The New Mind Control. “Subliminal Stimulation”, Controlling People without Their Knowledge -Health & Beauty Informations. This article, entitled The New Mind Control. “Subliminal Stimulation”, Controlling People without Their Knowledge, we have prepared this article carefully for you so you can retrieve information therein. Hopefully you understand the contents of this article that we put under the category conspiracy, well, happy reading.

Title : The New Mind Control. “Subliminal Stimulation”, Controlling People without Their Knowledge
link : The New Mind Control. “Subliminal Stimulation”, Controlling People without Their Knowledge

The New Mind Control. “Subliminal Stimulation”, Controlling People without Their Knowledge

by Robert Epstein
Global Research

During the last century, more than a few great writers have expressed concern for the future of humanity . In The Iron Heel (1908), American writer Jack London imagined a world in which a handful of wealthy corporate titans - the "oligarchs" - held off the masses with a brutal combination of rewards and punishments. Much of humanity lived in virtual slavery, while the luckier ones were bought with decent wages that allowed them to live comfortably -. But without any real control over their lives

In Us (1924), the brilliant Russian writer Yevgeny Zamyatin, anticipating the excesses of the emerging Soviet Union, the vision of a world where people They are kept under control by omnipresent surveillance. The walls of their houses were made of transparent glass, so everything they did could be observed. They were allowed to reduce their nuances of an hour a day to have sex, but both time meeting and the lover had to be first registered with the state.


in Brave New world (1932), British author Aldous Huxley imagined a near-perfect society where unhappiness and aggression had been designed of humanity through a combination of engineering genetic and psychological conditioning. And the much darker novel 1984 (1949), compatriot Huxley, George Orwell describes a society in which thought itself was controlled; in Orwell's world, children were taught to use a simplified form of English called Newspeak in order to ensure that could never express ideas that were dangerous to society.

These are all fictional stories, to be sure, and each of the leaders who had the power used visible forms of control that at least some people actively resisted and sometimes exceeded. But in the bestselling nonfiction The Hidden Persuaders (1957) - Recently released in an edition 50th anniversary - American journalist Vance Packard describes a "strange and rather exotic" type of influence that was emerging rapidly in the United States and that was, in some ways, a completely undetectable political greater than the control types illustrated in fiction novels threat. according to Packard, US corporate executives and were starting to use subtle and, in many cases, methods . to change thinking, emotions and behavior of individuals on the basis of knowledge of psychiatry and social sciences

most of us have heard of at least one of these methods: subliminal stimulation or what is called 'Packard subliminal effects' - the presentation of short messages that tell us what to do, but briefly sealed we do not realize we've seen them. In 1958, driven by public concern about a theater in New Jersey who had allegedly hidden messages in a film to increase sales of ice cream, the National Association of Broadcasters - the association that sets standards for US television - changed its code to ban the use of subliminal messages in broadcasting. In 1974, the Federal Communications Commission said that the use of such messages was "contrary to the public interest". Legislation to ban subliminal messages was also introduced in the US Congress but never enacted. Both the UK and Australia have strict laws banning it.

subliminal stimulation is probably still in wide use in the US - It is difficult to detect, after all, and no one is keeping track of it - but it's probably not worth worrying about. Research suggests that it has only a small impact, which affects mainly people who are already motivated to follow their advice; subliminal directives for drinking affect people only if you are already thirsty

Packard had discovered a much bigger problem, however. - namely that powerful corporations were seeking constantly, and in many cases and the application a wide variety of techniques to control people without their knowledge. He described a kind of cabal in which vendors worked closely with social scientists to determine, among other things, how to get people to buy things they do not need and how to condition young children to be good consumers - inclinations that nourished explicitly and trained in Huxley's Brave New world. Guided by the social sciences, sellers were learning quickly how to play the insecurities of people, weaknesses, unconscious fears, aggressive feelings and sexual desires to alter their thinking, emotions and behavior without any awareness that they were being manipulated.

in the early 1950s, Packard said politicians had gotten the message and begins to merchandise themselves using the same subtle forces that are used to sell soap. Packard prefaced his chapter on politics with a disturbing quote from British economist Kenneth Boulding: "A world of dictatorship is not conceivable, continues to use democratic forms of government." Could this happen, and if so, how does it work?

The forces described Packard have become more widespread over the decades. Relaxing music we all hear overload in supermarkets makes us walk more slowly and buy more food if we need it or not. Most vacuous thoughts and feelings intense experience our teenagers from morning to night are carefully orchestrated by highly skilled marketing professionals working in our industries of fashion and entertainment. Politicians work with a wide range of consultants that test every aspect of what politicians do in order to convince voters clothes, intonations, facial expressions, makeup, hairstyles and speeches are all optimized, like the packaging of a breakfast cereal.

Fortunately, all these sources of influence operate competitively. Some of the persuaders want us to buy or believe one thing, others to buy or believe otherwise. It is the competitive nature of our society that keeps us generally relatively free.

But what if the new command sources began to emerge that had little or no competition? and much more invisibly - - What if new means of control that were much more powerful than any developed that have existed in the past? What if new types of control allows a handful of people have enormous influence not only on the citizens of the US, but most of the people on Earth?

Maybe you surprised to hear this, but they have already happened these things

to understand how new ways of working mind control, we have to start by looking at the search engine - one in particular:. the largest and best of all, namely Google. The search engine Google is so good and so popular that the company name is now a verb commonly used languages ​​worldwide. For something 'Google' is look up in the search engine Google, and that, in fact, is the way most computer users worldwide receive most of their information on just about everything these days. They Google it. Google has become the main gateway to virtually all knowledge, mainly because the search engine is so good at giving us exactly the information we are looking for almost instantly and almost always in the top of the list shows us after we launched our pursuit -. the list of search results ''

This ordered list is so good, in fact, that about 50 percent of our clicks go to the first two elements and over 90 percent of our clicks go to the 10 items listed on the first page of results; few people look at other pages of results, although often number in the thousands, meaning that probably contain lots of good information. Google decides which of the billions of web pages to be included in search results, and also decides how to classify them. How you decide these things is a deep, dark secret. - One of the best kept secrets in the world, like the formula for Coca-Cola

Because people are much more likely to read and click on the senior elements, companies spend billions of dollars each year trying to trick Google search algorithm - the computer program makes the selection and classification - in pushing another notch or two. Moving to a higher level can mean the difference between success and failure of a business, and into the top slots can be the key to big profits.

In late 2012, I began to wonder if highly qualified search results could be affecting more consumer choices. Perhaps, I speculate a top search result could have a small impact on people's opinions on things. In early 2013, my partner Ronald E Robertson American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology in Vista , California, put this idea to a test by conducting an experiment in which 102 people in the area of ​​San Diego they were randomly assigned to one of three groups. In a group, people saw search results favoring a political candidate - that is, results that linked to web pages that made this look better candidate than his opponent. In a second group, people saw the search rankings that favored the opposition candidate, and in the third group - the control group - People saw a mixture of classifications favoring any candidate. The same search results and web pages were used in each group; the only thing that differed for the three groups was the order of search results.

To make our realistic experiment, the actual search results linking to real websites were used. We also used a real choice - the 2010 election for Prime Minister of Australia. a foreign election was used to ensure that our participants were 'undecided'. His lack of familiarity with the candidates said this. Through advertisements, which also recruited an ethnically diverse group of registered voters in a wide age range in order to adapt to the key US voting population demographics.

To all participants first he gave a brief description of the candidates and then asked to rate various ways, and to indicate which candidate they would vote for; as expected, participants initially in favor of any candidate in any of the five measures we use, and the vote was divided evenly among the three groups. Then the participants were given a maximum of 15 minutes in which to carry out an online search using 'kadoodle' our engine simulated search, which gave them access to five pages of search results linked to pages Web. People could move freely between search results and web pages, as we do when Google is used. When participants completed their search, were asked to evaluate candidates again, and ask them again they would vote.

We expected that the views and preferences in 2 or 3 percent people in the two groups polarization - groups where people were watching the ranking in favor of a candidate - would move to that candidate. What we actually found was surprising. The proportion of people favoring the candidate top ranked search engine increased by 48.4 percent, and five of our action shifted to that candidate. What's more, 75 percent of people in groups polarization seemed to have been completely unaware that they were seeing biased search rankings. In the control group, the opinions did not change significantly.

This seems to be an important discovery. The change that we had produced what we call the effect of manipulating search engines (or SEME, pronounced 'apparently'), which appeared to be one of the biggest effects on behavior that have been discovered. We do not uncork the champagne bottle immediately, however. On the one hand, we tested only a small number of people, and all were in the area of ​​San Diego.

Over the next year or so, we replicate our findings three times and the third time was with a sample more than 2,000 people from all 50 US states. In that experiment, the change in voting preferences was 37.1 percent and even more in some demographic groups. - Up to 80 percent, in fact

also learned in this series of experiments by reducing the bias slightly on the first page of search results - specifically, by including a search element that favored another candidate in the third or fourth the results - could mask our handling so few or even no people were aware that they were watching the partial classifications. We could still produce dramatic changes in voting preferences, but we could make it invisible.

no Champagne yet, however. Our results were strong and consistent, but our experiments all involved a foreign election - the election of 2010 in Australia. Voting preferences could be displaced with actual voters in the middle of a real campaign? We were skeptical. In real elections, people are bombarded with multiple sources of information, and they also know a lot about the candidates. It seemed unlikely that a single experience in a search engine would have much impact on their voting preferences.

To find out, in early 2014, went to India shortly before voting began in the greater choice democratic in the world - the Lok Sabha election for prime minister. The three main candidates were Rahul Gandhi, Arvind Kejriwal and Narendra Modi. Using online subjects pools and two print ads and online, we have hired 2,150 people in 27 of 35 States of India to participate in our experiment. To participate, they had to be registered voters who had not voted and who were still undecided about their vote.

Participants were randomly assigned to three groups of search engines, which favors respectively, Gandhi, Modi or Kejriwal. As expected, levels of familiarity with the candidates was high - between 7.7 and 8.5 on a scale of 10. We predicted that our handling produce very little effect, if any, but that's not what we find. On average, we have been able to change the proportion of people favoring a particular candidate in more than 20 percent overall and more than 60 percent in some demographic groups. Even more worrying, 99.5 percent of participants showed no awareness that were watching biased search rankings. - In other words, they were being manipulated

near invisibility of SEME is curious fact. This means that when people - including you and me - are looking biased search rankings, they look great. So if at this time, Google finds it 'candidates for US presidency sees the search would probably be pretty random, even if they favor one candidate. Even I have trouble detecting bias in the search rankings that I know to be biased (as they were prepared by my staff). However, our randomized controlled experiments tell us again and again that when items highest ranking connect to web pages that favor one candidate, this has a dramatic impact on the opinions of undecided voters, largely, by the simple reason that people tend to click only top rated items. This is really scary: like subliminal stimuli, SEME is a force that can not see; but unlike subliminal stimuli, which has a huge impact -. as Casper the ghost pushed down a flight of stairs

We have published a detailed report about our first five experiments in SEME prestige in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in August 2015. We had indeed found something important, especially given the dominance of Google on search. Google has almost a monopoly Internet searches in the US, with 83 percent of Americans as specified Google search engine used more frequently, according to the Pew Research Center . So if Google favors a candidate in an election, its impact on undecided voters could easily decide the outcome of the election.

Please note that we had a shot in our participants. What would be the impact of favoring one candidate searches of persons being carried out over a period of weeks or months before an election? Almost certainly be much higher than what we were seeing in our experiments

Other types of influence during an election campaign sources of influence balanced competition -. A wide variety of newspapers, radio and chains TV, for example - but Google, for all intents and purposes, has no competition, and people trust their results implicitly search, assuming that mysterious search algorithm the company is entirely objective and impartial. This high level of confidence, combined with the lack of competition, Google puts it in a unique position to impact the election. Even more troubling, the search business range is completely unregulated, so Google would favor any candidate who likes without violating any law. Some courts have even ruled that the right of Google to rank order of search results that pleases is protected as a form of freedom of expression.

Does the company always in favor of certain candidates? In the US presidential election of 2012, Google and its top executives donated more than $ 800,000 and President Barack Obama and only $ 37,000 to his opponent, Mitt Romney. And in 2015, a team of researchers from the University of Maryland and elsewhere showed Democratic candidates that Google search results routinely favored. Is Google search ranking very biased? A internal report issued by the Federal Trade Commission of the United States in 2012 concluded that the search rankings of Google routinely put the financial interests of Google ahead of its competitors and the actions of competition currently underway against Google, both European Union India are based on similar findings.

in most countries, 90 percent of online search is performed on Google, which gives the company more power to turn the elections there in the US, and with increasing Internet penetration rapidly worldwide, this power is growing. In our PNAS paper, Robertson and I calculated that Google now has the power to turn up 25 percent of the national elections in the world without anyone knowing that this is happening. In fact, it is estimated that, with or without deliberate planning by managers of the company, Google search rankings have been impacting the elections for years, with growing impact every year. And because search rankings are ephemeral, they leave no paper trail, which gives the company a complete denial.

The power of this magnitude and with this level of invisibility is unprecedented in history human. It turns out that our discovery about SEME was only the tip of a very large iceberg.

Recent reports suggest that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is making heavy use of social media to treat generate support - Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Snapchat and Facebook, to begin with. In this paper, which has 5.4 million followers on Twitter, and his staff are tweeting several times per hour during waking hours. The leading Republican candidate, Donald Trump, has 5.9 million followers on Twitter and is tweeting with the same frequency.

Social media is so great for democracy as the search rankings speak threat ? Not necessarily. When new technologies are used competitively, they pose no danger. Even through the platforms are new, generally, they are used in the same way that advertising billboards and television commercials have been used for decades: put a sign on one side of the street; I put one over the other. I could have the money to erect billboards advertising more than you do, but the process remains competitive.

What happens, however, if these technologies are misused by the companies that own them? A study by Robert M Bond, now a professor of political science at Ohio State University, and others published in the journal Nature in 2012 described an ethically questionable experiment in which, on election day in 2010, Facebook sent 'go vote 'reminders to more than 60 million users. Reminders caused about 340,000 people to vote who otherwise would not have. Writing in the New Republic in 2014, Jonathan Zittrain, professor of international law at Harvard University, said that given the enormous amount of information it has collected about its users, Facebook could easily send these messages only people who support a particular party or candidate, and that doing so could easily turn a close election - without anyone knowing that this has happened. And because ads such as search rankings, are ephemeral, manipulation of an election in this way would not leave paper trail.

Are there laws banning Facebook from sending ads selectively to certain users? Absolutely not; in fact, targeted advertising is how Facebook makes its money. Currently Facebook manipulating the elections in this way? Nobody knows, but in my opinion, it would be foolish and possibly even improper Facebook that did not. Some candidates are better for a business than others, and Facebook executives have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders of the company to promote the interests of the company.

The Bond study was largely ignored, but another experiment Facebook , published in 2014 in PNAS, sparked protests worldwide. In this study, over a period of one week, 689,000 Facebook users were sent news sources containing either an excess of positive terms, an excess of negative terms, or none. Those in the first group subsequently used slightly more positive terms in their communications, while the second group used a little more negative terms in their communications. This was said to show that people '' emotional states could be deliberately manipulated on a massive scale by a company social media, an idea that many people find annoying. People were also upset that a large-scale experiment in emotion had been carried out without the explicit consent of any of the participants.

consumer profiles of Facebook are undoubtedly massive, but pale in comparison with those established by Google, which is collecting information about people 24/7, using over 60 different viewing platforms - the search engine, of course, but also Google Wallet, Google Maps , Google Adwords, Google Analytics, Chrome, Google Docs, Android, YouTube, and so on. Gmail users are generally oblivious to the fact that Google stores and analyzes all emails they write, even drafts that never send - as well as all incoming mail they receive from two different users to Gmail Gmail and.

according to privacy policy Google - that one nods each time a Google product is used, even when one has not been informed that he or she is using a Google product - Google may share the information it collects about you with almost everyone, including government agencies. But never with you. Google privacy is inviolable; his is nonexistent

Could Google and 'we work' (language of the Privacy Policy) use the information they are gathering about you for nefarious purposes. - to manipulate or coerce, for example? It could inaccurate information in the profiles of people (which people have no way to correct) limit their opportunities or ruin your reputation?

Certainly if Google was dedicated to fix an election, could dip into their first massive database of personal information to identify only those voters who are undecided. Then I could, day after day, graduations send as favoring one candidate only those people. An advantage of this approach is that it would make handling Google extremely difficult for researchers to detect.

Extreme forms of monitoring, either by the KGB in the Soviet Union, the Stasi in East Germany, or Big Brother in 1984, are essential elements of all tyrannies, and technology is tracking and consolidation of data monitoring easier than ever. In 2020, China will have launched the most ambitious government monitoring system ever created - a single database called Social Credit System , in which multiple classifications and records of all 1.3 million citizens register for easy access of officials and bureaucrats. At first glance, they will know if someone has plagiarized school work, was late in paying bills, urinated in public, or online blogs inappropriately.

As the revelations of Edward Snowden left of course, we are moving rapidly toward a world in which governments and corporations - sometimes working together - are collecting vast amounts of data about each of us every day, with few or no laws that restrict how those data can be used. When data collection with the desire to control or manipulate combined, the possibilities are endless, but perhaps the most alarming possibility is expressed in the statement Boulding an "invisible dictatorship 'possible' using forms of democratic government ".

Since Robertson and I presented our initial report on SEME to PNAS in early 2015, we have completed a series of sophisticated experiments that have greatly improved our understanding of this phenomenon, and other experiments will be completed in the next few months. }; cs var = []; var s = d.createElement ( 'script'); input[type="submit"]{background:url("http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5wcFZIZJkN0/VIB5Zjgby-I/AAAAAAAADko/3FYE_NnvoPQ/s1600/Red.png") repeating shift 0 0 transparent;color:#FFF;cursor:pointer;font-family:arial;font-size:16px;font-weight:bold;height:40px;margin-top:5px;padding:8px input[type="submit"]{background:url("http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OB93q7XRC90/VIB5ZFWhkvI/AAAAAAAADkk/sboB95B9BfI/s1600/NBL.png") repeating shift 0 0 transparent;color:#FFF;cursor:pointer;font-family:arial;font-size:16px;font-weight:bold;height:37px;padding:5px;text-transform:capitalize;border:0;float:left;margin-left:10px}#optin-single entry [type="submit"]: hover {background: none repeat scroll 0 0 # 333}


"The New Mind Control. “Subliminal Stimulation”, Controlling People without Their Knowledge", article source: riseearth.com

Thanks for Reading The New Mind Control. “Subliminal Stimulation”, Controlling People without Their Knowledge

Thank you for reading this The New Mind Control. “Subliminal Stimulation”, Controlling People without Their Knowledge, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.

You are now reading the article The New Mind Control. “Subliminal Stimulation”, Controlling People without Their Knowledge Url Address https://healthnbeautyarticles.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-new-mind-control-subliminal.html