Higher Intelligence And An Analytical Thinking Style Offer No Protection Against “The Illusory Truth Effect” – Our Tendency To Believe Repeated Claims Are True

By Matthew Warren

It’s a trick that politicians have long exploited: repeat a false statement often enough, and people will start believing that it’s true. Psychologists have named this phenomenon the “illusory truth effect”, and it seems to come from the fact that we find it easier to process information that we’ve encountered many times before. This creates a sense of fluency which we then (mis)interpret as a signal that the content is true.  

Of course, you might like to believe that your particular way of thinking makes you immune to this trick. But according to a pre-print uploaded recently to PsyArXiv, you’d be wrong. In a series of experiments, Jonas De keersmaecker at Ghent University and his collaborators found that individual differences in cognition had no bearing on the strength of the illusory truth effect. 

The researchers wondered whether three aspects of cognition, already known to influence how people make judgments, could determine how prone someone is to the illusory truth effect: cognitive ability or intelligence; the need for cognitive closure (i.e. the desire to avoid ambiguity); and cognitive style (whether someone thinks in a rapid and intuitive manner or takes a slower and more analytic approach). For example, someone who relies more on intuition and wants hard-and-fast answers might be more likely to use the fact that information has been repeated as a cue to its truthfulness.

Across six experiments involving between 199 and 336 participants, the team measured the illusory truth effect while also tapping into these aspects of cognition. The exact methods varied for each study, but generally participants would first read a mix of true and false trivia statements, then complete various cognitive tests and surveys, and finally they would re-read and judge as true or false the earlier trivia statements, as well as new ones interspersed among them. A seventh study was similar but involved fake and real political headlines (the participants’ final challenge in this case was to judge which were real and which were made up).

The researchers found the illusory truth effect across all seven studies: participants were more likely to rate trivia statements and headlines as true/real if they’d seen them previously. Crucially, the strength of this effect did not vary according to the participants’ cognitive ability or style, or need for closure. (A couple of studies found some small significant associations, but these disappeared when the researchers integrated all the data.)

These results suggest that we are all predisposed to believe repeated information regardless of our own particular cognitive profile. And while that might make us all susceptible to advertising and the fabrications of dishonest politicians, the researchers have a more optimistic take. “These novel findings are in line with the assertion that processing fluency is not a judgmental bias and flaw in the individual, but rather a cue to truth that is universal and epistemologically justified in most contexts”, they write. In other words, it’s not that there’s a foolish subgroup of people who are more vulnerable to the “illusory truth” effect, but rather it’s an advantageous and universal bias that’s arisen because most of the time fluency actually is a reliable signal of truth. For example, a statement that is often repeated may tend to be endorsed by more people, which could be a useful cue to its truth.

But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t individual differences relating to the illusory truth effect waiting to be discovered, the team adds. Individuals with Alzheimer’s disease, for example, seem to show a less strong effect, suggesting that certain fundamental aspects of memory and cognition may be required to support the effect. With a greater willingness to publish null results like this one – and not just leave them in the file drawer – researchers should be able to build up a much more complete picture of the illusory truth effect and other cognitive biases.

—Investigating the robustness of the illusory truth effect across individual differences in cognitive ability, need for cognitive closure, and cognitive style [This study is a preprint meaning that it has not yet been subject to peer review and the final published version may differ from the version on which this report was based]

Matthew Warren (@MattbWarren) is Staff Writer at BPS Research Digest

• Blog Archive by Topic

How concentrated corporate power makes inflation worse

 How concentrated corporate power makes inflation worse

Judd Legum Nov 10 

Why are prices from everything from laundry detergent to potato chips to My Little Pony going up? Inflation is a complex phenomenon. Supply chain disruptions, increased labor costs, and surging demand all play a role. But one factor driving inflation is seldom discussed: mega-corporations with massive market power. 

In competitive markets, profit margins should approach zero, as long as there are reasonable substitutes available for a given product. But corporate profits as a share of the American economy have risen dramatically over the last two decades, from 5% of GDP to nearly 12%.

As prices have increased in recent months, corporate profits have surged to record highs, according to data from Bloomberg:

Faced with rising prices for everything from lumber to oil to labor and computer chips, chief executive officers have cut costs and boosted prices for their products. The strategy appears to be working, with first-quarter income from S&P 500 companies jumping five times as fast as sales, data compiled by Bloomberg Intelligence show.

As a result, their net margin -- which measures how much profit companies are squeezing from their revenue -- has risen to a record high, according to Bank of America Corp.

...“To a fundamental analyst, inflation is called ‘pricing power,’” said Nicholas Colas, co-founder of DataTrek Research. “And it is very good for incremental corporate earnings.”

As Colas alludes to, corporations are not being forced to raise prices to stay afloat. They are choosing to raise prices to maintain large profit margins because they have enough market power to do so without losing customers.

Let's take Procter & Gamble (P&G), one of the largest consumer product companies in the world, as an example. In April 2021, P&G announced that it "will start charging more for household staples from diapers to toilet paper, the latest and biggest consumer-products company to announce price hikes." To justify the increases P&G cited "rising costs for raw materials, such as resin and pulp, and higher expenses to transport goods." The price increases, P&G said, will "be in the mid-to high-single-digit percentage points." 

In the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2021, P&G reported an "operating income," or profit, of $3.785 billion. That represented a 20.9% profit margin compared to total sales. In the fiscal quarter ending September 30, 2021, after some of P&G's price increases went into effect, the company reported a profit of $5.06 billion. That represented a profit margin of 24.7%. The company spent $3 billion in the quarter buying its own stock. 

It's clear that the price of Pampers and Tide cannot be explained by "rising costs for raw materials" or transportation alone. Rather, the price increases were necessary to maintain — and even increase — large profit margins. 

But how can P&G get away with selling diapers at a huge margin? Shouldn't competitors in the diaper industry undercut P&G on price and grab market share? Unfortunately, there isn't much competition in the diaper market. "The lion’s share of the market for diapers meanwhile is controlled by just two companies (Kimberly-Clark and P&G), limiting competition for cheaper options," according to a report released this month from the Roosevelt Institute. Kimberly-Clark, which produces Huggies and Pull-Ups, announced similar price increases at the same time as P&G. 

Data provided to Popular Information by Accountable.us told a similar story across a range of industries. Corporations that are raising prices are also amassing huge profits and spending billions of stock buybacks. While a variety of factors are at play, insufficiently competitive industries have stripped consumers of bargaining power. 

The costs of these price increases are often borne by those who can least afford them and the benefits go to wealthy shareholders and executives. "[A]cross a range of sectors that produce the goods that people need to provide for their families, companies are extracting from their consumers using the excuse of inflation -- all while lining their shareholders' and CEO's pockets," Rakeen Mabud, Chief Economist at the Groundwork Collaborative, told Popular Information. "This has nothing to do with inflation, and everything to do with corporate greed by those who are focused on enriching themselves at the expense of workers and families."

Other major brands announcing price increases and large profits

In April, PepsiCo — the parent company of Frito-Lay, Gatorade, Quaker, Tropicana, and other brands — announced it was increasing prices. The company blamed "higher costs for some ingredients, freight and labor." 

In July, the company announced its "pricing was up about 5% in the North America businesses." Those price increases supported better than expected performance. The company recorded $3 billion in operating profits and increased its projections for the rest of the year. The company expects to send $5.8 billion in dividends to shareholders in 2021. 

PepsiCo's chief competitor, Coca-Cola, took a similar approach. The company — which owns Dasani, Powerade, Minute Maid, and Fairlife — announced in July that it "plans to raise prices." These price increases were good for business. The company recorded $10 billion in revenues (up 16% from the previous year) and increased its profit margins to 28.9%. Coca-Cola has over $11 billion in cash reserves. 

The trend extends beyond the food industry. Whirlpool — which owns Kitchenaid, Maytag, Amana, and other appliance brands — increased prices 5 to 12% in 2021. The purpose of the increase, announced in July, was purportedly to "compensate for increased raw material costs, including for steel and plastics." In the 3rd quarter, however, Whirlpool announced profits of $608 million and revised its estimates for profit margins moving forward — from 10% to 11-12%. While the price increases were billed as offsetting raw material costs, they ended up increasing profit margins significantly. 

Numerous other companies that announced price increases to compensate for increased labor and material costs are reporting large profits, including Conagra, Hasbro, and Chipotle.

In June, two of the nation's largest supermarket chains, Kroger and Albertsons, said "that they expect to benefit from rising prices." According to retail analyst Burt Flickinger, the stores will "mark up the full rate of inflation plus a little bit more." Kroger CEO Rodney McMullen was quite open about his intention to exploit inflation to increase profits. "A little bit of inflation is always good in our business," McMullen said.

The Church Of Scientology What Judges and others have said about Scientology!

 From The Interactive Bible

The Church Of Scientology

What Judges and others have said about Scientology!

"Scientology is evil; its techniques are evil; its practice is a serious threat to the community, medically, morally, and socially; and its adherents are sadly deluded and often mentally ill... (Scientology is) the world's largest organization of unqualified persons engaged in the practice of dangerous techniques which masquerade as mental therapy." (Justice Anderson, Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia)

"The government is satisfied that Scientology is socially harmful. It alienates members of families from each other and attributes squalid and disgraceful motives to all who oppose it; its authoritarian principles and practice are a potential menace to the personality and well being of those so deluded as to become followers; above all, its methods can be a serious danger to the health of those who submit to them... There is no power under existing law to prohibit the practice of Scientology; but the government has concluded that it is so objectionable that it would be right to take all steps within its power to curb its growth." (Kenneth Robinson, British Minister of Health )

"The crime committed by these defendants is of a breath and scope previously unheard of. No building, office, desk, or file was safe from their snooping and prying. No individual or organization was free from their despicable conspiratorial minds. The tools of their trade were miniature transmitters, lock picks, secret codes, forged credentials and any other device they found necessary to carry out their conspiratorial schemes." -Federal prosecutor's memorandum to the judge urging stiff jail sentences for 9 top leaders of Scientology who had pleaded guilty to criminal charges

"Scientology is both immoral and socially obnoxious...It is corrupt sinister and dangerous. It is corrupt because it is based on lies and deceit and has its real objective money and power for Mr. Hubbard... It is sinister because it indulges in infamous practices both to its adherents who do not toe the line unquestionably and to those who criticize it or oppose it. It is dangerous because it is out to capture people and to indoctrinate and brainwash them so they become the unquestioning captives and tools of the cult, withdrawn from ordinary thought, living, and relationships with others." (Justice Latey, ruling in the High Court of London)

"[The court record is] replete with evidence [that Scientology] is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract the maximum amount of money from its adepts by pseudo scientific theories... and to exercise a kind of blackmail against persons who do not wish to continue with their sect.... The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder, L.Ron Hubbard." (Judge Breckenridge, Los Angeles Superior Court)

"In January 1980, fearing a raid by law enforcement agencies, Hubbard's representatives ordered the shredding of all documents showing that Hubbard controlled Scientology organizations, finances, personnel, or the property at Gilman Hot Springs. In a two week period, approximately one million pages were shredded pursuant to this order." (California appellate court, 2nd. district, 3rd. division, July 29, 1991, B025920 & B038975, Super. Ct. No. C 420153 )

"It is common knowledge among senior executives of the organization and it is the policy of CSC that members of the Boards of Directors are mere figureheads, without authority or control, not for internal corporate reasons, but rather to vest control in Mr. Hubbard. I have personal knowledge that in order to carry out this corporate fraud, organizational executives have engaged in the various unethical practices including backdating phony Board minutes and forging signatures." (Affidavit of Gerry Armstrong, former member)

"When a person is subjected to coercive persuasion [as in Scientology] without his knowledge or consent ...[he may] develop serious and sometimes irreversible physical and psychiatric disorders, up to and including schizophrenia, self-mutilation, and suicide." (California Supreme Court, United States v. Lee [455 U.S. 252,257,258 (1982)*/)

"The dispute in this case surrounds Lerma's acquisition and publication on the Internet of texts that the Church of Scientology considers sacred and protects heavily from unauthorized disclosure. Founded by L. Ron Hubbard, the Scientology religion attempts to explain the origin of negative spiritual forces in the world and advances techniques for improving one's own spiritual well-being. Scientologists believe that most human problems can be traced to lingering spirits of an extraterrestrial people massacred by their ruler, Xenu, over 75 million years ago. These spirits attach themselves by "clusters" to individuals in the contemporary world, causing spiritual harm and negatively influencing the lives of their hosts ". USDJ Judge Leonie Brinkema 4 Oct 96 Memorandum Opinion, RTC vs Lerma ("...capable of such danger that the public interest demands that people should know what is going on" LORD DENNING)

"It is an organization with medical, social and ethical practices that are dangerous and harmful," "It claims to act freely so as to draw members who subsequently undergo ... brainwashing by dictated ways of thinking that limit reaction capabilities." (Judge Constandia Angelaki wrote in her [December 1996] ruling.)

"[The court record is] replete with evidence [that Scientology] is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract the maximum amount of money from its adepts by pseudo scientific theories... and to exercise a kind of blackmail against persons who do not wish to continue with their sect. [...]In addition to violating and abusing its own members civil rights, the organization over the years with its 'Fair Game' doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in [Scientology] whom it perceives as enemies. The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder [L. Ron Hubbard]. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background and achievements. The writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism, greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile." (Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr., 6/20/84; Scientology v. Armstrong, affirmed on appeal 232 Cal.App.3rd 1060, 283 Cal.Rptr. 917.)

"It is an organization with medical, social and ethical practices that are dangerous and harmful [...]In some countries, this organization presents itself as religion (CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY in Greece however as Centre of Applied Philosophy - KEPHE).

 There is no, as results from foreign Court decisions and Press articles, a presentation of Scientology in the world with uniform directions and similar goals. It sometimes appears under the cover of religious movement in order to receive constitutional protection and enjoy the advantages of 'religion' such as tax and currency easing." ... "The 'Centre of Applied Philosophy' operates under the cover of philosophic Association, it does not have religious character (as its BoD President stated in the 8.6.95 document to the Holy Synod of the [Orthodox] Church of Greece, signed by the then BoD President, mentioning that it is not a religion. However, since 1995 it arbitrarily and in a way contrary to the public morals, started declaring that it is a religion, in order to present itself persecuted because of its members' religious beliefs". (Judge Constandia Angelaki, December 1996, Greece, Attiki Prefecture vs KEPHE (Scientology in Greece) No. 7380/1996; Verdict dissolves the organization)

" The members are praised, in writing, for conducting unethical or criminal actions. [...]The most important, however, is that the Center is maintaining a Department of Special Affairs and Office of Special Affairs, which conduct monitoring of people and report their movements to unidentified centers abroad." (Judge Ioannis Angelis, Oct 1995, re: Raid on Scientology center (KEFE) in Greece)

"She is especially praised because she managed to bring to KEFE the KIP Report... and consequently offered to the International Administration a vital product, which considerably contributes in handling the suppressive elements in Greece and abroad." (Document dated Feb 23, 1993 seized in raid upon Dept. of Special Affairs Office in Greece in 1995, KIP is the Greek Intelligence service, Investigation of espionage is ongoing.)

"L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, has been quoted as looking upon law as a tool to [h]arass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harrass and enough harrassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly." (Judge Brinkema, U.S. Eastern Virginia District Court, 11/28/95, No. 95-1107-A (RTC [Scientology shell corp.] v. Lerma, Digital..., Washington Post, et. al.))

"The invidiousness of the alleged conspiracy is best reflected in the fact that plaintiff was sued 21 times over the course of a 17- month period in jurisdictions ranging from New York to California.... we hold that plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the elements of the tort of malicious prosecution and, for purposes of this case, the tort of civil conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution." (Chief Justice Freeman, Illinois Supreme Court, 9/18/97, No. 80868; Cult Awareness Network v. Church of Scientology, et. al.)

"In reality the church is a hugely profitable global racket that survives by intimidating members and critics in a Mafia-like manner. [...] Eleven top Scientologists, including Hubbard's wife, were sent to prison in the early 1980s for infiltrating, burglarizing and wiretapping more than 100 private and government agencies in attempts to block their investigations. [...]Scientology has brought hundreds of suits against its perceived enemies and today pays an estimated $20 million annually to more than 100 lawyers." ... "One legal goal of Scientology is to bankrupt the opposition or bury it under paper. The church has 71 active lawsuits against the IRS alone. [...]'In my opinion the church has one of the most effective intelligence operations in the U.S., rivaling even that of the FBI,' (Ted Gunderson, a former head of the FBI's Los Angeles office.)

Foreign governments have been moving even more vigorously against the organization. In Canada the church and nine of its members will be tried in June on charges of stealing government documents.... Since 1986 authorities in France, Spain and Italy have raided more than 50 Scientology centers. Pending charges against more than 100 of its overseas church members include fraud, extortion, capital flight, coercion, illegally practicing medicine and taking advantage of mentally incapacitated people. In Germany last month, leading politicians accused the cult of trying to infiltrate a major party as well as launching an immense recruitment drive in the east." (Richard Behar, TIME Magazine article "Scientology: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power", May 6, 1991; cases above all resulted in convictions; TIME was sued for slander by Scientology over this article, TIME prevailed)

"Convictions, seized church documents and defectors affidavits demonstrate that Scientologists have already indulged in burglary, kidnapping, false imprisonment, espionage, blackmail, and conspiracies to steal government documents and to obstruct justice." (READER'S DIGEST, May 1980, SCIENTOLOGY: Anatomy of a Malignant Cult)

"He is a fraud and has always been a fraud." ... "My father has always used the confidential information extracted from people during [confessionals] to intimidate, threaten and coerce them to do what he wanted, which often meant getting them to give him money. My father routinely used false threats and [information from confessionals] particularly about crimes people had committed to extort money from them." ... "My father has always held out Scientology and auditing to be based purely on science and not-on religious 'belief or faith. We regularly promised and distributed publications with 'scientific guarantees'. This was and has always been common practice. My father and I created a 'religious front' only for tax purposes and legal protection 'from fraud Claims'. We almost always told nearly everyone that Scientology was really science, not a religion, but that the religious front was created to deal with the government." (Ronald DeWolf a.k.a. L. Ron Hubbard, Jr.; son of L. Ron Hubbard, Affadavit in Schaick v. Church of Scientology, US District Court Mass., No. 79-2491)

"Mr. Hubbard showed up for the divorce proceedings in Port Orchard, Wash.; he had another woman with him that he was supposed to have married during 1946." ... "Mrs. Ochs produced two old newspaper article which gave an account of the divorce proceedings of the second wife. The articles in 'The Mirror' Los Angeles, Calif. paper dated April 23. 1951 page 12, and the 'Los Angeles Times' April 24, 1951 related how Mrs. Sarah Northrup Hubbard, from a Pasadena family, was kidnapped, had her child (Alexis Valery - 13 month old daughter) taken from her by Hubbard and was asking for a divorce." (FBI report of interview with Margaret Ochs (1st wife of L. Ron Hubbard), Inspector W. Beale Grove, Philadelphia District, 2/20/63; Official documents prove that L. Ron Hubbard was in fact guilty of bigamy)

"[L. Ron] Hubbard once spoke about his strategies for 'handling' his enemies. The best way was to, literally, drive them crazy, to use all one's resources to find their weaknesses and hit them hardest where it hurt the most. He said there were few men in history who mastered the techniques to do so successfully. He intimated he was one. [...] A Hubbard bulletin of 5 November 1967, 'Critics of Scientology', states, '...Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist....'

Hubbard policy of 25 February 1966, 'Attacks on Scientology,' ...states, Scientology must respond to attacks by '...attacking the attackers only. NEVER agree to an investigation of Scientology. ONLY agree to an investigation of the attackers. This is the correct procedure: (1) Spot who is attacking us. (2) Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or worse using our own professionals, not outside agencies ... (4) Start feeding lurid, blood, sex, crime, actual evidence on the attackers to the press. Don't ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it tough, rough on attackers all the way....'

[...]Because of the continued refusal to cooperate, Lyn [Froyland] was rapidly assigned to the RPF's RPF. This was several steps down from the RPF, in the boiler room under the Ft. Harrison hotel building. It was a dark, filthy, smelly place where the huge boilers roared and clanked day and night and where the rats lived. Lyn was chained to a pipe down there for weeks, under guard. She was taken meals and allowed toilet breaks, but no other hygiene. I tried desperately to get her to repent and get out of the hole, but she would not. The longer she stayed in the hole, the less she spoke and the more unwilling, sullen, filthy and feral looking she became." (Hana "Eltringham" Whitfield, 4/4/94, Declaration in Church of Scientology v. Fishman & Geertz, No. CV 91-6426, US Central California District Court)

"On May 19.1973, a New York journalist, Paulette Cooper, was indicted before a federal grand jury on charges of sending bomb threats to the Church of Scientology. In October 1973, in a legal move born of despair, Ms Cooper agreed to take a truth serum test to prove her innocence. It worked and the state shelved the charges. Four years later Ms Cooper was telephoned at her Manhattan apartment by the FBI. They had seized documents from the Church of Scientology and had learned that she had been framed by the sect over the bomb threats and had been the victim of a carefully planned operation aimed at driving her insane or having her gaoled." ...

 "Ms Cooper qualified as a target of Scientology's dirty tricks operations because she had been an uncompromising critic of Scientology since December 1969, when her first article on the followers of L. Ron Hubbard was published by a British women's magazine. The holder of a master's degree in psychology, Ms Cooper had written a book about the sect, The Scandal of Scientology, published in 1971." ... "The seized Scientology documents show that in the course of their campaign of vilification against Ms Cooper the scientologists: 1. Framed her on the bomb-threat charges, stealing stationery from her apartment to forge the threatening letter. 2. Sued her 14 times, at one stage themselves importing copies of her book to the UK to take advantage of Britain's notoriously tough libel laws. 3. Put her name on pornographic mailing lists. 4. Stole a legal note from her lawyer to gain an advantage in litigation. 5. Made spurious allegations to the internal revenue service about her father's tax affairs. 6. Sent agents to befriend her, date her and spy on her. 7. Wrote graffiti in public places giving her telephone number and address. " (John Forte, former British Vice-Consul in Corfu in book "The Commodore and the Colonels")

"For most of the mission holders, it was their first glimpse of David Miscavige. Security guards never left his side during the evening. Apart from introducing each speaker, he had little to say to the audience. He merely warned them what would happen to anyone who turned against Scientology." ... 'That person's future is black. It is so black I can't even describe it right now. I can't even even find the words to describe how black that person's future is . . . I mean it is really black.' ...

 "Within a few days, some of them found out exactly what he meant. Eighteen were taken out to the Scientology prison camp at Happy Valley where they joined David Mayo, who had been there since the summer. They were kept for several months before being released." (Transcript of 1982 "Mission Holder Conference" entered as evidence in July 1984 child custody case before Justice Latey, Family Division, High Court, London; David Miscavige is the leader of Scientology since the death of L. Ron Hubbard)

"For 25 years, IRS agents had branded Scientology a commercial enterprise and refused to give it the tax exemption granted to churches. The refusals had been upheld in every court.... "Scientology's attorneys hired private investigators to dig into the private lives of IRS officials and to conduct surveillance operations to uncover potential vulnerabilities." [...] in October 1993... the IRS announced that it was issuing 30 exemption letters covering about 150 Scientology churches, missions and corporations." ... "'It was a very surprising decision,' said Lawrence B. Gibbs, the IRS commissioner from 1986 to 1989 and Goldberg's predecessor. 'When you have as much litigation over as much time, with the general uniformity of results that the service had with Scientology, it is surprising to have the ultimate decision be favorable. It was even more surprising that the service made the decision without full disclosure, in light of the prior background.'" ... "At one time, the church and its members had more than 50 lawsuits pending against the IRS and its officials." (Douglas Frantz, St. Petersburg Times, 3/9/97, "Details of Church's IRS Battle Emerge")

"I also witnessed a fourteen year old boy being locked up in the chain locker of the ship, where he was made to spend the night. The chain locker is a small dark space where the chain to the anchor to the ship is stored when the ship is not at anchor. I witnessed this happening several times to people" ... "Hubbard claimed that the RPF was an act of benevolence on his part to 'rehabilitate' psychotic criminals. Actually, in my opinion and experience, the RPF was a prison camp." (Document written by Monica Pignotti, 9/26/89) 

"The four-year-old boy could no longer cry. He had been nearly 40 hours in the chain locker of the flagship Apollo and his entire body was aching from his efforts to chip off rust. His knees and hands were raw with cuts and bruises. His voice was raspy from crying, and he was desperately afraid. He was constantly making resolutions to never, never again eat the Commodores telexes--the most recent crime of which he had been accused." ... "Little Tony had entered the chain locker through the tiny manhole that led to it. The metallic sound as the lid slammed shut sounded final somehow. The space was cramped for even his small body, and he was enveloped by darkness. It was wet in there and very, very scary. The chains of the ship's anchor took on the dimensions of a monster. At one point a rat scuttled by him squealing. He was sure he was going to die." [...] Tonja Burden claims that she saw people placed in the chain lockers on a number of occasions at the direct orders of Hubbard. Tonja wrote, in a legal affidavit, years after leaving the Sea Org: 'I saw one boy held in there for thirty nights crying and begging to be released. He was only allowed out to clean the bilges, where the sewerage and refuse of the ship collected.'

[...]Ron Jr. states in a sworn affidavit: 'I have personal knowledge that my father regularly used illegal drugs including amphetamines, barbituates and hallucinogens. He regularly used cocaine, peyote, and mescaline." ... "According to statements made by attorney Michael Flynn, Hubbard, until at least February of 1980, filled out fraudulent 'doctor's' prescriptions for a large array of medical drugs for himself". "Sara Hubbard explained that Hubbard was 'self-medicated,' but that during the five years they were married, she knew of no instances when he used 'street drugs'." "Armstrong, told me, among other things, of a letter from Hubbard to his third wife Mary Sue when Hubbard was in Las Palmas during 1967 at the inception of the Sea Org. This letter is now in the custody of the court. In it Hubbard tells his wife: 'I'm drinking lots of rum and popping pinks and greys.'" "John McMasters told me that on the flagship Apollo in the late sixties, he witnessed Hubbard's drug supply. 'It was the largest drug chest I had ever seen. He had everything!'" ... "It was shown in the Armstrong trial in Los Angeles in 1984 that Hubbard even had blank prescription slips from the U.S. Navy, one of which had a prescription for phenobarbital (a barbituate and hypnotic) written in Hubbard's handwriting." ... "Also, in the Armstrong trial where the "Affirmations" [handwritten essays by Hubbard] were introduced, a letter by Hubbard to his first wife was revealed, the last sentence of which declared: 'I do love you, even if I used to be an opium addict.'" (Bent Corydon, former Mission owner, in his book "Messiah or Madman?")

"Scientology is being planned on a religious organization basis throughout the world. This will not upset in any way the usual activities of any organization. It is entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors." - L.Ron Hubbard, 1970

"I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is." -L. Ron Hubbard to Lloyd Eshbach, in 1949; quoted by Eshbach in Over My Shoulder.

• Blog Archive by Topic

 

Eight Big Reasons Critical Race Theory Is Terrible for Dealing with Racism

• JUNE 12, 2020
• JAMES LINDSAY

4K

SHARES

SHARE4K

TWEET

As unlikely as it seems, a highly obscure academic theory known as Critical Race Theory has completely mainstreamed in society, and now everyone is discussing it. While Critical Race Theory has the noble goal of pointing out problems that can be hard to see and that maintain or constitute racism, it turns out to be a remarkably bad way of going about this. A little familiarity with the basic principles of Critical Race Theory and how they go wrong can help with this.

Before I begin, I offer my apologies to the reader. Critical Race Theory has been growing for over 40 years, and it has many deep problems. Therefore, this is long, and still it is not nearly complete. Here, I document just eight of the biggest problems with the entire Critical Race Theory approach. Treat them as eight short essays on specific topics in Critical Race Theory and digest them one at a time. I offer them in the hopes of helping people understand it better so they can decide for themselves if Critical Race Theory is the way we should be dealing with race issues and racism in our society, or if we can genuinely do better.

Since this is so long: here’s the ‘too long; didn’t read’ bullet-point summary:

Critical Race Theory…

• believes racism is present in every aspect of life, every relationship, and every interaction and therefore has its advocates look for it everywhere
• relies upon “interest convergence” (white people only give black people opportunities and freedoms when it is also in their own interests) and therefore doesn’t trust any attempt to make racism better
• is against free societies and wants to dismantle them and replace them with something its advocates control
• only treats race issues as “socially constructed groups,” so there are no individuals in Critical Race Theory
• believes science, reason, and evidence are a “white” way of knowing and that storytelling and lived experience are a “black” alternative, which hurts everyone, especially black people
• rejects all potential alternatives, like colorblindness, as forms of racism, making itself the only allowable game in town (which is totalitarian)
• acts like anyone who disagrees with it must do so for racist and white supremacist reasons, even if those people are black (which is also totalitarian)
• cannot be satisfied, so it becomes a kind of activist black hole that threatens to destroy everything it is introduced into

1) Critical Race Theory believes racism is present in every aspect of life, every relationship, and every interaction.

Critical Race Theory begins from the assumption that racism is an ordinary part of every aspect of life in our societies. Foundational Critical Race Theory scholars Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic write, “First, that racism is ordinary, not aberrational—‘normal science,’ the usual way society does business, the common, everyday experience of most people of color in this country,” on page 7 of the standard introductory textbook on the subject, titled Critical Race Theory: An Introduction.

Notice that these scholars list this assumption first among the “basic tenets of Critical Race Theory” in the introduction of their book. Understand also that what they mean by “racism” isn’t even what most people think racism means. It is not prejudice based upon race or believing some races to be superior or inferior to others that they mean by “racism.” It is, instead, the “system” of everything that happens in the social world and beyond that results in any disparity that works in the favor of “racially privileged” groups (on average) or any “racially oppressed” person claiming they experience racial oppression.

These assumptions lead people who take up Critical Race Theory to look for racism in everything until they find it. That is, after all, the job of a “critical” theorist or activist: to look for the hidden problems that they assume must be present in whatever they scrutinize.

In the workplace that adopts Critical Race Theory, this means that it’s only a matter of time until someone with that worldview finds out how your entire company and its culture is “racist.” At that point, they will cause a meltdown that forces everyone to take sides and demand a reorganization of the entire (now divided) office culture and management.

In schools, it will mean teaching our children to think this way and always be looking for racism in every situation and interaction. In our personal relationships, it means that friends and even family members—especially our kids who have already been educated with Critical Race Theory ideas that have been incorporated in our schools—will eventually call each other out and reject one another, because tolerating racism is also considered a form of racism that would have to be discovered and stopped.

2) “Interest convergence”: White people only give black people opportunities and freedoms when it is also in their own interests.

One of the founders of Critical Race Theory, a (now deceased) scholar at Harvard Law named Derrick Bell, made his “Interest-Convergence Thesis” central to the Theory. Turning to Delgado and Stefancic again,

The second feature, sometimes called “interest convergence” or material determinism, adds a further dimension. Because racism advances the interests of both white elites (materially) and working-class people (psychically), large segments of society have little incentive to eradicate it. Consider, for example, Derrick Bell’s shocking proposal (discussed in a later chapter) that Brown v. Board of Education—considered a great triumph of civil rights litigation—may have resulted more from the self-interest of elite whites than a desire to help blacks. (p. 7)

It isn’t hard to see how paranoid and cynical this idea is, but it’s also horrible when you pause to consider some of its implications. Take the demand that also comes from Critical Race Theory that everyone should be an anti-racist. This sounds good on the surface but is horrible underneath. If someone with “racial privilege” (including white, Asian, Hispanic, Arab, Indian, and lighter-skinned black people) decides to become an anti-racist in accordance with this request, the Interest-Convergence Thesis would say they only did so to make themselves look good, protect themselves from criticism, or to avoid confronting their own racism. This isn’t a fringe idea or possible gap in the concept, either. The academic literature on “whiteness studies” is filled with this notion, including book-length treatments by academic scholars, for example one titled Good White People that was published in 2018 by the State University of New York Press.

The Interest-Convergence Thesis makes it literally impossible for anyone with any racial privilege (again, as outlined by Critical Race Theory) to do anything right because anything they do right must also have been self-interested. If Critical Race Theory makes a demand of people with any form of racial privilege and they comply, they just make themselves more complicit in “racism” as Critical Race Theory sees it. By giving people no way out, Critical Race Theory becomes deeply manipulative and unable to be satisfied in its lists of demands.

3) Critical Race Theory is against free societies.

Believe it or not, Critical Race Theory is not a liberal idea. It is, in fact, critical of liberal societies and against the idea of freedom to its core. Critical Race Theory sees a free society as a way to structure and maintain inequities by convincing racial minorities not to want to do radical identity politics. Since Critical Race Theory exists specifically to agitate for and enable radical racial identity politics, it is therefore against free societies and how they are organized. (In this way, it is very different than the Civil Rights Movement it incorrectly claims to continue.)

Turning to Delgado and Stefancic, a critical stance about free societies and their norms is again central to Critical Race Theory: “critical race scholars are discontent with liberalism as a framework for addressing America’s racial problems. Many liberals believe in color blindness and neutral principles of constitutional law” (p. 21). The famous “critical whiteness educator” Robin DiAngelo (author of the now overwhelmingly famous book White Fragility) puts it even more plainly, writing with a colleague named Ozlem Sensoy in a widely read education book called Is Everyone Really Equal?,

These movements [Critical Theory movements upon which Critical Race Theory is based] initially advocated for a type of liberal humanism (individualism, freedom, and peace) but quickly turned to a rejection of liberal humanism. The ideal of individual autonomy that underlies liberal humanism (the idea that people are free to make independent rational decisions that determine their own fate) was viewed as a mechanism for keeping the marginalized in their place by obscuring larger structural systems of inequality. In other words, it [free society] fooled people into believing they had more freedom and choice than societal structures actually allow. (p. 5)

In other words, Critical Race Theory sees free societies and the ideals that make them work—individualism, freedom, peace—as a kind of tacit conspiracy theory that we all participate in to keep racial minorities down. When its advocates accuse people of being “complicit in systems of racism,” this is part of what they mean. Obviously, they would prefer that we do not have free societies and would rather arrange society as they see fit and make us all go along with their ideas.

4) Critical Race Theory only treats race issues as “socially constructed groups,” so there are no individuals in Critical Race Theory.

Critical Race Theory isn’t just against free societies and the individualism that enables them, but it also doesn’t even believe individuals meaningfully exist at all! In Critical Race Theory, every person has to be understood in terms of the social groups they are said to inhabit, and these are determined by their identity, including race. “A third theme of critical race theory, the ‘social construction’ thesis, holds that race and races are products of social thought and relations. Not objective, inherent, or fixed, they correspond to no biological or genetic reality; rather, races are categories that society invents, manipulates, or retires when convenient” (p. 7), write Delgado and Stefancic.

Under Critical Race Theory, races are categories that society invents and that we impose entirely through social assumptions (mostly stereotypes), and people are members of those racial categories whether they want to be or not. Moreover, they argue that society is “socially stratified,” which means that different social groups (like these racial groups) have differentiated access to the opportunities and resources of society. While this bears some truth on average, it ignores individual variations that are obvious when considering examples of powerful, rich, and famous black people like Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey, and Kanye West. Critical Race Theory forces people into these averages, though, and considers them primarily in terms of their group identity rather than their individual identity. This is part of why they use the word “folks” instead of “people”—it designates a social group.

Thus, in Critical Race Theory, the goal of ideally treating every person as an individual who is equal before the law and meant to be judged upon the contents of their character and merits of their work is considered a myth that keeps racial minorities down. Instead, it sees people according to their racial groups only. This is why it is so common that progressive racial programs end up hurting the people they’re written to help most. “Racial justice,” in Critical Race Theory, means getting “justice” for the group, which it says is a social construction, not for the real person, who is just a member of that group. As Lynn Lemisko writes on page 193 of Educator to Educator, another education manual in Critical Social Justice programs: “If democracy is about individual rights (justice for individuals), then social justice is about group rights (justice for groups). And for me there is a fundamental difference between the general notion of justice and the notion of social justice.”

5) Critical Race Theory believes science, reason, and evidence are a “white” way of knowing and that storytelling and lived experience are a “black” alternative.

Remember above, where Delgado and Stefancic said that “normal science” is a part of the everyday, ordinary racism of our societies? That’s because Critical Race Theory is not particularly friendly to science, residing somewhere between generally disinterested in science and openly hostile to it (often depending upon the circumstances). This is because Critical Race Theory, using that “social construction” thesis, believes that the power and politics of cultural groups make their way intrinsically into everything that culture produces. Thus, science is just politics by other means to Critical Race Theory.

Since modern science was predominantly produced by white, Western men, Critical Race Theory therefore views science as a white and Western “way of knowing.” Critical Race Theory therefore maintains that science encodes and perpetuates “white dominance” and thus isn’t really fitting for black people who inhabit a (political) culture of Blackness.

This is obviously a horrible sentiment, and it is one that goes against one of the very first pillars of science: universality. Universality in science says that it doesn’t matter who does an experiment; the result will always be the same. This is because science believes in objectivity, which Critical Race Theory also calls an oppressive myth. For example, Robin DiAngelo and Ozlem Sensoy write,

One of the key contributions of critical theorists concerns the production of knowledge. Given that the transmission of knowledge is an integral activity in schools, critical scholars in the field of education have been especially concerned with how knowledge is produced. These scholars argue that a key element of social injustice involves the claim that particular knowledge is objective, neutral, and universal. An approach based on critical theory calls into question the idea that objectivity is desirable or even possible. The term used to describe this way of thinking about knowledge is that knowledge is socially constructed. When we refer to knowledge as socially constructed we mean that knowledge is reflective of the values and interests of those who produce it. (p. 7)

Sensoy and DiAngelo also claim that science “presume[s] superiority and infallibility of the scientific method” (p. 5) (by the way, this is false), and therefore we should be asking “whose rationality” and “whose presumed objectivity” underlies the scientific method. Then, even more cynically, they insist that we must ask whose interests are served by science, as though that’s the relevant question to ask of a universalist method. Critical Race Theory falsely asserts that white people’s interests are primarily served by science. This isn’t all just wrong (and genuinely racist!), it’s dangerous.

Continuing the genuinely racist thinking that black people aren’t suited to or served by science, Delgado and Stefancic say that storytelling about their “lived experience” is the primary mode by which black people and Critical Race Theory produce and advance knowledge. Importantly, these lived experiences are only considered valid if they agree with Critical Race Theory. They write,

Critical race theorists have built on everyday experiences with perspective, viewpoint, and the power of stories and persuasion to come to a better understanding of how Americans see race. They have written parables, autobiography, and “counterstories,” and have investigated the factual background and personalities, frequently ignored in the casebooks, of well-known cases. (p. 38)

While stories can be informative, to create a position that science is a “way of knowing” for white, Western people (especially men) and storytelling is one more suited to racial minorities, Critical Race Theory is itself racist (against racial minorities) and cripples the people it claims to help. This happens in multiple ways, including by undermining their capacity for critical thinking, teaching them to see the world in an us-versus-them way that oppresses them, and associating them with harmful, negative stereotypes that rigorous methods are what white people, and not black people, use.

6) Critical Race Theory rejects all potential alternatives, like colorblindness, as forms of racism.

Critical Race Theory is completely against the common-sense idea that race becomes less socially relevant and racism is therefore diminished by not focusing on race all the time. Where liberalism spent centuries removing social significance from racial categories once it had been introduced in the 16th century, Critical Race Theory inserts it again, front and center.

In fact, as you might guess now, it sees the idea of “colorblindness” as one of the most racist things possible because it hides the real racism from view. “While colorblindness sounds good in theory, in practice it is highly problematic,” write Sensoy and DiAngelo (p. 108). As we read from Delgado and Stefancic,

Color-blind, or “formal,” conceptions of equality, expressed in rules that insist only on treatment that is the same across the board, can thus remedy only the most blatant forms of discrimination, such as mortgage redlining or the refusal to hire a black Ph.D. rather than a white high school dropout, that do stand out and attract our attention. (p. 7)

While there is a point here—that being too colorblind can cause someone not to see racism at all, even when it is a real problem and especially when its influence is subtle (this is called “racism-blindness”)—the remedy Critical Race Theory gives to this imperfection in the colorblind approach is to do exactly the opposite. Thus, racism has to be made relevant in every situation where racism is present, which is every situation, as we saw in point #1 above, and it has attached incredible amounts of social significance to race and how it factors into every interaction. That means you have to find and focus upon the “hidden” racism in your workplace, your school, your society, your neighborhood, your books, your food, your music, your hobbies, your faith, your church, your community, your friends, your relationships, and yourself (and everything else too) all the time, according to Critical Race Theory.

This has the opposite of the putatively intended effect. Although it does cause people to see some legitimate racism that they would have otherwise missed, it makes all of our relationships and social systems extremely fragile and tense, ready to explode over a highly divisive issue. It also diverts resources from doing real work or building real relationships because looking for and thinking about racism all the time takes effort. (Critical Race Theory says minority races already have to think about racism all the time and only white people have the privilege not to, but this is, again, more sloppy analysis that ignores the reports and experiences of every racial minority who disagrees.)

7) Critical Race Theory acts like anyone who disagrees with it must do so for racist and white supremacist reasons, even if those people are black.

Following the “social construction” thesis discussed above in point #4, Critical Race Theory has outlined what the essential experience of each racial group is. It then judges individual people (especially of minority races) on how well they give testimonial to that experience—which is to say, they judge individual people based on how well they support Critical Race Theory. This makes it impossible to disagree with Critical Race Theory, even if you are black.

Before we discuss the case of how impossible disagreement is for white people (and other “racially privileged” people) consider a few poignant examples. The black superstar musician Kanye West famously donned a “Make America Great Again” hat and said he thinks for himself. In response, the poet laureate of Critical Race Theory, Ta-Nehisi Coates, wrote a widely read article suggesting that West is no longer really black. The black musician Daryl Davis, who is most famous for talking hundreds of real white supremacists out of their Ku Klux Klan hoods, once tried to invite a conversation of this sort in 2019, and members of the nominally “antifascist” group “Antifa” called him a “white supremacist” for being willing to associate with (rather than fight or kill) the people he invited to have a conversation.

This phenomenon can be explained. As Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of the New York Times Magazine 1619 Project (a Critical Race Theory historiography—not an article of history), tweeted (and then deleted) that there is “racially black” on the one hand, and “politically Black” on the other. Critical Race Theory is only interested in the identity politics associated with being “politically Black,” and anyone who disagrees with Critical Race Theory—even if “racially black”—does not qualify. The common way to phrase this is that they are “not really Black.” This means that in Critical Race Theory, diversity (which it calls for often) must be only skin deep. Everyone’s politics must agree and must agree with Critical Race Theory.

This is obviously much worse a problem for white people or others who are said to have “racial privilege.” There are more concepts in Critical Race Theory to deal specifically with how and why white people are racists for disagreeing with Critical Race Theory than perhaps any other idea. Charles Mills claims that all whites take part in a “racial contract” to support white supremacy that is never discussed but just part of the social fabric. Barbara Applebaum says all white people have “white complicity” with white supremacy because they automatically benefit from white privilege and “white ignorance” which is a way for them to willfully refuse to engage (and proper engagement can only be proven by agreeing). Robin DiAngelo says white people enjoy “white comfort” and therefore suffer “white fragility” that prevents them from confronting their racism through Critical Race Theory. (Therefore, she says, anything that maintains white comfort should be considered suspect and in need of disrupting.) Alison Bailey claims that when racially privileged people disagree with Critical Race Theory, they are engaging in a “defensive move” called “privilege-preserving epistemic pushback,” which means that they are just arguing to keep their privilege and could not possibly have legitimate disagreements. All of these ideas implicate racially privileged people in racism anytime they disagree with Critical Race Theory.

8) Critical Race Theory cannot be satisfied.

We have already seen how Critical Race Theory cannot be disagreed with, even by black people. We have also seen how it rejects all alternatives and how it believes any success that it has comes down to “interest convergence.” Because it rejects science, it cannot be falsified or proven wrong by evidence, and because it assumes racism is present and relevant to all situations and interactions, even the acceptance of Critical Race Theory must somehow also contain racism. Therefore, Critical Race Theory cannot be satisfied. It is, in this way, like a black hole. No matter how much you give to it, it cannot be filled and only gets stronger—and it will tear apart anything that gets too close to it.

This means that if your workplace takes up Critical Race Theory, eventually activists will start to make demands and will threaten to make trouble if they do not get their way. (They usually do not ask.) If you give into them, you will not satisfy them, however, because Critical Race Theory cannot be satisfied. It is guaranteed, before you do anything at all, that you will do it wrong because of your racism. You did it out of “interest convergence,” to make yourself look good because of your racism. You did it in a way that just created new problems that amount to racism. You didn’t do it sooner, faster, or better because of your racism. No matter what you do, the resulting situation must contain racism, and the Critical Race Theory activist’s job is to find it and hold you to account.

Therefore, giving into a demand made by Critical Race Theory cannot appease it. It can, however, signal that you will give into their demands, which will then continue to come and to escalate. As we have seen in countless examples across the corporate world recently, this will include demands for you to step down from your job and give it to activists, and even that won’t satisfy them. And if the venture fails as a result of all of this disruption, racism was the cause of that failure too.

And that’s not all!

This is a grim but fair description of Critical Race Theory, and, what’s worse, it’s woefully incomplete. There are other horrible ideas at the very core of Critical Race Theory that fall in this same mold that we do not have time to list here. These include the idea that racism barely gets better, if at all, that equality is a source of racism, that people who benefit from “racism” have no incentives to be against racism, that racism is a zero-sum conflict that was arranged by white people so that no one else can have a real chance in society, that the races cannot truly understand one another (while demanding that they must and that racism is the whole cause of the inevitable failure), that racially privileged people are inherently oppressors and everyone else is inherently oppressed (this is derived from Marxism applied to racial groups), and that the only way to end racism is through a social revolution that unmakes the current society entirely and replaces it with something engineered by Critical Race Theory. It is easy to see what kinds of problems these doctrines will create in practice, and it’s horrible how Critical Race Theory consistently preys upon the best parts of our natures to achieve its goals (which, if it were correct (and it’s not), mostly leaves only the worst candidates to oppose it—real white supremacists—which it then uses as evidence of its bogus claims).

Therefore, there are many good reasons that have nothing to do with real racism to reject most of what Critical Race Theory teaches. Good people have every reason to reject Critical Race Theory for better alternatives, and the main reason they don’t is because they don’t know what it is and see what what it offers kind of sounds right and sort of seems good.

In summary, we can see that Critical Race Theory is a truly horrible way to deal with race issues and racism, and that would be true even if every problem (or “problematic”) it points out were 100% true. It simply is not a good way to go about these problems, and, as its advocates might say in realizing such a situation, we have an obligation to educate ourselves (about the problems and weaknesses of Critical Race Theory) and to do better (than they can hope to do).

4K

SHARES

SHARE4K

TWEET

James Lindsay

An American-born author, mathematician, and professional troublemaker, Dr. James Lindsay has written six books spanning a range of subjects including religion, the philosophy of science and postmodern theory. He is a leading expert on Critical Race Theory, which leads him to reject it completely. He is the founder of New Discourses and currently promoting his new book "Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody," which is currently being translated into more than fifteen languages.