Behaviorism is a branch of psychology which looks at observable phenomena without trying to analyze too much.

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

It is a sort of mathematical approach to psychology which analytical minded people often tend to dismiss.

This page is in the Weltanschauungskrieg section because behaviorism is the basis for the science behind manipulating a population by 'guiding' its worldview.

~

Here is a UK television program which features difficult children being 'saved' by reassigning responsibility for their misbehavior.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/5815825/viewers-slam-parents-violent-young-son-six-hours-bed-each-night/ 

An analytical psychology fan might come up with some theories, a behaviorist others. But clearly neither path sees too far into the behavior.

Starting with behaviorism, a person might observe that the behavior has similarities to what would be called appropriate behavior if certain variables were changed. In other words the children are inappropriate as 21st century urban British children, but their acts are suitable to another environment.

In 10 years that tv show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44pnUW4O-U will be seen as a parody of psychology shows, hopefully.

An interesting contrast is the Japanese reaction to 'hikikomori' in the documentary https://www.documentarystorm.com/japan-the-mystery-of-the-missing-million/ 

Also worth seeing that in the U.S. the boy would have been in a chemical fog since early.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-global-explosion-of-a_n_6186776 

In the first episode of the tv show above the boy has obvious chemical fluctuations which would be dealt with nutritionally, so obviously the tv therapist did not solve the problem. But the tv show ends with the boy 'cured'. A trick accomplished by leaving at the right time.

What will probably stay with the boy is that when he behaves politely the pretty woman his father is using as a substitute for his mother abruptly leaves.

~

Most sciences are taught in a slightly skewed way in universities, because the bounds of sciences vary slightly across paradigms, in other words if any two people were to master any one science completely, each would be mastering a slightly different science. One person's physics, chemistry, etc is not exactly another person's physics, chemistry etc.

The behaviorism taught today in universities is an extreme example of this.

Pure behaviorism is an observational science more than most sciences. Somebody who wants to master this will observe and not experiment. It's purpose is learning, and whatever follows it. Ultimately, as an observational science it arrives at one side of a continuum, with the other side being another science e.g. analytical psychology.

Academic behaviorism is more experimentation. It's purpose is productivity, control, etc.

A person who studies academic behaviorism will run animals through processes to control their behavior. Then the animals will be euthanized and the next group of students the following semester will start new animals on the path to being trained.

An example of observational or 'real' behaviorism

The behaviorism taught in schools has long term problems which negate it as a science, but if you backtrack the development of behaviorism you can arrive at a real science. Here will be an example of real behaviorism, in the context of what this website deals with.

1) There are a lot of 'conspiracyish' theories which refer to 'one worlders' or 'globalists' or 'elitists' or something similar. These theories are based on something which, generally, not even the conspiracy theorists can readily identify, except very locally i.e., their observations within the context of their personal experiences or anecdotes from those around them. These theories have wide appeal though, so obviously they have a sound archetypal basis. They also contain a lot of defensive emotional energy in the conspirators, so its likely that whatever the real issue is, it involves survival at some level.

2) The general ideas within the conspiracy point to two 'groups' among humans. A powerful 'global' group which 'runs things', and a 'victim' group which is slowly consumed by the 'one worlders' or globalists.

3) At this point there are enough similarities with the 'melting potters' vs 'indigenous', or 'colonizers' vs aboriginal', that it is worth examining the possibility that this might be the root of that conspiracy. Any honest study, in fact, will lead to the conclusion that it is.

4) So, at this point, there is a growing popular sentiment that 'indigenous' is threatened by 'globalist'. Should a person on the wrong side of that equation now retreat to false academic behaviorism? Should those threatened by anti colonialist sentiment, which is starting to bubble in to the popular consciousness, use industrial manipulative tools, like 'conditioning' etc to 'control' the threat? https://www.britannica.com/science/conditioning Or should they use real behaviorism, observational behaviorism, to see how such conflicts always resolve, and thus not waste their resources on stupidity?

5) The obvious question when looking at this example is 'why would the average person identify with the 'indigenous' side of the question?' In other words, why do 'melting potted' people acting at a more instinctive level identify as 'indigenous' and not 'global' or 'one worlder'? The answer is simply the cyclical qualities of human expansion, and can be observed throughout history when a group expands then bumps into hard borders. People are trying to retreat to 'an indigenous or tribal space', just as they would have in a similar situation a thousand years ago, but today there is no such clear cut tribal identity for most people. An average Heinz 57 modern person, a mix of several 'still existent' tribal entities, can easily see the faraway problem but not the near problem, they can see the 'globalist' side as an identifiable enemy, but they cannot perceive their own side because they are 'mixed indigenous'. There isn't one identifiable tribe saying 'we need to establish a tribal border', there are hundreds of millions of people who don't have a clear tribal identity though they have the instinct to retreat to a tribal border.

6) So, at this point there are two competing 'consciousnesses, a consolidating 'corporate' group, which is people who are conditioned to serve melting pot interests, politicians for example, and a group identifying as 'indigenous victims' or 'people whose real estate is under attack' on the other side. Neither has any individual who accurately represents either side, the two sides are two 'beasts' or 'group consciousnesses' which require gangsters on either side to feed one another.

7) As usual, the simple solution is common sense, but people caught up in gang activities are notoriously immune from that. Nature has a solution though. Inevitably such gang conflicts lead to turmoil that breaks each gang into its smaller and smaller components. 

 

 

 

In Progress