The Sabido Method

deceptivetechniques.wordpress.co … do-method/

[b]The Sabido Method and Education Entertainment

or How To Manipulate Large Populations Using Media[/b]

Humans learn values and morals from their peer group. Although these are taught through religion and schooling as well, few people put abstract theory into action and mold their behavior according to prescribed concepts of which behaviors are proper. Much more influential is the behavior and actions of those around them. In the past this meant people would learn from family and friends the values, morals and beliefs which informed their opinions and shaped their behavior. With the advent of television and the subsequent degradation of community and family peer groups have shifted from intimately known live individuals to actors portraying characters. This shift has had the effect of transferring values from scripted characters to the viewer in the same way that values were transferred from family and friends in the past. And that is precisely what the Sabido method is intended to do.

In the 1970′s Miguel Sabido, then vice president of Research at Televisa in Mexico, developed a method based on “character development and plot lines that provide the audience with a range of characters that they can engage with — some good, some not so good — and follow as they evolve and change.” [1] The intention of this method is to introduce characters in a serial drama that the viewer can identify with or relate to. Some of these characters will have positive traits, some negative. Over the course of the series situations and ideas are introduced which pose challenges to the characters and cause them to change their behavior, which the viewer will relate to and mimic. The stated goal of the Sabido Method is to portray “pro-social” behavioral changes, pro-social being defined by people other than the target audience. In plain language it is intended to manipulate the target audience into changing a behavior deemed undesirable. The Sabido Method has been used most notably for population control and HIV prevention in the “third world”. [1,2,3,4].

A more modern terminology for the Sabido Method is “education-entertainment”.[5] Although the Wikipedia entry gives the perception that this is an innocuous, above board technique the application of it is not so innocous. Regardless of the intention behind its use, whether well or ill, the methodology is inherently deceptive and manipulative. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health offers a course titled Education Entertainment for Behavior change which “examines and teaches ways in which education can be subtly but effectively worked into both new and time-honored genres of entertainment to foster positive behavior change and life improvement in both developing countries and local environments. The course develops students’ ability to understand the ingredients of successful entertainment (emotions, empathy, efficacy and empowerment) and how these ingredients can be employed to enhance social and personal health and life skills.” [6]

Like all social engineers these people seem to believe they know best and that the target audience cannot be trusted with straight forward information and so must be manipulated. The World Bank has even developed a project using this method to impart financial knowledge such as using a bank instead of keeping cash at home.[7]

This method is based on the work of psychologist Albert Bandura and his Social Learning Theory, which is a successor of behaviorism. [8]. Social Learning Theory states “People, especially children, learn from the environment and seek acceptance from society by learning through influential models. Social learning theory is a perspective that states that social behavior (any type of behavior that we display socially) is learned primarily by observing and imitating the actions of others. The social behavior is also influenced by being rewarded and/or punished for these actions.”[9].

The publicly stated goals of the Sabido Method are “pro-social” changes such as population reduction, HIV prevention, financial responsibility, etc. However, it seems obvious that this method is also being used for other messages such as environmentalism as in the notorious “behavior placement” concept. [10,11]. A cursory search of the internet for “Sabido Method” or “education entertainment” brings up a plethora of information not included here which suggests that almost all serial dramas on television are used for this type of purpose, ie. intending to influence behavior and beliefs through deceptive manipulation.

[1] Sabido Methodology – Background. populationmedia.org/what/sabido-method/
[2] Sex, Soap & Social Change – The Sabido Methodology. populationmedia.org/2007/08/ … thodology/
[3] Sabido Methodology. comminit.com/content/sabido-methodology
[4] The theory heard ’round the world. apa.org/monitor/oct02/theory.aspx
[5] Educational Entertainment. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment-Education
[6] Entertainment Education for Behavior Change. ocw.jhsph.edu/index.cfm/go/viewC … age/index/
[7] The World Bank Entertainment Education Project, June 2011. youtube.com/watch?v=5M6y06gjdQ8
[8] Albert Bandura. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Bandura
[9] Social Learning Theory. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_learning_theory
[10] What Your TV Is Telling You To Do. online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 49318.html
[11] NBC’s ‘Behavior Placement’: NBC Pushes Eco-Friendly Messages Through Shows. huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/0 … 28701.html

Further Reading/Viewing

Dr. Miguel Sabido – The Telenovela – A Motor For Social Change. youtube.com/watch?v=vZ_0w2LzNCc

CDC – Entertainment Education. cdc.gov/healthcommunication/ … urvey.html

JHSPH Entertainment Education for Behavior Change Courseware. ocw.jhsph.edu/courses/entertainm … eNotes.cfm

CDC – Entertainment Education in Hollywood. cdc.gov/healthcommunication/ … index.html

CDC – Delivering Public Health Messages Through Popular Entertainment. CDC Speaks Directly To Audiences Through Television. cdc.gov/news/2007/07/pubhealth_tv.html

Hollywood, Health and Society. hollywoodhealthandsociety.org/

Norman Lear Center. blog.learcenter.org/

Ayup…
“Social Engineering”, aka; subliminal messaging, hypnosis, propaganda, psychological manipulation, mass programming, “lording”.

…although long preceded Sabido.

Certainly around long before Sabido. But here we have a “scientific” formula for manipulation, (5ExQ) + (7CxA)=EEE [1], used by everyone from the UN, the World Bank and the CDC to Hollywood that is officially acknowledging such a deceptive practice. It’s somewhat surprising that it is so openly spoken about.

It’s long been considered “conspiracy theory” that messages are embedded in entertainment, but here we have a mountain of proof of this very practice.

[1] ocw.jhsph.edu/courses/entertainm … uation.pdf

It is a bad sign when they no longer fear being exposed.
They know that there is nothing you can do about it and they will merely keep lusting onward.

…the God-wannabes.

Actually, “indoctrination” is the word that I was looking for and “hypnotic proselytizing”, “subtle advertising”.
…that is largely why you have HDTV. Computers manipulate every pixel so as to yield a subtle influence, often imbuing insecurity, globalism, and racism.

Just imagine if all of those techniques were dedicated to turning people into rational human beings rather than for socialist power schemes.

If you know where a thorn is on the rose will you grab the thorn to pluck the rose?

What could possibly be wrong with affecting “pro-social behavior change”?

Blindness.

If you were an ant or bee, there would be nothing wrong with being programmed to perform a very specifically designed task. Drones serve a great purpose.

But drones are preprogrammed to be blind to anything that might inspire them to be anything different than their programming, thus they are not inventive. And you don’t program drones to be particularly self-valuing. The willingness to sacrifice themselves for the cause of the social order is great… for the social order.

A single life can be a single entity with servo drones attached, a general with his armed forces or a king with his devoted subjects or a religious leader with his disciples. But those are single lives with human like extensions. If it is wise to have only one life on Earth and all else is merely a part of its obedient body, then by all means, make servo robots of all other life so as to bring harmony to the one and only life on the planet.

But homosapian life (before now anyway) has been an issue of very many individual lives, each striving in their own way for sake of their own needs, not preprogrammed in accord with someone else’s guess as to what would best serve the community. They have a choice. They can look at the community and decide for themselves if that community is worthy of their devotion. If they find a better community by their perception, they can favor that one instead by their own value system, not the value system programmed into them by their master keeping them subtly hypnotized and blind to any other option.

Life is an entity that seeks to survive by its own needs. Often those needs involve a social order for sake of cooperative effort. But often they don’t. The total of all life together form another kind of life involving evolution and growth from what it used to be. But not by the artificial designs and speculations of a master designer, but rather by the actual minute forces at hand, their circumstance.

A socialistic designer cannot afford to have individuals accurately assessing their own situation and doing what appears best for themselves at the time. The social design will invariably require that they turn left instead of right despite the higher risk and probable death. A society is always better served by drones than by independent thinkers and evaluators… for a while. That is why an army trains blind obedience. Blindness from the true situation is required to ensure proper self-sacrifice, especially when the cause is completely hidden (so the enemy can’t discover the plans, ie “the terrorist”, ie “you”).

Maintaining absolute control of all life is paramount to ensure the order because entropy is so much easier than order. At what point would a socialist order actually figure out and choose to disband itself? When did the order itself become the life to save at the cost of all free life within? Life is all about making one’s own decisions, else it isn’t life.

Machines make better socialists. They are cheaper (in the long run) and much more capable. The greatest and most stable order belongs to machines, artificial mechanisms designed specifically for their purpose (not a lot different than the newly programmed generation of children). There is nothing that any human can do that a machine can’t be designed to do better. So exactly why would a powerful order decide to keep recalcitrant organic humanoids, or actually any potentially invasive and free life form around? What purpose would they serve that isn’t better served by specifically designed machines?

That media programming agenda is all about making people into proper servants; thinking, acting, believing, living, and dying on proper schedule… as per design, “Redesigning Women”, and proud of it. … seriously?? - Yep they are.

All animal, insect, vegetable, and microscopic life is to be properly redesigned so as to improve the system. Why not? And if it can’t be reformed, well… we can’t let useless vermin consume our much needed resources, thus “Comply or Die.”

There is a much better and safer way for all life than the attempt to maintain a “secure order for your protection” (meaning of course, the protection of the system itself and its servo drones). Can those designers explain to you the “purpose of your life”? Can they tell you why you personally “should” do, “ought to” do what they intend? They can’t really answer the most critical questions to be asked from those giving up their lives for such schemes. They require your ignorance of such questions and answers, else you would resist. They require that you only resist in the properly programmed ways, usually merely for show for sake of the others to give the impression that you actually had a choice.

Socialism is directly anti-choice and thus directly anti-Life.

Of course I was being facetious when I asked “what could possibly be wrong…” Good post, I agree.