{"id":209020,"date":"2020-06-19T06:48:51","date_gmt":"2020-06-19T06:48:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=209020"},"modified":"2020-06-22T07:24:37","modified_gmt":"2020-06-22T07:24:37","slug":"now-psychological-fakery-from-kings-college-london","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=209020","title":{"rendered":"Now Psychological Fakery from King\u2019s College London"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ian Fantom \u2013 June 18, 2020<\/strong><\/h1>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

According to this morning\u2019s BBC Radio 4 news programme King\u2019s College London had had a paper published in the journal Psychological Medicine about social media and \u2018conspiracy theories\u2019. I looked up the BBC\u2019s website and found an article ‘<\/a>Coronavirus: Social media users more likely to believe conspiracies<\/a>‘<\/span>. I checked with the author, Rory Cellan-Jones, who kindly gave me the links. The paper was actually published nine days earlier, and so I had thought there must have been a later paper, but King\u2019s College had put out a compilation of the findings that very morning, presumably for the press, under the heading \u2018Covid conspiracies and confusions: the impact on compliance with the UK\u2019s lockdown rules and the link with social media use<\/a>\u2019<\/span>.<\/h5>\n

Definitional Confusion<\/strong><\/h2>\n
I have no reason to doubt the statistics of their sociological survey, but there does seem to be confusion over the use of \u2018conspiracies\u2019 and related terms in their own paper. The abstract begins:<\/h5>\n
\u201cSocial media platforms have long been recognised as major disseminators of health misinformation. Many previous studies have found a negative association between health-protective behaviours and belief in the specific form of misinformation popularly known as \u2018conspiracy theory\u2019. Concerns have arisen regarding the spread of COVID-19 conspiracy theories on social media\u201d. So here they are using the term \u2018conspiracy theory\u2019 specifically as a form of \u2018misinformation\u2019, rather than a belief in a conspiracy. The abstract concludes: \u201cWhen used as an information source, unregulated social media may present a health risk that is partly but not wholly reducible to their role as disseminators of health-related conspiracy beliefs\u201d. A cursory glance will show that the heading and the conclusion are about \u2018conspiracy beliefs\u2019, so where does \u2018conspiracy theory\u2019 come in?<\/h5>\n
I looked up the full paper, which was headed \u2018Health-protective behaviour, social media usage and conspiracy belief during the COVID-19 public health emergency<\/a>\u2019<\/span>. The first paragraph of the Introduction appears to define the \u2018conspiracy\u2019 terms, but it doesn\u2019t; it throws the definitions into further confusion:<\/h5>\n
Conspiracism is the tendency to assume that major public events are secretly orchestrated by powerful and malevolent entities acting in concert (Douglas et al.,2019). The idea that such plotting explains social reality was influentially termed \u2018the conspiracy theory of society\u2019 by Popper (1969), and what Hofstadter termed \u2018conspiratorial fantasies\u2019 (1964) are now popularly referred to as \u2018conspiracy theories\u2019. Here, the more neutral \u2018conspiracy beliefs\u2019 is preferred. Online, such beliefs are now frequently offered as explanations of Coronavirus Disease 2019, or COVID-19. This outbreak of conspiracism is only the latest wave in an ongoing \u2018deluge of conflicting information, misinformation and manipulated information on social media\u2019 which some researchers have long argued \u2018should be recognised as a global public-health threat\u2019 (Larson,2018, p. 309).<\/h5>\n
So, here we have a concoction of terms which, the authors are suggesting all mean the same thing, though they don\u2019t explicitly say so. They throw into various definitions the ideas of \u2018a tendency to assume\u2019, and \u2018fantasies\u2019, \u2018deluge of conflicting information\u2019, \u2018 misinformation\u2019, and \u2018manipulated information\u2019, in addition to a belief in a form of \u2018misinformation\u2019, as indicated in the abstract, and link it all to \u2018social media\u2019. But when they say they prefer \u201cthe more neutral \u2018conspiracy beliefs\u2019\u201d they are admitting that all the other terms are derogatory terms. Such terms should not be used in any scientific paper. Yet by defining \u2018conspiracy beliefs\u2019 to equate with the derogatory terms makes \u2018conspiracy beliefs\u2019 in this context a derogatory term, too.<\/h5>\n
The absurdity of this lies in the fact that the official theory of 9\/11, that it was conducted by 19 Muslim Semites under the leadership of Osama bin Laden, is not regarded as a \u2018conspiracy theory\u2019, yet questioning that version is regarded as \u2018conspiracy theory\u2019. If the authors of this paper are genuinely writing about conspiracy beliefs, then why don\u2019t they just define what they mean, without reference to derogatory terms, which should never be used in any scientific paper, other than to examine language usage, or to explain why they should never be used in scientific writing. I think the obfuscation in this paragraph is an example of the manipulation of information that they are accusing others of.<\/h5>\n

The Facts Don\u2019t Matter<\/strong><\/h2>\n
The second paragraph states (with references removed):<\/h5>\n
Multiple studies have found a link between medical conspiracy beliefs and reluctance to engage in health-protective behaviours with regard to vaccination or safer sex. This raises the possibility that the circulation of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs might be associated with similar risks. Indeed, two recent studies have found a negative relationship between COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and health-protective behaviours intended to help control the COVID-19 pandemic.<\/h5>\n
I haven\u2019t waded through the references to check on this, but I have seen enough of the papers by psychologists on \u2018belief in conspiracy theories\u2019 not to expect any of them to actually analyse the basis of people\u2019s disbelief in what they are being told by authority. The facts of the issues in question don\u2019t seem to matter.<\/h5>\n
The third paragraph begins: \u201cIn the UK, broadcast and print media are regulated (albeit by different mechanisms), while social media are unregulated\u201d. Yes, it\u2019s called \u2018free speech\u2019. The mainstream media are indeed regulated, and that is the problem. Views that the regulators disapprove of are called \u2018conspiracy theories\u2019, and \u2018conspiracy theorists\u2019 are rapidly removed. As Nigel Farage said recently, \u201cI <\/a>h<\/a>ave never seen so many people scared to say what they think<\/a>\u201d<\/span>. \u201cWhat is at stake now is the very essence of free speech<\/a>\u201d<\/span>, he said in another interview on 16 June.<\/h5>\n

Offcom: \u2018Don’t worry your pretty little head\u2019<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\u201cFor example\u201d, that paragraph continues, \u201cwhen COVID-19 misinformation was propagated by David Icke and Brian Rose on the London Live television station, the owner of the station was sanctioned by the UK broadcasting regulator for disseminating content which \u2018had the potential to cause significant harm to viewers\u2019 (Ofcom,2020, p. 16)\u201d. Nowhere in Offcom\u2019s statement<\/span><\/a> on this issue did they raise the question of what David Icke had said was true or untrue. Fundamentally, David Icke was contesting statements put out by the government, and was giving what he believed to be the bigger picture, a view he had been putting about for 30 years before the CoronaVirus issue emerged. The interviewer, Brian Rose, took a more pro-government line. The response, as given in a three-page description in the Offcom report, included:<\/h5>\n
The Licensee considered the programme to be an exploration of David Icke\u2019s theories about the origins of the virus and the responses of governments, views which it stated David Icke has the right to hold and express. \u2026 It added that viewers of London Live, who are not \u201cespecially vulnerable\u201d and are capable of \u201cindependent and critical\u201d thought would be \u201cfamiliar\u201d with David Icke\u2019s views.<\/h5>\n
ESTV said that Brian Rose\u2019s opening statement contextualised some of David Icke\u2019s \u201cmore extreme\u201d views, and referred to Brian Rose as a \u201creputable\u201d, \u201cexperienced\u201d and \u201cprofessional\u201d interviewer. The Licensee stated that the interviewer challenged David Icke at \u201cseveral points\u201d in a \u201cdiscursive\u201d but \u201cnon-combative style\u201d comparable to \u201cLouis Theroux\u201d, and corrected David Icke on potentially harmful views, such as on the comparative infection rates and risks of Coronavirus and flu and the effectiveness of vaccines. It added that it was clear Brian Rose was \u201csceptical\u201d about his views, and that the close of the interview in which Brian Rose expressed his admiration for David Icke despite disagreeing with him on \u201cseveral\u201d matters, and David Icke emphasised the importance of being \u201cunique\u201d and open-minded, highlighted that no harm was caused to viewers.<\/h5>\n
So should it be the government\u2019s job to decide what is \u2018potentially harmful\u2019 to the public, rather than what is truthful? What happens when learning the truth is considered \u2018potentially harmful\u2019? Is Offcom\u2019s attituted of \u2018don’t worry your pretty little head\u2019 acceptable in a democracy? Offcom had previously sent out a \u2018Note to Broadcasters<\/a>\u2019<\/span> concerning CoronaVirus, which also did not raise the issue of whether or not the broadcasts were truthful, but only raised a concern of \u2018potentially harmful\u2019 material. Nor did it specify to whom the material may be \u2018potentially harmful\u2019. I\u2019ve met that trick before: to the public it will mean \u2018potentially harmful to the public\u2019, and to the government it may well mean \u2018potentially harmful to the government\u2019.<\/h5>\n

Blinding with science and the blindingly obvious<\/strong><\/h2>\n
So what does this King\u2019s College paper boil down to? I think a fair encapsulation would be: \u201cPsychologists at King\u2019s College London have discovered that people who disbelieve what they are being told with respect to COVID-19 are less likely to follow government guidelines than those who do\u201d. What an astounding discovery! But should it have reached the BBC\u2019s national morning news? This research was part-funded by Public Health England, presumably out of tax-payers\u2019 money.<\/h5>\n
I see in this strong similarities with a paper I reviewed in May by psychologists Viren Swami of Anglia Ruskin University and David Barron of Perdana University in Malaysia, titled \u2018\u2018Analytic Thinking, Rejection of Coronavirus (COVID-19) Conspiracy Theories, and Compliance with Mandated Social-Distancing: Direct and Indirect Relationships in a Nationally Representative Sample of Adults in the United Kingdom<\/a><\/span>. I called my article \u2018 \u201cFake Psychology\u201d: Health dangers of COVID-19 \u2018Conspiracy Theories\u2019 claim<\/span><\/a>\u2019<\/span>. In that article I wrote of that paper:<\/h5>\n
The essence of their research boils down to showing that people who do not believe the need for social distancing or self-isolation are less likely to follow mandated social-distancing measures than those who do. This is intuitive and obvious, but their conclusions are obscured by woolly concepts such as \u2018conspiracy theories\u2019, which is neither defined, nor used consistently.<\/h5>\n
I still hold to that. The final paragraph in that article ran:<\/h5>\n
I have put special effort into analysing this one paper, because it seems to be part of a network of papers produced by professors of psychology who specialise in denigrating \u2018conspiracy theories\u2019, and much of what applies to that paper will apply to some extent or other to the network as a whole. The obvious influence of fake science on this global lockdown, or partial lockdown, is now so evident that universities need to be held to account. The status of universities and of university professors as purveyors of the truth in the public mind is high. What I am seeing in such \u2018ad hominem\u2019 abuse of people who speak out against authority is an abuse of trust. Ultimately, the reputations of universities and of professional institutes in the areas of psychology and related disciplines is at risk, unless quality control is tightened up, and rogue professors weeded out.<\/h5>\n
I was disappointed to see King\u2019s College London participating in such a cabal. I\u2019m sure they do lot\u2019s of good research, but just one rogue department can pull down the reputation of the whole university. The same applies to the profession of psychology as a whole. I\u2019m sure there are reputable psychologists, though I suspect that good psychological councillors arise through their own sensitivities rather than through academic courses. Surely psychologists as a whole must be aware of the abuse of psychology for government propaganda. The journal Psychological Medicine is supposed to be peer reviewed. If I were its editor I would be giving whoever peer reviewed the King\u2019s College paper a severe reprimand. And if any reader knows of a school leaver who is thinking of studying psychology at university, they could perhaps make them aware of the sort of people they could be studying under. A quick search for the universities they have in mind, together with the term \u2018conspiracy theory\u2019 should give them a quick guide as to which universities to avoid. If a university professor intentionally issues fake academic papers, then one should be asking what his role really is. If he\u2019s putting it about that there\u2019s a whole lot of paranoid people out there with a tendency to assume that there\u2019s a deep state conspiracy against them, as distinct to a whole lot of individuals out there who have become sceptical of what they are being told by governments and the mass media, then one should be cautious. A lot of political propaganda works by \u2018reversal\u2019 \u2013 that is, accusing others of what they are guilty of themselves.<\/h5>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

What happens, asks Ian Fantom when “conspiracy theories” and the truth about Covid-19 are considered \u2018potentially harmful\u2019 to the government? <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":39262,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[61,105],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-209020","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-Commentary","category-coronavirus"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209020","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/39262"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=209020"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209020\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":209024,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209020\/revisions\/209024"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=209020"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=209020"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=209020"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}