Psychology 101 – Truth, Lies & Rationale

I speak the truth, plain and simple.
I don’t start vicious grossly immoral or depraved rumors.
I call copyright trolls names, sometimes containing profane words.
I post FACT, WITH Documentation
I own all of it, of which I am responsible.
I don’t hide anonymously…EVER
I don’t take things out of context.

Others however don’t. Ask yourself who appears to be the more credible.

While I can’t say for a FACT that Joel Albrizio of Adlife Marketing is behind the VOJF blog, all indications point in that direction.

I saw the below from an article pertaining to Donald Trump and his recent behavior ( shocking right?)
This sounds and seems eerily familiar to the entire Voices of Jupiter Florida blog.  A very weak attempt at best to shift focus to a bunch of nonsensical posts that are untrue, taken out of context and frankly BS.

 

As any psychologist, police officer or detective knows, an innocent person will usually simply deny a false accusation in clear and simple terms like “I didn’t do that!” Psychologically, this is because an innocent person knows that the truth is their strongest argument; i.e. an innocent person will generally welcome deeper inquiry into the truth or falsity of the accusation because (on an intuitive level) they expect to win that controversy.

 Ones  anger is also an indicator that they perceives themselves  vulnerable on this matter. These are the typical behaviors of a liar.

Psychologically, almost at a subconscious level, a guilty person knows and thinks that attacking the credibility of the accuser is safer ground than simply denying the truth.

Attacking the accuser is an effort to shift the discussion away from the truth or falsity of the accusation (a guilty person much desires to avoid the issue of actual truth or falsity). Also, attacking the accuser allows the accused to “fight back” in a way that a guilty person cannot.

Traits of the Disinformationalist

Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved.

Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic.

Maybe it’s time for the spineless, guilty parties of VOJF to come clean and own up to what they are doing and why. Then again maybe I’ll hit the lottery this weekend.

1 Comment

  1. I do like your chances of winning the lottery a whole lot better than the chances of Mr. Albrizio taking credit for his handiwork.

    But hey, that’s the world we live in. The good news is that, for the most part, the truth will win out. I guess that may be the bad news for those lurking in the shadows.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*