Example Of California Murder ... Conspiracy

[Drifter]

French's article is an example of institutional bias, in my opinion.

The point he's making is that "conspiracists" are not to be trusted. He follows the exact same "logic" as the mainstream media. His use of "some", "sometimes", "may", "ocasioinally", "tendency" and other hedge words are inserted to make his thesis sound reasonable and unbiased.

But his subtext is the precise opposite.

Although conspiracy beliefs can occasionally be based on a rational analysis of the evidence, most of the time they are not ...We sometimes, however, see patterns and causal connections that are not there,

How else to interpret the above quote except to say that he's arguing that conspiracy theories are basically irrational?

The attractiveness of conspiracy theories may arise from a number of cognitive biases

Oh how fatherly and superior! He's telling us that, as someone with superior understanding of life, he can see truths that those below his stature can't see.

He then proceeds to use standard flaws in logic to dismiss conspiracy theories: confirmation bias, proportionality bias, projection. But these same logical fallacies can also be applied to someone who dismisses conspiracies as well, a reality he conveniently fails to mention. Result ... blatant bias.

He then closes with a repeat of his bias:

The crux of the matter is that conspiracists are not really sure what the true explanation of an event is—they are simply certain that the “official story” is a cover-up.

(hehehehe)

His argument can easily be reversed to apply to the EAR/ONS case, wherein non-conspiracits are not really sure why the EAR/ONS was never identified ... but they are absolutely certain that a conspiracy was not involved.

Lepke makes sure to tell us that French is an "academic".

Why is that important?

Because academics work in the world of higher education, i.e. universities. French is a "Professor". We're supposed to be duly impressed. But beyond that, and more importantly ...

Higher education is just another cultural ... institution. And institutions stick together. The mainstream media, another cultural institution refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of "conspiracy theories", so does law enforcement, so does the U.S. government, so does Wall Street, and so too does ... academia.

You will not find any cultural institution that will legitimize "conspiracy".  It's to their advantage to suppress all discussion of it ... because some conspiracies might apply to them.

While French's write up sounds reasonable because of all the hedge words he uses, his subtext is anything but reasonable.

His little article no-doubt sat well with his audience of other academics, but it's just another example of institutional bias and disinformation.

Drifter

[agatha]

Conspiracy comes from the Latin, con......with, and spero......I breathe. To conspire is to breathe together. Any time two or more people join together with like mind or purpose, it is a conspiracy. So, by definition, every club, group, religion, government and organization IS a conspiracy. The word is used too often, and as a pejorative; we have been cleverly brain washed to immediately react with disdain, contempt and disbelief to anything labeled a conspiracy. In that manner we allow ourselves to be manipulated and censored. Call something a conspiracy theory and watch everyone dismiss it with no further analysis or consideration. Call someone a conspiracy theorist and that person is immediately stripped of all credibility. It's much easier to shrug an idea or an event off as a conspiracy theory than it is to engage in honest intellectual debate. Keep in mind: it's only a theory if it isn't true.

[lepke]

Aug 18, 2015 1:56:26 GMT albion said:

Aug 18, 2015 1:56:26 GMT albion said:

I have left Albion's post in the normal typeface, and my responses are in bold.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        "None of the above should indicate that all conspiracy theories are false. Some may indeed turn out to be true. The point is that some individuals may have a tendency to find such theories attractive. The crux of the matter is that conspiracists are not really sure what the true explanation of an event is—they are simply certain that the “official story” is a cover-up."

First off he negates everything he said prior. No he does not. Some theories may be true and some may be false. That is not incredibly informative. Can he tell us which ones? I don't believe he can. He is writing theoretically, so of course not. But, if they are true, then everything he said doesn't apply and he has just been blowing smoke? Yes it does, as a point about the people who have a tendency to believe in conspiracy theories.

Then he says "some individuals". He doesn't say how many. Is it 50%? Or is it 10%? Or less? Again, he is writing theoretically. He might as well say that some are short and some are tall and some like fried chicken and riding scooters. A juvenile dig at me, based on the incorrect premise that I ride a scooter. Using the words "some" and "may" certainly makes for a weak argument. No it doesn't. What he doesn't say, is that some people who are interested in the possibility of conspiracies may be LE, journalists, politicians, victims of unsolved crimes, or even just people interested in the social sciences. So what? And why didn't Lepke point that out? I thought that people would be able to understand the article by themselves. Is it because he himself is "biased"? So I'm biased, but you're not?

And then French uses the word "tendency". So could I say that some individuals who vote for liberal candidates have a "tendency" to be gay? It may be more accurate to write that gay people have a tendency to vote for liberal candidates. Or that some individuals who use pictures of themselves as avatars have a "tendency" to be narcissists? Another juvenile dig at me, possibly forgetting that Drifter, Playinem and others, have also used their photos as an avatar. Or that some individuals who threaten others with violence on a message board have a "tendency" to be bitter control freaks? I read that as a dig at someone who is not here to defend themselves.

And, honestly, all we need is one "Conspiracist" who doesn't believe that the "official story is a cover up" and French's argument is lost. No it isn't - things are not as black and white as that. So was Watergate a conspiracy? Yes. Is the official story that it wasn't a conspiracy? No. He wrote that some conspiracies may turn out to be true.

But to meet you in the middle on this one, maybe it was wrong of me to say that French was a moron. How magnanimous of you. I am not familiar with his body of work. But based on the above paragraph, I am not too impressed. I doubt he would be too impressed with you either.

[lepke]

Aug 18, 2015 4:49:54 GMT Drifter said:

I have left Drifter's post in the normal typeface, and my responses are in bold.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      French's article is an example of institutional bias, in my opinion. So being a part of any institution, even a psychology department at a university, leaves you open to being accused of institutional bias? Do you think he is trying to cover up a conspiracy that his own institution is involved in?

The point he's making is that "conspiracists" are not to be trusted. He follows the exact same "logic" as the mainstream media. His use of "some", "sometimes", "may", "ocasioinally", "tendency" and other hedge words are inserted to make his thesis sound reasonable and unbiased.

But his subtext is the precise opposite.

How else to interpret the above quote except to say that he's arguing that conspiracy theories are basically irrational? Yes, most conspiracy theories do not turn out to be true, because they are not products of a rational analysis of the relevant facts.

Oh how fatherly and superior! He's telling us that, as someone with superior understanding of life, he can see truths that those below his stature can't see. He is not being superior, although he does have a superior understanding of psychology compared to most people, being a professor of the subject, and he is able to see why people behave in certain ways, as a result of that understanding.

He then proceeds to use standard flaws in logic to dismiss conspiracy theories: confirmation bias, proportionality bias, projection. But these same logical fallacies can also be applied to someone who dismisses conspiracies as well, a reality he conveniently fails to mention. Result ... blatant bias. Again, most conspiracy theories do not turn out to be true, because they are not products of a rational analysis of the relevant facts.


He then closes with a repeat of his bias:
(hehehehe)

His argument can easily be reversed to apply to the EAR/ONS case, wherein non-conspiracits are not really sure why the EAR/ONS was never identified ... but they are absolutely certain that a conspiracy was not involved. You keep making that fallacious argument, but where has any poster ever written that they are 'absolutely certain that a conspiracy was not involved'? Nowhere! Time and time again, you use that made up idea, to discredit those who argue against you, ignore me asking why you continue to do that, and edit my posts.
Lepke makes sure to tell us that French is an "academic".

Why is that important? It is important in this situation, because a psychology professor is an expert on why people behave in certain ways, including tendencies some people have to believe in conspiracy theories, in the case of French at least. If he was a physics professor, with no background in psychology, then I would not have posted an article about quantum mechanics, because it would not be relevant.
Because academics work in the world of higher education, i.e. universities. French is a "Professor". We're supposed to be duly impressed. But beyond that, and more importantly ...
'absolutely certain that a conspiracy was not involved'
Higher education is just another cultural ... institution. And institutions stick together. The mainstream media, another cultural institution refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of "conspiracy theories", so does law enforcement, so does the U.S. government, so does Wall Street, and so too does ... academia. You need to show some respect for French's professionalism, and understand that he is a psychology professor, because he is very, very knowledgeable about human behaviour. You described his article as superior, as another word for arrogant I would suggest, but the truth of the matter is that his understanding of psychology, is highly likely to be much superior to your own. That is not an insult, but most people's knowledge of psychology would be vastly inferior to that of a professor on the subject. The idea that him belonging to an institution, like many highly intelligent people do, delegitimises his opinions about conspiracy theorists, because 'institutions stick together', is pathetic. Why do you think that a university professor in London, would want to 'stick together' with law enforcement jurisdictions in California, that he has likely never had any dealings with, and never will?

You will not find any cultural institution that will legitimize "conspiracy".  It's to their advantage to suppress all discussion of it ... because some conspiracies might apply to them. French has not tried to suppress anything or anyone. Do you think he is part of a conspiracy?

While French's write up sounds reasonable because of all the hedge words he uses, his subtext is anything but reasonable.

His little article no-doubt sat well with his audience of other academics, but it's just another example of institutional bias and disinformation.

Drifter                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 French's article was indeed reasonable, and if you want to write about spreading disinformation, how about you explain to everyone why you keep writing that other posters have written they are 'absolutely certain that a conspiracy was not involved', when none of us ever did? I am asking for the second time in my response, and I have asked several times previously, so perhaps you would like to take the opportunity to stop sweeping that inconvenient truth under the carpet, and answer the question. Everyone can see that you have been ignoring it.


 

[sammyt]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383953/

Here's an article about a man who killed his entire family, plead insanity and served only six years in jail.

He is now professor of psychology at Illinois University lol even though he forget to tell his employers that he was a convicted mass murderer.


In relation to French, I wouldn't trust anyone acting as a public mouthpiece, especially someone from a psychology background, but maybe that's just me.

Would his views have seen the light of day if he was arguing from the other side? Of course they wouldn't... pure controlled opposition IMO...

[thrax]

Aug 18, 2015 12:37:58 GMT sammyt said:

Would his views have seen the light of day if he was arguing from the other side? Of course they wouldn't... pure controlled opposition IMO...

I could argue that the exact opposite is true though. People like Alex Jones, David Icke, and Mike Adams get vastly, ridiculously more media exposure than French does. If you want to get rich off conspiracy theories (which is admittedly probably a very hard thing to actually do), you'd almost certainly be much better off promoting a really wild one than debunking them or investigating the psychology behind them.

[sammyt]

I'm not talking about getting rich off conspiracy theories.

Why would anyone do that when they could just as easily get rich as a useful idiot for big pharma, the media or the health industry?

Certain seemingly respectable people act as talking heads as a favour to their masonic brothers, as part of their duties for the secret ervices, or because dirt is held on them and they are actually being blackmailed to do so.

Look at the police running the Madeline McCann investigation and tell me in good faith that those senior officers are not puppets...

[sammyt]

Anyway what about the family slaughtering psychology professor?

Should we still have blind faith in someone because they are a PHD?

[Drifter]

No time right now, but later I may respond in more detail to some of lepke's comments.

Just quickly, the French article is too general to be of any use in the EAR/ONS case. Lepke has said at least twice that French is "writing theoretically". That's true. And a general, theoretical discussion of how "conspiracy theories" get abused by some people, while correct, is not germane to the specific topic of the EAR/ONS case. French is unlikely to know anything about this case, and therefore would have no way of knowing that his general thesis may not apply, here.

Both agatha and sammyt have made some valid points, by the way.

Drifter

[thrax]

Aug 18, 2015 18:26:55 GMT sammyt said:

Anyway what about the family slaughtering psychology professor?

Should we still have blind faith in someone because they are a PHD?

I am not the one to answer that, seeing as I've never advocated blind faith in anyone or anything, based on academic credentials or anything else. That's nothing more than a gigantic straw man.

As far as the guy who killed his family, that's nothing more than a clear demonstration of why we don't rely on anecdotes to inform our opinion of entire groups. For any group you'd care to name, I can come up with examples of horrible people in it. As it happens, 100% of the people who have ever mugged me were in Paris. What does this tell us about Parisians? Absolutely nothing, all the obvious jokes notwithstanding.

[thrax]

Aug 18, 2015 19:04:18 GMT Drifter said:

No time right now, but later I may respond in more detail to some of lepke's comments.

Just quickly, the French article is too general to be of any use in the EAR/ONS case

I could not possibly agree more. What French is interested in is largely what causes certain people (more toward the David Icke end of the spectrum, really) to go way off the deep end in their reasoning, seeing grand conspiracies behind every major event. It has no real relevance to the truth or falsehood of any specific conspiracy claim (including this one), and I'd be willing to bet a significant sum that the good professor would agree with that statement.

[wolF]

Aug 18, 2015 12:37:58 GMT sammyt said:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383953/

Here's an article about a man who killed his entire family, plead insanity and served only six years in jail.

He is now professor of psychology at Illinois University lol even though he forget to tell his employers that he was a convicted mass murderer.


In relation to French, I wouldn't trust anyone acting as a public mouthpiece, especially someone from a psychology background, but maybe that's just me.

Would his views have seen the light of day if he was arguing from the other side? Of course they wouldn't... pure controlled opposition IMO...

 
anecdotal = using personal experience or an isolated example instead of a valid argument, especially to dismiss statistics.

ex. Hitler was a racist and a mass murderer, therefore all Germans are racists and mass murderers.
Seven men raped a woman for hours, therefore all men are rapists and scum.
A psychologist killed his family and spent little time in jail, therefore all x are mass murderers and should not be given the time of day. This actually falls into another fallacy (genetic) ... Just because we know the man is a murderer for sure, it says absolutely nothing about his abilities as whatever. For all we know, he could be the Einstein of his field.

Edit: Was beaten to it...

[thrax]

Aug 18, 2015 18:24:53 GMT sammyt said:

I'm not talking about getting rich off conspiracy theories.

What I was trying to do is point out that it's ridiculous to pretend that it's difficult to get a pro-conspiracy viewpoint out, and that one could make a good case that the opposite is more likely the case. Riches are beside the point. There's absolutely no shortage of people getting large amounts of media exposure from promoting such ideas, some of whom have become rather famous for doing so.

[albion]

Aug 18, 2015 18:24:53 GMT sammyt said:

I'm not talking about getting rich off conspiracy theories.

Why would anyone do that when they could just as easily get rich as a useful idiot for big pharma, the media or the health industry?

Certain seemingly respectable people act as talking heads as a favour to their masonic brothers, as part of their duties for the secret ervices, or because dirt is held on them and they are actually being blackmailed to do so.

Look at the police running the Madeline McCann investigation and tell me in good faith that those senior officers are not puppets...

I have wondered about the Keating Five as well. The five senators who helped Charles Keating. One of the senators was rumored to have possibly been a target of EAR? And another was a fellow serviceman of a poi. And the S and L was located in Irvine, CA. Maybe that was the bank that Manuela worked at?

[lepke]

Aug 18, 2015 19:12:50 GMT thrax said:

Aug 18, 2015 18:26:55 GMT sammyt said:

Anyway what about the family slaughtering psychology professor?

Should we still have blind faith in someone because they are a PHD?

I am not the one to answer that, seeing as I've never advocated blind faith in anyone or anything, based on academic credentials or anything else. That's nothing more than a gigantic straw man.

As far as the guy who killed his family, that's nothing more than a clear demonstration of why we don't rely on anecdotes to inform our opinion of entire groups. For any group you'd care to name, I can come up with examples of horrible people in it. As it happens, 100% of the people who have ever mugged me were in Paris. What does this tell us about Parisians? Absolutely nothing, all the obvious jokes notwithstanding.

It's a shame that something as obvious as what you have just written, even needs to be explained to people.