Latest Dreck from Kevin Barrett

[Childlike Empress]

In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” - that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information.

Point illustrated here by Redwood's attempt to make it seem like Barrett misrepresented the one study (which he didn't, he was clear enough for the broader topic of his own article) and by Scotty's failure to find out that "The Rebel" just re-printed an article which originally was published on PressTV where it has a huge audience and over 60 comments.

No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.

QED, Professor.

 

[The Big Dog]

Point illustrated here by Redwood's attempt to make it seem like Barrett misrepresented the one study (which he didn't, he was clear enough for the broader topic of his own article) and by Scotty's failure to find out that "The Rebel" just re-printed an article which originally was published on PressTV where it has a huge audience and over 60 comments.

QED, Professor.

And CE failure was citing to Press TV as if it were a legitimate press outlet (ohhh, 60 comments! Golly!) instead of the official propaganda organ of *********** Iran.

 

[beachnut]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content and response.

... originally was published on PressTV where it has a huge audience and over 60 comments. QED, Professor.

PressTV, where scholars go? lol

"Albert Einstein ...! He was a joo fraud and plagarist ...

Makes your baby name for your fellow JREFers seem cute, nice.

The towers were made by the finest engineers on the planet the steel would never melt as fast as they did.

Another Einstein... lol, PressTV, wow over 60 comments... wow

Dupes for 911 truth fooled by lies, are so dirt dumb, they regurgitate lies when excited their fantasy is on PressTV

Conspiracy???? LMAO! Of course the buildings were brought down with explosives!

Using that overwhelming evidence.
Kevin's article inspires idiots to come out and express their delusions.

I also did not believe the government’s account of ... the 9/11 tragedy, but I never thought of myself as a conspiracy theorist. In fact, I call myself a conspiracy exposer

A nut thinks he is exposing a conspracy, and he has a fantasy. Inspried by Kevin to show a failed fantasy.
Teachers cringe at the reality these few fringe nuts failed to pay attention to cause and effect day, failed education and crazy claims found in comments at PressTV. wow
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/12/313399/conspiracy-theorists-vs-govt-dupes/

And what happened to the body parts in the third crash?

Another failed, or crazy, 911 truth cult member, can't think, forced to make up stuff because they can't reason and use critical thinking skills. An example of failed logic and knowledge is the CIT woo.

 

[dudalb]

Now you have me wondering. I do remember a Bugs Bunny episode that there was a bad 'guy' that was all hair.

This might be the best part of this thread. Finding this episode.

How 'politically incorrect" is this?

(not the one we're looking for)

You think that's bad, just watch "Bugs Nips the Nips". a wartime Warners cartoon.

 

[Redwood]

It's significant that Barrett doesn't even link to the article that he is misrepresenting. You have to google search the authors to find it.

Truthers are lazy - how many times have debunkers written "Did you even read the article you linked to?" Barrett is just taking it one step further.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Kevin Barrett
In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” - that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information.

Point illustrated here by Redwood's attempt to make it seem like Barrett misrepresented the one study (which he didn't, he was clear enough for the broader topic of his own article) and by Scotty's failure to find out that "The Rebel" just re-printed an article which originally was published on PressTV where it has a huge audience and over 60 comments.

Originally Posted by Kevin Barrett
No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.

QED, Professor.

The authors of the study say that Barrett is misrepresenting it:

Setting the record straight on Wood & Douglas, 2013
Posted on July 13, 2013 by Mike Wood

Our recently published Frontiers study on online communication, “What about Building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, has been the subject of some chatter on the Internet – but not quite in the way I had hoped. A story by Kevin Barrett on PressTV.ir has interpreted the study as showing that conspiracists are “more sane” than conventionalists, and, given that this is an appealing headline for long-suffering conspiracists, has been copy-pasted around the Internet in a highly uncritical fashion. I’m often guilty of this too – reading the headline and moving on – because who has the time to read every original source of every news story? In this case, of course, the paper says nothing of the sort and the article’s conclusions are based on misrepresentations of several critical findings.

http://conspiracypsych.com/2013/07/13/setting-the-record-straight-on-wood-douglas-2013/

Did you even read the Frontiers article, C.E.? You didn't just take it on faith from Kevin Barrett, did you? Or do you think that the Vast Conspiracy has gotten to the authors?

I feel like Woody Allen in Annie Hall.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Did you even read the Frontiers article, C.E.? You didn't just take it on faith from Kevin Barrett, did you? Or do you think that the Vast Conspiracy has gotten to the authors?

I feel like Woody Allen in Annie Hall.

I read the abstract and I read the comment Wood made at PressTV. That's minor criticism, not counting as "misrepresentation" and it's debatable if it even matters - that they cut out the noise. Taking a look at the nature of his blog* makes it unsurprising that he had to distance himself from that article given the rounds it apparently made, and his other point (he didn't mention at PressTV) about Barrett's misunderstanding about the mentioning of "historical context"/"unrelated CTs" certainly stands. On the other hand, so does the point I quoted about "confirmation bias" you and Scotty illustrated so nicely.

Oh, and there are no links in PressTV articles. In general, afaik.

edit: * The nature being that he's certainly not neutral about the topic (which doesn't mean he doesn't stick to the research protocol) ... kind of a anti-CT activist ... was at Bilderberg, will read this. Could be a member of this forum. That's you, Mr. Redwood?

 

[The Platypus]

PressTV is a laughable source...

 

[beachnut]

... it's debatable if it even matters - ... ?

Yes, debate the meaning of a paper with the author of the paper. No wonder Barrett lost, and PressTV promotes lies from nuts in 911 truth. Not many people are neutral about the lies from 911 truth.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Redwood
Did you even read the Frontiers article, C.E.? You didn't just take it on faith from Kevin Barrett, did you? Or do you think that the Vast Conspiracy has gotten to the authors?

I feel like Woody Allen in Annie Hall.

I read the abstract and I read the comment Wood made at PressTV. That's minor criticism, not counting as "misrepresentation" and it's debatable if it even matters - that they cut out the noise.

So you never read the actual article? It took me about 45 minutes. Thank you for confirming my statement that Truthers are lazy. As for misrepresentation, what part of Wood's statement do you not get?

Posted by Michael J. Wood
In this case, of course, the paper says nothing of the sort and the article’s [Barrett's] conclusions are based on misrepresentations of several critical findings.

Taking a look at the nature of his blog* makes it unsurprising that he had to distance himself from that article given the rounds it apparently made..

Apparently, you are referring to Barrett's article, not Wood's. Yes, Barrett's article has been making the usual rounds of conspiracist sites. I'd bet on it showing up on Veterans Today. But not Wood's article. Conspiracists won't link to it!

Oh, and there are no links in PressTV articles. In general, afaik.

I think it would be common courtesy to link to it. If the site is so primitive that it can't link to an article this way, they could at least spell out the url so that one could copy it and paste it into a new tab. What do you think?

edit: * The nature being that he's certainly not neutral about the topic (which doesn't mean he doesn't stick to the research protocol) ... kind of a anti-CT activist ... was at Bilderberg, will read this.

I'll have to get out my Gibberish-English translator for most of this. I assume you mean that you were one of the Bilderberg protesters this year, not that Wood was an attendee. What this has to do with Barrett's misrepresentation of Wood's article is anyone's guess. But thanks for the insight into conspiracist mental processes.

Could be a member of this forum. That's you, Mr. Redwood?

No, I am not Michael J. Wood, as you seem to be implying. I got the descriptive nickname "The Redwood" many decades ago. Alas, we humans don't age as nicely as does genus Sequoia, so I'm sort of a saggy redwood now. But thanks for more insight into conspiracist mental processes.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I'm not going into pathetic quote-by-quote orgies for you. The fact that you found the study without problems is due to Barrett giving the name of the authors, the place of publishing and the exact title. That's more than enough and follows the standards of referencing. That you want PressTV to change their publishing software just to spare you a very basic goggle search shows again your confirmation bias.

I meant indeed the PressTV article making rounds. And I meant Wood with "was at Bilderberg", as a scan of the latest articles on his/their blog should have told you. I've read his article by now - strong "anti-CT" position but with the basic human respect for the other side that lacks so much in this environment. Worth reading/listening to.

Even found a pic of him and Rudkowski ... he's "red" in the sense of having hairs in a colour usually described as such on his head, Redwood.

I was just asking questions ... but to give you something you can harp on about: If you were him, you could hardly admit it given the posts you made earlier today.

 

[Redwood]

I'm not going into pathetic quote-by-quote orgies for you. The fact that you found the study without problems is due to Barrett giving the name of the authors, the place of publishing and the exact title.

It's pretty difficult to cite an article without giving the title and author, unless you're just going to write, "I just saw something on the Internet. This guy says that...."

But what does that have to do with Barrett misrepresenting the article?

That's more than enough and follows the standards of referencing. That you want PressTV to change their publishing software just to spare you a very basic goggle search shows again your confirmation bias.

I don't "want" PressTV to do anything. I just think it's common courtesy to provide a link. Barrett also has published his article on other sites, again without links. I think that this is because Barrett is deliberately misrepresenting the article, and is counting on Truthers to be their usual lazy selves. And no, this is not "confirmation bias", this is a deduction from his behavior.

I meant indeed the PressTV article making rounds. And I meant Wood with "was at Bilderberg", as a scan of the latest articles on his/their blog should have told you. I've read his article by now - strong "anti-CT" position but with the basic human respect for the other side that lacks so much in this environment. Worth reading/listening to.

More specifically, Wood wasn't "at Bilderberg", he was at the Bilderberg protests which have now become a sort of Conspiracist Woodstock. Which makes sense for a person who researches conspiracist beliefs. But what does that have to do with Barrett misrepresenting the article?

Even found a pic of him and Rudkowski ... he's "red" in the sense of having hairs in a colour usually described as such on his head, Redwood.

I'll take your word on that, though I myself would have provided a link, or attached an image.

I was just asking questions ... but to give you something you can harp on about: If you were him, you could hardly admit it given the posts you made earlier today.

I've been posting here for some time now, mostly on topics where I have a degree of expertise as a person trained in "hard" science. If I were really Michael Wood, why wouldn't I just sign on as myself, seeing that he has some recognition as a researcher in conspiracist belief systems? And didn't you say he has "basic human respect for the other side". But what does that have to do with Barrett misrepresenting the article?

I'm probably more sympathetic than most here to some of the conspiracists. I find many conspiracy theories quite plausible, but not those that involve Mission Impossible scenarios, or that a Vast Conspiracy controls the entire world, as the logic of Mission Impossible theories leads to.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I'll take your word on that, though I myself would have provided a link, or attached an image.

He's the only one of the four authors of that blog who hasn't a pic assigned to his profile and it took me a bit of dot-connecting to find one, so I decided to respect his privacy - as he likely isn't you - and make you rely on my word as I have to rely on yours.

Before you start using even larger font and funny colors, think about if I would be intimidated or amused by that - given the nature of Barrett's article (re-read the headline). I stand by what I originally wrote - that "he was clear enough for the broader topic of his own article".

 

[Redwood]

I've started a new thread in the Conspiracy Theory general section about Michael J. Wood's research into conspiracism in order to avoid derailing this thread , which is about the dishonesty, lack of integrity, and general awful nature of Kevin Barrett.

 

[Redwood]

Before you start using even larger font and funny colors, think about if I would be intimidated or amused by that - given the nature of Barrett's article (re-read the headline). I stand by what I originally wrote - that "he was clear enough for the broader topic of his own article".

If by the "broader topic of his own article", you mean his headline, which is:

New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile

Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

then Kevin Barrett is misrepresenting the nature of the article, as Dr. Wood himself writes:

Setting the record straight on Wood & Douglas, 2013
Posted on July 13, 2013 by Mike Wood

A story by Kevin Barrett on PressTV.ir has interpreted the study as showing that conspiracists are “more sane” than conventionalists....

...In this case, of course, the paper says nothing of the sort and the article’s conclusions are based on misrepresentations of several critical findings.

Either Barrett is lying, or he is so far down the rabbit hole that he is suffering from severe {ahem!} confirmation bias.

Can't truthers ever back off on anything? Does everything have to be a Last Stand?

This discussion also illustrates Wood's basic point, that conspiracists are unable to put together a coherent narrative argument:

This tendency has been informally noted by Dean (2002), who described most conspiracy theories as “bits and pieces without a plot… [that] fail to delineate any conspiracy at all. They simply counter conventional narratives with suspicions and allegations that, more often than not, resist coherent emplotment” (p. 92). Likewise, Clarke (2007) observed that conspiracy theories are often extremely vague, particularly in the Internet age.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I've started a new thread in the Conspiracy Theory general section about Michael J. Wood's research into conspiracism in order to avoid derailing this thread , which is about the dishonesty, lack of integrity, and general awful nature of Kevin Barrett.

Meh, that's not about their general research but about their visit to Bilderberg (of course to the protests, as you had no problem understanding when it was about me - the attendees have other things to do than post-graduate social science research). You could have posted that into my awesome Bilderberg thread.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Can't truthers ever back off on anything? Does everything have to be a Last Stand?

What's your problem, I conceded one of the two minor points he made already. Nothing like "several critical findings" he promises.

Anyway, if you would concede that Barrett wrote one of his very skillfully composed mocking articles with a grain of truth, turning the nonsense coming from the duhbunkies around, i.e. trolling you - "and" Wood, at least he may perceive it as such -, the whole hot air would disappear.

 

[Redwood]

More dreck:

9/11 could be insurance fraud as “trial” of conspiring duo begins in NY today

JREF discussion here

 

[Redwood]

Kevin Barrett doesn't know when to shut up. He doubles down on his misrepresentation of Dr. Wood's study of conspiracists.

Originally posted by Kevin Barrett

New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile

Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

You see, Dr. Wood is actually misrepresenting his own work:

Setting the record straight on Wood & Douglas, 2013
Posted on July 13, 2013 by Mike Wood

A story by Kevin Barrett on PressTV.ir has interpreted the study as showing that conspiracists are “more sane” than conventionalists....

...In this case, of course, the paper says nothing of the sort and the article’s conclusions are based on misrepresentations of several critical findings.

Barrett explains why Wood is misrepresenting his own findings, and is part of the Vast Conspiracy

Originally posted by Kevin Barrett

Wood’s deceptive attempt to obfuscate his own findings reveals that he is a propagandist, not a scientist. His uncritical use of the pejorative term “conspiracist” – the product and tool of a massive and ongoing CIA mind-control operation – shows that his real job is “manufacturing consent” rather than seeking the truth.
.........
In his lame attempt to discredit me, and save himself from career damage and harassment, Wood admits that I am right about his two key findings

OK, so academic researchers, the intended audience of Wood's article, will see this as confirming previous research into conspiracists. But Kevin Barrett knows that its True Meaning is the exact opposite of its ostensible meaning, and intends to expose Wood's misrepresentations of his own research. I'm sure that Dr. Wood has already dropped several pantloads, worrying about Barrett is going to expose him.

What really frosted Barrett is that George Knapp of Coast to Coast radio invited Dr. Wood to discuss his work, and didn't invite him.

You don’t have to be a “paranoid conspiracy theorist” to wonder why Coast to Coast is so averse to giving me a fair hearing.

-KB

OMG! Coast to Coast Radio is part of the Vast Conspiracy!

How about some innuendo?

Originally posted by Kevin Barrett

Whence such ingratitude? Presumably Wood is afraid that my interpretation of his research will get him labeled “pro-conspiracy-theory” – the kiss of death in the Western academy.

I get it, Kev. A researcher into the psychology of conspiracists is worried he'll get a reputation as being "pro-conspiracy" because a conspiracist is telling the world what his research "really means".

Finally:

Originally posted by Kevin Barrett

Please contact the Coast to Coast radio show http://www.coasttocoastam.com/pages/contact and ask host George Noory to let me debate Michael Wood on this issue.

Think about this one Kevin. Do you really want to go on "Coast to Coast" to accuse a scientist to his face how he is misrepresenting his own work, and how the Vast Conspiracy is intimidating him into doing so, and how the Vast Conspiracy (including Coast to Coast) is preventing you from telling the world of its True Meaning?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Wow, Redwood, you really should know that it doesn't help your credibility to omit the link to an article you're ranting about as anybody can search for the quotes you gave as easily as you were able to look up your study referenced in Barrett's original piece.

Here it is.