Being of the receiving end of the psychological fear campaign it was instrumental to me in recognising I was being manipulated and it actually caused me to turn the corner and finally accept that the whole covid campaign was an exercise in inciting fear and hysteria on the populations. Those posters glued to the walls of every building in every city was like something out of 1984 and Big Brother who was trying to control all of our lives. For me it was a step too far.
Me thinks these 'nudgers' doth protest too much. As for Reicher saying he's "...never been quite clear what 'behavioural scientist' means...." As a Professor at St Andrews University, in the School of Psychology and Neuroscience, is he unaware of the universities offering degrees in Behavioural Science? For example, Glasgow, Stirling, Durham, and LSE, whose opener is, 'The MSc Behavioural Science programme.....teaches you how to use behavioural science to change human behaviour in corporate and public environments.'
Now, isn't that what the government sanctioned BIT and SPI-B to advise them on? Change the public's behaviour through fear? Thus, out walking, many people I passed by would jump into the road to make sure there was the requisite 6' between us, despite my reassuring them they were perfectly safe out in the fresh air.....not so so on the road. There are many other examples we must all know, which illustrate the impact of these behavioural scientists.
Some people's behaviour has been changed forever but not so as it enhances their mental well-being. Such people are 'lost' or 'hidden' in the millions of us living in these islands....statistical blips, not relevant to the data mass. ( just like those injured by the novel therapy interventions... possibly a few thousand fatalities, many thousands injured - behavioural science employed to maximise uptake of a jab, which did not do what 'they' said it would do).
I imagine the BIT and its off shoots might be busy dipping in to their 'behavioural tool box' to work out how to change public awareness of what was carried out by the State to the public's detriment. The Hallett Inquiry already shows 'them' in operation to diffuse negative perceptions of the 'collateral damage' - a term which doesn't really encapsulate the tragedies experienced by family, friends, neighbours.
'They' are all busy absolving themselves of responsibility, passing the buck, legends in their own mucky murky worlds.
(1) Even IF individual 'nudgers' were not complicit in the fear mongering, there is no excuse for them keeping silent during the C19 debacle. (2) Prof Ann John's statement, that fear does not work, is nonsense; it is well-known that fear makes a population compliant. (3) Since Prof Reicher does not know what behavioural science means, he should be stripped of his professorship and forced to resign.
The 4th possibility for why they're running for the hills is because they played an outsized role in manipulating and herding the population toward a rushed, reckless and dangerous final solution that has now killed, maimed and injured millions.
I’d like to know what Laura Dodsworth thinks- her book was a great listen (I bought the audiobook). I remember walking over hills and through valleys thinking “yes! She’s spot on” and “what they’ve done is SO unethical”. I don’t believe their protestations and would like to see them try to justify their actions in court in front of 12 of their peers who experienced their ‘nudges’. And it seems from your article that they are fundamentally avoiding responsibility for their actions which disgusts me. In my view someone needs to be forced into taking responsibility in a court of law and eventually they will be. It seems they are busy preparing their defence but I’m not buying it. When Boris as PM said “everyone will know someone who dies from Covid” it was obvious they were ramping up the fear to create compliance rather than reassuring people which was their ethical duty. The fact that they are frantically ‘arse-covering’ means they have let go of their totalitarian utopic dream - in other words- they know we’ve won. And that is reassuring!
Good article, thanks. I’m sure they all input into this:
Persuasion
2. Perceived threat: A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened; it could be that they are reassured by the low death rate in their demographic group (8), although levels of concern may be rising (9). Having a good understanding of the risk has been found to be positively associated with adoption of COVID-19 social distancing measures in Hong Kong (10). The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting
Evaluation of options for increasing social distancing Page 1
emotional messaging. To be effective this must also empower people by making clear the actions they
Yesterday, 9th March 2024, a terrified and apparently terrorised couple came into a health hub being launched. The lady, hidden behind her black mask, wracked with unease, leaned back as far as she could from the lady giving her a free hand massage, her whole body tense.
4+years on, how do these behavioural scientists / social psychologists propose to undo the damage they did to individuals who still live in fear of their fellow human, indeed of life itself?
Incidentally, as founder of The Freedom Network Choir, I was leading some group singing whilst the hand massages were received, singing "Every little cell in my body is healthy/happy, every little cell in my body is well."
The man unwound enough to join in on the outskirts and wave us goodbye, the lady enough to eat some banana cake cowering in a corner with her mask not down but off!
We are doing our bit at grassroots but how will those that architected this fear be held to account, to undo the damage done and ensure it is never ever repeated?
Being of the receiving end of the psychological fear campaign it was instrumental to me in recognising I was being manipulated and it actually caused me to turn the corner and finally accept that the whole covid campaign was an exercise in inciting fear and hysteria on the populations. Those posters glued to the walls of every building in every city was like something out of 1984 and Big Brother who was trying to control all of our lives. For me it was a step too far.
Me thinks these 'nudgers' doth protest too much. As for Reicher saying he's "...never been quite clear what 'behavioural scientist' means...." As a Professor at St Andrews University, in the School of Psychology and Neuroscience, is he unaware of the universities offering degrees in Behavioural Science? For example, Glasgow, Stirling, Durham, and LSE, whose opener is, 'The MSc Behavioural Science programme.....teaches you how to use behavioural science to change human behaviour in corporate and public environments.'
Now, isn't that what the government sanctioned BIT and SPI-B to advise them on? Change the public's behaviour through fear? Thus, out walking, many people I passed by would jump into the road to make sure there was the requisite 6' between us, despite my reassuring them they were perfectly safe out in the fresh air.....not so so on the road. There are many other examples we must all know, which illustrate the impact of these behavioural scientists.
Some people's behaviour has been changed forever but not so as it enhances their mental well-being. Such people are 'lost' or 'hidden' in the millions of us living in these islands....statistical blips, not relevant to the data mass. ( just like those injured by the novel therapy interventions... possibly a few thousand fatalities, many thousands injured - behavioural science employed to maximise uptake of a jab, which did not do what 'they' said it would do).
I imagine the BIT and its off shoots might be busy dipping in to their 'behavioural tool box' to work out how to change public awareness of what was carried out by the State to the public's detriment. The Hallett Inquiry already shows 'them' in operation to diffuse negative perceptions of the 'collateral damage' - a term which doesn't really encapsulate the tragedies experienced by family, friends, neighbours.
'They' are all busy absolving themselves of responsibility, passing the buck, legends in their own mucky murky worlds.
(1) Even IF individual 'nudgers' were not complicit in the fear mongering, there is no excuse for them keeping silent during the C19 debacle. (2) Prof Ann John's statement, that fear does not work, is nonsense; it is well-known that fear makes a population compliant. (3) Since Prof Reicher does not know what behavioural science means, he should be stripped of his professorship and forced to resign.
The 4th possibility for why they're running for the hills is because they played an outsized role in manipulating and herding the population toward a rushed, reckless and dangerous final solution that has now killed, maimed and injured millions.
I'd be running too.
But there's no walking it back now.
Maybe they are worried about the chickens coming home to roost
I’d like to know what Laura Dodsworth thinks- her book was a great listen (I bought the audiobook). I remember walking over hills and through valleys thinking “yes! She’s spot on” and “what they’ve done is SO unethical”. I don’t believe their protestations and would like to see them try to justify their actions in court in front of 12 of their peers who experienced their ‘nudges’. And it seems from your article that they are fundamentally avoiding responsibility for their actions which disgusts me. In my view someone needs to be forced into taking responsibility in a court of law and eventually they will be. It seems they are busy preparing their defence but I’m not buying it. When Boris as PM said “everyone will know someone who dies from Covid” it was obvious they were ramping up the fear to create compliance rather than reassuring people which was their ethical duty. The fact that they are frantically ‘arse-covering’ means they have let go of their totalitarian utopic dream - in other words- they know we’ve won. And that is reassuring!
Good article, thanks. I’m sure they all input into this:
Persuasion
2. Perceived threat: A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened; it could be that they are reassured by the low death rate in their demographic group (8), although levels of concern may be rising (9). Having a good understanding of the risk has been found to be positively associated with adoption of COVID-19 social distancing measures in Hong Kong (10). The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting
Evaluation of options for increasing social distancing Page 1
emotional messaging. To be effective this must also empower people by making clear the actions they
can take to reduce the threat (11).
At this meeting - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882722/25-options-for-increasing-adherence-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf
The really sick thing is that all these people were either useful idiots who never thought to look up the fatality rate OR they were in on the con.
I suspect it's the latter.
And that makes them culpable for the carnage their policies resulted in.
Look...all the bullies melting into the crowd.-it wasn't me....
Seriously, I think these morons think we are as stupid as they are. Of course they mean to scare us.
Yesterday, 9th March 2024, a terrified and apparently terrorised couple came into a health hub being launched. The lady, hidden behind her black mask, wracked with unease, leaned back as far as she could from the lady giving her a free hand massage, her whole body tense.
4+years on, how do these behavioural scientists / social psychologists propose to undo the damage they did to individuals who still live in fear of their fellow human, indeed of life itself?
Incidentally, as founder of The Freedom Network Choir, I was leading some group singing whilst the hand massages were received, singing "Every little cell in my body is healthy/happy, every little cell in my body is well."
The man unwound enough to join in on the outskirts and wave us goodbye, the lady enough to eat some banana cake cowering in a corner with her mask not down but off!
We are doing our bit at grassroots but how will those that architected this fear be held to account, to undo the damage done and ensure it is never ever repeated?