How do intellectually fraudulent marketing campaigns convince smart people?

Remove all ads!

I've always wondered about movements that are completely intellectually baseless but have good marketing (incl. rhetoric, misrepresentations of genuine intellectual work, etc.) manage to trap so many smart people. The three that are perhaps most noteworthy today are the Intelligent Design movement, the 9/11 Truther movement, and the Anthropogenic-Global-Climate-Change-Is-A-Fraud movement. All three of these movements fly in the face of what nearly every expert in their respective fields believe, and all are based on really really REALLY bad arguments that someone with a bit of intelligence and a bit of content knowledge would be able to detect with relative ease.

So how do they ensnare otherwise smart people?

Note that this is not the place to debate those issues. If you actually believe one of those things, just discuss on the hypothetical premise that you're the unfortunate victim of marketing and rhetoric.

 

Just because somebody is smart does not always mean they want to look at things factually. They may agree with the sentiment or the concept more than the flawed science.

Maybe they feel that while these movements are flawed that there are aspects that hold merit and by attaining membership they can perhaps help iron out the flaws to make a creditworthy system that can oppose the generally accepted truth.

 

Because people are stupid and it doesn't take a lot of work to build something based on someone's ideals and bias.

As examples. Intelligent design is trying to find scientific proof that the bible is correct. If you firmly believe in Genesis then intelligent design helps your cause.

The truthers tend to be young liberals who despised George Bush. Their fear of him was easily manipulated into a belief that he organized the destruction of the towers. If 9/11 happened in 2010 instead of 2001 the truthers probably wouldn't exist as that demographic would never believe that Obama would do such a thing, and conservatives even though they don't like him, also wouldn't believe such a thing.

The global warming (excuse me they had to change the name to) issue is even more interesting. The people who believe in it had probably one of the best marketing campaigns ever. Once again they were young and tended to be liberal and grew up watching captain planet on television. When a bunch of politicians decided that the "debate was over and the science is in" it was really easy for people to believe in it. Now for the people who don't believe in it, they tend to be skeptical of politicians and environmentalists in general (working on the assumption that both will lie for their perceived "greater good". The pro people cling to their scientific studies and dispute all studies that the disbelievers produce as being biased and paid for by "big oil". The disbelievers do the same thing just in reverse. No matter what happens this is clearly a win for the environmentalists as even if they don't get their sweeping economy shattering proposals passed they have raised awareness and probably done some good.

 

You are assuming the intelligent believe the argument and are not following an agenda to misrepresent the facts in order to acheive a goal.

 

The Global Warming thing is a bad example, because there are a lot of experts on both sides. We went through this a year or two ago, when an open letter to the IPCC was signed by something like 500 scientists from a dozen nations or so (don't remember the exact numbers). The problem here is that both absolute claims are based on unproven assumptions. Even the scientific studies done are based on such things.

Beyond that, it's usually an issue of the claims supporting pre-existing beliefs. Such 'truth filters' are in all of us, it's just a matter of how much we employ them.

 

It's all about how you stand towards the media, and how open and skeptical you are, and willing to consider new information. Skepticism should involve due consideration, using rationality instead of baseless opinions. Each controversial theory must be weighed, the people presenting the evidence must be evaluated, as well as any potential motivations they may have to mislead people. You'll find that with a little effort, the misinformation can be made apparent relatively easily. So you will get the picture, but it doesn't stop great masses of people from being convinced.

Take a look at some professional debunking work by Richard Dawkins, discussing an Intelligent Design book:


And listen to the arguments made by AGW-skeptics:


As you already stated, there is a great deal of marketing involved. Religion and Cap & Trade tax are hot topics lately, and there is a large movement that wishes to protect their interests. It's fairly obvious, but doesn't mean you should disregard their arguments outright. Once a number of fallacies have been exposed, you can make a valid assumption.
But the most important thing, is that conspiracies of misinformation are not intended to seriously question the issue, but simply to sway the opinions of a misinformed, unskeptical audience.

One thing surprises me about the 9/11 truth movement, and that's the simple fact that no one stands to gain from this theory. Still, you bunch it together with 2 really obvious conspiracies of misinformation. The 9/11 truth movement has done nothing to sway the opinions of a misinformed, unskeptical audience. To even consider their arguments (which you don't) you must look up a number of rare videos, which have never been broadcasted. Telling an unskeptical audience that they must watch certain movies, is equivalent to telling someone to read the Bible without the priest or religious community present to pressure you. I've been sharing a number of these movies with people around me, and they're very interested in getting the movies. Apparently, they encountered virus attacks when they try to view the movies, or even order them online. Fortunately, I've experienced no such thing with Firefox and the Vuze download manager.

People on the forefront of the 9/11 truth movement are generally disliked by all, unlike the other skeptics, who at least have their religious/industrial sponsors to fall back on. William Rodriguez was a janitor-hero in the WTC on 9/11/2001, who rescued many people by opening stairwells with his master key. He was honoured, decorated, and even had a shot at politics. But when he joined the movement (a failed lawsuit against the Bush administration in 2004), it ended up in him losing his home.


What can definitely be agreed upon, is that the media is instrumental in creating an aire of misinformation in the public. If it wasn't for movies and popular publications, people would have no reason to doubt evolution or global warming. It isn't hard to imagine that a similar propaganda campaign is being run to reinforce the government's story.

An example of the 'bad' arguments used by the 9/11 truth movement:
- The planes that flew into the WTC were traveling much faster than commercial jetliners could at that altitude. (most 9/11 truthers don't discuss this, because questioning the existence of the planes will result in even more criticism, and only serve to damage their credibility)
- Hollow aluminium airplanes shouldn't enter steel and concrete buildings showing no deformation; they should crush up against them. (as above)
- The resulting fire was the official cause of the collapse of the towers, but no steel and concrete buildings have ever collapsed from fire, before or after september 11th 2001. Only WTC 1, 2 and 7 (47 story building not mentioned in the 9/11 commission report).
- The 10 second collapses were nearly at free-fall speed (9s), meaning the buildings encountered no significant resistance from... the 500.000 tonne buildings. This can only have been realized by using demolition materials, like explosives and thermate.

As you look at these arguments, you may agree that they are quite intuitive. Their credibility isn't based on a mass propaganda campaign, but on physical inconsistencies in the official story. The images of the plane crashes are a matter of public record, and the laws of physics are quite reliable.
It isn't my willingness to believe these stories that has compelled me, but simply my own inquisitiveness. People who truly believe there is nothing to hide, shouldn't be removing the evidence before investigation, or blocking legitimate attempts to ascertain the truth.
If you don't know what to think of it all, then at least be sparing in your opinions...

 

Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning....


One of the topics in Nataben's question:

And there's your answer:

I'd never heard of Captain Planet, but since I'm a "liberal," I figured I should "tune into" why all those young, liberal scientists believe that global warming may be a credible issue.

Snook - Excellent job of proving your own point.

I think there is a difference between being smart and being enlightened. In some cases, people select which information they choose to believe based upon "the facts" that best fit the way they think the world should be, rather than accepting a full range of facts or accurate ideas surrounding an issue or a problem, without the fear that facts may alter deeply held beliefs. One of the pitfalls of having ideological convictions is that an individual (regardless of being liberal or conservative) may be prone to misinformation and reject information or content that may be accurate but may challenge beliefs in which a person has a good deal of intellectual and emotional investment.

For conservatives, Al Gore can't ever be right about anything; for liberals, the big oil companies can't ever be right about anything. An enlightened individual understands that no one is right or wrong all the time.

 

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion," the great Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York was fond of saying. "He is not entitled to his own facts."

 

Of course they wouldn't. They don't believe he is a socialist, communist, and Nazi all at the same time either.

 

I thought that some of the reader comments to the article were interesting:

 

Damn it! I thought I had a video that answered this very petition, but when I finally found it, it turned out to be about scientists rejecting evolution... What a waste of effort. But it's still a relevant example of how these 'open letters' get their alleged scientific support.

 

I'm curious as to why you and Chandos both found this so bizarre. Many conservatives do believe that Obama is a socialist, and most do believe that his policies are wrong and ultimately will be horrible for the United States. Just because they believe that, you believe we would also believe that he is a mass murderer and would callously murder American citizens?

I just don't get how you get from heated political disagreements to condoning mass murder. Then again, I never quite got how the "Truthers" were able to do the same with Bush, so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised.

 

How is this any different from how the left perceived Bushitler etc.? You can always find whackos. I firmly believe that the vast majority of conservatives do not consider Obama the "actual Anti-Christ" nor would they ever believe he is capable of mass murder.

 

You are losing focus. The question never was "how is it any different" but the point being made is that "it is no different." Both sides have a subgroup of those who are willing to believe the worst about the other side. That was the main point.

You said:

Instead, we have the conservatives who believe Obama is the anti-Christ. Big difference there, Snook.

 

Heheheh, posting vids is fun!

 

One of the reasons I think people are open to believing the 9-11 conspiracy is the perception/belief/dare I say fact? that the government HAS in the past, covered up/conspired to cover up many other embarrassing events.

One that comes to my mind is the TWA Flight 800 incident.

Here is a liberal/conspiracy theorist version of what happened:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/twa.html

I happened to be in France at the time that it happened, and J.D. Salinger came on the French news with pictures of the "missile" and the French news reported it as a missile. At the time I believed the official reports that it wasn't a missile, and my French in-laws laughed at me for being so naive.

In looking at the 9-11 truthers movement I ran across the TWA info, where it stated that among professionals, i.e. airline pilots, it is generally known that it was a military missile. I have a friend who is a pilot for Delta, and asked him, and he admitted that yes, they all knew that it was indeed a military missile. I asked him why there was no uproar about it, he didn't know.

So, I do believe now that it was a military missile down TWA 800 and that the government did cover it up.

Another case where I suspect there was a coverup is the plane crash death of Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone in October, 2002. The official story is that the pilots were bad and weather and ice caused the crash. One of the many things I find suspicious is that the federal crash investigators were able to arrive at the scene of the crash in northern Minnesota before the local sheriff. Given the thorn in Bush's side that Wellstone was, I would not find it surprising that someone, if not Bush himself, thought that it was a good idea to get rid of Wellstone.

I submit that most people would be able to point to at least one instance of the government covering up something somewhere, and one would have to be quite naive to actually truly believe that the government and/or people in the government NEVER covers things up or does dirty deeds, whether it be ordering someone's murder or simply embezzling funds or receiving oral stimulation in the Oval Office lavoratory.

Given this, when someone comes along with something like the 9-!! truth conspiracy theory, I for one am at least willing to look at it to see what they have to say.

For awhile I was quite interested in it. I admit I haven't finished watching all of their videos and information. With the ability to put whatever one wants on the internet, and to make things that might be false look very credible, it is hard for a person to really know what is true.

As mentioned, this is not the place to debate the issue, but as an example, the 9-11 people claim that the NYFD people on the scene "know" that it was an inside job. I don't personally know any NY fire fighters to ask, so I just have to make the most with the information that's out there.

Yes, it would be pretty damn hard for the government to keep a secret as big as a 9-11 conspiracy would have to be, but for me, it is just an upping of the scale of things that I already know/believe they have done in the past.

In summation, I think that is why people are willing to entertain the idea that these preposterous conspiracy theories might actually be true.

 

Scot - That is a very good post. I was an aquaintance of one of the passengers on Flight 800. She had been a customer of the store I worked at in Northwest Houston. While at the same time, I worked with a guy at Circuit who had been a career officer in the Navy. At the time it happened, he was convinced that it was a military accident as well.

 

"Accident" ?

Actually, given all the heroics attributed to Flight 800, I'm willing to accept that the reality was a military action, with the subsequent hype understandably trying to give a sense that some people tried to do something about the situation (which they may very well have tried to do).

 

Sorry, I never believed TWA Flight 800 was caused by any kind of missile. Witness accounts were clearly not describing a military missile -- especially not a Naval missile.

While I have no delusions that my government is filled with angels only doing good things (in fact, we have done some pretty terrible things in the past and still do them) I have no confidence a large conspiracy could be pulled off. For example, a conspiracy involving Flight 800 would take several hundred people (including about 400 sailor of varying degrees of loyalty and financial straits) -- keeping them all quiet is only possible by killing them.