Negacionismo versus pânico na gripe suína
Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. [1] The subject may deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether (simple denial), admit the fact but deny its seriousness (minimization) or admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility (transference). The concept of denial is particularly important to the study of addiction. The theory of denial was first researched seriously by Anna Freud. She classified denial as a mechanism of the immature mind, because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality.
Common features include:[16][unreliable source?]
Conspiracism - Suggesting scientists have an ulterior motive for their research, or that they are part of some hidden plan or agenda.[17]
Selectivity - Relying upon discredited or flawed work supporting their idea while dismissing more credible work; presenting discredited or superseded papers to make a field look like it is based on weak research. Inflating favorable 'evidence' while discounting the contradictory, often while misrepresenting the significance of each. The selective use of evidence by denialists includes quote mining and cherry picking.[citation needed]
False experts - Citing paid, partisan scientists or self-appointed 'experts,' whose credentials are often in an unrelated field.[18][unreliable source?][19][20][unreliable source?]
Impossible expectations - Seeking to prevent the implementation of sound policies or acceptance of a theory by citing the absence of 'complete' or 'absolute' knowledge.[citation needed]
Misrepresentations and logical fallacies - Denialists sometimes employ logical fallacies: red herring; straw man; appeal to consequences; false analogy.
Conspiracism - Suggesting scientists have an ulterior motive for their research, or that they are part of some hidden plan or agenda.[17]
Selectivity - Relying upon discredited or flawed work supporting their idea while dismissing more credible work; presenting discredited or superseded papers to make a field look like it is based on weak research. Inflating favorable 'evidence' while discounting the contradictory, often while misrepresenting the significance of each. The selective use of evidence by denialists includes quote mining and cherry picking.[citation needed]
False experts - Citing paid, partisan scientists or self-appointed 'experts,' whose credentials are often in an unrelated field.[18][unreliable source?][19][20][unreliable source?]
Impossible expectations - Seeking to prevent the implementation of sound policies or acceptance of a theory by citing the absence of 'complete' or 'absolute' knowledge.[citation needed]
Misrepresentations and logical fallacies - Denialists sometimes employ logical fallacies: red herring; straw man; appeal to consequences; false analogy.
Additional propaganda techniques that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid include: flag-waving, glittering generalities, thought-terminating clichés, intentional vagueness, oversimplification, rationalization, slogans, stereotyping, testimonial, unstated assumption.
Panic is a sudden fear which dominates or replaces thinking and often affects groups of people or animals. Panics typically occur in disaster situations, or violent situations (such as robbery, home invasion, a shooting rampage, etc.) which may endanger the overall health of the affected group. The word panic derives from the Greek πανικός, "pertaining to Pan", the god of woods and fields who was the source of mysterious sounds that caused contagious, groundless fear in herds and crowds, or in people in lonely spots. Panic is also known as an acute case of anxiety.
An influential theoretical treatment of panic is found in Neil J. Smelser's, Theory of Collective Behavior. The science of panic management has found important practical applications in the armed forces and emergency services of the world.
Many highly publicized cases of deadly panic occurred during massive public events. The layout of Mecca was extensively redesigned by Saudi authorities in an attempt to eliminate frequent stampedes, which kill an average of 250 pilgrims every year. [1] Football stadiums have seen deadly crowd rushes and stampedes, such as at Hillsborough stadium in Sheffield, England, in 1989. This led to controlled entry gates and stricter rules by the end of the 1980s to regulate seating arrangements. [Mais um paralelo entre futebol e religião].
Comentários