5 Ways Powerful People Trick You Into Hating Underdogs

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I hear you man, and good for you. You know, sometimes I've often pondered why some people wake up to certain things and some people don't. It's hard to know, and varying things might trigger it.

Curiosity. To be honest, I really hate the expression, "Curiosity killed the cat." It promotes the status quo and deters curiosity when people need curiosity to learn and grow.

Also, always keep in mind that statistically, half the population is below average intelligence.

Like yourself, I wasn't a popular kid when I was young. I was incredibly shy and only had a couple close friends until probably late high school, at which point I became more outgoing. As a result I kinda kept to myself for much of my childhood but READ A LOT. Maybe also because I wasn't swept up in the normal crowds I already began to question things a bit.

Well I ended up becoming a chameleon. I moved to several different states before I graduated high school so I was able to learn how different social groups interacted as I had to make all new friends every couple of years. So when I got to high school, I was able to move in and out of social groups masking my true self to appeal to whatever clique I was hanging out with. Though many of the popular kids were still able to see through my bs, so it wasn't like I had an easier time in high school or anything. Luckily I went to a magnet school and was able to take a bunch of honors, gt, and ap classes and was able to meet many kids in my intelligence bracket.

I also just read posts on ATS for a while before I joined and then even then I didn't post a lot at first.

Yea, sticking your foot in your mouth is the worst kind of embarrassment. That was one of the first things I learned in school.

a reply to: jrod

Yea, our media has evolved into a sad state, but that doesn't mean you can't stay properly informed still. You just got to be willing to go outside your comfort zone and be willing to hear things that make you uncomfortable or that you may not agree with. Once you stop isolating yourself in an echo chamber of agreement, then the truth becomes obvious.

originally posted by: Shiloh7
I see one tactic as the deliberate 'silence' especially from the tv news about things being done by protestors especially in the UK. You have to use social media to find out what's going on or RT etc.

Be careful with using social media to stay informed. That is one of the chief ways that disinformation is spread. It's so easy to slap a few words onto a gif and create a sharable meme, or just post a bunch of assertions on your wall (or some group wall). It's not like anyone is going to source check these things, and if they do, just bury it under a sea of responses.

I also noticed that Cameron remains silence on certain subjects - the referendum for being in the EU is his current little game against the people.

That is just a politician being a politician. Nothing really noteworthy there. Politicians always have things they are tight lipped about. You have to be able to keep secrets to be in politics, whether for good or bad. Keeping secrets shouldn't necessarily be a source of distrust though.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Asktheanimals

It's better than what the public had at their disposal before, which was just propaganda laden media outlets. Now, at least, we can hunt up both sides of the argument to get the middle ground. I'd rather have a propaganda laden internet then go back to not having an internet.

Yeah, it was much more difficult to find info back in the day. I think many of us just had a sense something was off, beyond the couple books we may have been able to get a hold of. It took a LOT more commitment to go digging through book stores or going through varying sub cultures in person or by mail to find out alternative information.

Also, I suspect strongly that in the era before widespread personal computers and widespread internet, the age of information access even for the diligent and naturally inclined was probably much older than it is now.

So, if people now get access to such texts at any age online, it might occurred 20's or 30's for many people up until the early 2000's. And some people never really encountered such information.

I'm 34. Even though I think I began to question everything younger, I don't think I got access to or discovered some real conspiracy books until I was probably 21. And it was due to my digging through book stores and reading all kinds of weird stuff. Nobody handed it to me.

The other way would have been, and still is a way, to actually be a professional in a given field (foreign policy, law, military) and both have the formal training and then possibly slowly come across counter-propaganda information in your work. But with this route, the main limit would be that the scope of alternative information might be limited to one's work and related topics. Perhaps this was one route to some people's liberation. It's like the ex-military dudes who are on ATS now.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I hear you man, and good for you. You know, sometimes I've often pondered why some people wake up to certain things and some people don't. It's hard to know, and varying things might trigger it.

Curiosity. To be honest, I really hate the expression, "Curiosity killed the cat." It promotes the status quo and deters curiosity when people need curiosity to learn and grow.

Also, always keep in mind that statistically, half the population is below average intelligence.

Like yourself, I wasn't a popular kid when I was young. I was incredibly shy and only had a couple close friends until probably late high school, at which point I became more outgoing. As a result I kinda kept to myself for much of my childhood but READ A LOT. Maybe also because I wasn't swept up in the normal crowds I already began to question things a bit.

Well I ended up becoming a chameleon. I moved to several different states before I graduated high school so I was able to learn how different social groups interacted as I had to make all new friends every couple of years. So when I got to high school, I was able to move in and out of social groups masking my true self to appeal to whatever clique I was hanging out with. Though many of the popular kids were still able to see through my bs, so it wasn't like I had an easier time in high school or anything. Luckily I went to a magnet school and was able to take a bunch of honors, gt, and ap classes and was able to meet many kids in my intelligence bracket.

I also just read posts on ATS for a while before I joined and then even then I didn't post a lot at first.

Yea, sticking your foot in your mouth is the worst kind of embarrassment. That was one of the first things I learned in school.

Curiosity, and a truly open-mind. Because remember, many people are deathly afraid of questioning certain parts of reality, from religious beliefs to nationalism. World views basically.

There actually is a psychological variable called "tolerance for ambiguity." Those with low tolerance seek answers and latch on to dogma more, as shown by psychology studies. Those with high tolerance are able to handle conflicting information for longer and are less dogmatic. There is a negative correlation between this variable and anxiety around ambiguity. Those with a low tolerance experience high anxiety in the face of ambiguity.

My mother, God bless her soul, is like this. She is very intelligent, competent, and highly achieved. However, anything that challenges either her world view or makes things "out of control" or not all set makes her super anxious, almost panicky.

There also is a psychological framework related to this that has been dubbed "cognitive miser," wherein many people simply do not expend much mental energy on most topics, especially controversial. Both of these also may be related to cognitive dissonance.

When faced with a behavior or information that challenges one's beliefs or state of being, a person will either change the behavior or belief or engage in avoidance or reinterpretation of the behavior/information such that their beliefs or state of being is left intact. Most people, probably due to the tolerance for ambiguity, cognitive miser status, and cultural and social factors, will seek to keep the prior belief. This militates against most people "waking up."

I was a chameleon too for a time once I became outgoing and wanting to get involved in various groups. Like yourself, I became one of those who could move within different groups and even subcultures. In my early 20's I got quite good at having lots of different friends and being almost popular. However, I began to realize that while I was willing to enter into other people's worlds and mental frameworks, often they were not able to.

A very simple but not great example is that I have Christian family members and friends who are great but always want me to be open minded or respectful of Christianity, and be open to going to Church once in a while. I believe in being open minded and respectful, and just for the heck of it I do go with them here and there. BUT, 95% of them do not do the same for me, and won't go to my eastern philosophy talks, meditation sessions, or ashrams.

So, I changed it up in my late 20's, trying to be much more authentic and speak my truth. John Lennon once said: "Being honest won't get you a lot of friends, but it will get you the right friends."

Thankfully, although I definitely have pissed some people off through calling it like it is, haha, I still have a lot of friends.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Yeah, it was much more difficult to find info back in the day. I think many of us just had a sense something was off, beyond the couple books we may have been able to get a hold of. It took a LOT more commitment to go digging through book stores or going through varying sub cultures in person or by mail to find out alternative information.

I learned about conspiracies from the X-Files. The Area 51 books introduced me to the Ancient Aliens theory LONG before it was a sensationalized "documentary" series on the History channel. Btw, if you haven't read the Area 51 books, I suggest you do. They are a great read. Though apparently since I read them, the author has republished them under a pseudonym.

Also, I suspect strongly that in the era before widespread personal computers and widespread internet, the age of information access even for the diligent and naturally inclined was probably much older than it is now.

So, if people now get access to such texts at any age online, it might have been 20's or 30's for many people up until the early 2000's.

I agree, plus you also needed to come from an affluent family since the gatekeepers of most of the information were colleges.

The other way would have been, and still is a way, to actually be a professional in a given field (foreign policy, law, military) and both have the formal training and then possibly slowly come across counter-propaganda information in your work. But with this route, the main limit would be that the scope of alternative information might be limited to one's work and related topics. Perhaps this was one route to some people's liberation. It's like the ex-military dudes who are all ATS now.

Yea and this is such a haphazard way of doing it too.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Curiosity, and a truly open-mind. Because remember, many people are deathly afraid of questioning certain parts of reality, from religious beliefs to nationalism. World views basically.

Yes, but the more you open yourself up to curiosity and accept things you don't want to hear, the more your mind opens up. I was always pretty good at science and math, but I was a Catholic (then later just a Christian) up through my military enlistment after high school. But continual exposure to looking into how things worked led me away from the faith rather easily. Granted, I never really took religion as seriously as others in church and usually just daydreamed while in church, but my parents did send me to Sunday school for a while. And I DID at least accept the bible as truth, even though I didn't take church very seriously.

There actually is a psychological variable called "tolerance for ambiguity." Those with low tolerance seek answers and latch on to dogma more, as shown by psychology studies. Those with high tolerance are able to handle conflicting information for longer and are less dogmatic. There is a negative correlation between this variable and anxiety around ambiguity. Those with a low tolerance experience high anxiety in the face of ambiguity.

I agree.

My mother, God bless her soul, is like this. She is very intelligent, competent, and highly achieved. However, anything that challenges either her world view or makes things "out of control" or not all set makes her super anxious, almost panicky.

I wish I could say the same about my mother. My mom isn't the best educated (she only finished high school, so it's not exactly her fault and I don't blame her or anything), but it really shows with what she'll believe. Let's just say, she easily takes things at face value and will argue rather emotionally if you don't agree with her. It took a VERY long time to convince my mother that marijuana isn't that bad.

There also is a psychological framework related to this that has been dubbed "cognitive miser," wherein many people simply do not expend much mental energy on most topics, especially controversial. Both of these also may be related to cognitive dissonance.

This sounds like my mother.

When faced with a behavior or information that challenges one's beliefs or state of being, a person will either change the behavior or belief or engage in avoidance or reinterpretation of the behavior/information such that their beliefs or state of being is left intact. Most people, probably due to the tolerance for ambiguity, cognitive miser status, and cultural and social factors, will seek to keep the prior belief. This militates against most people "waking up."

Yea, I'm familiar with this. I studied rationalizations in my psych class in college. I rather enjoyed that too, since it helped me realize when people couldn't handle information they were receiving in a discussion.

I was a chameleon too for a time once I became outgoing and wanting to get involved in various groups. Like yourself, I became one of those who could move within different groups and even subcultures. In my early 20's I got quite good at having lots of different friends and being almost popular. However, I began to realize that while I was willing to enter into other people's worlds and mental frameworks, often they were not able to.

Yes, that's why being able to do this requires you to not judge other people's opinions and ideas. Though, admittedly, for me, it took me well into my twenties to realize this and TRULY be able to shift between different social groups. When I joined the military, I became an asshole (it's the culture in there). It took me going to see a lot of live music (jam music) to learn about being accepting of what other people do.

A very simple but not great example is that I have Christian family members and friends who are great but always want me to be open minded or respectful of Christianity, and be open to going to Church once in a while. I believe in being open minded and respectful, and just for the heck of it I do go with them here and there. BUT, 95% of them do not do the same for me, and won't go to my eastern philosophy talks, meditation sessions, or ashrams.

When it comes to religious people, I just try not to talk religion with them and if they bring it up in a conversation, I'll just go silent and let them talk to other people about it. Usually they don't press me for my opinion, but if they do, I just tell them I'm agnostic. That usually shuts them up.

In any case, religion and politics: two conversation topics I try to avoid in social settings. I usually ask others to respect that too if they try bringing it up.

So, I changed it up in my late 20's, trying to be much more authentic and speak my truth. John Lennon once said: "Being honest won't get you a lot of friends, but it will get you the right friends."

Thankfully, although I definitely have pissed some people off through calling it like it is, haha, I still have a lot of friends.

My group of friends has whittled down to a core group who I know will have my back through thick and thin.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Oh, I understood perfectly.

I was just making a joke because I am one of those underdogs.

originally posted by: CretumOrbis
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Oh, I understood perfectly.

I was just making a joke because I am one of those underdogs.

Haha, word. My bad.

originally posted by: Daughter2
Here's another tactic that's is very effective and used not only in abusive personal relationships but also on a global scale.

They use the normal reaction to abuse or oppression as proof they person/group are the crazy/out of control ones.

#18 on this list:

The 25 Rules of Disinformation

18.

Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.

This also is a good read:

8 Traits of Disinformation Agents


The Alinsky Method is good to know about too. When a group becomes a threat to the status quo the Alinsky Method(derived from the Delphi Technique) can be used to destroy the group from the inside. What the Heck is the Alinsky Method?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The 25 Rules of Disinformation is also a good read.

We are constantly being manipulated and apparently very few can see through BS and sometimes become cheerleaders for a bogus cause.

I think the ways are many more, and work in cohesiveness together.

One of the best ways ever, is to convince a group that they are skeptical of government but a subconscious command kicks in, blotting out all reality and actually changing how they view events.

They often then make opinion pieces based on the same command that tells them things like 9/11 is not suspicious at all.

They will never know the implanted command is there, this is why they appear so lucid at times, and so sure of the belief they have, not unlike believing in the tooth fairy.

And they look for comfort that they KNOW which ways they are being owned , and fooled, and then make posts on how it does not affect them perhaps.

But most of all, these tendencies get them to employ the same tactics they say are being used on themselves.....

And claim it is some "other group" that is responsible for the problems they have, in getting the ones who AREN'T governed by hacked consciousness to see things in the same blind ridiculous way they do.

And it sure would give me a deep belly laugh, if it wasn't so blatantly gross.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

These are all common tactics, but we mustn't forget that they can work both ways. Turning lower income people against the wealthy is also seen quite often, whether justified or not. The worst examples of power-mad, mega-rich are tossed around, to make people believe taxing any with a lot of money at ridiculous rates is somehow alright. Pitting one political group against another, by emphasizing the worst/most colorful/must controversial members is something all sides do. Lots of head games being played.

Malcolm X said it best...

 

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14
what a great example The west vs russia /china alliance what a cess pool of lies ,proporgander and disinformation etc by both sides. It really is very difficult if not impossible to get to the truth of situations such as ukraine with niether side being particully trust worthy.

Another way that they manipulate us is to break subjects up so it is hard if not impossible to get a overall picture of what is going on particularly when all the issues do not fit togeather very well. Using professional opions with this method adds to the difficultness of trying to work out the truth

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Oh boo hoo for the rich. The rich have had it easy for millennia, they can handle a little back lash here and there. Especially in regards to taxes. Other groups of people worry about being beaten or killed for being a certain group, the rich have to worry about being over taxed... In fact, the rich are the LEAST discriminated group of people in history. The rich have politicians, whole governments, and legal systems in their pockets. So, sorry if I don't sympathize with their plight. They can stand to take a hit or two on their taxes, they won't go broke and at the least they can stand to sweat a bit. Though I'm sure they appreciate you defending them.

I don't even LIKE higher taxes, but I damn well don't like them so I can defend the rich. That is the last group of people on earth I'd defend.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Krazysh0t

These are all common tactics, but we mustn't forget that they can work both ways. Turning lower income people against the wealthy is also seen quite often, whether justified or not. The worst examples of power-mad, mega-rich are tossed around, to make people believe taxing any with a lot of money at ridiculous rates is somehow alright. Pitting one political group against another, by emphasizing the worst/most colorful/must controversial members is something all sides do. Lots of head games being played.

It is true that ALL groups of people can be manipulated, using real issues to reach a questionable end. For example, racism is real, and some minority groups are still experiencing the effects of historical oppression (poverty). Before you disagree, it's well established by social science.

However, it would seem that some of the recent divide is almost encouraged or manipulated by someone with an ulterior motive. Divide and conquer.

It could be true as you say with poor versus rich. HOWEVER, never make the mistake of somehow equating the people who actually are oppressed with the non-oppressed. A few rich people getting unfairly blamed or slandered (which can happen in some cases) is in no way shape or form the same difficulty that the extreme poor face. Moreover, the poor do not hold the reigns of power, they do not experience the same justice system outcomes, they don't make the laws usually, etc. So your point only goes so far.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Oh boo hoo for the rich. The rich have had it easy for millennia, they can handle a little back lash here and there. Especially in regards to taxes. Other groups of people worry about being beaten or killed for being a certain group, the rich have to worry about being over taxed... In fact, the rich are the LEAST discriminated group of people in history. The rich have politicians, whole governments, and legal systems in their pockets. So, sorry if I don't sympathize with their plight. They can stand to take a hit or two on their taxes, they won't go broke and at the least they can stand to sweat a bit. Though I'm sure they appreciate you defending them.

I don't even LIKE higher taxes, but I damn well don't like them so I can defend the rich. That is the last group of people on earth I'd defend.

We shouldn't besmirch ALL rich people, but in reality except for straight up hardcore communists, NO ONE is saying it's wrong inherently to be wealthy.

What progressives actually say is that our POLICIES cannot put the rich over the poor and middle class, as many of our policies and laws actually do. We are actually saying that the wealthy, having benefited most from the systems and labor of society, need to give back. That's it. No liberal doesn't understand that many liberals are rich.

The truth is, the rich aren't magically working 1000 times harder than us. Their vast wealth can only come from systems which include thousands or millions of far less payed people. The rich, like the rest of us, also have to rely on and benefit from "socialist programs" such as public education (for their workers), public roads, fire and police, water systems, etc. Their wealth extraction machines, contrary to Republican ideology, do not exist in a vacuum.

So please, Faux News, drop the talking points.

As you say, the rich also own most of the media, they own the politicians, they own the companies, they usually ARE the politicians and lawmakers, etc ad infinitum.

I am going to add underdog attack #7: "The rich have worked and labored so hard. They are constantly attacked, especially by liberals. They are the ones who provide jobs and if we don't treat them like royalty, they will flee and not endow the rest of us with jobs. How dare anyone expect them to give back? They work so hard AND EARNED ALL THOSE BILLIONS! Please stop oppressing them commies."

I know Bill Maher is pretty left-biased, so forgive me.

BUT, he does have some great pieces on "The oppression of the rich." This short piece covers a lot of it.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

What progressives actually say is that our POLICIES cannot put the rich over the poor and middle class, as many of our policies and laws actually do. We are actually saying that the wealthy, having benefited most from the systems and labor of society, need to give back. That's it. No liberal doesn't understand that many liberals are rich.

That's really all I want. There is always going to be a class of people with more than everyone else. If you take all the money from the current crop of rich people, you'd end up creating new rich people. So I wouldn't suggest getting rid of wealth, because it's impossible, but I have trouble sympathizing with the plight of discrimination against rich people because frankly the system is literally rigged in their favor.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So, propaganda tactics are acceptable if you believe the group deserves them? Well, by that token, what if one said, "Oh, boo hoo for the poor. They are just a bunch of lazy crooks, anyway, and deserve it if they get a bad rep. They have it easy, stealing from others who earned what they have, getting freebies from the government, don't pay any taxes to cover what they are given, and actually have the gall to think they deserve all of that! So excuse me if I feel no sympathy with their plight. They can afford to take a hit or two. At least the government will always be there to bail them out. I am sure they appreciate you defending them."

Funny how that works, isn't it? You proved by point perfectly.

Personally, I don't believe lying about any group, for any reason is acceptable, but, hey, maybe that's just me. Some of those people certainly deserve whatever they get, anyway. Right? *sigh*

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Read my post above this one or Quetzalcoatl14's post directed at you. I elaborated a little bit better than that post I responded to you on, and Quetzalcoatl explains it better than I did.

Also, I'm not trying to push propaganda against the rich either. I just don't care about their plights as a group of people. They are more equal than everyone else (since they literally designed the system that way), they need to be knocked back down to everyone's level. That's not propaganda or lying about them either. It's just the truth.