Except one of them has a history of the science of psychology behind it, as well as the many certifications and education you need to be a psychologist, and the other was a propagandist with no deep scientific education behind them, no showing why the techniques they were using were effective (because they often weren’t). One of them has evidence and science behind them and the other does not. They are not the same things.
Literally different things.
EDIT: Also it is worth noting that modern propaganda began after revolutions against monarchies. The French state post-revolution was a hotbed of propaganda.
So, even by your argument, its clear that modern propaganda methods took root after the age of revolutions and at the beginning of the age of Nations.
None of those prove that a psychologist using well documented evidence on human psychology is the same as fucking nitwits naming monsters after people they didn’t like. I literally referenced the era of modern propaganda techniques, which coincides with a growth of the understanding of psychology in promoting propaganda. I didn’t say “propaganda never existed at all prior to the revolutions.”
But keep ignoring specific words I use to try to convince yourself you’re right. Seriously, comparing psychologists to people who named monsters after disliked people. Fucking laugh riot.
I’ll be waiting patiently for your semantic objection to something inconsequential in one of my sources so that you don’t have a bruised ego 😄
Right on cue, champ!
Honestly if you can’t see how invoking monsters to inspire fear is just a rudimentary employment of psychological warfare, I’m not sure you have any business speaking to psychology as a whole.
You think you’re clever, but you’re not. I’m not sure someone whose education seems to be focused on an era where psychology didn’t exist as a discipline should be expounding on it, either.
So, the people invoking monster names knew what psychological warfare was because they understood psychology? I call bollocks on that.
But keep telling yourself you’re right and just misunderstood. I’m sure that will mean fuck-all when you’re dead and nobody remembers you existed, just like me.
They absolutely did, except they weren’t called psychologists and they were much less effective.
So literally not the same thing, then?
Well if it’s not literally not the same thing, then it has zero bearing on the situation!
Absolutism is the death of intelligent discourse.
If I call it a trowel and you call it a spade, they’re not different things.
If mine is made of paper and yours is made of aluminum, they’re still not different things.
Except one of them has a history of the science of psychology behind it, as well as the many certifications and education you need to be a psychologist, and the other was a propagandist with no deep scientific education behind them, no showing why the techniques they were using were effective (because they often weren’t). One of them has evidence and science behind them and the other does not. They are not the same things.
Literally different things.
EDIT: Also it is worth noting that modern propaganda began after revolutions against monarchies. The French state post-revolution was a hotbed of propaganda.
So, even by your argument, its clear that modern propaganda methods took root after the age of revolutions and at the beginning of the age of Nations.
Yeah but their feelings say that they’re the same thing, so you might as well just pack it up pal. Hold that L.
You’re completely wrong, but go off sister! Love seeing misplaced confidence and arrogance in an area I’m intimately familiar with.
https://hyperallergic.com/448358/medieval-monsters-terrors-aliens-wonders-morgan-library/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0304418175900123
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1468-2281.00064
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/transactions-of-the-royal-historical-society/article/abs/games-people-played-drama-and-ritual-as-propaganda-in-medieval-europe/
https://scholarworks.uni.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1065&context=hpt
https://www.jstor.org/stable/175680
Is that enough? Should I keep going?
I’ll be waiting patiently for your semantic objection to something inconsequential in one of my sources so that you don’t have a bruised ego 😄
None of those prove that a psychologist using well documented evidence on human psychology is the same as fucking nitwits naming monsters after people they didn’t like. I literally referenced the era of modern propaganda techniques, which coincides with a growth of the understanding of psychology in promoting propaganda. I didn’t say “propaganda never existed at all prior to the revolutions.”
But keep ignoring specific words I use to try to convince yourself you’re right. Seriously, comparing psychologists to people who named monsters after disliked people. Fucking laugh riot.
Right on cue, champ!
Honestly if you can’t see how invoking monsters to inspire fear is just a rudimentary employment of psychological warfare, I’m not sure you have any business speaking to psychology as a whole.
You think you’re clever, but you’re not. I’m not sure someone whose education seems to be focused on an era where psychology didn’t exist as a discipline should be expounding on it, either.
So, the people invoking monster names knew what psychological warfare was because they understood psychology? I call bollocks on that.
But keep telling yourself you’re right and just misunderstood. I’m sure that will mean fuck-all when you’re dead and nobody remembers you existed, just like me.
K