Strenger than Fiction / Ahmadinejad’s lesson for the Free World

[Whisper]

In his speech at the United Nations, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed that the theory that the U.S. orchestrated the 9/11 attacks must be investigated seriously and announced a conference on 9/11 next year in Iran. The U.S. delegations walked out on him, and it seems that this is indeed the only appropriate way of dealing with a man who consistently denies the Holocaust and peddles conspiracy theories about 9/11.

Then again, I think that we should be grateful to Mr. Ahmadinejad for presenting us with the opportunity to think about what the Free World needs to do to counteract the type of truth-bending that he represents.

While Ahmadinejad is a totalitarian manipulator in the tradition of Goebbels, Stalin and Mao, we need to realize that his truth-bending reflects a universal phenomenon. Many of us are proud of the institutions that protect truth and truth-seeking in the Free World, and this may blind us to the fact that not all is good on the Western Front.

Almost one fifth of Americans and more than a third of Republicans believe that Obama is a Muslim, and more than 40 percent of Republicans believe that he is not American born. No evidence can convince them of the opposite. They have access to all the documents, to all the news analysis and still they stick to a clearly proven falsehood. Susan Jacoby has shown in depressing detail how little average Americans know, and how much they prize their ignorance. Less than a third of Americans can find Iraq on the map, and a full 70 percent believe that you don’t need to know anything about the country in order to have views about what should be done with it. Conviction matters more than knowledge; faith more than truth.

Existential psychology has shown consistently that human beings’ need for a worldview that gives their lives meaning is overwhelming. It is so strong that humans are willing to sacrifice their lives to defend the meaning-system gives them a sense of value. It is therefore not very surprising that the drive to tailor our beliefs to fit our worldview is powerful in all cultures: if American Republicans disregard evidence in order to maintain their belief that Obama’s presidency is illegitimate, because they abhor liberal values, truth-bending is not limited to the Islamic world - or to U.S. Republicans, for that matter.

The data on prevalent beliefs about 9/11 exhibits the same pattern. The stronger the negative feelings of a population against either the U.S. or Israel, the higher the likelihood that 9/11 is ascribed to either of them. Thirty percent of Mexicans asked ascribe responsibility to the U.S., and a full 43 percent of Egyptians think Israel was behind it.

If your worldview tells you that the U.S. is an aggressive power that tries to dominate the world and victimizes its opponents, the more likely you are to ascribe 9/11 to the U.S. The more you believe in Jewish domination of the world and/or the illegitimacy of the State of Israel, the more likely you are to ascribe responsibility for 9/11 to Israel.

Israel is in no way immune from the mechanism of truth-bending, and all camps have fallen into its traps. The right keeps claiming as a fact that Arabs will never accept Israel’s existence. The Arab peace initiative is simply explained away as a ploy, and the polls that show that most Palestinians are in favor of the two-state solution disregarded. The left in the 1990s consistently disregarded warnings that at the time Palestinians hadn’t given up on the right of return, and that there were no viable institutions in place that allowed for Palestinian statehood. All camps sold slogans; few faced the truth.

What can the Free World do to counteract the mind’s dangerous tendency to bend truth to serve ideology? Our democracies may be less vulnerable to truth-bending than theocracies like Iran, but they are far from immune. The whole art of political consulting and campaigning is based on the assumption that voters need to be manipulated. Truth won’t do the job in getting you votes; pressing the right emotional buttons will.

The first conclusion is that democracies in the Free World need to be much more vigilant in protecting their commitment to truth. The most dismaying recent example is indeed connected to 9/11: As is amply documented, the G.W. Bush administration very actively bent the truth about the connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 and about Iraq’s possession of WMD to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Hence the Free World must invest much more thought on how to protect the public sphere from mental debris. We must carefully balance the democratic protection of free speech with some rules that will force at least our politicians and our press to adhere to standards of truth.

The second conclusion is that the Free World is in dire need of rethinking its educational systems. Whether we look at beliefs about Obama being Muslim or at the susceptibility to buying into conspiracy theories, there is a consistent correlation: the level of education is a good predictor for the ability to make critical use of available evidence in making up one’s mind and to resist manipulative indoctrination.

The data shows that the most important threshold is between high school and a full college education. There is a good reason for this. The educational system up to high school is geared towards the acquisition of skills. College education focuses on evaluating information critically.

Unfortunately, the majority of the population will never have access to a good liberal education. Hence we must make sure that already in high school, strong emphasis is put on critical thought. Without this, we will end up with societies composed largely of members incapable of making informed political decisions and hence incapable of competent citizenship.

Nothing will inoculate us from the seduction of bending truth in the service of ideology. After all, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s doctorate in engineering has not turned him into an avid truth seeker. No single factor will do the job; a whole culture with a variety of institutions like universities, the press, the judiciary and art must guard the skills for critical thought and the respect for the search for truth. It is up to us to nurture such a culture, if indeed we want to remain a Free World.

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/strenger-than-fiction-ahmadinejad-s-lesson-for-the-free-world-1.315522

[Amnesiac]

That's an interesting essay. It does show that every side of a situation is equally stupid, some just make it more obvious than others.

The West does need to start paying attention to facts and not idiotic stories such as the "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim" theory, which is nothing more than blind superstition. Education needs reform badly in many nations, especially the United States, where the more conservative states try to inject political bias into the educational curriculum.

People always talk about being better than Iran and other conspiratorial nations like it, yet they harbor beliefs that drive us closer to being as brainwashed as they are.

[Sith Lord 13]

Education needs reform badly in many nations, especially the United States, where the more conservative states try to inject political bias into the educational curriculum.

I love how only the conservative bias is an issue, and not the liberal bias, which is far more prevalent, especially at higher levels of education.

[Whisper]

k i don't really think this is a democrat vs republican issue......
its an educational issue, a social reform issue, it involves and affects both sides of the spectrum
its not about what parties at fault (because they've obviously both failed miserably)
its about how can it be fixed in order to give the nations youth the best chances and opportunities.

the article itself is biased, but the point its trying to make is valid and the stats to back up the main claim are accurate

[Sith Lord 13]

k i don't really think this is a democrat vs republican issue......
its an educational issue, a social reform issue, it involves and affects both sides of the spectrum
its not about what parties at fault (because they've obviously both failed miserably)
its about how can it be fixed in order to give the nations youth the best chances and opportunities.

the article itself is biased, but the point its trying to make is valid and the stats to back up the main claim are accurate

Quite agreed, and that's why I didn't comment on the article. But when other members choose to see this as a one sided issue, I'm going to raise the issue.

[Tiberius]

It's not an article, it's a personal blog. For all we know, most of the information could be a facsimile of the truth. Not to mention the extreme liberal bias towards the whole thing.

[Whisper]

OECD PISA RANKINGS

http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.html
download the complete executive summary (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf)
page 21 Percentage of students at each proficiency level on the science scale (by country)
page 23 Range of rank of countries/economies on the science scale
page 54 Range of rank of countries/economies on the mathematics scale
The United States is below average in all of these.



Page 48 Range of rank of countries/economies on the reading scale (the US isn't even on it, i dunno why, interesting none the less)


Let me guess: "more liberal propaganda!!!!!"

[Amnesiac]

I love how only the conservative bias is an issue, and not the liberal bias, which is far more prevalent, especially at higher levels of education.

In parts of the U.S., especially Texas, it really is more of a problem than liberal bias. Conservative bias tends to be stronger than liberal bias.

[Tiberius]

OECD PISA RANKINGS

http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.html
download the complete executive summary (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf)
page 21 Percentage of students at each proficiency level on the science scale (by country)
page 23 Range of rank of countries/economies on the science scale
page 54 Range of rank of countries/economies on the mathematics scale
The United States is below average in all of these.



Page 48 Range of rank of countries/economies on the reading scale (the US isn't even on it, i dunno why, interesting none the less)


Let me guess: "more liberal propaganda!!!!!"

I was just saying that I'm not willing to believe something that some guy on the internet ranted about without seeing some solid fact and evidence to back it up. I do agree, however, that the U.S educational system sucks some pretty big dick in the industrial world; seeing as how I'm in it.

[Perseus]

I do agree, however, that the U.S educational system sucks some pretty big dick in the industrial world; seeing as how I'm in it.

I second this comment whole heartily.

[mrmcdonaldduck]

Am i the only one that noticed the spelling error in the title? its "Stranger", Not "Strenger". Sorry for being a grammar nazi.

And i do think the US education system, particularly geography is SHIT!!!!! It would be nice if you guys could locate what country you where invading

[Amnesiac]

Am i the only one that noticed the spelling error in the title? its "Stranger", Not "Strenger". Sorry for being a grammar nazi.

And i do think the US education system, particularly geography is SHIT!!!!! It would be nice if you guys could locate what country you where invading

Oh god, my geography class reeks of shit teaching. People don't know where the simplest countries are. They think global warming is "only a theory" and "not a fact". They fail to memorize simple landforms and parts of the Earth.

It makes me rage.

[Whisper]

Am i the only one that noticed the spelling error in the title? its "Stranger", Not "Strenger". Sorry for being a grammar nazi.

i noticed it but i left it cause its not my work.

[mrmcdonaldduck]

Oh god, my geography class reeks of shit teaching. People don't know where the simplest countries are. They think global warming is "only a theory" and "not a fact". They fail to memorize simple landforms and parts of the Earth.

It makes me rage.
Hmm, i was playing on xbox live today, and some one who obviously did not no anything about the world, who was american asked me where australia was, and asked if it was near texas.
FACE PALM


i noticed it but i left it cause its not my work.
ok then, i just thought it was a little unusual if you did that, you are kinda too good for that

[Amnesiac]

Hmm, i was playing on xbox live today, and some one who obviously did not no anything about the world, who was american asked me where australia was, and asked if it was near texas.
FACE PALM

The people in my Pre-AP (advanced placement, the higher level class) geography class are this stupid. I bet half the class is failing. It's ridiculously stupid. Maybe I have an advantage because I've traveled the world and I'm a foreigner, but I don't care, they should still know.

[Sith Lord 13]

In parts of the U.S., especially Texas, it really is more of a problem than liberal bias. Conservative bias tends to be stronger than liberal bias.

I have to respectfully but completely disagree at higher levels of education, and at the lower levels, it varies from state to state.

They think global warming is "only a theory" and "not a fact". They fail to memorize simple landforms and parts of the Earth.

It makes me rage.

We've had this discussion before, but even inside the scientific community global warming is controversial. It' still far from fact, or even being a "scientific theory", which is essentially fact.

Am i the only one that noticed the spelling error in the title? its "Stranger", Not "Strenger". Sorry for being a grammar nazi.

It's the author's last name, used as a play on words.

[Whisper]

We've had this discussion before, but even inside the scientific community global warming is controversial. It' still far from fact, or even being a "scientific theory", which is essentially fact.
this isn't a discussion for here, but climate change IS considered a very solid scientific theory (fact is a VERY big word there) among the scientific community

http://unfccc.int/press/fact_sheets/items/4987.php

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators.html

and the thousands of other legitimate organizations like NOAA or IPCC, etc.....



as far as the education system I believe its based off of achievement exams, SATs, the stats on those who graduate vs those who fail. I agree every state would be different, in Canada the systems in every province differ, but i'm not talking about the nuances. The stats i'm bringing up here are across the spectrum, the mean so to speak for the entire country vs that of other developed nations. Apparently when you look at it like that, the united states is falling behind.

[Amnesiac]

I have to respectfully but completely disagree at higher levels of education, and at the lower levels, it varies from state to state.

True, it does vary, but I'd say from pure observation that the conservative bias seems to be much more obvious than liberal bias.

We've had this discussion before, but even inside the scientific community global warming is controversial. It' still far from fact, or even being a "scientific theory", which is essentially fact.

It is a fact that global temperatures have been rising over the last two centuries. That's not disputed. Sure, there may be some dissenting scientists who disagree with the IPCC's ruling that global warming is real and caused by humans, but that's not the point. It's the complete ignorance of the difference between "theory" and "scientific theory" and the encouragement that us teens should ignore scientific consensus just because we don't personally believe in it.

[Sith Lord 13]

True, it does vary, but I'd say from pure observation that the conservative bias seems to be much more obvious than liberal bias.

Is it possible that the conservative bias is more obvious to you because you're liberal?

g that global warming is real and caused by humans, but that's not the point. It's the complete ignorance of the difference between "theory" and "scientific theory" and the encouragement that us teens should ignore scientific consensus just because we don't personally believe in it.

The difference between theory and scientific theory is a big one. Just as big as the difference between consensus and apparent consensus. Speaking as someone who's logged time in an actually research lab, sat down and discussed the topic with various scientists, and the scientific world is very far from consensus. However, touting global warming as an issue gets funding, so it's done.

[Amnesiac]

Is it possible that the conservative bias is more obvious to you because you're liberal?

Possibly, but it just seems like the conservatives make their introduction of bias into the system so much more obvious, especially in regards to the teaching of evolution and government.

The difference between theory and scientific theory is a big one. Just as big as the difference between consensus and apparent consensus. Speaking as someone who's logged time in an actually research lab, sat down and discussed the topic with various scientists, and the scientific world is very far from consensus. However, touting global warming as an issue gets funding, so it's done.

Are you talking about human-caused global warming or just global warming in general? I thought it was almost universally agreed that temperatures are rising, I do know there are scientists who disagree that humans are causing it.

[Sith Lord 13]

Possibly, but it just seems like the conservatives make their introduction of bias into the system so much more obvious, especially in regards to the teaching of evolution and government.

Evolution v creationism is a religious, not a conservative bias.

Are you talking about human-caused global warming or just global warming in general? I thought it was almost universally agreed that temperatures are rising, I do know there are scientists who disagree that humans are causing it.

The debate is over both the cause and the implications. While the data trends are generally agreed upon, their is the debate over whether this is actually a warming trend or just normal variation, or if it's one of the warning signs of the coming of the next ice age.

[Amnesiac]

Evolution v creationism is a religious, not a conservative bias.

Yes, but every time we see this introduction of creationism, it's from a group of conservatives, not liberals. Conservatives are the ones who don't believe in separation of church and state.

The debate is over both the cause and the implications. While the data trends are generally agreed upon, their is the debate over whether this is actually a warming trend or just normal variation, or if it's one of the warning signs of the coming of the next ice age.

Hmm, that's interesting. It's a far cry from the data I've seen showing the correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature change.

[Perseus]

Yes, but every time we see this introduction of creationism, it's from a group of conservatives, not liberals. Conservatives are the ones who don't believe in separation of church and state.





That was a silly statement. You have nothing to back you up on that. Don't say stuff like that, dude.

[Amnesiac]

That was a silly statement. You have nothing to back you up on that. Don't say stuff like that, dude.

Texas Republican Party (official platform from 2002):

"Our Party pledges to do everything within its power to dispel the mythof separation of church and state."

Also, this interview. (http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/07/20/republicans-on-churchstate-separation.htm)

[Perseus]

Texas Republican Party (official platform from 2002):



Also, this interview. (http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/07/20/republicans-on-churchstate-separation.htm)

Last time I checked, Texas doesn't represent the whole of the conservative party.

And to the interview, that's Christians being stupid. Not all Christians are conservative, nor are all conservatives Christians. Those particularly people don't understand what separation of church and state is. Well, some do.

[Amnesiac]

Last time I checked, Texas doesn't represent the whole of the conservative party.

And to the interview, that's Christians being stupid. Not all Christians are conservative, nor are all conservatives Christians. Those particularly people don't understand what separation of church and state is. Well, some do.

Maybe not, but it's an official branch of the national Republican party. If you read pages 60 and 61 of the official 2008 GOP platform (http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/2008platform.pdf), they stand opposed to many Supreme Court decisions that were based on the philosophy of seperation of church and state.

[Perseus]

Maybe not, but it's an official branch of the national Republican party. If you read pages 60 and 61 of the official 2008 GOP platform (http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/2008platform.pdf), they stand opposed to many Supreme Court decisions that were based on the philosophy of seperation of church and state.

I really do hate being wrong; especially with something as serious as that. Separation of Church and State is a very important thing to have.

[Amnesiac]

I really do hate being wrong; especially with something as serious as that. Separation of Church and State is a very important thing to have.

It is very important, and it needs to be protected. I have faith in the Supreme Court, but the increasing right-wingedness of the GOP is discomforting. I can only imagine what Sarah Palin, endorsed fully by the Republicans, who supports Christian prayer in schools, would do as President.

[Sith Lord 13]

Hmm, that's interesting. It's a far cry from the data I've seen showing the correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature change.

I can show a correlation between global temperature change and number of internet users too. Does that mean using the internet causes global warming? No. Correlation does not mean causation. It could just as well be that the higher temps have been killing off certain plants and/or microorganisms which remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

If you read pages 60 and 61 of the official 2008 GOP platform (http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/2008platform.pdf)

The document ends at page 60, and all 60 is comprised of is a list of people who helped put the platform together.

[Amnesiac]

I can show a correlation between global temperature change and number of internet users too. Does that mean using the internet causes global warming? No. Correlation does not mean causation. It could just as well be that the higher temps have been killing off certain plants and/or microorganisms which remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

That's possible, I'll give you that. However, it goes deeper than correlation and causation, there's a reason why CO2 would increase temperature.

The document ends at page 60, and all 60 is comprised of is a list of people who helped put the platform together.

I meant page 60 of the PDF, not of the document itself.

[Whisper]

my god wheres the topic here again? LOL

we've all gone way the fuck off

[Amnesiac]

my god wheres the topic here again? LOL

we've all gone way the fuck off

This always happens :P but the original post does bring up a lot of topics to be discussed, I was half-expecting this to happen.

[Sith Lord 13]

That's possible, I'll give you that. However, it goes deeper than correlation and causation, there's a reason why CO2 would increase temperature.

That causation is highly debated and disputed, and to even imply the unity of scientists to that ideal is downright laughable. Certain scientific organizations have endorsed the idea, largely in an attempt to get funding. If you can tie your research project to global warming in any way, you'll get the funding you need. It's easier to get funding for researching bird migration patterns than it is to get funding for cancer research, on account of the fact it's easier to tie in global warming to the bird migrations.


I meant page 60 of the PDF, not of the document itself.

OK.

Maybe not, but it's an official branch of the national Republican party. If you read pages 60 and 61 of the official 2008 GOP platform (http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/2008platform.pdf), they stand opposed to many Supreme Court decisions that were based on the philosophy of seperation of church and state.

Care to explain that claim? All I saw in those pages was a very nice way to endorse the right to not be atheist and to promote the free expression of religion, unfettered by government interference.



my god wheres the topic here again? LOL

we've all gone way the fuck off

This always happens :P but the original post does bring up a lot of topics to be discussed, I was half-expecting this to happen.

It's a point dissection of biases. It's biggest point is to determine the line between interpretation of truth and bias.