Top Psychologist on Tucker Carlson: The Threat of Google-Facebook to Manipulate Elections is Absolut

[Right_in_Virginia]

Top Psychologist on Tucker Carlson: The Threat of Google-Facebook to Manipulate Elections is Absolutely, Positively Profound (VIDEO)
Gateway Pundit, Mar 24, 2018, Jim Hoft

Dr. Robert Epstein is a research psychologist at the American Institute of Behavioral Research and Technology.

On Friday Dr. Epstein joined Tucker Carlson to discuss an upcoming presentation on “The Search Suggestion Effect (SSE): How Search Suggestions Can Be Used To Shift Opinions and Voting Preferences Dramatically.” The AIBRT researchers looked at the power of Google and Facebook to influence elections. The study spanned five years of investigations.

Dr. Epstein told Tucker Carlson: I can tell you we should be paranoid because Google and Facebook can do is really mind-boggling. For example if Mark Zuckerberg on election day last year, if he had chosen to press the enter key early morning and just sent out a message to Hillary Clinton supporters only saying, “Go out and vote,” that would have sent her an additional 450,000 voters that day with no one knowing that this had occurred.

And that’s just Facebook. What Google can do is really off the scale. Our studies show that Google can take a 50-50 split among undecided voters and change it into a 90-10 split with no one knowing they had been manipulated and without leaving a paper trail… It has to do with those search suggestions. Literally from the very first character that you type into the search bar you are being manipulated. And we’ve done 16 months of experiments. We’ve done all the research now and we know exactly how this works… The threat is absolutely, positively profound

.

More w/video:  http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/03/top-psychologist-on-tucker-carlson-the-threat-of-google-facebook-to-manipulate-elections-is-absolutely-positively-profound-video/

[truth_seeker]

The subject is political messaging, using technology.

--Word of mouth, travel on foot.
--Word of mouth, travel by horse.
--Hand written poster.
--Printed poster, multiple copies (hand copy)
--Printed poster, multiple copies (printing press)
--Pony Express
--People and documents moved faster by rail
--Messages moved by wired electronic means, telgrams
--Wireless messaging, worldwide
--Computers, email
--Internet
--News aggregators (Drudge)
--Social media

The CONTENT of the messages is little changed, intending to PERSUADE

Current variables: How many reached, and how persuasive is the messaging?

I would like to investigate what Russia did in 2012 ?? Coud we get some investigative journalism to look into that question ??

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

How does this Epstein qualify as a 'Top Psychologist?'

How about we remember which Top Psychologist underpins all the other 'Top Psychologists' of today.

http://psychroaches.blogspot.com/2011/07/occult-world-of-cg-jung.html

[Suppressed]

How does this Epstein qualify as a 'Top Psychologist?'

Check out his Wikipedia page and see.

[Frank Cannon]

How does this Epstein qualify as a 'Top Psychologist?'

How about we remember which Top Psychologist underpins all the other 'Top Psychologists' of today.

http://psychroaches.blogspot.com/2011/07/occult-world-of-cg-jung.html

Were you touched inappropriately at a court ordered psych evaluation?

[Formerly Once-Ler]

How does this Epstein qualify as a 'Top Psychologist?'

How about we remember which Top Psychologist underpins all the other 'Top Psychologists' of today

You obviously have a small penis.  /sarcasm and likely projection too.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Check out his Wikipedia page and see.

I did. The question stands.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Were you touched inappropriately at a court ordered psych evaluation?

Any number of 'Top' rejoinders jump to mind but none of them would play well to a jury.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

@Frank Cannon
@Suppressed

"An autobiographical essay documenting his long involvement with the media was published in 2006 in the academic journal Perspectives on Psychological Science.[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectives_on_Psychological_Science

Hilarious.

Scientism yes, Science no. Not till they start coming up with Lab Reports on Patients.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

@Once-Ler

You're already on my ignore list because of your previous, juvenile inanities.

[Suppressed]

Scientism yes, Science no. Not till they start coming up with Lab Reports on Patients.

@To-Whose-Benefit?

There are quantitative tests, such as IQ tests, in psychology.  There are subjective reports that can be employed to determine effects.  There are experiments with repeatability.  There are the elements of the scientific method.  To deny there is science in psychology is ignoring the reality of the field psychology, even if it's not always practiced soundly.

If you have specific criticisms of this man's work, please cite them.  But to dismiss him out of hand is untenable rhetorically as well as ethically.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

@To-Whose-Benefit?

There are quantitative tests, such as IQ tests, in psychology. There are subjective reports that can be employed to determine effects.  There are experiments with repeatability.

(Yes, and the results either do NOT Replicate or are falsified.)

There are the elements of the scientific method.  To deny there is science in psychology is ignoring the reality of the field psychology, even if it's not always practiced soundly.

If you have specific criticisms of this man's work, please cite them.  But to dismiss him out of hand is untenable rhetorically as well as ethically.

Real Science is Objective, not Subjective.

39 police encounters with Cruz, the last School Mass Murderer. Govt failed to stop him at every level. Govt., through Quack Central, CREATED him long before he started shooting.

Dr Peter Breggin:

https://www.madinamerica.com/2018/02/more-psychiatry-means-more-shootings/

[snip]

"What do we know about Cruz’s psychiatric treatment?
The First Tragic Irony

According to the New York Times, the official department report that found Cruz to be “low risk” indicated that “he was regularly taking medication for A.D.H.D. It was unclear whether he was taking anything for depression, according to the report.”

In more detail, NBC News observed that Nikolas’s adoptive mother “insisted he received his necessary medication as prescribed.”

Investigators from the Department of Children and Families also contacted Cruz’s healthcare provider. NBC News quoted directly from report, “[Cruz’s] clinician from Henderson Mental Health has stated that there are no issues with [Cruz’s] medication and he has been compliant with taking his medication and keeps all his appointments.”

This is an irony of tragic proportions. Cruz was left unsupervised and free to buy a gun because he was faithfully taking psychiatric drugs that can cause or aggravate violence."


Front Line drug treatment for ADHD is Ritalin, Adderall, or Concerta

Pharmaceutical Grade, FDA Approved Speed.

These Quacks turned him into a Speed Freak and the press is amazed there were 39 encounters with police before he went on his murderous rampage.

http://psychroachesadverseevent.blogspot.com/2009/03/ritalin-and-concerta-adverse-reactions.html

http://psychroachesadverseevent.blogspot.com/2009/03/adderall-adverse-reactions.html

And those are only the ADRs that Got reported since there's no law Requiring Adverse Drug Reaction even Be Reported.

Under Reporting of Adverse Reactions, A Systematic Review

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16689555


 "To deny there is science in psychology is ignoring the reality of the field psychology"

Ignoring the Reality?

The 'REALITY' of the field of Psychology is No Cures for a Single one of their Quack OPINIONS, EVER, just a horrendous swath of disability, chronic diseases, and dead bodies.


Why do you keep coming back to Defend this gibberish as Scientific, or Beneficial?

Why?

You got money invested in it?

[edpc]

What Google can do is really off the scale. Our studies show that Google can take a 50-50 split among undecided voters and change it into a 90-10 split with no one knowing they had been manipulated and without leaving a paper trail…

Personally, I reject the notion they're undecided.  They're only getting reinforced notions of things they already believe.  People are aware of the political stances of Google and Facebook.  If you're relying on them for information, you're already predisposed to believe what they feed you.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

@To-Whose-Benefit?

There are quantitative tests, such as IQ tests, in psychology.  There are subjective reports that can be employed to determine effects.  There are experiments with repeatability.  There are the elements of the scientific method.  To deny there is science in psychology is ignoring the reality of the field psychology, even if it's not always practiced soundly.

If you have specific criticisms of this man's work, please cite them.  But to dismiss him out of hand is untenable rhetorically as well as ethically.

"There are subjective reports that can be employed to determine effects.  There are experiments with repeatability."

Reports? Experiments?

Have a look at the Worth of published 'Reports and Experiments'

It's so dodgy and riddled with intentional 'Publish or Die' manipulation there's a Site devoted exclusively to tracking Retractions in 'Scientific' papers, when they authors get caught and called on it.

https://retractionwatch.com