Allow Me To Reverse That Thought

With not really any deep fondness of psychology to began with, allow me and try to explain something. Psychology is that which (Where the mental and emotional factors governing a situation or activity play out. The scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context.)

So i do know it’s that behavior which will drive a human to emotional distress or a calm confrontation. Yet to try and use what is called reverse-Pyschology is what drives me insane. Why are people prone to troll like this? Psychologists do this crap too often and it doesn’t seem to work toward any type of solution. Unless, you consider medication a solution for everything. They get nothing out of convoluted streams of information given by somebody totally confused about what they’re talking about (i.e. the physiologist). What my whole reason for this subject is, is that those not fully functional to began with, obviously cause they’re talking to a psychologist. Have not the capacity to arrive at a clear perception from what the psychology has done, mainly cause they have no apprehension of such psychology, reverse psychology, and reverse reverse psychology. To this point it’s that which these psychologist know and don’t even try to allow others to think for themselves about, because they’re already in a muddled mind frame as it is. To persuade a desired thought out of somebody isn’t the full justification of sciences, or whatever psychologist consider themselves. I’d much rather talk to a therapist they at least diagnose the situation with clear reasoning other then psychologists. Allow that to just sink in and get back to me.


… foregoing medical intervention.

It is a common tactic throughout the ancient history of human manipulation. If the objective is to cause a behavior in one direction, the most efficient instigation of it is often to apply force in the opposite direction. The same tactic is used in a variety of electro-magnetic motivators. It is taking advantage of a natural response.

“What tangle webs we weave, when we first practice to deceive.”
I completely agree that the practice of manipulating a subject into a behavior rather than attempt to explain and take whatever time is required to teach, is very bad practice. But realize that psychologists, and pretty much all educated people, are no brighter than the average person when it comes to what should or should not be done, ethics.

Ethics should be taught BEFORE any higher education, especially concerning any Science and most especially any science of psychology.

It can be validly said that all evil throughout society is instigated by those who function in the dark. Everyone who manipulates through hidden means causes mis-education and mis-perception into not merely the subject, but also those around the subject because a witnessed behavior is being inspired and instinctively associated with a false cause by all but the manipulator. This too is an ancient practice that has led to enormous atrocities throughout history and is most responsible for today’s forms of politics and religions.

Very few anti-social behaviors can’t be adjusted through open, honest education and isolation from medical intervention. But various forms of hypnosis (deceiving the conscious so as to influence the subconscious) yield far too much power to those who lust for power. New age technology makes it even easier. And the confusion that is spawned by such hidden manipulation is far beyond most educated people to comprehend, much less compensate.

Today, there is almost nothing but hidden influences guiding and tricking everything on every level of society. It is a truly “dark-age”. And much like USA politics, nothing can be accomplished in the world today without hidden influence heavily involved. So a question has to be asked:

Is it more ethical to practice hidden influence in a presumed positive direction for sake of those benefiting, or to leave it all alone, offering no help at all?

That is an ethics question. And I have yet to find even a single truly ethical person, despite many of their attempts. Void of ethical people, even by their best efforts, what is the ethical resolve with which to proceed?

In this age where access to knowledge and information is unprecedented is the notion of hidden influences actually true? Is this not the least likely time in human history to be able to hide anything? Furthermore by making reference to said influences you are inadvertently demonstrating that they are not all that hidden any
way. Because if they were you would not even know that they existed

But to answer your question it depends on whether or not the end justifies the means. If it does then practising hidden influences is ethical and if it does not then
it is not ethical. Those that determine the criteria for whether or not something is ethical should really not be the same ones implementing the action in question

Ever heard of “snow blinded”, “whiteout”, or “staring into the Sun”?
TMI - Too Much Information creates so much noise that hiding in it is trivial and often unavoidable … even if everything that you heard was true, which is generally the opposite of the truth.

There is far more keeping the ice berg afloat under see-level, than in sight.

Not at all. Have you never come home and discovered something missing or perhaps had a car stolen? If you didn’t see anyone take it, how could you know that it was missing? It s often easy to tell that something is wrong without knowing precisely who is guilty. And quite often it is easy to tell that a person is guilty, without even knowing what they have done.

I suspect this might be an issue of your personal talent for perception. It is not at all true that if you didn’t see, it wasn’t there. And that issue relates to the OP in that “reverse psychology” only works when it is not seen. And much of the hypnosis is disabled when it is seen. Some people see it, some do not. Many blind sheep today still believe that “they” could not have lied, else “they” would have told us.

Perhaps you missed the point. People who play those games cause insidious and complex troubles of which they are not aware. So “the ends” stemming from “the means” remains unknown to the culprits and most often misunderstood in some simple minded self-justifying way. So regardless of whether “the ends justifies the means”, since the ends are actually unknown and too complex to sort out, there is still the conundrum of whether to attempt ethical intervention.