As someone from afar who hasn’t seen Obama for more than a few seconds on TV, or paid much attention to the US election, I’ve been a bit baffled at how someone with such a limited number of actual achievements can generate so much enthusiasm.
I’ve read through texts of some of Obama’s speeches and found them to be incredibly banal and uninspiring. Some examples are also given in the body of the document.
Is there anything to the thesis contained in the attached PDF which claims that Obama uses mass hypnosis techniques in his prepared public speeches?
Disregarding the fairly strong tone of the line adopted by this thesis, does anyone think that there is much of substance to this mass hypnosis theory?
He’s a very pleasant, intelligent, well spoken young man who doesn’t appear to have any axes that he is grinding. It’s a refreshing change for Americans.
Why the pit? It’s simply a discussion about the validity or otherwise of a theory about mass hypnosis, with particular reference to a politician, not something to have a conniption over.
Of course. Isn’t it obvious he’s using the same hypno-rays that the Apollo crew perfected in the 60s and used on the world at large during the fake moon landings?
Thankfully, I’m wearing faraday-glasses, and anti-hypno-sheilding earmuffs to block the hypno-rays coming out of my television during his speeches.
Also, if you look closely, you can see the rotating pinwheels in his irises. Dare not stare too long! It might make you blind to the unholy terrorist regime he’s currently forging around us all, nigh this very instant!
yeh, I think this needs to go to the pit.
I’d agree that there doesn’t appear to be “hard science” as such in the theory, but there’s very limited “hard science” in a number of other social sciences which rely a lot on surveys and statistical methods.
Results from “soft sciences” are acknowledged to be provisional and trustworthy only to within certain confidence levels. That does not automatically invalidate their findings from a scientific point of view.
Assuming that mass-hypnosis is possible, how did Obama master such a technique, in such a short time, that seems so incredibly fringe and esoteric? Is he a wizard?
Or, maybe it was a rhetorical question to make my point. You seem baffled that so many Americans seem enraptured by a guy who seems very bland and banal to you… so you figure mass-hypnosis (!) is a very likely explanation?
OR.
(or)
Perhaps he’s not so boring to most of us, and is in fact inspiring to many in his ideals, plans and perspectives for a nation that has suffered for 8 years through one of the most embarrassing and cynic-inducing presidencies our country has ever seen in its history. While his perceived accomplishments and experiences may be few, the campaign he’s run has given most of us a very real glimpse of how he leads. I’m impressed, not hypnotized.
I persist in nothing, just trying to get to the bottom of what your stance is here. Either you believe the thesis holds water, or you don’t. If you don’t, have you considered any other more obvious explanations to what you seem to be observing. You may not be the author – fine – but you seem to be searching for an explanation to an assumption you have, and are attracted to the authors ideas.
At first blush from the preamble, I’d say it’s complete horseshit. But, if you insist that I must read a 67 page PDF before I dismiss it out of hand, can you at least give us a breakdown?
Or at the very least, can you explain what any of these words mean when they are strung together this way? Because if the thesis is anywhere near as esoteric and pseudoscience-y as this example, I’ll be curious to see how far it gets you.
Maybe you’re losing something in translation? Many consider this speech one of his most eloquent, and a watershed moment in his campaign. Watch the whole thing if you can, maybe you’ll change your mind.
Many of us are inclined to attribute this thesis negligible probability; we consider it incredibly unlikely to be true, because it is such a preposterous claim. We come to it with an extreme prejudice, but one shaped by experience.
I assume you think differently, Aquila Be, on the grounds that you started this thread. I assume you feel as though this thesis has some non-negligible chance of being true. Is that correct? If so, why is that? Why do you not feel, as many of us do, that the claim is so preposterous as to be dismissable out of hand (with the caveat that we may change our minds if further evidence comes along, this being the same way we would treat it were the claim, say, “I’ve heard Obama derives his power from powdered unicorn horn”)?
