Possibly. I thought I saw that Desmet had the concept, but Malone was the first to merge everything together into "mass formation psychosis".

Mattias Desmet has been slowly increasing his fear peddling online while claiming everyone else is in fear.

You never did list those studies...

Odd bump. Did you ever watch this interview? I highly doubt that Desmet is a miscer.

https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showt...hp?t=180955623

If anyone doesn't believe that there is an orchestrated effort to mindf*ck the public just do a quick google search of the term now. Top results are that there is "no mass formation around covid", or that "mass transformation is not a real phenomenon".

Tried a date specific search. I used through 12/31/2018.

Tesla wrote about it over 100 years ago:
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/l...e=range&page=5

It has been pretty thoroughly scrubbed though.https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...treme_Violence

Maybe other search applications are better.

From the same link:

"Crediting a professor in Belgium, Malone also said in a December blog post that this “mass hypnosis” explains millions of people becoming captivated by the “dominant narrative concerning the safety and effectiveness of the genetic vaccines.”

Psychology experts say there is no support for the “psychosis” theory described by Malone.

“To my knowledge, there’s no evidence whatsoever for this concept,” said Jay Van Bavel, an assistant professor of psychology and neural science at New York University who recently co-authored a book on group identities. Van Bavel said he had never encountered the phrase “mass formation psychosis” in his years of research, nor could he find it in any peer-reviewed literature.

“The concept has no academic credibility,” Stephen Reicher, a social psychology professor at the University of St Andrews in the U.K., wrote in an email to The Associated Press.

The term also does not appear in the American Psychological Association's Dictionary of Psychology.


The description of “mass formation psychosis” offered by Malone resembles discredited concepts, such as “mob mentality” and “group mind,” according to John Drury, a social psychologist at the University of Sussex in the U.K. who studies collective behavior. The ideas suggest that “when people form part of a psychological crowd they lose their identities and their self-control; they become suggestible, and primitive instinctive impulses predominate,” he said in an email.

That notion has been discredited by decades of research on crowd behavior, Drury said. “No respectable psychologist agrees with these ideas now,” he said.

Multiple experts told the AP that while there is evidence that groups can shape or influence one’s behaviors — and that people can and do believe falsehoods that are put forward by the leader of a group — those concepts do not involve the masses experiencing “psychosis” or “hypnosis.”

Steven Jay Lynn, a psychology professor at Binghamton University in New York, said Malone’s argument that a group can “literally become hypnotized and can be led anywhere” is premised on a myth about hypnosis.


“His claim represents a serious misunderstanding of hypnosis and doubles down on the popular misconception that hypnosis somehow transforms people into mindless robots who think what the hypnotist wants them to think and do the hypnotist’s bidding,” Lynn said in an email. “The scientifically established fact is that people can easily resist and even oppose suggestions.”

Before the concept of “mass formation psychosis” took off in recent days, it had percolated online in recent months.

Mattias Desmet, the professor in Belgium who Malone cited for formulating the idea, did not return requests for comment. Malone also did not return a request for comment."

http://www.ccenterdispatch.com/news/...83480c3df.html




People really only think one "side" is being worked?

You can't see the same commitment to the messaging of Malone, McCullough, RFK Jr, etc by their followers?

"Be afraid of covid" - is a psyop

But "be afraid of vaccines" isn't?

People are threatening healthcare workers. But that's just normal, free, independent, rational thought?

Read yesterday that an activist gruop that owns stock in Google/You Tube is trying to get YouTube to disclose ifBiden's White House told You Tube to remove and cancel the Robert Malone interview. the article ~


Shareholders call on Google and YouTube to produce the receipts on how they take orders from Joe Biden's White House on COVID

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._on_covid.html

Real talk, are your children embarrassed of you? You're so far down the loony tunes hole, I can't imagine what your house is like.


You're such a potato that you think one side is sheep, while being a sheep for the other side, but are full baked potato not even realize it.

I didn’t bother to go dig all of them up because I showed you one and you just ignored it. And all it takes is one to put a hole in your suggestion that they didn’t ignore any studies, even though you are aware that the studies exist. So if multiple studies exist, and they say none do….while simultaneously insinuating that ivermectin is only used to treat horses and cows, then yes, they have ignored the studies.




Also lmfao at your whole critique being relegated to “he used a term I don’t like” even though it’s blatantly obvious that they are pumping out incessant fear porn and trying to rally people around the injections. But that’s what you always do….deflect, post false statements and then hide behind “I didn’t make the claim I just shared the study”, and trying to bog the conversation down in semantics to shift away from the point being made since you can’t dispute it. On one page you say it’s clear that both sides are doing it and on the next page you say the entire concept isn’t even a real thing.

I already covered this with JLC….one side is pumping incessant fear into people, shutting down businesses, restricting travel, restricting free speech, encouraging untested and ineffective injections even for children, implementing mandated injections as a requirement for employment, and blatantly chastising anyone who doesn’t follow the narrative while the other side says your threat from the virus is very low, wants businesses to remain open, thinks people should be able to freely travel regardless of injection status, fights for free speech and open & honest discussions about how to best handle the situation, pushes back against the injection of children, fights against requiring the injection as a prerequisite of employment, and says everyone should just decide or themselves whether they should get the injection or not. The two sides are not the same.

I didn't ignore it, I showed where it was included in the NIH review - reference #16. You ignored that it was included.

Who is "they"? The NIH reviewed the available evidence and walks through it. "They" didn't say no studies exist. Where do you get that idea? I posted the review. You ignored it. Here it is again:
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelin...ermectin-data/

Are you suggesting a standard of care should be based on a single study rather than the collective evidence?It's not that it's a term I don't like; it's a term that didn't exist until Malone coined it.

Both "sides" are pumping fear. How do you not see that?

Trump Derangement Syndrome doesn't exist in any dictionary or lexicon, but it describes something very specific.

And honestly, psychology isn't something that is measurable in any case. It's philosophy of the mind. You can't directly measure states of mind.

Psychology is a field of study.

It's a term made up by Trumpers who can't possibly understand how anyone could have issue with Trump. The irony of them screeching nonstop about Biden is completely lost on them.

(inb4 Biden "deserves" it and Trump didn't..)

You can search for terms here:
https://psycnet.apa.org/search/basic

Not sure the APA is serious anymore

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/ce-corner

The main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful.

First, clinicians must be aware of dominant masculine ideals, and cognizant of their own potential biases. Second, they must recognize the integrated nature of masculinity, and how factors ranging from spirituality to ability status to age and ethnicity interact. Mental health professionals must also understand how power, privilege and sexism work both by conferring benefits to men and by trapping them in narrow roles.

What is your criticism?

This is the board of directors

You suggestedIt looks like they are either women... or men.

Is there a punchline?

still believes in Russian collusion

Typical lib cuck pha66ot, in the face of good information you turn to personal insults and talking about her children, I’d pop you right in your bitch mouth irl, I promise.


And I wouldn’t feel bad hitting a little diseased pha66ot.

the "fact-checkers" that discredit what he says are part of the controlled media.

I took the guidelines as guidance for recognition of the associated factors in clinical practice rather than identifying those factors as threats.

What is the ideology guiding the American Psychological Association?

Same question. What do you think is wrong with that clinical practice guidance?

It’s just word salad that basically just means “men = bad unless they become soft and submissive”.


What are dominant masculine ideals?

What type of biases should they be aware of?

What is the integrated nature of masculinity?


Why must they just assume(“recognize”) that power, privilege, and sexism always give power to men? Women have lots of benefits over men in society and are much safer statistically speaking.




So again, it’s just a bunch of word salad designed to make practitioners view the world through a certain lens and then push that specific ideology outward through their practice.





Which I’m certain you already understood since you seem to have an IQ above a potato.

What they've written generally aligns with current practice.

"understand how power, privilege and sexism work both by conferring benefits to men and by trapping them in narrow roles"

Understand "how"...understand how power, privilege and sexism work both by conferring benefits to men and by trapping them in narrow roles

Not "assume that" it does.While most of these are discussed in the text, I don't think the guideline is meant to be a short-course in clinical psychology.

Do you also take issue with their guidelines for working with women and girls?
https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/girls-and-women

While the pandemic introduced many people to journals and scientific institutions, these topics, guidelines, and processes are far from new.