Hypnotic method of WTS

by OnTheWayOut 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • under_believer
    under_believer

    OTWO, my "stupid Witnesses" post clearly states that the cause is either lack of intelligence (not the same as being hypnotized) or a deliberate effort to conceal the fact that they don't believe it (also not the same as hypnosis.) As an aside, I'd also like to say that I regret saying that there are so many stupid Witnesses. There's a difference between stupidity and naiveté and I was wrong to say that.

    And dido: I'm not trying to bully you, but I am arguing with you. You chose to insert yourself into this discussion, and if you're going to take offense at "spirited debate," you should think twice before doing so. I hope nothing I said has been taken personally, it certainly wasn't intended that way. Incidentally, where has the "wtbs acknowledged subliminal imaging?"

  • dido
    dido

    under_believer i am quite happy to debate, and haven`t taken offence, but do know how to stick up for myself when people are trying to browbeat me. The watchtower said there was hidden messages on the Beatles records, and other things. I am not one of those people who can be bothered to go back and look into their publications, i haven`t looked at one since i left, and don`t intend to do so now.

  • under_believer
    under_believer

    In any case, I don't question the EXISTENCE of subliminals, because we can find examples with artists who are willing to own up to it. What I'm questioning is the EFFECT that subliminals have (remember that kid that sued Black Sabbath after he shot himself in the head with a shotgun?--the case was thrown out) and the FREQUENCY of subliminals, i.e. are they lurking behind every Victoria's Secret ad?

    I say that there is no evidence that subliminal advertising works (if I'm wrong, then please produce some), that subliminal advertising is very rare and usually not expected by its producers to have any actual effect (if I'm wrong, please produce evidence to the contrary.)

    So even if the Society has "acknowledged" the sinister influence of the Beatles, that still doesn't convince me. They also "acknowledge" all their other crazy teachings.

  • dido
    dido

    I think you either believe that they could have influence or you don`t. I choose to. I haven`t got any evidence, how can you prove something like that, i don`t believe that the jury were right in that case either. I`ve heard loads of stories about kids doing things after listening to Marilyn Manson, but i can`t prove it, some are dead so they can`t speak for themselves, but i`m sure there are some that can. I think you put up to hard a barrier to accept or believe something.

  • under_believer
    under_believer

    > I think you either believe that they could have influence or you don`t. I choose to.

    That's fine, but you see what I'm saying? You are believing something that you can't prove. If someone asks you why you believe it, you won't be able to tell them. Are you comfortable with that? Other than being disfellowshipped, why did you leave the Society? Wasn't it because you were being asked to believe something that wasn't proveable?

    > how can you prove something like that

    Well actually, it wouldn't be too hard. If you'd read the link I provided, you'd see that experiments have been run in the past (and failed, incidentally.) One method that instantly comes to mind would be to insert subliminal advertising for various products into movies, and then track over a long period of time (say, a year) whether or not sales of the advertised items went up from where they were before.

    > I think you put up to hard a barrier to accept or believe something.

    Proof? Evidence? Yes, I guess those are hard barriers, depending on what I'm being asked to believe. I don't have any choice, though. This is the attitude that saved me from the Society. I asked for proof, and they didn't have any.

    I think everyone should ask for proof before believing things, but maybe that would mean abandoning or holding in doubt too many things they're sure of, or perhaps it's too much work, or maybe it's too scary.

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Thank you for the lively debate. I started with a Freudian theory that was presented by a questionable author.

    I, personally, think there is something to the theory, but the guy is, otherwise, lacking in hard data and I question

    much of what he says- the paper he wrote (on the original link) makes him out to be very anti-JW.

    The fact remains that the methods were developed about the right time for WTS to learn of them. Their

    study method is not questioned by the masses of JW and has not consistently changed over the years.

    I asked you all what you think, I got your answers. I did talk with a psychologist who agrees that the WT

    method is hypnotic, he thinks it is intentional, just as much advertising has intentional subliminals. Can the WTS

    make a publisher believe things that rational people know are not true. We all know the answer is YES.

    Can the WTS make a publisher think he's a rooster, well, NO.

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Here is how i think it works. Let's say that there are a hundred new religions started up, each around a zealot of one kind or another. Each has his own ways of attracting and keeping people. A few that hit upon methods that work will succeed. It's a random chance type of thing, the same as start up companies. Most fail, the lucky ones go on to become successful. Rutherford had a bit of political experience, had knowledge as a lawyer, was ruthless and uncompromising. His methods just happened to work for a small segment of the population. Other cults, like the mormons and adventists were even more successful (the adventists may have advanced beyond the cult classification).

    S

  • Ténébreux
    Ténébreux
    What I'm questioning is the EFFECT that subliminals have

    Did you ever see a show called "The Heist" by Derren Brown? During a series of lectures, he uses a mixture of subliminal words/imagery and hypnotic language to persuade a group of ordinary law-abiding citizens to suddenly perform an armed robbery on cue - without ever knowing why they were doing it. Unless these people were stooges, that seems to me like fairly compelling evidence that such techniques can have a rather dramatic effect on a person's thinking and behaviour.

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Did you ever see a show called "The Heist" by Derren Brown? .......that seems to me like fairly compelling evidence that such

    techniques can have a rather dramatic effect on a person's thinking and behaviour.

    I do not know of this show. Is it pure fiction? While I tend to believe in the hypnotic effect of WT studying,

    I mainly suggest it has a mild effect compounded over time to keep us from questioning doctrine. A

    person would have to accept the things he hears in Bible study or WT study. The effect would just satisfy

    the brain with stimulation and make him less likely to disbelieve. Later, he would feel that he did research the

    material well enough (through only the study itself) and he would not try to do supplimental research. I don't

    suggest that it makes us believe stuff that is totally out of line with our own thoughts or that the hypnotic

    effect can turn us into dramatically different people.

  • Ténébreux
    Ténébreux
    I do not know of this show. Is it pure fiction?

    No, it's for real - or at least that's how it was presented. Derren Brown is a "mentalist" (hypnotist/magician) who uses various types of psychological trickery to mess with people's heads for the viewer's amusement - making taxi drivers forget where to find a major landmark when it's right in front of them, making everyone in a shopping mall simultaneously raise their hand in the air without knowing why, making a room full of atheists suddenly start believing in God, etc.

    The effect would just satisfy the brain with stimulation and make him less likely to disbelieve. Later, he would feel that he did research the material well enough (through only the study itself) and he would not try to do supplimental research.

    I think you're right. It also creates the illusion of an open discussion where all sides of the issue were considered and up for debate. We discussed that point, and that was the conclusion we all came to - everyone else's comment was in agreement with the paragraph, so I must be the odd one out for seeing a problem.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit