Good afternoon, fellow Americans.
Just to let you know that you are currently part of an ongoing psychology experiment, being undertaken by the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Do not be alarmed.
We will use well-documented methods to get a majority of you into a particular mental state, which will work to our advantage. And looking at the posts on this board, thankfully, it looks as though nobody has found out about the tactics being used.
Because once the tactics are revealed, the experiment cannot work.
More, below the fold.
First of all, let's get the outcries out of the way. "There is no way that I am weak-willed enough to fall for anything sublime and sneaky that the Clinton campaign can try on me."
Fair enough. You cannot be swayed by the force of a feather. But can you be swayed by bluntness?
Take into consideration: the repeated mentions of RFK, assassination, and Obama by Hillary Clinton.
Here's what happens: Hillary says something that links Obama with an assasination. Some similarity is drawn... and never mind the fact that the 1968 Democratic race only began because LBJ announced he was not seeking re-election as late as March 31st that year (yet my wife has had an Obama '08 bumper sticker on her car since last year's State Fair in Pennsylvania). A sentence is used that links the idea that a black political figure in America could be shot.
And the press report it. And Hillary apologizes. And Krugman writes about it. And that's the end of it, right?
Oh no. Not by a damned sight.
You see, the Appeal To Fear has already been let out of the bag. And it won't be going back...
An appeal to fear (also called argumentum ad metum or argumentum in terrorem) is a logical fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for his or her idea by increasing fear and prejudice toward a competitor. The appeal to fear is extremely common in marketing and politics.
But she apologized, right? I mean, sure, she said it before... but she said sorry right away. Honest mistake, right?
You see now how clever it is?
You see: the idea of appealing to fear has been used in marketing (and, therefore, in selling a political campaign) since things and ideas needed to be sold. Because it works. So if fear is such a great motivator, why not just scare people to the max? Why doesn't Hillary just take the gloves off and mention Hussein and terrorists and everything else all the time?
This is why:
Fear appeals are nonmonotonic, meaning that the level of persuasion does not increase in proportion to the amount of fear that is used. A study of public service messages on AIDS found that if the messages were too aggressive or fearful, they were rejected by the subject; a moderate amount of fear is the most effective attitude changer.
As far back as the 1960s, it has been noted that too much of a frightening thing may just paralyze people into doing nothing in the same way that too much choice has been shown to do, but just enough fear in small doses is a marvelous thing. It can help a person with irrational fears overcome their phobia...
...but it can also place fear into a normally fearless mind too. But only if done right. Too much, and the populace says "to Hell with that". Do it, then pull back. So Hillary puts in the idea. Then pulls it out and says nobody should be scared. Scared you, don't be scared. Scared you, you shouldn't be afraid. Scared you, not really.
In logic, the retractions equal the inputs. Logically, nobody should be scared.
People are not logical.
The fact that this is documented psychology that fits Clinton's strategy to a tee, and is not widely understood by the layman, makes it all the more insidious. The vast majority of people are trying to attribute different motives to it: maybe she wants someone to kill Obama. Maybe she'll do it herself and she can claim it was someone else motivated by her speech. Nope. It is exactly what it appears to be. She's rationing out the frightenings PRECISELY BECAUSE rationing out the frightenings is what works the best on us. The great unwashed masses of the population.
She doesn't want anyone dead, although that might help her cause somewhat. She does, however, want everyone scared of the possibility. And the best way to do that is to use a tactic that works and that most people don't recognize. A tactic that controls people emotionally without them being able to define how it's working, or what it is, or how easy it is to do. The Chinese Water Torture method of fear. Drip, drip, drip...
She doesn't just need to apologize for the insensitive things she's said. What she needs to do is apologize for, AND STOP, saying these things because of the reasons they're being said. These are mind-games that she's playing on the population of the United States. And I'm calling her out on it.
Senator Clinton: stop unduly creating an artificial atmosphere of fear in order to capitalize personally.
ADDITION: so how do you combat this? What sentence can you use to combat this tactic? What slays it dead?
You can't just say you're not voting for Hillary because she's evil, or that her supporters are stupid and gullible for falling for this. Nobody ever won over any other group with that kind of talk.
Once you start saying OTHER PEOPLE are a certain way, people dig their heels in. Human nature.
But what you CAN do is put it in a way that cannot be argued. If YOU are a certain way, and THAT'S why you chose Obama, then nobody can claim to know what you think or feel better than you know yourself.
And it also helps to talk from a position of strength.
So why am I supporting Obama?
Because I don't scare easily. Too many people are scared.
Not me.