Neuro-Linguistic Programming used by News Anchors

TalkieWalkie

What it says on the title.

Conspiracy being... Mainstream news are fully aware 9/11 was an inside job and do their best to hide the truth by manipulating guests, viewers.

If you know any others post them here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9BeXEvdcpo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-5klVwASGg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW6KZPTUpPE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItP53Wy3q58

sligopark

No surprise really and not only in regard to 9/11

joebucks

Cheers for the link. That Hannity fella makes me nauseous.

NLP is a very powerful technique and has been used by salesmen and showmen for a very long time. First time I came across it was watching a Louis Theroux documentary on hypnosis and pick-up artists were using it to pick up chicks. To give you an idea of the kind of character we are dealing with -the guy featured in the docu is the basis for Tom Cruise's character in Magnolia. Slighty of topic but here he is in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn_oqEOtLYU

NLP is also very popular with the likes of Anthony Robbins, Oprah Winfrey and the self-help movement which I think is a big part of the government agenda to control the masses and divert peoples attention away from social issues and onto themselves.

phantom_lord

NLP is nonsense, it's a pseudoscience.

Torakx

Im sure you have noticed at some stage of your life that sometimes an audience can be made to laugh just with a comedians gesture or facial expression.
And they can repeat it and keep getting laughs.
This would be called an anchor in nlp and i see it can work.
This can also apply to news readers.Laughing doesnt have to be the only emotion that is manipulated.And using emotion also helps pass information into the unconscious mind.

TalkieWalkie

Torakx wrote: »

Im sure you have noticed at some stage of your life that sometimes an audience can be made to laugh just with a comedians gesture or facial expression.
And they can repeat it and keep getting laughs.
This would be called an anchor in nlp and i see it can work.
This can also apply to news readers.Laughing doesnt have to be the only emotion that is manipulated.And using emotion also helps pass information into the unconscious mind.

Shown to work pretty well in the second half of this clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eZp9sjrQ0k

nullzero

phantom_lord wrote: »

NLP is nonsense, it's a pseudoscience.

Thats some statement to make.
NLP is actually quite affective.
Whether you believe it to be purely a tool for "evil" is another story all together.
Just because you're a "sceptic" doesn't mean you should make daft statements like that just because the topic was posted by a "CTer".

TwoShedsJackson

The news anchors were in on it as well? Reckon I'm about the only person that wasn't in on the 9/11 Conspiracy at this stage.

Sightaridis

Wow, I can't believe this nonsense. Particularly at the end of the first video, the narrator claims that Hannity's hand gesture when talking about the towers falling was 'sorcery'...

Conspiracy theorists are treated like this because their claims offend people, especially in such a sensitive issue as 9/11. No matter how that interview was conducted in the OP, the narrator would have paused and commented on some non-event making it seem like some of this pseudo-science was in action.

I stopped watching midway through the second video at the 666 part. Complete tosh. :rolleyes:

joebucks

phantom_lord wrote: »

NLP is nonsense, it's a pseudoscience.

Loads of illusiuonists and mentalists use NLP i think..Where's King Mob ye need him? He should be able to set the record straight on this

TalkieWalkie

Sightaridis wrote: »

Conspiracy theorists are treated like this because their claims offend people, especially in such a sensitive issue as 9/11. No matter how that interview was conducted in the OP, the narrator would have paused and commented on some non-event making it seem like some of this pseudo-science was in action.

It not just conspiracy theorists who are treated like this. Generally in society all across the world, people with a view that is considered anything but "the norm", are ridiculed and singled out by the sheep, the clones.

The reason for this is to keep people in line, to keep them in fear of being ridiculed by the masses.

It takes courage and character to stand out from the crowd and speak your mind. These actions should be encouraged and applauded weather he is right or wrong or weather the topic is "sensitive" or not.

They invited him on the air when they could have just left it.
They invited answers from the professor but cut him off midway multiple times when they could have just left it.
They insulted and ridiculed him with the risk of exposing themselves for what they are when they could have just left it.

The professor was invited onto the show for one reason, it is quite obvious and it is this...

They wanted to subconsciously anchor automated reactions and emotions in the viewers minds for when they are approached by someone with the same opinions as the professor their automatic response will be...

"oh, I seen this on the news, you're an extremist nut who hates his Country".

So, wow, I can't believe your response to this blatantly obvious form of "sorcery".

NLP ? who knows for sure. Mass manipulation ? Absofukinlutely.

gizmo

Meh, the only thing these "conservative political commentators" make me want to do is vomit. If that's their aim then congratulations, just don't think for a second I'll ever vote for you or your ilk.

To deal with the subject at hand though, look at Hannity while interviewing that nut from the Westboro Baptist Church. He's doing exactly the same thing with regards cutting her off and making the hand motions, you think he's trying to do something similar?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEGLFJ-Nqq4

Sightaridis

TalkieWalkie wrote:

It takes courage and character to stand out from the crowd and speak your mind. These actions should be encouraged and applauded weather he is right or wrong or weather the topic is "sensitive" or not.

Using 9/11 as an example again, why would these people be encouraged and applauded when their claims are often absurd an offensive? What about those conspiracy theorists that claim there were no planes and that the people who were meant to be on the planes were murdered or brought to some secret military base? Or the people who disrespect some of the greatest human achievements by saying we never landed on the moon or that aliens built the pyramids?

The professor was invited onto the show for one reason, it is quite obvious and it is this...

It's probably nothing more than Fox having nothing of interest happening that day. An interview with a CT abut 9/11 is always going to spark viewer interest.

They wanted to subconsciously anchor automated reactions and emotions in the viewers minds for when they are approached by someone with the same opinions as the professor their automatic response will be...

Viewers would have the same reactions anyway because that is how most people respond to claims that your government massacred over 3000 of their own citizens in the guise of a terrorist attack, they don't need to conduct some carefully orchestrated interview to subconsciously tell people how to react to CTs. It's a natural reaction.

So, wow, I can't believe your response to this blatantly obvious form of "sorcery".

areyouawizard.jpg

studiorat

Torakx wrote: »

Im sure you have noticed at some stage of your life that sometimes an audience can be made to laugh just with a comedians gesture or facial expression.

So where's the linguistic element in that then?

For NLP to work if indeed it does at all, the communication needs to be two way. The programmer needs to steer the person being programmed according to their responses. The client's utterances are what the programmer hones in on...

Now unless you're a complete nut job and think that your television is watching you how the hell can you have NLP via a one way communication such as television?

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

It not just conspiracy theorists who are treated like this. Generally in society all across the world, people with a view that is considered anything but "the norm", are ridiculed and singled out by the sheep, the clones.

The reason for this is to keep people in line, to keep them in fear of being ridiculed by the masses.

.

Not even a page into the discussion and the persecution complex and self-affirmation card comes out.

And since we're kinda on the subject, psychologically speaking this is what happens when someone's integrity is challenged. By feeling the need to affirm their stance shows us that the OP, is suffering cognitive dissonance, that's to say they don't fully believe the argument they are initially putting forward.

phantom_lord

nullzero wrote: »

Thats some statement to make.
NLP is actually quite affective.
Whether you believe it to be purely a tool for "evil" is another story all together.
Just because you're a "sceptic" doesn't mean you should make daft statements like that just because the topic was posted by a "CTer".

It really isn't.

Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology

There's no sound scientific basis or research supporting NLP and it's pretty derided by psychologists in general.

A much better CT would have been whether it was made up to peddle seminars to gullible people, but I doubt there's any youtube videos on that.

Torakx

studiorat wrote: »

So where's the linguistic element in that then?

For NLP to work if indeed it does at all, the communication needs to be two way. The programmer needs to steer the person being programmed according to their responses. The client's utterances are what the programmer hones in on...

Now unless you're a complete nut job and think that your television is watching you how the hell can you have NLP via a one way communication such as television?

Thats debateable really.NLP as a topic has been considered to cover not only the linguistic aspect, but also communication through gestures and facial signs as well as kinestethic ques.
What they supposedly have learned is that humans in general respond to well known gestures.
The comedian impersonating G.W Bush was a good example of that.And for me shows an ability to be able to remember symbols and programme them into a routine.Reminds me of other symbols that are used in the media.
I agree though that it is more effective when the practicioner is in person and has a one on one situation to work with.Then it is much more effective.The stuff the news readers are using looks effective with symbols and sometimes tone of voice i guess.Also alot of WHAT they say when phrasing a comment of question is very leading.
You wont notice alot of stuff when just seeing it once live on the news,so i would say it has the possibilities to be very effective still,but in a very mild and subtle way.

joebucks

joebucks wrote: »

Loads of illusiuonists and mentalists use NLP i think..Where's King Mob ye need him? He should be able to set the record straight on this

The NLP you are describing is total bull**** invented by people who want there to be a conspiracy read too much into anything to "prove" it.

The NLP used by mentalist is nothing like what the people in the news are supposedly do, nor can it actually produce the effects that are being claimed.

Most mentalists don't use it as often as they claim anyway.

joebucks

Thanks for replying, from your profile signature i thought you would be knowledgeable on this subject.

King Mob wrote: »

The NLP you are describing is total bull****

I disagree. Politicians, news anchors, talk show hosts,salespeople etc are trained to use language (both verbal and non-verbal) to influence the emotions of the audience/customer.

invented by people who want there to be a conspiracy read too much into anything to "prove" it.

Even if the presenters are using NLP as the video suggests, it would not prove any conspiracy to be true.

The NLP used by mentalist is nothing like what the people in the news are supposedly do, nor can it actually produce the effects that are being claimed.
Most mentalists don't use it as often as they claim anyway.

I am very interested in this topic, is there any resources you can direct me towards to find out more about the NLP used by mentalists?

joebucks

joebucks wrote: »

I disagree. Politicians, news anchors, talk show hosts,salespeople etc are trained to use language (both verbal and non-verbal) to influence the emotions of the audience/customer.

Even if the presenters are using NLP as the video suggests, it would not prove any conspiracy to be true.

What evidence do you have that they such training?
Because all I see in those videos is people trying hard to find significance in nothing to support their forgone conclusions.

joebucks wrote: »

I am very interested in this topic, is there any resources you can direct me towards to find out more about the NLP used by mentalists?

No. Magician's code.

joebucks

King Mob wrote: »

What evidence do you have that they such training?
.

I can't share that with you. CT code.

joebucks

joebucks wrote: »

I can't share that with you. CT code.

That would explain the total lack of actual evidence around here....

nullzero

King Mob wrote: »

That would explain the total lack of actual evidence around here....

Ah come on. It was a good comeback, he got you good. Just laugh it off.;)

joebucks

King Mob wrote: »

That would explain the total lack of actual evidence around here....

What evidence are you looking for? That Hannity or politicians or the like have media coaching or communications training?

This fella here Eric Seidel claims Hannity himself as one of his students

http://www.tmt-themediatrainers.com/about/meet_trainers.shtml

During his broadcast news and programming career, he hired and developed two well known nationally syndicated radio hosts, Sean Hannity and Clark Howard. Also, future network anchors and reporters, including Forrest Sawyer, Louise Schiavonne and Ed Gullo worked for him when he led what was at the time the Southeast's largest and most highly honored radio news staff at WGST, Atlanta. His news staff captured many awards, including the International Programming Award, a national Sigma Delta Chi/Society of Professional Journalists Award and several Radio-TV News Director Association Edward R. Murrow Awards.

As for politicians, here is a recent article about Nick Clegg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1267839/How-Nick-Clegg-prepared-TV-debate-Sky-presenter-tells-talk-public-like-year-olds.html

A spokesman for the Lib Dems insisted it was ‘no secret’ that Mr Clegg had been using media training.

Although Mr Chisholm advises against jargon, his firm teaches its clients to use ‘neuro-linguistic programming’ to ‘train their brain to create a successful outcome to every meeting and speaking opportunity’.

joebucks

joebucks wrote: »

What evidence are you looking for? That Hannity or politicians or the like have media coaching or communications training?

That they have been trained with NLP for the purpose of controlling those who watch them.
Or evidence that NLP can do any of the crap that's being claimed?

joebucks wrote: »

This fella here Eric Seidel claims Hannity himself as one of his students

http://www.tmt-themediatrainers.com/about/meet_trainers.shtml

No mention of NLP that I can see.
Nothing there about him training all news presenters....

joebucks wrote: »

As for politicians, here is a recent article about Nick Clegg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1267839/How-Nick-Clegg-prepared-TV-debate-Sky-presenter-tells-talk-public-like-year-olds.html

I find it ironic that is a thread about how the media is trying to control people you then post an article from the Daily Mail.

Also:

‘train their brain to create a successful outcome to every meeting and speaking opportunity’.

That doesn't sound like the crap that's being claimed about NLP.

And finally, why if all the media and the government are trying to secretly control people with NLP, why is this being reported at all?

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

Ah come on. It was a good comeback, he got you good. Just laugh it off.;)

Gonna join in on the discussion at all?

nullzero

King Mob wrote: »

Gonna join in on the discussion at all?

I was being nice to you.
You're a real ray of sunshine aren't you?

TalkieWalkie

Sightaridis wrote: »

Using 9/11 as an example again, why would these people be encouraged and applauded when their claims are often absurd an offensive? What about those conspiracy theorists that claim there were no planes and that the people who were meant to be on the planes were murdered or brought to some secret military base? Or the people who disrespect some of the greatest human achievements by saying we never landed on the moon or that aliens built the pyramids?

It not offensive to think or speak. The theories are only absurd to someone who has other beliefs, which would in turn be absurd to the theorist. Still, i didn't see the professor belittling or insulting the news anchor.
As for the no planes theory.. I didn't see anyone on tv backing that theory, but if they were on tv I should hope they would be treated with respect, regardless of their views. Thousands of pilots, engineers, firefighters, architects in the U.S, millions of people all over the world (including the majority of Muslims) believe it was an inside job. But the U.S government (the main suspects) told you they didn't do it, so you believe them :rolleyes:
As for the moon landing and the construction of the pyramids... well, again, you're just going along with popular belief again.

Sightaridis wrote: »

It's probably nothing more than Fox having nothing of interest happening that day. An interview with a CT abut 9/11 is always going to spark viewer interest.

You're telling me that in a country of over 300 million people, a news station had nothing better to do than ridicule a college professor for his beliefs ? :rolleyes:
A pathetic statement in my opinion.
On the contrary, I would say it was high on their agenda to get this right.

Sightaridis wrote: »

Viewers would have the same reactions anyway because that is how most people respond to claims that your government massacred over 3000 of their own citizens in the guise of a terrorist attack, they don't need to conduct some carefully orchestrated interview to subconsciously tell people how to react to CTs. It's a natural reaction.

No, but it helps, doesn't it ?
When you are in work, don't folk repeat the sh!t they heard on the radio in the car on the way in ?
I'll answer that for you... Yes

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

I was being nice to you.
You're a real ray of sunshine aren't you?

So no then?

nullzero

King Mob wrote: »

So no then?

I already did... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68033639&postcount=7

You gave the guy a smart answer and he threw it back at you.
Surely you should take it with good grace and laugh it off.
It was funny when you were taking the piss out of him but when the boot's on the other foot the defence comes up.


Get me on PM if you want to take this further and cheer up will you?

TalkieWalkie

A fantastic example of NLP in action. I suppose the only question is... Is the show rigged

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOY60jPPg0w

RGDATA!

Torakx wrote: »

Thats debateable really.NLP as a topic has been considered to cover not only the linguistic aspect, but also communication through gestures and facial signs as well as kinestethic ques.
What they supposedly have learned is that humans in general respond to well known gestures.

The term NLP is a bit fuzzy to me. The likes of Hannity obviously know a lot about manipulating their interviewees and their audience, and they've all been coached in some way, or use techniques they've learned at some stage. Is there something Hannity is doing in those interviews which is specific to NLP, or is NLP a general term which is now used to describe ways of influencing people verbally and by gesture? In that general sense it seems like more of an art than a science to me.

TalkieWalkie

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

A fantastic example of NLP in action.

Like when you see the magician saw a lady in half, it's a fantastic example of real magic in action.

Note how Derren Brown always says at the start of a show he uses a combination of hypnosis, magic suggestion and NLP to achieve these effects.
So what you are seeing isn't what you're getting, just what Derren Brown wants you to see.

But if you believe everything you see on TV.

TalkieWalkie

King Mob wrote: »

Like when you see the magician saw a lady in half, it's a fantastic example of real magic in action.

Note how Derren Brown always says at the start of a show he uses a combination of hypnosis, magic suggestion and NLP to achieve these effects.
So what you are seeing isn't what you're getting, just what Derren Brown wants you to see.

But if you believe everything you see on TV.

yeah i do, thanks king

Sightaridis

TalkieWalkie wrote:

As for the no planes theory.. I didn't see anyone on tv backing that theory, but if they were on tv I should hope they would be treated with respect, regardless of their views.

Treated with some respect? Yes, but encouraged and applauded? No chance.

Thousands of pilots, engineers, firefighters, architects in the U.S, millions of people all over the world (including the majority of Muslims) believe it was an inside job.

That doesn't mean it was.

You're telling me that in a country of over 300 million people, a news station had nothing better to do than ridicule a college professor for his beliefs ?

Yes. As I said, an interview with a 9/11 CT sparks viewer interest, people want to see the interview. As for the way he was treated, it is to be expected when you're a conspiracy theorist.

A pathetic statement in my opinion.

You call my logical statement pathetic and yet expect us to believe that the professor was hand picked to take part in a carefully orchestrated interview, the goal of which was to brainwash the masses into reacting to 9/11 CTs in a way they naturally would anyway! Why can't it just be that Fox wanted to do an interview that would guarantee viewers? Why does everything have to be a conspiracy?

I would say it was high on their agenda to get this right.

Why?

No, but it helps, doesn't it ?

It makes no difference because people are going to react that way anyway.

joebucks

King Mob wrote: »

That they have been trained with NLP for the purpose of controlling those who watch them.
Or evidence that NLP can do any of the crap that's being claimed?

I asked you for what your interpretation of NLP was and you refused to give it.

I have provided evidence for training of what I believe part of NLP to be. Which is the use of verbal and non-verbal communication to influence the audience. Look into what TMT media trainers do or what Electric Airwaves, the company that trained Nick Clegg do before dismissing the evidence I have provided.

Until you can disclose your secret opinion of what NLP does, your contribution here is unhelpful.

TalkieWalkie

Sightaridis wrote: »

Treated with some respect? Yes, but encouraged and applauded? No chance.

So you have changed your tune. You first stated he deserved to be treated the way he was because his theory was absurd and offensive and you compared it to aliens building the pyramids.
Now you believe he should be treated with respect.
There's a good boy.

Sightaridis wrote: »

That doesn't mean it was.

I'm not trying to prove it was. I am questioning, should we treat all those many millions of people with the same disrespect that FOX has shown the professor ? Obviously the answer is NO !!! which tells us that FOX are in the wrong. Which tells us that you are in the wrong for defending them.

Sightaridis wrote: »

Yes. As I said, an interview with a 9/11 CT sparks viewer interest, people want to see the interview. As for the way he was treated, it is to be expected when you're a conspiracy theorist.

Thats not just what you said is it ?

It's probably nothing more than Fox having nothing of interest happening that day.

So now you're back tracking ? Either they had nothing to do that day ?
Or it was a clever PR stunt ?

Sightaridis wrote: »

You call my logical statement pathetic and yet expect us to believe that the professor was hand picked to take part in a carefully orchestrated interview, the goal of which was to brainwash the masses into reacting to 9/11 CTs in a way they naturally would anyway! Why can't it just be that Fox wanted to do an interview that would guarantee viewers? Why does everything have to be a conspiracy?

Some will have that view already, some wont. These tactics will reinforce their beliefs or help them decide. It's clearly manipulation.
It's what FOX do, they are a known propaganda machine. Everything doesn't have to be a conspiracy, unfortunately many things are and have always been.
Here is another example of FOX mass manipulation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntcdkgy3emc

Would you suggest he a nut who hates his country ? I don't think so. I would suggest the anchor does more so.

Sightaridis wrote: »

Why?

Because as you suggested. It was a PR stunt, they probably sparked a lot of interest. So they had to get it right.

Sightaridis wrote: »

It makes no difference because people are going to react that way anyway.

It does make a difference. TV influences peoples opinions all the time, especially news channels. The can influence peoples behaviour, emotion, reactions and beliefs. Take yourself for example.




Don't feel like you have to reply to this, it's getting tedious and repetitive, you are backtracking and you're wrong.

Sightaridis

TalkieWalkie wrote:

You first stated he deserved to be treated the way he was

I never said that.

TalkieWalkie wrote:

So you have changed your tune.

I haven't changed my tune. Firstly, I never claimed that the professor's claims were absurd, I said often 9/11 conspiracy theories are. His theory that it was a controlled demolition, while I don't agree with it, I wouldn't call it absurd. Those who claim there were no planes or that the Jews did it, that is absurd.

Secondly:

TalkieWalkie wrote:

Now you believe he should be treated with respect.

When did I say he shouldn't be? Just because I said he shouldn't be encouraged doesn't mean he deserves no respect. Again, you're finding things that aren't even there, you seem to have a talent in that area.

TalkieWalkie wrote:

Thats not just what you said is it ?

Excuse me?

Here's what I said:

It's probably nothing more than Fox having nothing of interest happening that day. An interview with a CT abut 9/11 is always going to spark viewer interest.

Then a few posts later:

Yes. As I said, an interview with a 9/11 CT sparks viewer interest, people want to see the interview. As for the way he was treated, it is to be expected when you're a conspiracy theorist.

My point was that Fox likely had nothing of interest that day, so they lined up an interview that would be interesting. But I guess your explanation is a lot edgier.

TalkieWalkie wrote:

Would you suggest he a nut who hates his country ? I don't think so. I would suggest the anchor does more so.

The guy is not a nut nor does he hate his country. In my opinion he's just got it wrong. As for Bill O'Reilly, this is nothing more than him being his usual asshole self. Anyone he disagrees with will get the same treatment as that professor.

TalkieWalkie wrote:

It does make a difference. TV influences peoples opinions all the time, especially news channels. The can influence peoples behaviour, emotion, reactions and beliefs. Take yourself for example.

Me huh? The guy who has about 4 stations on a TV he never watches. Great example there.

TalkieWalkie wrote:

Don't feel like you have to reply to this

Don't worry, I wont let your slimy attempt to discredit me go unanswered.

TalkieWalkie

Sightaridis wrote: »

As for Bill O'Reilly, this is nothing more than him being his usual asshole self. Anyone he disagrees with will get the same treatment as that professor.


Don't worry, I wont let your slimy attempt to discredit me go unanswered.

It appears we have come full circle.

Fox using biased assh0le anchors who will insult, intimidate and belittle anyone who differs from their opinion.

While they may or may not be using NLP tactics they certainly are manipulating audiences.

You do a good job of discrediting yourself.

Torakx

When you notice you are argueing thats when its gettng personal imo and a change in some form is handy, ussually perspective.

I do agree what the anchorrs are doing is used on not just specific targets and sometimes not at all.
What i believe is the case is the anchors are made or just are very aware of, company politics and who their employers want them to build up and take down for want of better descriptions.
I think this is when nlp trainning or really well trained public speakers have an advantage over normal people.They know the power of gestures and body language.They know how to raise and lower the tone of their bvoice and i would imagine it is a big aspect of the job just saying things in the correct tone.
I hear actors have something like seven different ways to say the same word.I cant remember now what the comment was but there are alot of different tones that alot of people dont pick up on.
Same goes for gestures.
Obama uses gestures when speaking about good things his hands or fingers may point towards himself as he speaks about health policy and picking the "right choice" as he points to himself.
There are many subtle ways to use gestures that go semi noticed or unnoticed.Allowing people to talk and create layers of meaning at the same time.
I think nlp is partly a sham because i dont believe you can be trained so fast to do this.It could take many years of practise and observation.
So yes there are people taking advantage as ussual with nlp like many others things,but i do not see that as a reason to discount all the positive things or even the negative that do have an effect.
Anchors and politicians use it to be more able to manipulate public oppinion.
Teachers should be using it to make better connections with the kids they are teaching.
It has its ups and its downs.Overall i think its a topic worth looking into just to gain some basic insights into human behaviour.I value psychology just as much,maybe a fair bit more.Every bit of information has benefits for me.
Its naive to think this is the be all and end all of human behavioural studies but also naive to think it has no effect at all.

Sightaridis

TalkieWalkie wrote:

You do a good job of discrediting yourself.

Your last post was basically you accusing me of saying things I never did, so lets not talk about discrediting ones self.

Joshua Jones

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9023362.stm

I watched this Newsnight interview recently and by the end of it I was spitting feathers. Dame Anne Lesley, Daily Mail journalist and member of "secret think tank" calls the interviewee a "Kitten" and says she doesn't respect his opinion.

His cause, A global day of peace. The scoundral.

Seriously, I dont know how people would justify war rather than promote peace.