Hi A couple of thoughts.
1. He is a communications professor. I've often wondered whether journalism students shouldn't be required to take courses in statistics and research methods. How else can they properly evaluate the truth of real-life events? 2. He appears to have a specialty in how the media distorts events toward their own ends, and apparently even teaches a course on Conspiracy. So he is probably highly attuned to identifying flaws (perceived or otherwise) in how the media covers events and is sensitized to interpreting those incidents in terms of deliberate distortions (i.e., conspiracies). 3. With respect to both 1 and 2, confirmation bias is a potent problem that is regulated somewhat by commitment to the rigors of scientific thinking and objectivity. Looking for evidence of a "conspiracy" is bound to turn up a multiplicity of "indicators" that collectively may be highly persuasive open to such ideas. 4. Sometimes I wonder if overly bright people don't ascribe to themselves the power to discern patterns hidden to "normal" people. A sort of intellectual arrogance? 5. Perhaps some form of mental disorder? Paranoid Personality Disorder, but less centered on the self? Where's a real clinical psychologist when you need one!? 6. I couldn't determine without more digging if he might be a politically motivated conservative (i.e., striving to minimize challenges to gun rights). He has studied issues like unions and the economic collapse, but his position is not completely clear from the titles of relevant works. He could be an equal-opportunity conspiracy theorist. None of this is to deny the possibility pointed out by Beth ... grabbing attention. On the academic freedom issue, people like this probably do not stand us in good stead with the majority of the population and certainly invite prejudicial use by anyone with an anti-academic agenda. Although I did find one site (perhaps a newspaper) where the highest rated comments agreed with his concerns. And certainly cases like this (e.g., Ward Churchill?) are a challenge to deal with. Clearly, one's views being obnoxious or beyond the pale to even many people is not an adequate criterion (e.g., the furor over researchers and APA promoting man-boy relations a few years ago). So what are the criteria that need to be applied to separate the wheat from the chaff? Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor & Chair of Psychology [email protected] Room 4L41A 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax Dept of Psychology, U of Winnipeg 515 Portage Ave, Winnipeg, MB R3B 0R4 CANADA >>> Beth Benoit <[email protected]> 12-Mar-13 8:37 PM >>> Sadly, here's what may be the latest in the conspiracy theorist scenario - this from a tenured professor at a taxpayer-funded university, Florida Atlantic University: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/15/newtown-harassed-by-conspiracy-theorists/?hpt=ac_t5 My TIPS query (and I'm not sure we've ever addressed this) is: What GIVES with conspiracy theorists? Especially those with apparent credentials, such as those of James Tracy. What might be the motivation? What might be underlying problems - if any - for these people? Just need for attention? BIRGing? Obviously, there's always the possibility that conspiracy theorists are correct. (Naturally, that's their belief.) Beth Benoit Granite State College Plymouth State University New Hampshire --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=24298 or send a blank email to leave-24298-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=24301 or send a blank email to leave-24301-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
<<attachment: Jim_Clark.vcf>>
