MikeG
Senior Member.
What's their approximate median age?
They all fall into the 18-29 group, but I would say the media age is probably 20-21. Very young, in other words.
What's their approximate median age?
@MikeG Since other than "chemtrails" the topics you list for this course are incredibly dull. So i'm wondering what percentage of females signed up for the course.
Not sure if it is this case, but I remember when I was in this age and we participated in any similar surveys, most of the class filled in the most possible junk just for the fun. In your case, I would not rely on the results too much.Do you have any theories on why your students are more vested in these particular conspiracies?
Not sure if it is this case, but I remember when I was in this age and we participated in any similar surveys, most of the class filled in the most possible junk just for the fun. In your case, I would not rely on the results too much.
Always knew there was something sinister afoot with in the Cheese Board.
Anyway, I was serious with the question whether "Saddam involved in 9/11" is supposed to be a conspiracy theory or not. Because, unless I lost my memory completely, it was the US official version.
External Quote:
September 11th aftermath
The Bush Administration sought to link the Iraqi dictator to Islamist radicals early on in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks. President Bush allegedly made the case to Tony Blair as early as September 14, 2001, although Blair urged him not to pursue the claim.[12]
In addition, Bush received on September 21, 2001, a classified President's Daily Brief (PDB), indicating the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that "there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda."[13]
...
On March 21, 2006, Bush sought to distance himself from the allegation of any link. He said: "First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said — at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein."[33] Bush reaffirmed the White House position in even stronger terms in a press conference on 21 August 2006. When asked what the connection was between Iraq and the September 11th attacks, Bush replied, "Nothing.... Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq."[34]
...
American public opinion
Polls have shown that many Americans continued to believe that Saddam was linked to al-Qaeda, although the number who do so has slowly declined.[37][38] This discrepancy has been attributed by some to the way in which the U.S. mainstream media presented facts and opinion regarding the war on terror.
Not sure if it is this case, but I remember when I was in this age and we participated in any similar surveys, most of the class filled in the most possible junk just for the fun. In your case, I would not rely on the results too much.
BTW, regarding the conspiracy "Saddam involved in 9/11" - wasn't this conspiracy promoted by the government at that time? Or am mistaken that the Gulf war was started because of it?
Do you have any theories on why your students are more vested in these particular conspiracies?
@MikeG Since other than "chemtrails" the topics you list for this course are incredibly dull. So i'm wondering what percentage of females signed up for the course.
Yes, that's indeed an interesting topic. But do you realize that your own Government and the mass media actually help confusing the people, and may be one of important factors why US Americans incline to CT's often? The previously mentioned case of "Saddam involved in 9/11" is the best example. Although Bush later denied such claims, it is clear the push by both the authorities and the mass media was such that it helped creating this hoax. One cannot be then surprised that common people do not understand where the truth is, and fall to some silly CT's because their authors easily debunk the hoaxes spread by the mass media and the authorities.One of the reasons that I am looking forward to 9/11 has to do with Kathryn Olmstead's treatment of the topic in our main text, Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11. She addresses official efforts to interpret intelligence on Iraq in concert with conspiracy theories about WTC and the Pentagon.
I am amazed at how vested the students are in theories. It might be that there are more in the class because the group is self-selecting
I read txt29's question (whether "it was the US official version") a bit differently, since it clearly was the conspiracyNo. The official US version is that 9/11 was al-Qaeda. They wanted to link Iraq, but were unable to do so. There was only the most tenuous linking of Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda, and none at all linking him to 9/11. However it was a popular public misconception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations
External Quote:
September 11th aftermath
The Bush Administration sought to link the Iraqi dictator to Islamist radicals early on in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks. President Bush allegedly made the case to Tony Blair as early as September 14, 2001, although Blair urged him not to pursue the claim.[12]
In addition, Bush received on September 21, 2001, a classified President's Daily Brief (PDB), indicating the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that "there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda."[13]
...
On March 21, 2006, Bush sought to distance himself from the allegation of any link. He said: "First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said — at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein."[33] Bush reaffirmed the White House position in even stronger terms in a press conference on 21 August 2006. When asked what the connection was between Iraq and the September 11th attacks, Bush replied, "Nothing.... Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq."[34]
...
American public opinion
Polls have shown that many Americans continued to believe that Saddam was linked to al-Qaeda, although the number who do so has slowly declined.[37][38] This discrepancy has been attributed by some to the way in which the U.S. mainstream media presented facts and opinion regarding the war on terror.
To answer both George B and Mick, the students are all in the youngest demographic. I definitely think that age and how they access information has an impact on their beliefs.
Yes, that's indeed an interesting topic. But do you realize that your own Government and the mass media actually help confusing the people, and may be one of important factors why US Americans incline to CT's often? The previously mentioned case of "Saddam involved in 9/11" is the best example. Although Bush later denied such claims, it is clear the push by both the authorities and the mass media was such that it helped creating this hoax. One cannot be then surprised that common people do not understand where the truth is, and fall to some silly CT's because their authors easily debunk the hoaxes spread by the mass media and the authorities.
I don't suppose you could get a broader sample of the other students who did not take the class?
Yes, I completely agree, and that was the exact reason why I entered the discussion here. Overgeneralizing is rarely good, and I think it should be avoided at CT's too. That's also why I was surprised seeing conspiracy theories generalized as "prevalent paranoia" in your opening post, and even seeing a hoax started or initialized by the US administration listed in the survey. Certainly not all conspiracy theories are paranoia. Denying the existence of conspiracies in human history, and in high politics especially, would be silly, I believe. As long as CT's are based on valid arguments, and do not use invented, manipulated, or fake evidence, I find nothing wrong in considering them as a possibility, even if they lack hard evidence (for comprehensible reasons at true conspiracies, evidence may not be easily available).It is a complicated topic.
...
Avoiding overgeneralization is important.
...
So, as I said, these stories are complicated. It is important to keep in mind the context, the actors, the evidence, and the audience.
interesting take. i didnt read that sentence the same way you did.That's also why I was surprised seeing conspiracy theories generalized as "prevalent paranoia" in your opening post
The intent is to allow students to separate legitimate conspiracy from theory and, in some cases, outright falsehood
my understanding is: the intent of THE COURSE he is teaching is to allow seperating legitimate conspiracy from theory and, in some cases, outright falsehood.If the intent was to allow separating legitimate and paranoid CT's, perhaps including around equal numbers of the legitimate and false CT's in the survey could help. Were some legitimate CT's included too?
Overgeneralizing is rarely good, and I think it should be avoided at CT's too. That's also why I was surprised seeing conspiracy theories generalized as "prevalent paranoia" in your opening post, and even seeing a hoax started or initialized by the US administration listed in the survey. Certainly not all conspiracy theories are paranoia.
my understanding is: the intent of THE COURSE he is teaching is to allow seperating legitimate conspiracy from theory and, in some cases, outright falsehood.
The poll was just a beginning of the course baseline survey, to see where his students were coming in from in regards to conspiracy theories and/or 'myths' and how they compare to the general public. For example BigFoot is not a conspiracy theory. Mike didnt write the survey, he used this one http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf
and i dont want to reread the whole thread but i believe he said he will give it again at the end of the course to see if learning 'research methodology' changed results in regards to those particular topics. But i'm sure Mike can explain it to you better when he logs back on - so dont hold it against him if i explained poorly.
External Quote:So you think we should have more empathy for conspiracy theorists and flat-Earthers?
All of our beliefs are more weird than we would like to think. Conspiracy theories are seen as contrary to the Enlightenment, to scientific values. But the Enlightenment was all about not trusting received wisdom, and thinking for yourself. It made sense to reject the religious doctrine that prevailed at the time, to distrust what you were told. It is inherently rational to question received wisdom, even if you disagree with the conclusion that some people reach.
There is an interview with Rob Brotherton, author of the book "Suspicious minds: Why we believe conspiracy theories" in New Scientist (free registration required):
i dont want to go through a sign up process, so sorry if this was covered. Isnt the difference that scientists PROVED the 'received wisdom' was incorrect?There is an interview with Rob Brotherton, author of the book "Suspicious minds: Why we believe conspiracy theories" in New Scientist (free registration required):
Why do people believe Earth is flat in the 21st century?
This in an interesting part from the interview:
External Quote:So you think we should have more empathy for conspiracy theorists and flat-Earthers?
All of our beliefs are more weird than we would like to think. Conspiracy theories are seen as contrary to the Enlightenment, to scientific values. But the Enlightenment was all about not trusting received wisdom, and thinking for yourself. It made sense to reject the religious doctrine that prevailed at the time, to distrust what you were told. It is inherently rational to question received wisdom, even if you disagree with the conclusion that some people reach.
There is an interview with Rob Brotherton, author of the book "Suspicious minds: Why we believe conspiracy theories" in New Scientist (free registration required):
Why do people believe Earth is flat in the 21st century?
This in an interesting part from the interview:
External Quote:So you think we should have more empathy for conspiracy theorists and flat-Earthers?
All of our beliefs are more weird than we would like to think. Conspiracy theories are seen as contrary to the Enlightenment, to scientific values. But the Enlightenment was all about not trusting received wisdom, and thinking for yourself. It made sense to reject the religious doctrine that prevailed at the time, to distrust what you were told. It is inherently rational to question received wisdom, even if you disagree with the conclusion that some people reach.
Enlightenment skepticism was a good starting point as far as religion and received wisdom was concerned. Rationalists railed against the damage that religious dogma did to progress.
But if you move past Enlightenment skepticism about religion, the comparison with CT believers starts to break down. Enlightenment thinkers was not just interested in thinking for themselves. They wanted a whole new construct based upon logic and evidence. Their empiricism wasn't foolproof by any stretch. But it did follow a dynamic process of questioning assumptions and evidence for the sake of discovering the truth.
At that point, the Enlightenment seriously diverges from CT belief, which resembles dogma much more than a valid empirical process.
A side point: one might argue that that enlightenment also led to the Reign of Terror in France, with tens of thousands of public beheadings for thought crimes, the kind of thing we now decry ISIS for.
Agreed. Brotherton's comparison is simplistic. The resemblance is superficial, and largely contained in the exhortations of the conspiracy theorists ("Don't be a sheeple") rather than in the rigor of their theories (their challenges to the establishment). As we have all noted, conspiracy theorists operate very much within walled gardens, rich with a many varieties of logical fallacies, but particularly confirmation bias. The fact that they have ideas that are contrary to the mainstream sounds superficially good, but it's generally more regressive than progressive.
There is an enlightening video of Potholer54 on the "TV tricks of the trade -- quotes and cutaways" about this. May be useful:One thing that struck me as interesting was the degree to which my young students understand manipulated images. They noted the constant use of quick cuts, especially in the early sequences featuring Frances Mangels and his soil "tests."
There is an enlightening video of Potholer54 on the "TV tricks of the trade -- quotes and cutaways" about this. May be useful:
External Quote:This video contains content from Channel 4, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
That's why he made this oneExternal Quote:This video contains content from Channel 4, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.![]()
There is an enlightening video of Potholer54 on the "TV tricks of the trade -- quotes and cutaways" about this. May be useful:
External Quote:This video contains content from Channel 4, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
But it is important to remember the old film / TV mantra 'it's all in the edit'. This is a short vid that explains the basic techniques... the jump cut, the noddy, the cut away and the transition cut.
They are all pretty simple techniques and when employed can be used to not only 'smooth out' the over all production, but also, if the editor / producer is lacking scruples, to make the interviewee say what ever the interviewer wants them to. Especially if the interviewee has already been fed leading or loaded questions in the first place.
Here's a couple of extreme examples done for comic effect.
This is media studies 101 stuff, it's one of the first things you learn at school / college on a media course, and once your aware of the techniques you can spot them a mile off. However not everyone is that media savvy and the unaware can be easily fooled by them.
Others, offer incomplete information:External Quote:2000 to present: Beginnings of reports of unusual white plumes in Canada & U.S. noticed by Air Canada pilots, police officers, ex-military personnel.
We went through a number of these to make sure that students understood the value of scrutinizing references.External Quote:Oct. 2001: United States House of Representatives bill HR2977 introduced by Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich. It called for the peaceful uses of space, and a ban on 'exotic weapons'.
I just wanted to assure me that "Saddam involved in 9/11" was not considered a fact by the testers, because me too I often meet people believing it firmly. I was little bit afraid that a negative answer would be taken as a CT, because the reality of Saddam involved in 9/11 is not the same kind of conspiracy like the others. Saddam involved in 9/11 would be a conspiracy of a foreign government with foreign terrorists, which is usually not what one considers a conspiracy when speaking about CT. Conspiracy in CT usually involves own government or agencies, eventually some global corporate or financial forces. So again this "Saddam involved in 9/11" does not fit at all the other CT categories included in the survey, and hence looks quite strange there.
I have a very intelligent and careful friend who does believe some extreme things about history. His take on Saddam would be that he was a tool of the CIA generally as was Mullah Omar. This nicely links him to 911 without having to claim direct knowledge or involvement. This seems like a recurring/natural thread in CT that apparent enemies are rarely real enemies so the world stage is largely staged. when used it really helps makes CT explanations simpler and more flexible. To my mind neither the Iraqi not Taliban enemies were encouraged in a well planed way, however I think there might be a basis for suspecting that common Bogeyman Mossad of setting up Hamas to weaken the old PLO. I do not ever suspect that creating a group or political force guarantees controlling it later.
PS I saw a great movie last night called Regression. It's about Satanic panic in the eighties and nineties.