What I saw in Campbell's book was confirmation bias. He has gone through the world's literature on religion and mythology and cherry-picked things that appear to match his thesis.
What I saw in Campbell's book was confirmation bias. He has gone through the world's literature on religion and mythology and cherry-picked things that appear to match his thesis.
Interesting. Can you point me toward some disconfirming information?
I think it is a function of the brain to do this, which is far stronger than most account for. Some data from "How Minds Change" suggests that 30% of disconfirming data is needed for a belief to collapse. This leads me to conclude that censorship has far more significant issues than previously thought.
It also seems that conflict of interest is no longer an issue. Regulators are being funded by those they are supposed to regulate.
Why do I have the feeling that we're talking across each other?
I no longer own the book, but I can tell you the chapter on Buddhism is nonsense. I rather suspect that the experts in other subject areas might say that Campbell has not been accurate there either. I don't know that but on the basis of 'if you're wrong about X, why should my default be to trust you about Y', I am left wondering how much of the rest of the book I should trust.
I can well believe your figure of 30%, but I have a sense that things may be changing. Strange causalities are in play these days. For example, I would say that people are far more sceptical about AGW and Net Zero these days. This is not, I would argue, because they have been reading the academic journals and the papers that counter the 'consensus'. I would say it is because more people have woken up to the way they were manipulated regarding the pandemic, and that has made them more wary and more suspicious that some of what they are being told is propaganda.
Has the loss of trust in the corporate and state media affected the 30% figure? I am interested in your thoughts.
I think you are right. It is so easy to talk at cross purposes in text.
It has been my experience that our blindspots can come across in books. This may be Cambell's. In that book, I mentioned the 30% figure. McCraney has blindspots around how governments use this information (how minds change) and is blind to much of the propaganda. He does a great shop of showing the structure but may have inaccuracies in his content knowledge (he mentions horse dewormer etc, not seeing the propaganda).
I believe you are correct about the propaganda waking more up. I would think this is the blowback that simple logic fails to comprehend. "let's condition them," not realizing sooner or later they will spot it.
What I saw in Campbell's book was confirmation bias. He has gone through the world's literature on religion and mythology and cherry-picked things that appear to match his thesis.
Interesting. Can you point me toward some disconfirming information?
I think it is a function of the brain to do this, which is far stronger than most account for. Some data from "How Minds Change" suggests that 30% of disconfirming data is needed for a belief to collapse. This leads me to conclude that censorship has far more significant issues than previously thought.
It also seems that conflict of interest is no longer an issue. Regulators are being funded by those they are supposed to regulate.
Why do I have the feeling that we're talking across each other?
I no longer own the book, but I can tell you the chapter on Buddhism is nonsense. I rather suspect that the experts in other subject areas might say that Campbell has not been accurate there either. I don't know that but on the basis of 'if you're wrong about X, why should my default be to trust you about Y', I am left wondering how much of the rest of the book I should trust.
I can well believe your figure of 30%, but I have a sense that things may be changing. Strange causalities are in play these days. For example, I would say that people are far more sceptical about AGW and Net Zero these days. This is not, I would argue, because they have been reading the academic journals and the papers that counter the 'consensus'. I would say it is because more people have woken up to the way they were manipulated regarding the pandemic, and that has made them more wary and more suspicious that some of what they are being told is propaganda.
Has the loss of trust in the corporate and state media affected the 30% figure? I am interested in your thoughts.
I think you are right. It is so easy to talk at cross purposes in text.
It has been my experience that our blindspots can come across in books. This may be Cambell's. In that book, I mentioned the 30% figure. McCraney has blindspots around how governments use this information (how minds change) and is blind to much of the propaganda. He does a great shop of showing the structure but may have inaccuracies in his content knowledge (he mentions horse dewormer etc, not seeing the propaganda).
I believe you are correct about the propaganda waking more up. I would think this is the blowback that simple logic fails to comprehend. "let's condition them," not realizing sooner or later they will spot it.