A French study shows that the majority of people will conform –agree with the prevailing opinion– even when it’s factually wrong. This is correlated to certain brain activity, which suggests that people have a “conformity” or “sheep” mechanism that is biological.
However, all such conclusions suffer from the “chicken or the egg” problem –that is, do we behave as we do because our brains dictate it, or does our freely chosen behavior create certain kinds of brain activity? While it’s probably both, I find that’s it too mechanistic to reduce everything to biology. This is what the whole medical model is based on in psychology –people are depressed because of their brain chemistry. Even if this is true, it’s also provable that we can change our brain chemistry without drugs
In any case, this is yet another study that shows that most people tend to conform, though this one is not as malevolent as the Milgram experiments, where people were willing to administer (what they thought were) electric shocks to test subjects for giving the wrong answer.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge. What do we know and how do we know it? This can be pretty abstract, but when you apply it to issues that everyone talks about -and things that “everybody knows” it can get interesting -and controversial.
It is now pretty much indisputable that global warming is caused by humans –or is it? There are still scientists who believe that climate change is a natural phenomenon -and that “global warming” is not what it appears. Yet, it has become extremely politically incorrect to even raise this issue. To some, to question global warming in any way makes you a reactionary or the tool of Big Oil (or some such label).
The upcoming International Conference on Climate Change, to be held in New York in March, will feature a number of scientists who question the conventional wisdom of climate change. Now, I don’t pretend to have the expertise to be able to have an opinion on this subject that is worth much. However, I might ask, how many people who “know” the truth about climate change -or many other issues- are really in a position to know the truth? How much of what we “know” is simply repeated something we’ve heard many times? Some other examples about things we might question the official story regarding – evolution, the attacks of 9/11/01, the effectiveness of much modern medicine, to name a few.
I feel the need to add that questioning climate change is not an attack on environmentalist or green ideas (though it could be used for that purpose, of course). Environmental problems are definitely real –much of our air, food and water is contaminated (this is actually much easier to prove than the idea that global warming is caused by humans).
I think everyone who considers themselves educated or well-informed should at least expose themselves to alternative possibilities.
Are you a “scanner?” This term was coined by Barbara Sher, author of books like Wishcraft and Refuse to Choose!: Use All of Your Interests, Passions, and Hobbies to Create the Life and Career of Your Dreams (which is about scanners). Scanners are people who are generalists, have many interests and often have trouble sticking to one thing. They are often categorized as having ADD (whether or not they do is a topic of some debate in the scanner subculture, such that it is!).
Well I for one will confess to being a scanner. I think it’s partly symptomatic of the times we live in. The opposite tendency, to be very focused upon one specialty, is really characteristic of older paradigms, such as agricultural or industrial. The internet itself is almost a perfect example of how ADD/Scannerlike modern information culture is.
Still another look at this topic was created by Thom Hartmann, in Attention Deficit Disorder : A Different Perception. His premise is that people with ADD are “hunters” as opposed to farmers. I did read this book, and actually attended a talk given by Hartmann on this subject. It’s an interesting idea, especially if we look at in the context of changing cultural paradigms. Perhaps, in some ways, strange as it may seem, the post-industrial world will be more like the pre-agricultural (e.g. hunter-gatherer)?
Like many people, I was a bit shocked when I read that Obama’s inauguration was going to cost an estimated $150 million. But when I did a little checking, it seems that the number was simply made up, with no hard facts whatsoever.
Now I have no particular interest in the inauguration. I didn’t even vote for Obama (though I can’t say I’m sorry he won). But I always find it fascinating to come upon ways the media reports unsubstantiated “facts” that are then widely accepted.
Of course, when it comes to really significant events –say 9/11– I’m sure we can trust the basic official story. Certainly, they couldn’t make stuff up on that kind of scale. No way. Inconceivable.
Anyway, I found this story about the AP fabricating inauguration costs at the Huffington Post, which then provided a link to a more detailed story at Mediamatters.
This is a recent interview with David Wilcock by George Noory, host of the Coast to Coast radio show. They discuss 2012, UFOs and ETs, time travel, the Illuminati and other stuff you either think is fascinating or dismiss as lunatic fringe paranoia! This video is in 12 parts…you can find the other sections at Youtube.
I found this video with Abraham to be an interesting commentary on the supposed financial crisis and world events. Among other things, Abraham makes the remark that no president can change our world. I think this is an important point. The real message here is that we create our own reality, and if we are completely aware of this, we don’t have to rely on the way the media, government or other institutions define things for us.
