Control freaks v humans

thelightcavalry
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:11 pm

Control freaks v humans

Post by thelightcavalry »

"No one is truly safe from COVID-19 until everyone is safe....Public health leaders should focus on efforts that maximally suppress viral infection rates...continued public health measures, such as face masks and physical distancing, will be vital"
Susan Michie
Professor of Health Psychology and Director of the UCL Centre for Behaviour Change, UCL, SAGE savant.
et al.

"What seems to be going on is that every one is covering their backs. Ministers want to pass the buck to the scientists. They want to be able to say “What a triumph for our policies” if things turn out fine; and “We followed the science” if they turn out badly. The scientists don’t like being made to carry the can for what is basically a political judgment. They want to be able to say “These were only scenarios, not predictions” if things turn out fine; and “We told you so” if they turn out badly. Each group is trying to manipulate the other. Balanced assessments based on actual evidence are sadly missing.

There are more important things at stake than the reputation of ministers or their advisers. Human beings are social animals. Interaction with other people is not a luxury. It is a basic human need. It is also the foundation of our mental health, our social organisation, our leisure activities and our economy.

There is a breed of public health officials who are indifferent to these things. They have never reflected, at any rate in public, on what makes life worth living. As far as they are concerned, human beings are just instruments of government health policy. They will be lining up to tell us that it is dangerous to return to normal life because we cannot be absolutely sure that normal life will be risk-free. "
Lord Sumption

Health Seeker
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2020 11:21 am

Re: Control freaks v humans

Post by Health Seeker »

I'm not sure those psychologists are indifferent. I think they relish the opportunity to experiment on society. Normally they only get to do such experiments on rats. Perhaps if they have a big budget, monkeys, but not in their natural environment. They don't intend to let their research material go without a fight.

Splatt
Posts: 1436
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Control freaks v humans

Post by Splatt »

Susan Michie as well as being an actual, literal paid up member of the communist party (strange she doesnt want capitalism to restart...) also has absolutely no qualifications in public health, epidemiology or any health related field.

She's a behavioural psychologist and as such has no training, expertise or qualifications to be making ANY statements about public health pretending to be in a position on authority.

She however is one of the most dangerous individuals on SAGE - a political extremist whos job role AND expertise is in psychological manipulation and coercion of a population.

In any sane vetting process, her political affiliations alone would disqualify her from such a sensitive position.

Nobody
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:05 pm

Re: Control freaks v humans

Post by Nobody »

I am not smart enough or well educated enough to make this point with sufficient gravity but I do read philosophy relating to cognition. Someone says:

Human beings are social animals. Interaction with other people is not a luxury. It is a basic human need. It is also the foundation of our mental health, our social organisation, our leisure activities and our economy.

This is of course correct but it is fundamental to our cognitive function. The interesting part of the research is that it is absorption in involving interactions, human contexts, public contexts, that make available pathways that render perceptually available the sense that orients us in the world, but this orientation is not merely conscious, it is fundamental to our well-being (this is why deprivation and stigma ((my main interest and why I have been doing this work for about 25 years)) are also injurious). Worldly detail is interpersonally constituted, in the research they call them "access movements" and "vehicles of content", via our involvement with others (this is obviously why parents are anxious to introduce their children to other children and to a human world of contexts): the detail of the perceptual world arises from sensorimotor involvement that make it available and are the medium of our development, so that, obviously, lockdown (or home-learning) will detrimentally affect cognitive function and well-being. You all take this for granted which is why it appears complex and wordy and overly conceptualised because it is tacit to your normal cognitive functionality. For some, the devalued, unemployed, it is absent so you experience the deprivation. I first started down this track doing a PhD on deprivation in south yorkshire and was confronted with making sense of what people were telling me, which I experienced since I had no hope of a career and was condemned to unemployment after, so that is why I understand this stuff but this is all relevant to the challenge of everything that woman says. Even if what she said was true, that is, even if it the virus was a genuine threat, this could never be the solution and, what is most sickening, it never would be for those proposing all this who will not be living like this. I saw that one of the Sage group had flown to Singapore in January to a conference. It is lock-down everyone else, but we want our lives to go on and this is another reason why the policies they have instituted could never be appropriate: they are hypocritical and impractical. But their arguments presume that we are somehow merely physiological organisms that need to subsist, sadly, this is not the nature of our organism and our existence and moral and political creatures, as hybrids that physiognomically incarnate consciousness, requires an appropriate strategy that respects our individual capacities and our liberties: are we not capable of making informed and considered opinions in relation to our fellows? Must we have enforced upon impractical and corrosive measures that reduce us to atoms. These people are monstrous and their own alienation, arising from their security and separation, is only too apparent in the drivel they produce. It needs to be condemned and they need consigning to ignominy as they have condemned others.

thelightcavalry
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:11 pm

Re: Control freaks v humans

Post by thelightcavalry »

A fascistic creature like Michie can thrive under a Conservative government, whereas effective conservatives like Toby Young (resigned when undermined by Jo Johnson and T. May) or Roger Scruton (dismissed) are evicted from influence at the behest of the Guardian or New Statesman. Hence the Con in Conservative and our present subjection to totalitarian fiat.

funtimes
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:45 am

Re: Control freaks v humans

Post by funtimes »

Your argument is not going to stand up to any logical and sane debate because a) control freaks ARE humans and b) being in a position of power doesn't make you inhuman although it can and often will blunt your already waning conscience and promote traits in people that probably already exist.

We are talking about power folks. And while it's easy to say those who chase it are not human, those who do not chase it are themselves delusional because they too would chase it if they could. Poor people attack rich people for being rich but they would attack poor people if they were rich, like most rich people do. Does this make everybody inhuman then? If we all have the potential to exhibit particular behaviours that we socially consider unacceptable, aren't we all inhuman?

Power attracts particular people with particular personality traits, most of these traits arguably a product of their conditioning, some of it inherited genetically. We know quite a lot about this as it's been extensively studied. Psychopaths for example are born, not created. Many spend their lives as low level criminals although many actually become successful and utilise their traits to good effect and can really be empowering. Does that make this psychopath inhuman? Sociopaths though are created. At least that's the theory on it anyway. Their environment defines the development of their personality and essentially hardwires them to seek out particular outcomes we consider unacceptable and abnormal, hence why that behaviour is indicative of a psychiatric disorder. You will find these people already had a predisposition to certain behaviours that are now visible in their influence on current policies. All that happened is a niche moment in time occurred in which these behaviours were encouraged under the guise of a global emergency therefore shrouding scrutiny and the usual processes that act as fail safe mechanisms to prevent overreach of power. These people have simply rearranged themselves with the best seats in the house in order to stretch the boundaries and jockey for power and influence over what is going on.

This doesn't infer they are not human. It infers the various environmental factors were present for them to get away with acting in certain ways, magnified by social approval and validation and also because society holds positions of power and authority with high regard therefore reinforcing the self image of the subject, which can also impact their ability to draw a line in the sand and maintain a stable sense of self. Celebrities are another good example of people who we encourage to have particular traits and then applaud them for doing things most "normal" people would be reprimanded for.

None of this makes them inhuman. It is simply our failure to actually look at our own inconsistent perceptions and the double standards in our approach to understanding others around us. It is often simply a projection of ourselves projected out onto the subject. And because society and culture actively promote people with these traits, we find it difficult to process when they do things wrong. Again, we need to look at ourselves and be able to understand the dynamics of our own thinking and belief systems. Only then can we actually see the reality of the situation and choose to take action that best suits us, as opposed to simply ad hominum attacks that aim to dehumanize someone because we quite simply do not understand ourselves in relation to that person.

That isn't to say these traits are desirable. These are traits that most high profile criminals have as well as tyrants of past and present. These are the traits that make criminology and true crime books hundreds of pages long, because these people are complex but also so dangerous and unpredictable.

Either way, it doesn't make them inhuman. Same said for control freaks. You do not need to be a power hungry politician or scientist to be a control freak but equally it doesn't make you inhuman or on the severe end of the spectrum in terms of disorder. We like to think it does but in reality, controlling others is a basic human desire. We want to control everything at our core. The primitive instinct of our animal existence is based on control, this is why we have created elaborate divides between us and others, inside and outside. This is a form of control. We seek to control our environments, our relationships, our thoughts, feelings, emotions. We even seek to control these in other people. Everybody is guilty of this because everybody has these traits built into them.

To what degree? That's another question altogether and one that spans an entirety of a person's life. The first port of call would be to understand a person's life history and then gradually unfold the many variables that have created the person you see before you. I say person because a person is really a facade and we can all be explained in terms of what constitutes this facade we create on a daily basis. Persona actually means mask in Greek and it was taken from shows in which actors would assume a particular role, or in our context, a personality. Personality > persona > mask. They would present this persona to the audience and would therefore assume the identity of a person, the construct that today we consider the basic foundations of our identity.

We really don't have identities though. But that's another thing altogether. That's why we are so evidently capable of being conditioned, brainwashed and programmed or whatever you want to call it. Governments know this very well. Here we are today. Its all a facade, a very thin veil that we often try and make very real by externalising ourselves and explaining ourselves in relation to our environments. This creates a reinforcing effect that tells us we are very real. But are we?

Whatever that answer is we are definetly human.
Or, we are whatever exists beyond our limited vocab and the constraining effect of language and its inability to explain the unexplainable. Of which is ultimately all of life. Again, reality has been taken from us, a reality we assumed was real. If it was real it would be universal and everlasting. If we are who we say we are why now are we asking ourselves who we are here? Because our external environments are no longer reinforcing those identities, a key component in psychological torture to remove the ability for people to self govern and regulate in a relationship of sorts with their environment. Deprivation, lack of stimulation,
violations of body, mind, spirit etc. All ways of deconstructing the model of self people have in their mind.

Interesting stuff. People should be learning about this.
But nope, let's just call everybody who is on the "bad" side inhuman. Let's seperate control freaks from humans like the good little DV victims that we are never seeking to really understand the humbling nature of our relationship with these experiences and seeking to understand that invalidation is often the biggest hurdle to coming to terms with such experiences because we really want others to be inhuman in order to make us more human. But doesn't that create the inverse? Aren't we doing what they are doing to us while pretending we are entitled to dehumanise them because they dehumanised us?


Pieces of sh*t is what they are but inhuman? Detestable? Absolutely. Would you want to harm them in unimaginable ways? Probably.

thelightcavalry
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:11 pm

Re: Control freaks v humans

Post by thelightcavalry »

Funtimes, it's a metaphor like your use of 'monstrous' or 'piece of sh+t'.

Had I a Sociology PhD I might write a thesis to say so.

funtimes
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:45 am

Re: Control freaks v humans

Post by funtimes »

thelightcavalry wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:54 am Funtimes, it's a metaphor like your use of 'monstrous' or 'piece of sh+t'.

Had I a Sociology PhD I might write a thesis to say so.
thelightcavalry wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:54 am Funtimes, it's a metaphor like your use of 'monstrous' or 'piece of sh+t'.

Had I a Sociology PhD I might write a thesis to say so.
When people talk about control freaks as being separate to humans and yet then exhibit behaviours of control freaks the whole point becomes mute. Which is the point I was trying to make so I appreciate your willingness to contribute to the validity of this.

You're telling me your reality is superior to my reality and then seeking to invalidate my perceptions in order to make yours superior. You're doing it through group dynamics ie the perception that the group shared reality is superior to the reality of the individual. Seems pretty similar to what is going on out there right now, wouldn't you agree? You're licking your wounds and then seeking to control the narrative in order to minimise further damage to your ego but this is an impossible task, as you have evidently found out heavily represented in the way you come across on here. This is precisely what is going on now in the world around you. Take a look in the mirror, you are part of the problem, you're just now not socially acceptable and your agendas are obsolete and it hurts your narcissistic personality structure. You want to be important and now you're not. You want others to make you feel important again but that's not happening anytime soon. You want what the powerful want and you're willing to control others to get it. So you're seeking to invalidate and control others to seek compensation for your divorce from society. Doesn't make you less controlling, it actually makes you more controlling, you just become more vulnerable which usually makes your behaviours more covert and malignant. Rich and powerful people can get away with controlling people much more because they are not vulnerable. They are out in the open about it. You do not have that privelege, hence why you are here seeking to heal the narcissistic injury. They have the capacity to control their environment because they are used to dominating environments through wealth and power. You do not, hence your projection onto me. That makes you very controlling. To you, you have no choice but to control everything because you are losing more and more around each week. So you're seeking to control others in the last remaining places you can, like here, only you're doing it in a way that makes you a victim so to seek others to manipulate into a triangulated relationship, itself very similar to cult dynamics with destructive potential when the victims seek to project all their problems out onto an object without understanding that the object is often anybody or anything that questions their perceptions.

Makes taking places like this with a pinch of salt and never rushing to get involved when the majority of the people behind them have ulterior motives that are purely based on their self absorbed and narcissistic pathology. There are no saints in society. There is nothing on our society that escapes the universality of the human condition, regardless of how righteous and deluded you are, hence my response, something that offended you greatly because it cuts through the fragile defense mechanisms and self image you're desperately clinging onto. It doesn't apologise for YOUR OWN dark side. Who would have thought you had them? Surely not? Some humans are just, perfect, right? Completely exempt from being selfish, controlling, insecure, vulnerable and generally just f*cked up? If you find one human that has existed that does not come with the darkness of the human condition within him/her you the whole world will want to talk to you. We're not holding your breath.

That makes you a piece of sh*t just like the "bad guys" only what makes you a piece of sh*t is the fact that you think you're above and beyond being a human with all these potentialities within him. At least the "bad guys" are expressing them and not apologising. A person who can accept they are simply as as*hole are better humans than those who preach the sun shines out of their a*s. That's what this post is essentially supporting. You are exhibiting the same traits under the guise of being a different breed altogether. That makes you worse. I'm pretty sure the people behind all the agendas know full well they are f*cked up. Unlike you they accept it and they can do so because they actually seek to create environments that reflect that whereas you cannot do much other than create an avatar on a forum and cry for help. How's that working out for you?

Go out and make waves and embrace all the darkness and light in your condition. You might find some of these dark traits can benefit you when they are used in an effective manner but just being the good little samaritan whose harboring all these human desires and not able to channel them effectively pay a heavy price for not being congruent and living up to who they are. You won't do it under the delusion that you're only the good things that represent humanity and none of the bad. That automatically implies the bad represent humanity because you're acknowledging it in the first place, but cannot fully integrate it. There's acceptance if it's in others but denial if it's in you. It's like the do no harm good guy you meet who only talks about peace and love and happiness and everything being connected. He fails to recognise he is representing all the darkness right there by way of proxy by trying to manipulate people into believing he's holier than thou and can do no harm. Every human can do harm. But a person who denies that and wants to painted as a perfect person? The most dangerous person there is in society because he has deluded himself into believing he's above everybody else and will not bring awareness to the harm this can cause.

Also, maybe learn the difference between psychology and sociology while you're at it champ.

Health Seeker
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2020 11:21 am

Re: Control freaks v humans

Post by Health Seeker »

Splatt wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 1:24 pm Susan Michie... In any sane vetting process, her political affiliations alone would disqualify her from such a sensitive position.
According to a profile of Susan Michie on the Left Lockdown Sceptics website, she is not a true communist, but a 'tankie'. The basis of this pejorative is that The Communist Party of Britain, of which she is a member, approved of the Soviets sending in tanks to crush the 1956 Hungarian uprising and 1968 Prague Spring. There was also a pandemic in 1968, but in those days not even Stalinists were so hubristic as to attempt eradication of an endemic virus by totalitarian means.

thelightcavalry
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:11 pm

Re: Control freaks v humans

Post by thelightcavalry »

Funtimes, too bad logorrhea isn't an Olympic sport.

Post Reply