#psychology

This documentary video, done by a producer who has worked with some pretty famous people, has shown how and why this world is turning to shit.

It is the only place I could find to the full video, and yes, it is on X, but that makes no difference.

The documentary is professionally researched and put together. 

Through psychological warfare, or as they call it, the mere-exposure effect western civilization is being destroyed from within. 

There is a war on Western Civilization, and so far the enemy is winning. America has never been so divided across so many lines. 

Instead of a leaderboard, DebateArt should have an independent psychological group rate members on their behavior.

I have noticed a number of members who seem to be borderline irrational in their comments. 

It may be better to drop the leaderboard, and replace it with an independent analysis of their comments.

Trigger warning: This analysis presumes cisgenderism in human beings in the sense of brain structure regarding attraction. 

There is a trick that many movie directors have mastered over time to make certain movies appeal far more to females and others to males. The trick is to do with fashion, angle, lighting, facial/bodily and expression choices in the actors.

Movies that are designed to attract females actually psychologically are more boring for males to watch because of scenes consistently having colours that blend well together and the actors wearing outfits that, again, fit too nicely together. You will often find that when watching a female-targeted movie or series you almost feel like every episode is too visually similar and/or that the way the actors move during the scenes is almost too 'smooth'. This is because the female brain is, for whatever reason, put off (whether they are aroused or not is irrelevant this is about interest and genuinely grabbing their attention.

What females find makes them unable to look away from something tends to be that it is just so smooth and hypnotic.

Males tend to want something rather different but not the opposite. If you analyse male-oriented movies and series, you will find that the ones that really hit big consist of bursts of fluidity followed by 'bam'. It doesn't have to be fighting and action, it can even be a romance movie/series that happens to somehow still pull in a significant male audience (Suits comes to mind). Furthermore, these male-oriented series and movies consist of strong, bold outfits on main characters with the side characters consistently blending into the background. The male brain seems to like this as it makes it easier for them to know 'oh so that's what I should be focusing on.' It actually is why male series tend to have less eye candy than female series, despite the stereotypes. If you watch a series geared towards women, it's extremely difficult to find characters that are ugly or offputting because they would cause imbalance in the general aesthetic, whereas in series geared towards males or gender-neutral appeal, there is generally a balance between attractive and offputting actors (it's politically incorrect to use the term actresses anymore, 'actor' is gender-neutral now).

The reasoning behind this is still unknown to neurologists but it is very consistent. The strangest aspect of this is that songs geared towards women tend to have strong imbalance where the chorus slaps hard but the verses are tender and inconsistent with the chorus' vibe. In contrast, songs geared towards males tend to have the similar vibe and tonality throughout (chorus similar to the verses etc) so it is not as simple as it being a brain difference in a consistent manner, what is apparent is this is specifically to do with sight. I wonder what the reasoning is.

I won't go into myself too much here but I'll confess to having experienced genuine depression in my life and during that time, I was the closest to atheist I had been. I was always agnostic overall but what changed was when the nihilism and pure lack of meaning and purpose hit me, infected my brain so much that I wondered why I was alive and didn't want to get out of bed each day and was sad I woke up.

I am serious when I say that this thread is not meant to be about me. I want to truly understand how a round-earth believing atheist can possibly fathom themselves to be anything other than a worthless being on a spinning ball in the middle of nowhere hurtling through infinite nothingness for absolutely no true purpose and that everything good or worthwhile in their life was a ridiculously futile chemical reaction in their brain just deluding them to stupidly think there was any reason to feel fulfilled for it.

This is not made to mock; it's something I, as a Pagan/Taoist thinker find the biggest drive away from even indulging in the notion that there is/are no real deity/ies or spiritual realm in life that give my morally good actions meaning and anything I ever did a permanent, pure and irrefutable purpose as at the very least I impressed the god(dess)/(e)s watching.

There is an experiment we can have the government carry out on many children and note and then correlate to those who choose in the future to openly support a political wing but it only can work if many are in the sample.

I strongly believe that adolescence masks true ideology and has a lot more delineation with one's true core system of ethics and social reasoning than childhood or adulthood do. I furthermore assert that those of us who seem to have changed our minds in life on politics had events and hormonal imbalance in teenage years that merely already pushed us away from the true wing we are.

What I am suggesting is that politics is far more nature than nurture but that nurture can force one who is built with one wing's psychology to vote the other only as a lesser evil and they will be anomalies in what I describe.

I want you to give a toddler/child the scenario where they believe that someone in on the experiment in front of them has stolen stealthily, bullied and finally convinced with words, another person (also in on it) to give them something that the child themselves values a lot and that the other seems visibly sad to have lost.

What is measured is the level of empathy, aggression, sadistic amusement, ambivalence etc that the subject displays towards the three situations.

It is important that the subjects are not having this done by or towards someone close to them, it must be strangers or people the child has barely met get (perhaps interacted with once first, to build some rapport, this will be fine-tuned).

Children who most fervently respond to the injustice in all three scenarios will be very passionate about politics as hey grow, regardless of wing. Those that truly are upset by all three scenarios, will be passionately left-wing, while those who are among the fervent that only reacted much when force was used, will be passionately right-wing. Those that are fervent with 2 scenarios but not in particular with one, will be centrists who grow cynical of the whole system.

Those that take sadistic amusement, least when the person is talked out of it, and giggle at the whole situation, will grow to become right-wing Libertarian or some corporatist variant (even as far as ancap but not necessarily).

Those that seem to not care much at all, will grow to not vote.

Those that display fear and try to escape the room or look down at the ground wishing they could help, will become social democrats AKA progressives of a less severe kind than the fervent types.

It will be discovered that any other possible reaction combination simply never happens. It will be important to do the talking part last, so that the child understands that the talk is based on guilt-trip manipulation and not just genuine care and share mentality. The children who react barely at all to the talking part but to the other two will be left-leaning centrists while other 2-1 combinations will fluctuate in life, as the cynics hypothesised.

It seems there is multiple users here who have a mental illness, who are very vocal Christian's or spiritual in some other respect. 

 

I am not referring to mental illness such as depression, but ones where there are some clear problems with grasping reality. Should religious institutions be required to provide free psychological evaluations to new converts, to see if it was an honest conversion or just the result of some disorder that causes delusions?