Coronavirus is the big hoax of the town these days – but don’t you dare forget about the other hoaxes!
There’s growing concern among citizens all over the world about climate change, according to a new global poll.
But respondents had very different attitudes to the level of urgency required to tackle the problem.
Big majorities in poorer countries strongly agreed with tackling climate change with the same vigour as Covid-19.
However in richer nations, the support for rapid action was far more muted.
Meanwhile, the Prince of Wales has warned the climate crisis will “dwarf” the impact of coronavirus.
The poll, carried out by Globescan, provides fresh evidence that people the world over remain very concerned about climate change, despite the pandemic and subsequent economic impact.
Across the 27 countries surveyed, around 90% of people saw climate change as a very serious or somewhat serious problem.
Let me tell you a little something about human psychology: the more times people hear something, the more likely they are to believe it. Even if they know it to be factually untrue, they become more comfortable with the idea the more times it registers in their brain from the environment.
Basically, humans are social creatures, and they want to be on-board with whatever everyone else is on-board with, so their brains will tell them to start agreeing with things they hear over and over (especially from different sources, making the subconscious mind believe that “everyone agrees, and you should too”).
It shouldn’t shock you that this is something that the establishment has spent a lot of time studying.
You have probably had the experience of hearing a new song and not caring for it much at first, but after hearing it a number of times, you find that you really do enjoy the song and catch yourself humming it when you least expect to.
This phenomenon is one example of the mere exposure effect. Basically, the more you see or hear something, you more you like it. In other words, we tend to like things more when they’re familiar to us (even if they’re familiar for a goofy reason). In the original demonstration of this effect, Robert Zajonc showed his participants images that they didn’t already have extreme reactions to (e.g., foreign words, Chinese characters, or faces of strangers).
These participants were asked to just rate how pleasant the images were. Now, some of the participants were seeing the image for the first time when they rated it, but other participants had already seen the image before. Some people had seen it just one time, some people had seen it a few times, and some people had seen it as many as 25 times. The results were clear: the more they had already been exposed to the image, the more they said they liked it. Over the years, psychologists have shown that this happens for a range of stimuli, including paintings, colors, flavors, and geometric figures. The more times people had been exposed to the stimulus, the more they ended up liking it.
Social Mere Exposure
One of my favorite demonstrations of this effect comes from a 1992 study. The researchers arranged for four different women (of similar appearance) to attend a college class a certain number of times throughout the semester. One of these women didn’t actually attend at all, one attended five times, one attended ten times, and the last woman attended fifteen times. These women didn’t interact with the students at all; they just sat in on the lecture.
At the end of the semester, the students in the class saw pictures of each of the women and rated them on several scales like physical attractiveness. Despite never having interacted with these women, the students showed a clear mere exposure effect. That is, they evaluated the woman who they had seen 15 times much more positively than the woman they hadn’t seen at all.
The Limits of Mere Exposure
An analysis of a ton of mere exposure studies showed that repeated exposure tends to be more effective when there is a delay between seeing the word or picture and the ratings of them, which means it helps to give the multiple exposures time to settle in. In some cases, there was still an effect of the repeated exposure two weeks later!
It also seems to be the case the mere exposure effect doesn’t work as strongly with children because kids tend to prefer new and things instead of things that have become familiar.
What’s super interesting is that the mere exposure effect is even stronger when the words or pictures are repeatedly presented subliminally. As you’ve already learned so far, simply being exposed to something for a while fosters greater liking for whatever has been presented, but when researchers deliberately expose people to a stimulus on a subconscious level, the exposure still fosters greater liking. That is, even if you have no awareness that you’ve seen something a bunch of times before, you still end up liking it more.
In one experiment, researchers conducted three slightly different versions of the same experiment. In the first version, people were doing an activity on a computer, and a photo of a person (let’s call him “Fred”) was presented 5 times at a speed of just 4 milliseconds (i.e., people don’t notice that they saw a photo). In the second version, everything was the same except the photo that was quickly presented was of a different person (let’s call him “Dave”). In the third version, everything seemed the same except there were no photos shown to the participants—quickly or not.
The results reveal the power of subliminal exposure. People tended to like a person more if they had seen his face a few times before—even if they were flashed so quickly that they couldn’t even notice the face on the screen. Even more, if these people then had a conversation with the person whose face they had been subliminally exposed to, their interactions went more smoothly than if they hadn’t been exposed to that person’s face before. That is, when people actually met Fred, they liked him more if they had seen his face flash un-noticeably in the earlier activity (compared to people who saw Dave’s face or no faces in the earlier activity).
Frankly, this phenomenon is the number one driver of our entire society. It is the “one weird trick” that ensures that everything goes according to the plans of the ruling elite.
Global warming used to be the most obvious example of this technique in application, but now the best example is coronavirus. Coronavirus is actually stupider and more obviously false. Global warming relies on alleging a phenomenon you’re not supposed to be able to see (weather change over decades), while with coronavirus, they’re telling you masses of people are dying from a disease all around you (you should be able to look around and see this isn’t happening).
I’m often speculated that the more hoaxes people believe in, the easier it is to believe in new hoaxes, as they drift further from reality and become more comfortable with idiotic bullshit. But with the coronavirus upending everyone’s life, changing the entire environment and way of living, people are now totally disconnected from reality, so they will be much more likely to go along with whatever insane measures are allegedly designed to stop the weather from changing.
They’d better bring back this global warming hoax quick, because I’m thinking if they don’t that Greta bitch is gonna kill herself.
And we wouldn’t want that.
I don’t know what species she is, but she’s such a sweet little girl.