invisible visible, the intangible measurable. Science is an empirical discipline, that's just the way it is. However Goethe was right, observations and measurements have their limits...'In his study on color (Farbenlehre), Goethe challenged the view observers can look devoid and naive of theoretical context; likewise, challenging the assumption of shared common neutral language in science research and innovation. Rather Goethe believed every act of looking at a thing turns into observation, every act of observation turns into mentation, every act of mentation turns into associations. Thus it is evident we theorize every time we look attentively out into the world." In support of Goethe, Feyerabend wrote: "Newton... did not give the explanation [of light] but simply re-described what he saw...[and] introduced the machinery of the very same theory he wanted to prove."'
Goethean science - Wikipedia
Is seeing believing? Believing is seeing. These might be logically equivalent on one level, but on another level, the causation goes in a completely different direction.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
