Scientific Social Engineering – I never wanted to go there, but the time has come.

Omg. This is so embarrassing. I’m watching “The Boy she Met Online” (2010, Alexandra Paul, Tracy Spiridakos, Jon Cor, Thea Gill) on LMN… which is embarrassing enough… but 2010 was not THAT long ago, and it’s amazing how much things have changed – some things, anyway. And how OTHER things HAVEN’T CHANGED AT ALL. 
 
THE MOST SILLY THING is that I now feel like a complete IDIOT, because never having watched “girl channels” or “chick flicks” (except when I had to, or if it was the Faulkners) – the data I am gathering from both the content of the movie, which I am matching with the TV COMMERCIALS played (strategic marketing) throughout the commercial-interrupted movie on LMN (lemon network? lol I don’t even know what it means) but WOW no wonder I don’t have any comprehension of the largest percentage of female thought. And I don’t care how sexist that sounds; I am thinking out loud – that is my policy. Honesty. Honestly. Unless of course thinking out loud would break the terms of a contract or Federal or State law.
 
Ha! They just used the term “gold digger”. Definitely not PC Politically Correct but then neither am I. I’m correct politically, but I’m not a PC. (Or a Mac)

Let me finish that thought as the commercials roll out… What I mean to say is that if this is what is the millenials – the outer fringe of which is where I am at in terms of age – is that having spent my entire life pursuing my interests, career, accomplishments – rather than playing dating games or any games, really – I never knew that SO MANY people have been being indoctrinated THIS WAY.  And I am sure a HUGE proportion of younger girls (girls as in, children – not girls as in, women) watch things like this, regardless of their PG ratings… 8 yrs old, 13 yrs old, 17 yrs old, even 22 yrs old.. it’s a very vulnerable stage of development – that’s just plain science and nature, science being the study of nature, anyway…. The consequences of this are spread wide and far, yet due to copyright laws COMBINED WITH other nation/states blocking such content (and now I see at least the logic they have in doing so – and it’s certainly not money, because OTHER films have the capacity to be translated into like 5,000 different languages – the rating systems determine that…

 
Am I indoctrinated? Of course.  Everyone is.  The question is only one:  TO WHAT DEGREE?  I also, continuing to think aloud (if keyboard taps count), get the feeling that there could be made various matrices and graphs that associate frequency (cycles: for example, how many times a given person at a given age in a given situation of life (i.e. no parents, adopted, single parent household, drug addicted parents, wealthy parents, whatever) – exposure frequency – AND another variable point would be the INTENSITY of the message – for instance:
 
-Take two people, one age 12 and one age 30, and do a double-blind test with controls and of course use more than two people, etc. (this is just jotting notes here at this point, and hypotheses).  Question: Will a PG-13 “rated” viewing of material with a certain NUDGE in it, whatever it is – I’m not talking about the same movie or tv show, i’m talking about the same THEME.  For instance, SPIKE, the tv show COPS, or Pregnant at 13 and Homeless, or whatever shows like that, or National Geographic, the NASA channels, etc. – WHATEVER it is.  That determination itself is complex, but it IS done, and real.
 
-II.  Intensity vs. Frequency
 
a. Let us say a test group is exposed (and then later tracked over years) to a mere SINGULAR showing of ONE EXTREMELY INTENSE, HORRIFIC, EVEN MIND-BENDING, BRAIN-SCARRING television or movie show. and then that’s it – they can go home and go about their business. (they get paid less)
 
b.  Let us say another test group is subjected to days, months, even say 3 YEARS and on up through life itself – is exposed, nearly CONSTANTLY (at least in terms of television and movies, even video games, whatever it is – I did NOT, just 5 minutes ago, mean to bring up the whole ‘interactivity’ concept and the higher values that are extremely complex – that is extremely challenging to analyze, much less gather accurate statistics on – at least for now.  As tracking and smartphone games and XBOX and all that become more and more uplinked and interactive, we will soon begin to draw SOLID conclusions in these areas – which is why I wanted to leave it out.  Sidenote that.)
 
So, my hypothesis is: even G, PG, PG-13 rated material, with enough subconscious mind-hacking in it, that appears lovely and cute and ‘aww’-ish, as opposed to a horror film that will haunt some people for the rest of their lives, the material is so shocking – which is worse/better (scientific term: more effective) at modifying future behavior of the human being, in their three forms, which are:
 
1. As individuals
2. In one-on-one situations/situations among trusted friend(s) only
3. As group “hive mind” (bullying)
 
In circumstances 1. and 2. a person can appear and even (actually, DO) behave very differently, but the MOST SEVERE difference is at point number 3 – when behaving as a group.
 
I doubt that television alone can influence much at category 3 above, but perhaps an interactive (didn’t wanna go there 😦 ) circumstance of programming such as live wire uplinked video game… could potentially have a stacking effect because of the so-called “anonymity factor” (if that wasn’t a term already, it is now)…  Video games, though studies on this are limited to people who PLAY videogames AT ALL (which COMPLETELY SKEWS THE SCIENTIFIC VALUE OF THE DATA, because it is NOT from a RANDOMIZED POOL, unless you want to FORCE PEOPLE TO PLAY VIDEOGAMES that they don’t even know how to play.  Our culture does not literally FORCE people to play videogames.  Now, if EVERYONE were given a FREE XBOX.. and i mean literally EVERYBODY..  in the mail, with instructions saying that if they open the box, plug it in (only ONE WIRE – plug into wall outlet for power source) – WIFI or whatever else, when smart TVs become more and more pervasive… I’ll insert a little political joke here, because I just can’t help it, it’s hilarious…  in the future, when everyone has their OBAMASMART-TVs (a spinoff hilarious pun on the famous “obamaphones”, obviously, but just in case you don’t know what “obamaphone” means, just look it up or ask a friend)….. So wipe all that out, and backtrack to the main question:
 
Is frequency and duration, in relation to INTENSITY, in a mathematical formula (that’s difficult to do with human beings, unless society is SO tightly regulated that you cannot even use the restroom without having your bowel movements tracked, and a system for gathering how many grams of waste material were released, its contents, etc. – if you think that’s a joke, rewind – take a stroll not far back in time – and from that viewpoint, imagine someone telling you that in the future, in order to get a job, you would be forced to urinate into a cup while people watch, and whether or not you could get a job would be entirely and 100% determinative upon the (often inaccurate, outright false) test results).  
 
You would probably cross them off your list of “Human Beings”, write them off as “crazy” – and if you were a doctor, you might either nodd and say “mm-hmm” scratching your chin thoughtfully…. and then either a) let them go home or b) lock them up for life in a psych unit
 
I’m done.  My back hurts.  Can’t type anymore.
 
COPYRIGHT (C) 2014 BRENDON TRISTAL
 
JANUARY 26, 2014
 
Now back to the show. 🙂 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s