On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:00:36 -0700, Dr. Bob Wildblood wrote: >Previously, Tim Shearon wrote: >>Allen, et al >>What's helpful is that the facts often make stories that are just as >>compelling as are the fictions. There are so many of these fictions about, >>however, that it is challenging sometimes to keep the facts separated from >>closely associated fictions. Well, that and that so many of these fictions are >>contained. . . in texts. Ouch!
One area of research that might be considered is how do rumors and gossip (i.e., uncritical acceptance of someone's statement) gets started and circulated among: (a) researchers in discussing other researchers and their work (b) authors of textbook and pop psych/neuroscience books (c) members of the media such as the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television. Someone really should do a study somewhat like the following: Three conditions in which a summary of a research study is presented: (1) Reading a printed version of the abstract (2) Watching a video of the "Author" reading the abstract (3) An interactive video where the "Author" reads part of the abstract, paraphrases the rest, and might answer a question or two. The factual content could be held constant across the three conditions and the dependent measures would include ratings of (a) which mode of presentation has the highest accuracy, (b) which mode has the highest "believability", (c) which mode one feels most comfortable with, and (d) which has the greatest amount of "truthiness" (tm Stephen Colbert). I'd be willing to assert that of the three modes or presentation, reading the printed abstract should be the source with the best source of info especially if the abstract can be retrieved for future use. But novices (undergraduates, laypersons, perhaps even researchers) might not feel comfortable with abstracts and assign lower believability to them relative to mode (c) where the "author" seems more spontaneous, seems to be be able to modify what is said, and may appear to have more "truthiness". The component of social interaction present in mode (c) might give one that impression that what is being said has greater validity (perhaps under the assumption that the speaker is using Grice's Conversational Maxims) relative to other forms of info transmission. From this perspective, people might be more willing to accept rumors and gossip as being true even though it might be difficult if not impossible to get the evidence that actually supports the statements. Moreover, unless the conversation was videotaped or recorded by some other means, one or both participants could recall the conversation in very different ways (see the "Rashomon Effect"). And when uncritically accepted rumors and gossips form part of the communal or social knowledge that a community has (e.g., psychology college professors), how can such statement NOT make it into textbooks? >For those of you who are Robert Wuhl fans and have watched >Assume the Position 101 and Assume the Position 201 with Mr. Wuhl >on HBO, you know one of his favorite positions: > >"When the history becomes legend, print the legend." Actually, unless my memory fails me, this is what is said by a newspaperman at the end of Director John Ford's movie "The Man Who Killed Liberty Valence". James Stewart and John Wayne starred and Lee Marvin played the "bad guy" Liberty Valence. The movie starts with Stewart coming back to the little western town where he got his start as a lawyer and after shooting Liberty Valence, went on to political office, eventually becoming a U.S. senator. The Wayne character had just died and Stewart and his wife (who had been with Wayne prior to hooking up with Stewart) have come for his funeral. The local newspapermen ask Stewart about the early days when he first came to town, first met Liberty Valence, and the events that led to his shooting Valence. The shootout was out on the street at night with most of the town watching and expecting Valence to kill Stewart. After playing with Stewart for a little while Valence comes in for the kill but Stewart lets out with a shot that kills Valence. Everyone sees this and it is "obvious" that Stewart had killed the badman Liberty Valence even though Stewart was a tenderfoot with novice levels of gun and shooting skills. Nonetheless, good triumphs over evil, law and order overcome western gangsterism, and the meek in the form of Stewart's character shall inherit the world as well as win the girl. The problem is that Stewart didn't kill Liberty Valence. Wayne's character was watching the scene from a nearby alley and at the same time that Stewart's character fired, Wayne, the expert gunman, also fired and killed Liberty Valence. Later, Wayne's character tells Stewart's charcter what happened, just as Stewart is having second thoughts about being elected territorial representative to Washington, D.C. Stewart's opposition argue that a "cold blooded-killer" like Stewart's character cannot, should not be elected to represent the territory, that this is not how the territory wants itself to be perceived. Stewart, bucked up by his conversation with Wayne, returns to the nominating party and the rest is, well, the rest of the movie. Returning back to the "present day" of Wayne's funeral, Stewart finishes telling the newspapermen of how it was Wayne not he who killed Liberty Valence and perhaps it is time to set the record straight. To which the newspapermen respond: "When the history becomes legend, print the legend." And so, myths become eternal truths. -Mike Palij New York University [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
