WSJ article on conspiracy theories forwarded by Jeffrey E. to Ed

From: jeffrey E. [[email protected]] Sent: 12/19/2015 2:28:32 PM To: Ed Subject: Re: My review today in wsj of conspiracy theories Importance: — High could 1 pay you to organzie my story into a coherent presentation. . probaly a six- 9 moth job. On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Ed a wrote: They're Not Really Out to Get You By EDWARD JAY EPSTEIN Dec. 18, 2015, Wall Street Journal | Conspiracy, a word derived from the Latin “to breathe together,” has been a salient part of the darker side of recorded history ever since some 60 conspirators in the Roman senate, including Brutus and Cassius, plotted together to assassinate Julius Caesar in 44 B.C. Nowadays the “C” word does not always sit well with journalists, who commonly employ it in conjunction with “theory” to describe paranoid distortions of reality. Even so, a criminal conspiracy is not a rare phenomenon. Not only was a foreign conspiracy responsible for the monstrous 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center (as well as the previous attempt to blow it up in 1993) but, according to the Center on Law and Security at Fordham University, over 90% of routine federal indictments for terrorist attacks since 9/11 contain at least one conspiracy charge. The government’s pursuit of conspiracies is by no means limited to terrorism. Conspiracy charges are the rule rather than the exception in cases brought against businessmen accused of fixing prices, evading environmental regulations, using insider information or laundering money. But there are also pseudo-conspiracies that exist only in a delusionary or misinformed mind. And some of them achieve a huge following. In Pakistan, according to public opinion polls, a majority of the population believes that the 9/11 attack was staged by President George W. Bush to launch a war on Islam. The claim that the 1969 moon landing was faked is still around. Just two days ago a crew from a Russian TV channel rushed to my apartment to interview me about a viral post on YouTube in which the deceased director Stanley Kubrick supposedly made a deathbed confession to having filmed the landing in a Hollywood studio—even though everything about the post, including a fake Kubrick, was untrue. Why people believe in pseudo-conspiracies is the focus of Rob Brotherton’s fascinating book “Suspicious Minds.” Mr. Brotherton, an academic psychologist, advances the thesis that the belief in pseudo-conspiracies proceeds from the “quirks and foibles” in the way that the human brain, or at least some human brains, process evidence. He lucidly reviews studies showing common defects in the brain’s wiring, such as the bias that selects evidence to confirm rather than undermine a pre-adopted thesis. “We seek what we expect to find,” as Mr. Brotherton puts it. Relatedly, “biased assimilation” causes us to “interpret ambiguous events in light of what we already believe.” Discussing Richard Hofstadter’s 1964 essay “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” Mr. Brotherton accepts Hofstadter’s characterization of proponents of politically motivated conspiracy theories as “paranoid” and suffering from “‘a psychic phenomenon” that prevents them from seeing the absurdity of their position. But he disagrees with Hofstadter that this condition affects only a small number of people on the fringes of society. For Mr. Brotherton, “conspiracy theories thrive in the mainstream.” Until the controversy over the validity of Warren Commission’s 1966 report on the Kennedy assassination, the phrase “conspiracy theory” had a more neutral meaning, suggesting a plausible yet unproven claim about multiple actors in a single event. Only in the aftermath of the Warren Commission did it become a derogatory term used to suggest theories that subvert conventional wisdom. To those who doubted the commission’s finding that a single gunman killed Kennedy, Earl Warren became, Mr. Brotherton’s says, the “figurehead in a HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031607