Should the government try to undermine conspiracy theories involving the government?
In 2009 an article by Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule appeared in the Journal of Political Philosophy (Volume 17, 2, pp. 202-227). Among other things, the authors argued that governments should engage in ‘cognitive infiltration of groups that produce conspiracy theories’. According to them, this involves governments developing and disseminating arguments against conspiracy theories, governments hiring others to develop and disseminate arguments against conspiracy theories and governments encouraging others informally to develop and disseminate arguments against conspiracy theories (2009, p. 218). In particular they suggest that government agents enter chat rooms and online social networks to raise doubts about conspiracy theories and generally introduce ‘cognitive diversity’ into those chat rooms and social networks.
This article has so outraged 9/11 conspiracy theorist David Ray Griffin that he has written an entire book attacking it. The book, Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee’s Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory (Olive Branch Press, 2010) is so named because Cass Sunstein has recently been appointed as regulator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
So to convince conspiracy nuts that the government was not behind the 9/11 attacks you recommend the government engage in “cognitive infiltration” in order to “disseminate arguments” that the government is not trying to cover up their purported involvement?
Can’t imagine why that wouldn’t work.
Sunstein is a smart guy and his intentions are noble (Trutherism really is idiotic). But this is the type of dumb idea that is all too typical of our technocratic elite.
Also, isn’t it a bit creepy to suggest sending government agents to promote “cognitive diversity?” I guess the thinking is, “If we can’t send you to reeducation camps, we’ll send the indoctrination agents to you.”
(Via: Matt Hoberg, who has more thoughts on the issue.)
September 22nd, 2010 | 10:59 am
This seems like a somewhat gentler approach to infiltrating dissident groups than the use of FBI or CIA agents. The idea of introducing “cognitive diversity” into such groups in order to temper their extremism is interesting. Perhaps if there had been more “cognitive diversity” in the lefty academic/political circles in which President Obama was nurtured, he wouldn’t have been so surprised at the serious opposition his programs have faced.
This creative, well-intentioned, sort of creepy suggestion for “controlling the narrative” reminds me of a bright idea for “online reputation management”from the White House: gathering a database concerning those who disseminated “fishy information” on the Democrats’ health care reform.
Nancy Pelosi prefers a more direct method for stifling dissent.
September 22nd, 2010 | 1:54 pm
“Isn’t it a bit creepy…?
Yes, and there is nothing noble about building infantilism in human beings through encouraging increasing dependency on barely-related others and then attempting to manage their infantile behavior to control the cost. Shrinking and nudging sounds a lot more like livestock management than it does human relationship or compassion.
Nobility would involve loving other human beings enough to openly encourage them to rise, rather than lullabying them into a carefully tended slumber, so you can get on with your own agenda to remake the world in your own image with less troublesome dissent.
Karen – loved the Pelosi link.
September 22nd, 2010 | 8:49 pm
Again,
Rounding up all those who do not swallow whole the official story by calling them: nut jobs, idiots, conspiracy theorists, or truthers, does not help you. Putting them in re-education camps does not help you. Debating them with facts and logic also won’t work… you’d need a brain for that.
September 23rd, 2010 | 8:34 am
Isn’t this what liberals do best, stay up late at night trying to figure out how to control other people’s minds? I don’t see noble intentions here. I see “the totalitarian temptation.”
September 23rd, 2010 | 9:23 am
How does the author define “trutherism”? Because if it entails believing elements of the official story cannot be true, then the folks at N.I.S.T are “truthers”, as they’ve recanted and rewritten the building 7 narrative 3 times now.
There are clear fallacies in the official narrative. It will become as common as the belief in a Kennedy conspiracy in the next ten to twenty years.
September 23rd, 2010 | 4:48 pm
I wonder what the conspiracy theories are about that photo-op fly-by that caused such panic in NYC. I thought at the time they had to be looking to produce them.
September 24th, 2010 | 5:57 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by First Things, Frank Ho, Paranormal Guru, DriveTimeHappyHour, DriveTimeHappyHour and others. DriveTimeHappyHour said: How to Feed a Government Conspiracy Theory http://bit.ly/bVyX1Q [...]
September 24th, 2010 | 12:12 pm
[...] Joe Carter for First Thoughts criticized governmental attempts to undermine some conspiracy theories [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact