REASONS FOR SIGNING A PETITION TO STOP ‘GANG STALKING ELECTRONIC HARASSMENT’ THAT WAS CLOSED DUE TO NOT ENOUGH SIGNATURES
Reasons Why People Signed This Petition But Was Closed By Not Enough Signatures
Brandina Bohart CORNING, NY
10 months ago
I am a victim also. I have lost everything including my children. Please help if you have any information on how to stop it.
Shenita L,A Thompson DALLAS, TX
10 months ago
I am a victim I have proof but they are withholding the proper Medical Attention that I need. I also have the sandwich from which I bit off that transfered the chemical into my body .The chemical reaction allowed them to be to use electronic harassment against me please help me.
josephine Josephine VANCOUVER, CANADA
1 year ago
Sign the petition to save a life, You could be the next victim.
Organized gang stalking can involve a group in the hundreds to thousands harassing a single person or family 24/7. The victim is stalked en masse by car, foot, bike, and air in order to alienate and isolate the victim.
The goals of gang stalking are to: provoke the victim to assault someone and get arrested; make the victim seem delusional/ mentally ill (see “gaslighting”); make the victim so depressed that they become suicidal.
Tactics used are relentless color harassment, noise harassment, air harassment, hand signals, electronic monitoring inside the home and car (complete invasion of privacy; redirecting of phone calls, emails, postal mail), workplace mobbing, “directed conversation” and innuendo, erratic/ aggressive driving, bizarre/rude behavior in the community, and much more.
Police,security guys,and fire department are often involved in the stalking so the victim feels like they have nowhere to turn to, so the public naturally feel what they do is legal and right,and makes it hard to prove.
Many are forced to insane and suicide before even being able to figure out what’s going on to their life. Most are normal people just like you and me. And once one is flagged as a target by this kind of group stalking, there is no end of it until the victim is cornered to death.
Fooling and maneuvering common mass citizens into this stalking crime is the dirtiest part. Most public allured into this stalking crime have no clue what they are involved in, by some big lies like ‘patriotism’. If anybody did anything that has been proved wrong or crime, we have laws and legal procedures to use, nobody should be given the chance to play such a super power beyond the law to ruin and kill others.
This equals long term plotted murder. This is extreme criminal activity that is becoming more common and needs to be outlawed ASAP before more get murdered in such a way.
Please paste the URL Although Closed as an Example of a Way To Stop ‘Gang Stalking Electronic Harassment’
to your social network to help that recognizing these criminals behaviors by collecting signatures helps to infiltrate a very sacred and close need they have for SECRECY out in the open and to raise the social awareness because many victims have no clue what is going on for years. Many in the public joined the stalking without knowing what they are really involved in. Maybe just allured by some ‘glorious’ sounding big lies such as ‘patriotism’.
Because it is outside of the law one could be killed this way simply because of a personal revenge. Anybody could be a target anytime. Today is others tomorrow can be you and your family. Let’s stand up now to make it a better world for all of us, our children, and their children, give them a world with order and rights.
The human mind is a wonderful thing. Cognition, the act or process of thinking, enables us to process vast amounts of information quickly. For example, every time your eyes are open, you brain is constantly being bombarded with stimuli. You may be consciously thinking about one specific thing, but you brain is processing thousands of subconscious ideas. Unfortunately, our cognition is not perfect, and there are certain judgment errors that we are prone to making, known in the field of psychology as cognitive biases. They happen to everybody regardless of age, gender, education, intelligence, or other factors. Some of them are well known, others not, but all of them are interesting. I am sure everyone will find that one has happened to them, (I myself have been prone to several) and now will recognize when they are making an error in the future.
The Gambler’s fallacy is the tendency to think that future probabilities are altered by past events, when in reality, they are not. Certain probabilities, such as getting a heads when you flip a (fair) coin, are always the same. The probability of getting a heads is 50%, it does not matter if you’ve gotten tails the last 10 flips. Thinking that the probabilities have changed is a common bias, especially when gambling. For example, I am playing roulette. The last four spins have landed on black, it has to be red this time right? Wrong! The probability of landing on red is still 47.37% (18 red spots divided by 38 total spots). This may sound obvious, but this bias has caused many a gambler to lose money thinking the probabilities have changed.
Reactivity is the tendency of people to act or appear differently when they know that they are being observed. In the 1920s, Hawthorne Works (a manufacturing facility) commissioned a study to see if different levels of light influenced worker productivity. What they found was incredible, changing the light caused productivity to soar! Unfortunately, when the study was finished, productivity levels decreased to their regular levels. This was because the change in productivity was not due to the light levels, but to the workers being watched. This demonstrated a form of reactivity; when individuals know they are being watched, they are motivated to change their behavior, generally to make themselves look better. Reactivity is a serious problem in research, and has to be controlled in blind experiments (“Blind” is when individuals involved in a research study are purposely withheld information so as not to influence the outcomes).
Pareidolia is when random images or sounds are perceived as significant. Seeing clouds in the shapes of dinosaurs, Jesus on a hot pocket, or hearing messages when a record is played backward are common examples of pareidolia. The common element is that the stimulus is neutral, it does not have intentional meaning; the meaning is in the viewer’s perception.
Interesting Fact: the Rorschach Inkblot test was developed to use pareidolia to tap into people’s mental states. Testees are shown images of ambiguous pictures, and asked to describe what they see. Responses are analyzed to discover the testee’s hidden thoughts.
Self-fulfilling prophecy is engaging in behaviors that obtain results that confirm existing attitudes. A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that causes itself to become true. For example, I believe that I am going to do poorly in school, so I decrease the effort I put into my assignments and studying, and I end up doing poorly, just as I thought. Another common example is relationships; I think my relationship with my significant other is going to fail, so I start acting differently, pulling away emotionally. Because of my actions, I actually cause the relationship to fail. This is a powerful tool used by “psychics” – they implant an idea in your mind, and you eventually make it happen because you think it will.
Interesting Fact: Economic Recessions are self-fulfilling prophecies. Because a recession is 2 quarters of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) decline, you cannot know you are in a recession until you are at least 6 months into one. Unfortunately, at the first sign of decreasing GDP, the media reports a possible recession, people panic and start a chain of events that actually cause a recession.
The Halo effect is the tendency for an individual’s positive or negative trait to “spill over” to other areas of their personality in others’ perceptions of them. This bias happens a lot in employee performance appraisals. For example: my employee, Biff, has been late to work the past three days; I notice this and conclude that Biff is lazy and does not care about his job. There are many possible reasons why Biff was late, perhaps his car broke down, his babysitter did not show up, or there has been bad weather. The problem is, because of one negative aspect that may be out of Biff’s control, I assume that he is a bad worker.
Interesting Fact: The Physical Attractiveness Stereotype is when people assume that attractive individuals possess other socially desirable qualities, such as happiness, success and intelligence. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when attractive people are given privileged treatment such as better job opportunities and higher salaries.
Herd mentality is the tendency to adopt the opinions and follow the behaviors of the majority to feel safer and to avoid conflict. Also known as “Mob Mentality,” this is, at its most common form, peer pressure. Herd mentality explains why fads get so popular. Clothes, cars, hobbies, styles, all it takes is a group of people who think something is cool, and it catches on.
Interesting Fact: things that are unattractive, or that would never seem cool or popular now have had huge followings due to herd mentality. Examples include parachute pants, pet rocks, mullets, cone bras, tie-dye, sea monkeys, and the 1980s (by the way, that is an ’80s guy in the picture above).
Reactance is the urge to do the opposite of what someone wants you to do out of a need to resist a perceived attempt to constrain your freedom of choice. This is common with rebellious teenagers, but any attempt to resist authority due to perceived threats to freedom and/or choice is reactance. The individual may not have a need to do the specific behavior, however the fact that they cannot do it makes them want to.
Interesting Fact: “reverse psychology” is an attempt to influence people using reactance. Tell someone (particularly children) to do the opposite of what you really want, and they will rebel and actually end up doing what you want.
Hyperbolic discounting is the tendency for people to prefer a smaller, immediate payoff over a larger, delayed payoff. Much research has been done on decision-making, and many factors contribute to the individual decision making process. Interestingly, delay time is a big factor in choosing an alternative. Put simply, most people would choose to get 20 dollars today instead of getting 100 dollars one year from today. Normally it makes sense to choose a greater amount of money immediately than less in the future, as the value of a dollar is worth more today than it is tomorrow. Assume that the interest rate is 9%, at this interest rate, a rational person would be indifferent to taking $91.74 now, or $100 a year from now. However, it is interesting how much less we are willing to take immediately rather than wait, would you rather have $100 a year from now, or $50 immediately? How about $40 immediately? Where do you draw the line?
Escalation of Commitment
Escalation of commitment is the tendency for people to continue to support previously unsuccessful endeavors. With all the decisions people have to make, it is unavoidable that some will be unsuccessful. Of course, the logical thing to do in these instances is to change that decision or try to reverse it. However, sometimes individuals feel compelled not only to stick with their decision, but also to further invest in that decision because they have sunk costs. For example, say you use half of your life savings to start a business. After 6 months, it is evident that the business is going to be unsuccessful. The logical thing to do would be to “cut your losses” and drop the business. However, due to the sunk costs of your life savings, you feel committed to the business and invest even more money into the project hoping that the additional cash will turn the business around.
The Placebo effect is when an ineffectual substance that is believed to have healing properties produces the desired effect. Especially common with medications, the placebo effect has been observed when individuals given a sugar pill for a real ailment report improvement. Placebos are still a scientific mystery. It is theorized that placebos cause an “Expectancy Effect”, (In cases of uncertainty, expectation is what is most likely to happen) individuals expect the pills to cure their ailments, so they feel cured. However, this does not explain how the ineffectual pills actually cause a reduction in symptoms.
Interesting Fact: The term “Placebo” is used when the outcomes are considered favorable, when the outcomes are negative or harmful; the term is “Nocebo”.
Exchanger Of Thoughts About Humanity – comments by Karen The Exchanger
The thoughts shared are a great reflection of our minds. We are a very a complex entity sometimes not aware of the need for self awareness. I am not sure that the word in title is accurate or fair for that matter. The word I am talking about is “Faults”. We are such an imperfect species that having faults might just be a part of us as a whole and perhaps not being perfect would be a better choice of the word than”Faults”.
I just realized that faults are similar kind of like a car needing an ignition to help it get running again. So..perhaps replacing the “fault” with a better solution like the gambler needing to gamble there could be a limit set. Looking at the gambler from another angle having an addictive behavior in relation to the act might need help.
Being addicted to a behavior brings out many thoughts. I feel it is possible that reflection in the way of a professional might help one get in touch with what we would call a problem. Awareness is a great tool to review our motives both with ourselves and others.
To replace thoughts with perhaps thoughts that are new to us can sometimes bring about wonderful and inspiring results. It is similar to playing a new piece on the piano and all of a sudden one just ‘gets it’ the music is acknowledged. Painting a picture that was started from scratch and then incredibly it turns out to be your masterpiece. We as humans can be very creative!
I wanted to discuss the “herd mentality” and how I have over my sixty years been a part of. I think until we come to an age where we can process this type of behavior like I did we may be hopelessly lost. Keeping and retaining your individuality is a tough road to hoe. Loosing ones self in relationships is a typical way to become disillusioned with ones self. I think “herd mentality” is a behavior we all work with throughout our entire lives. Thank goodness we are human as to err is to be human!
In the daily hubbub of current “crises” facing humanity, we forget about the many generations we hope are yet to come. Not those who will live 200 years from now, but 1,000 or 10,000 years from now. I…
In the daily hubbub of current “crises” facing humanity, we forget about the many generations we hope are yet to come. Not those who will live 200 years from now, but 1,000 or 10,000 years from now. I use the word “hope” because we face risks, called existential risks, that threaten to wipe out humanity. These risks are not just for big disasters, but for the disasters that could end history.
Not everyone has ignored the long future though. Mystics like Nostradamus have regularly tried to calculate the end of the world. HG Wells tried to develop a science of forecasting and famously depicted the far future of humanity in his book The Time Machine. Other writers built other long-term futures to warn, amuse or speculate.
But had these pioneers or futurologists not thought about humanity’s future, it would not have changed the outcome. There wasn’t much that human beings in their place could have done to save us from an existential crisis or even cause one.
We are in a more privileged position today. Human activity has been steadily shaping the future of our planet. And even though we are far from controlling natural disasters, we are developing technologies that may help mitigate, or at least, deal with them.
Yet, these risks remain understudied. There is a sense of powerlessness and fatalism about them. People have been talking apocalypses for millennia, but few have tried to prevent them. Humans are also bad at doing anything about problems that have not occurred yet (partially because of the availability heuristic – the tendency to overestimate the probability of events we know examples of, and underestimate events we cannot readily recall).
If humanity becomes extinct, at the very least the loss is equivalent to the loss of all living individuals and the frustration of their goals. But the loss would probably be far greater than that. Human extinction means the loss of meaning generated by past generations, the lives of all future generations (and there could be an astronomical number of future lives) and all the value they might have been able to create. If consciousness or intelligence are lost, it might mean that value itself becomes absent from the universe. This is a huge moral reason to work hard to prevent existential threats from becoming reality. And we must not fail even once in this pursuit.
With that in mind, I have selected what I consider the five biggest threats to humanity’s existence. But there are caveats that must be kept in mind, for this list is not final.
Over the past century we have discovered or created new existential risks – supervolcanoes were discovered in the early 1970s, and before the Manhattan project nuclear war was impossible – so we should expect others to appear. Also, some risks that look serious today might disappear as we learn more. The probabilities also change over time – sometimes because we are concerned about the risks and fix them.
Finally, just because something is possible and potentially hazardous, doesn’t mean it is worth worrying about. There are some risks we cannot do anything at all about, such as gamma ray bursts that result from the explosions of galaxies. But if we learn we can do something, the priorities change. For instance, with sanitation, vaccines and antibiotics, pestilence went from an act of God to bad public health.
1. Nuclear war
While only two nuclear weapons have been used in war so far – at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II – and nuclear stockpiles are down from their the peak they reached in the Cold War, it is a mistake to think that nuclear war is impossible. In fact, it might not be improbable.
The Cuban Missile crisis was very close to turning nuclear. If we assume one such event every 69 years and a one in three chance that it might go all the way to being nuclear war, the chance of such a catastrophe increases to about one in 200 per year.
Worse still, the Cuban Missile crisis was only the most well-known case. The history of Soviet-US nuclear deterrence is full of close calls and dangerous mistakes. The actual probability has changed depending on international tensions, but it seems implausible that the chances would be much lower than one in 1000 per year.
A full-scale nuclear war between major powers would kill hundreds of millions of people directly or through the near aftermath – an unimaginable disaster. But that is not enough to make it an existential risk.
Similarly the hazards of fallout are often exaggerated – potentially deadly locally, but globally a relatively limited problem. Cobalt bombs were proposed as a hypothetical doomsday weapon that would kill everybody with fallout, but are in practice hard and expensive to build. And they are physically just barely possible.
The real threat is nuclear winter – that is, soot lofted into the stratosphere causing a multi-year cooling and drying of the world. Modern climate simulations show that it could preclude agriculture across much of the world for years. If this scenario occurs billions would starve, leaving only scattered survivors that might be picked off by other threats such as disease. The main uncertainty is how the soot would behave: depending on the kind of soot the outcomes may be very different, and we currently have no good ways of estimating this.
2. Bioengineered pandemic
Natural pandemics have killed more people than wars. However, natural pandemics are unlikely to be existential threats: there are usually some people resistant to the pathogen, and the offspring of survivors would be more resistant. Evolution also does not favor parasites that wipe out their hosts, which is why syphilis went from a virulent killer to a chronic disease as it spread in Europe.
Unfortunately we can now make diseases nastier. One of the more famous examples is how the introduction of an extra gene in mousepox – the mouse version of smallpox – made it far more lethal and able to infect vaccinated individuals. Recent work on bird flu has demonstrated that the contagiousness of a disease can be deliberately boosted.
Right now the risk of somebody deliberately releasing something devastating is low. But as biotechnology gets better and cheaper, more groups will be able to make diseases worse.
Most work on bioweapons have been done by governments looking for something controllable, because wiping out humanity is not militarily useful. But there are always some people who might want to do things because they can. Others have higher purposes. For instance, the Aum Shinrikyo cult tried to hasten the apocalypse using bioweapons beside their more successful nerve gas attack. Some people think the Earth would be better off without humans, and so on.
The number of fatalities from bioweapon and epidemic outbreaks attacks looks like it has a power-law distribution – most attacks have few victims, but a few kill many. Given current numbers the risk of a global pandemic from bioterrorism seems very small. But this is just bioterrorism: governments have killed far more people than terrorists with bioweapons (up to 400,000 may have died from the WWII Japanese biowar program). And as technology gets more powerful in the future nastier pathogens become easier to design.
Intelligence is very powerful. A tiny increment in problem-solving ability and group coordination is why we left the other apes in the dust. Now their continued existence depends on human decisions, not what they do. Being smart is a real advantage for people and organisations, so there is much effort in figuring out ways of improving our individual and collective intelligence: from cognition-enhancing drugs to artificial-intelligence software.
Even more worrying is that in trying to explain things to an artificial intelligence we run into profound practical and philosophical problems. Human values are diffuse, complex things that we are not good at expressing, and even if we could do that we might not understand all the implications of what we wish for.
Software-based intelligence may very quickly go from below human to frighteningly powerful. The reason is that it may scale in different ways from biological intelligence: it can run faster on faster computers, parts can be distributed on more computers, different versions tested and updated on the fly, new algorithms incorporated that give a jump in performance.
It has been proposed that an “intelligence explosion” is possible when software becomes good enough at making better software. Should such a jump occur there would be a large difference in potential power between the smart system (or the people telling it what to do) and the rest of the world. This has clear potential for disaster if the goals are badly set.
The unusual thing about superintelligence is that we do not know if rapid and powerful intelligence explosions are possible: maybe our current civilisation as a whole is improving itself at the fastest possible rate. But there are good reasons to think that some technologies may speed things up far faster than current societies can handle. Similarly we do not have a good grip on just how dangerous different forms of superintelligence would be, or what mitigation strategies would actually work. It is very hard to reason about future technology we do not yet have, or intelligences greater than ourselves. Of the risks on this list, this is the one most likely to either be massive or just a mirage.
This is a surprisingly under-researched area. Even in the 50s and 60s when people were extremely confident that superintelligence could be achieved “within a generation”, they did not look much into safety issues. Maybe they did not take their predictions seriously, but more likely is that they just saw it as a remote future problem.
Nanotechnology is the control over matter with atomic or molecular precision. That is in itself not dangerous – instead, it would be very good news for most applications. The problem is that, like biotechnology, increasing power also increases the potential for abuses that are hard to defend against.
The big problem is not the infamous “grey goo” of self-replicating nanomachines eating everything. That would require clever design for this very purpose. It is tough to make a machine replicate: biology is much better at it, by default. Maybe some maniac would eventually succeed, but there are plenty of more low-hanging fruits on the destructive technology tree.
The most obvious risk is that atomically precise manufacturing looks ideal for rapid, cheap manufacturing of things like weapons. In a world where any government could “print” large amounts of autonomous or semi-autonomous weapons (including facilities to make even more) arms races could become very fast – and hence unstable, since doing a first strike before the enemy gets a too large advantage might be tempting.
Weapons can also be small, precision things: a “smart poison” that acts like a nerve gas but seeks out victims, or ubiquitous “gnatbot” surveillance systems for keeping populations obedient seems entirely possible. Also, there might be ways of getting nuclear proliferation and climate engineering into the hands of anybody who wants it.
We cannot judge the likelihood of existential risk from future nanotechnology, but it looks like it could be potentially disruptive just because it can give us whatever we wish for.
5. Unknown unknowns
The most unsettling possibility is that there is something out there that is very deadly, and we have no clue about it.
The silence in the sky might be evidence for this. Is the absence of aliens due to that life or intelligence is extremely rare, or that intelligent life tends to get wiped out? If there is a future Great Filter, it must have been noticed by other civilisations too, and even that didn’t help.
Whatever the threat is, it would have to be something that is nearly unavoidable even when you know it is there, no matter who and what you are. We do not know about any such threats (none of the others on this list work like this), but they might exist.
Note that just because something is unknown it doesn’t mean we cannot reason about it. In a remarkable paper Max Tegmark and Nick Bostrom show that a certain set of risks must be less than one chance in a billion per year, based on the relative age of Earth.
You might wonder why climate change or meteor impacts have been left off this list. Climate change, no matter how scary, is unlikely to make the entire planet uninhabitable (but it could compound other threats if our defences to it break down). Meteors could certainly wipe us out, but we would have to be very unlucky. The average mammalian species survives for about a million years. Hence, the background natural extinction rate is roughly one in a million per year. This is much lower than the nuclear-war risk, which after 70 years is still the biggest threat to our continued existence.
The availability heuristic makes us overestimate risks that are often in the media, and discount unprecedented risks. If we want to be around in a million years we need to correct that.
Exchanger of Thoughts About Humanity – comments by Karen The Exchanger
I do not pretend to know what the future holds for us. The times ahead of us really are just predictions. This article definitely offers a view of what could possibly happen. It is not through guessing but through research that the author and others claim that it is up to humanity to bring about a positive change in our existence.
I think that because we have the ability to choose what is right or wrong or good or bad our future is unpredictable. Since war is a choice that the people want I believe that it divides us. So…what can possibly come about with this mindset other than the division of humans beings.
The magnitude of the five biggest threats to human existence is overwhelming. Must I be a denier of these thoughts as I tend to want to believe that most people want peace. I am often aware that those close to me find it kind of unreal that I would be concerned that it would be good for humanity to exchange kindness. Are we so…removed from society that we would forget why we are here. It is definitely not to be unkind to each other.
It is important to take stock in how we perceive the possible events that may come into existence. Our lives reflect the possibility of the biggest threats to human existence coming into fruition. It is my hopes that there is a future for those coming into the world right now. I think it is our responsibility to create an existence that will support our new generations to come.
I really believe with futuristic thinking by being prepared for events of a magnitude that could possibly wipe out humanity an excellent choice. For humanity to continue to exist there does need to be a wide spread acknowledgement of a possibility of a crisis beyond comprehension. We can change that if we come together positively!
It is not only a fear of threats to human existence but awareness that places us exactly in the position to see what lies ahead. We need only to open our eyes. With thinkers about human existence I believe we have a chance to not only to see the possibilities of threats but be able to resolve the negative. We are the answer!
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi, was the preeminent leader of Indian nationalism in British-ruled India. Employing non-violent civil disobedience, Gandhi led India to independence and inspired movements for non-violence, civil rights and freedom across the world.
The son of a senior government official, Gandhi was born and raised in a Hindu Bania community in coastal Gujarat, and trained in law in London. Gandhi became famous by fighting for the civil rights of Muslim and Hindu Indians in South Africa, using new techniques of non-violent civil disobedience that he developed. Returning to India in 1915, he set about organizing peasants to protest excessive land-taxes. A lifelong opponent of “communalism”
Quotations About Humanity
Seven Deadly Sins
“Wealth without work
Pleasure without conscience
Science without humanity
Knowledge without character
Politics without principle
Commerce without morality
Worship without sacrifice.”
“Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.”
“Prayer is not asking. It is a longing of the soul. It is daily admission of one’s weakness. It is better in prayer to have a heart without words than words without a heart.”
“You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is like an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.”
“Let the first act of every morning be to make the following resolve for the day:
– I shall not fear anyone on Earth.
– I shall fear only God.
– I shall not bear ill will toward anyone.
– I shall not submit to injustice from anyone.
– I shall conquer untruth by truth. And in resisting untruth, I shall put up with all suffering.”
“There are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread.”
“It is unwise to be too sure of one’s own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err.”
“What we are doing to the forests of the world is but a mirror reflection of what we are doing to ourselves and to one another.”
“The Roots of Violence: Wealth without work, Pleasure without conscience, Knowledge without character, Commerce without morality, Science without humanity, Worship without sacrifice, Politics without principles.”
“To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being.”
Exchanger Of Thoughts About Humanity -comments by Karen The Exchanger
There is nothing more inspiring to me than someone who looks at humanity as Mahatma Gandhi did. Truly he shared with us a view that targeted an essence of peace. Treating each other as we would want to be treated he offered a look at relationships as one would wish. Harmony and peace are great goals and many have sought to commit their lives to those endeavors as Mahatma Gandhi did.
Sometimes I wonder what motivates great people like Mahatma Gandhi. Actually it seems as though this type of mindset sets someone up for disappointment. We are all so…different and many want to express themselves through war to get their point across. It is only once in a while that we are blessed with someone like Mahatma Gandhi who showed us the path to peace.
In my heart I feel that perhaps taking the path of least resistance would be easier. Looking at the past there are many that have strive for peace but lost their lives as Mahatma Gandhi did. I think the world needs help to heal from past and present discourse. Perhaps peace has always been at the heart of great leaders and even those not considered great.
I feel as though I always will support those who desire and take action to bring about harmony in the world. I have always been disillusioned by those who see war as a way to bring about peace. Conflict is the answer for many and just the thought of harmony and peace for them not end result their desire.
I wonder if people like myself and others that support peace as a end result are living in the real world. I have been told that the world is just too complex and different for many in regards to how one thinks. Perhaps it is not a reality!
I applaud Mahatma Gandhi and other great leaders in their quest for all people to live together in this world harmoniously. What a wonderful result would happen if we came together supporting each other for a peaceful outcome and existence.
Stream instantly and download to 2 locations Details
Amazon Instant Video (streaming online video and digital download)
Synopsis: ‘The Thought Exchange’ Documentary Movie
Our thoughts create our reality; What we think appears before us in the world; Change your thoughts and you change your life” We all know this, Why don’t we do it? The Thought Exchange is a simple yet profound way of looking at the world, that allows us to understand and experience the truth about who we really are, where we really live, what we really want, and how to have that all the time.
Exchanger Of Thoughts About Humanity – comments by Karen The Exchanger
The synopsis of the movie is an indication that what we think has a direct impact on how we live. The suggestion of how we process our thoughts aligns with how positive our relationships will be. Thinking beyond positive thinking for me is a new concept because it appears to be a new found thought process that we all can benefit from.
I have yet to view the documentary movie but reading the reviews from those that have give a mixed review. One can view the movie through Amazon for a minimal cost.
The concept that what we think will manifest is a truly an observable happening. I imagine if each individual at a young age learned that what we think will have an impact on their life there would be some interesting questions. We would grow up in an environment that would be conducive to a need to dissolve conflicts between people individually and mass groups as in war.
I feel that if we had incorporated positive thinking and beyond in our school curriculum that perhaps the idea of harmony and peace in our relationship would not be such a controversial way of thinking.
One sometimes has to seek out self help materials just to stubble upon alternative ways of thinking. Imagine if those materials were available in schools for children our society may have been or may be a place of constant enjoyment.
In relation to each other I believe there would evolve a certain clear reflection of what the documentary reveals in that we are what we think as well as how we live.
Exchanger Of Thoughts About Humanity – comments by Karen The Exchanger
Searching for thoughts from others along with the need for positive relationships is imperative. Since humans are so…complex in respect to our ability to communicate we are left with much to be desired in creating positive relationships. A book written by Peter M. Blau focuses on the relationships between humans in a social setting:
The aim of the book is to understand social structure by understanding the processes that govern the associations among people.
The book is an attempt to provide a foundation, a first step, in a broader theory of social organization. To do so, PMB needs to identify the basic elements of social association. He uses social exchange as this basis.
Put another way, he wants to link theories of everyday life to theories of wider social structure, to bridge the ‘micro-macro’ divide.
The purpose of the analysis of interpersonal relations is to derive from the analysis a better understanding of the complex structure of associations among men. (p.2)
In such a program, one needs to avoid both over abstraction and too much reduction. Reductionism ignores the emergent properties of a social system — the characteristics of a system that are only observable at the system level. Over abstraction leads to untestable theories and, more importantly, complex theories of social life need to be grounded in simple explanations.
What are emergent properties?
They are the relations among elements in a structure. They could not exist without the structure, but neither are they found in the elements alone. The age distribution, for example, is not captured by an individual’s age.Because sociology seeks to understand the relations among people, we are always concerned with emergent properties.
The concept of social exchange directs attention to the emergent property in interpersonal relations.
PMB points out that a person for whom another has done a favor is expected to express gratitude & return a service when the occasion arises.
The quality of a social relation is the joint product of both parties, and thus cannot be reduced to a quality of just one person.
Exchange is conceived of as a social process of central significance in social life, derived from simpler processes (of attraction, for example) that do not concern us here, that then leads to more complex processes (among groups, for example).
Social exchange may reflect any behavior oriented to socially mediated goals. People act rationally, and often employ exchange in pursuit of rational ends. For example, among members of a political organization, they may exchange support to build solidarity, or, lovers may do things for each other to gain commitment in the relationship.
Chapter 1.The structure of social associations.
“To speak of social life is to speak of the associations between people.”
Blau’s ‘Guiding Principle’ for understanding social relations “is that the analysis of social associations, of the processes governing them, and the forms they assume is the central task of sociology.”
He recognizes that associations between individuals tend to become organized into complex structures, often institutionalized to perpetuate the for of organization beyond the life span of human beings.
We study interaction to understand how this happens, in this book, Blau (PMB) focuses on the structure of social associations.’
[read the last paragraph of this section closely]
The exchange of social rewards
Most human pleasures have their roots in social life. Thus, a good meal is really in the company, not the flavors (consider the “pathetic” image of the glutton, eating a great meal alone).
Similarly, much of human suffering also has its source in interaction with others (heartbreak at the loss of a lover, being cheated by someone, etc.)
Social rewards to one person tend to entail a cost to another person. This does not mean that society is a zero sum game (that every person must loose in equal proportion to someone else’s gain), but it does imply that people do not share social profits equally.
Also, social action can be intrinsically rewarding, but often social action depends on other considerations.
People often get a specific benefit from social relations because a particular associate can provide this benefit
In general, favors make us grateful, and our expression of gratitude are social rewards for others
Thus, we recognize that “one good deed” deserves another, which encourages us to reciprocate.
If we continue in this way, our interaction builds a social bond amongst us.
A person who does not reciprocate is considered rude, a cad, an ingrate. The social sanctions evident in the face of such action demonstrate that reciprocity is expected.
Many people reciprocate in order to get these kinds of diffuse social rewards (approval for being kind)
Saints are people who do things without any expectation of reward. That they are rare is a testament to how most people work
People are also interested in staying out of social debt with others.
PMB says that there is an “apparent altruism” in social life. People are anxious to help others and to reciprocate the help they receive. Underneath this altruism, however, is an egoism – a selfishness.
The tendency to help others is frequently motivated by the expectation that doing so will bring social rewards
A basic reward that people seek is social approval, & selfish disregard for others makes it impossible to obtain this important reward.
Social approval is of great significance, but its significance depends on it being genuine.
We cannot force others to give us their approval, regardless of how much power we have over others, because coerced praise is worthless (recall our earlier discussion of Hegel’s master-slave dialectic: that you could only gain recognition from one who was an equal)
Because social approval is important, associates are reluctant to withhold approval from one another, and thus some element of simulation creates in. Etiquette requires that you say a dinner was good, even if you don’t really approve of the host or the food. Because we all know this, we are constantly looking for other signs that we have gained social approval, such as being invited over for dinner in return.
A key distinction, that we will build on in Leifer’s work, is that unlike economic exchange, social exchange carries ambiguous meaning and value. With economic exchange, we are able to exactly identify how much an exchange item is worth. Because social exchanges are ambiguous, we are faced with uncertainty about our debt to others, and thus the actions and meanings our actions take. This can lead, for example, to an exchange spiral — where I give to you more than you gave to me, so that I can ensure I am not in your debt.
Social attraction draws people together. It is the force that induces people to establish associations on their own and to expand the scope of associations once they have been founded.
An individual is attracted to another if he/she expects associating with him/her will in some way be rewarding. Regardless of the exact motive (physical attraction, economic attraction, etc.) there is a difference between the expectation that the association will be an intrinsically rewarding experience and the expectation that it will be extrinsically rewarding.
This difference creates an interesting dynamic in interpersonal relations. Recall the example that PMB gives of romantic involvement.
A person who is attracted to others is interested in proving himself attractive to them. Because he needs them to like him in order to get the benefit of association
To get their attention, he/she will try to impress them. That is, processes of social attraction lead to processes of social exchange.
When the attraction is mutual, this leads to strong bonds between people, and exchange builds solidarity.
Frequently, however, two people who meet are not equally attracted to each other. Thus, one person will try to impress the other — this leads to an imbalance of power in the relationship. Recall the example we gave in class about the boy who liked a girl more than she him. This is sketched in the figure below.
If this is so, then the girl will have power over the boy. Why? Because she has least intrinsic interest in the relation, she can use his interest to get him to do things for her, and if he values her company, he will continue to supply these things.
This is a specific example of a more general feature, that unique control of a resource provides one with power.
Thus, frequently one person has skills another person needs, but nothing to offer in return. While gratitude may be enough sometimes, it can’t endure for a long while (imagine how little you would value a coworkers thanks if they kept bugging you for help all the time) Such a person (the skillets one) has several options:
Could force the person to help.
may get help from somebody else
may find a way to do without the good (substitute something else)
If all three of these are impossible, then the person must subordinate himself to the other and comply with his wishes. Thus rewarding the other with power over himself.
Power is a generalized, social reward, which can be used to attain a variety of ends. It is equivalent in social life to credit in economics. Individual control of important services establishes this kind of power.
Exchange Processes thus lead to differentiation in power. This is true for most intimate as well as more distant relations, i.e. it is as true for romance as for technical help in an office, with the extent of power only changing with the extent of desire for the good the person can supply.
This power will be seen as legitimate if the costs for the subjects is less than the benefits they get from the ruler. If not, then they will feel exploited. PMB argues that this is a normative outcome, that depends on communication of feeling with other people in similar positions. Legitimate power is a basis of organization, and while it is possible to organize people through force, it is much easier and more stable if they view the organization as legitimate.
Blau argues that the two pressures (between legitimization and exploitation) work in ‘contrasting dynamic forces’, that builds organizations and later divides them.
Be sure you understand:
1) what the social imbalance of reciprocity is: that the exchange can be reciprocal, but imbalance on other dimensions
2) how social power results from control of scarce resources
We ended the class by examining how social balance among triads can lead to the formation of cohesive subgroups in a population. On this version of balance theory, we have three people and relations among those people. Balance is linked to the cognitive dissonance people feel in groups of others who do not get along. Thus, if I have two friends who don’t like each other, our interactions will be difficult. We can represent this graphically, with small networks, putting a positive line between those who like each other and a negative line between those who do not. This is given in the figure below.
When people act in accordance with simple balance, you get either (1) a system of two groups in opposition or (2) a single group where everyone likes everyone else. If we make the world slightly more complicated, we end up with very different social structures (by, for example, adding direction to the relations (a likes b, but b does not like a). The important point is that through simple interaction rules (similar to those PMB outlines) we can establish how full social system will come to look.
Exchanger Of Thoughts About Humanity– comments by Karen The Exchanger
It is important to acknowledge that the social system is a reflection of humans exchanging mental processes that mirror the need for positive relationships.
Due to the complexity of the human mind one can find that social relationships can bring about positive changes. It is also through good social communication that enhances our ability to have exchanges that are common. These common exchanges with unconditional terms bring about a real sense of partnership in respect to social structures.
We on the whole must take action to further the need to understand why it is that there is so…much conflict between human beings. Looking on a grander scale it can be seen that the social structure has as a result collapsed because of differing ideas. If only human beings could come to some consensus in respect to understanding each other I think that there would be more harmony and peace.
War is an event that stands out in my mind as a way for humans to stand their ground and be inflexible. The social structure basically could crumble because of this. We must come together and try to understand each other or chaos which is prevalent now will grow into annihilation.