From: Vincent Campbell (
Date: Tue Jan 08 2002 - 14:30:14 GMT

  • Next message: Grant Callaghan: "Re: Wade's hammer"

    Received: by id PAA02649 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 15:40:04 GMT
    Message-ID: <>
    From: Vincent Campbell <>
    To: "''" <>
    Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 14:30:14 -0000 
    X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    X-Filter-Info: UoS MailScan 0.1 [D 1]
    Precedence: bulk

    I see what you're saying here Aaron, and I know Paul doesn't have a
    simplistic perception of this kind of phenomena, but at its core lies a root
    assumption that I disagree with. At some level what's being argued is that
    there is some kind of informational 'trigger' effect, if you like, that I
    don't believe is evidenced by events such as this occuring. To follow on
    with the bad metaphor it's essentially the same as the 'magic bullet' theory
    of media effects (and, as you say, we need not be talking about media as
    information sources) which is problematic to say the least.


    > ----------
    > From:
    > Reply To:
    > Sent: Monday, January 7, 2002 15:08 PM
    > To:
    > Subject: Re: CRASH CONTAGION
    > In a message dated 1/7/2002 5:52:22 AM Central Standard Time, Vincent
    > Campbell <> writes:
    > Hi Vincent, and happy new year to all.
    > My previous message was not meant to suggest that copy-cat was the only
    > thing
    > happening, or that it only operates through centralized media without word
    > of
    > mouth. There are many ideological contagion factors working for and
    > (mostly)
    > against the deliberate flying of planes into buildings. That is why I
    > discuss
    > the spread of certain religious ideas along with ideas of suicidal
    > aviation
    > violence. While Paul has taken a special interest in the copy-cat aspects,
    > I
    > doubt that he regards that as the sole factor either. And as you say,
    > there
    > are many circumstantial factors, child psychology factors, etc that also
    > come
    > into play in any one case. One can discuss contagion without asserting
    > that
    > contagion is the only causal factor in play. We will probably hear more
    > about
    > the boy's particular emotional or circumstantial troubles -- factors that
    > explain why a contagion of ideas favoring a deliberate plane into building
    > crash spread to him but not to most other US citizens. And opportunity is
    > also of course a factor in translating the ideas into actual deeds.
    > --Aaron Lynch
    > > Hi Everyone,
    > >
    > > I wondered how long it would take Paul and others to make this comment.
    > A
    > > few problems with it though. First is the assumption of a causal
    > > relationship between widespread dissemination of Sep 11 attacks and
    > this
    > > boy's actions- is there any evidence yet to confirm that this boy heard
    > > about bin laden through the media, as opposed to friends and family etc
    > > (teenagers are notoriously low consumers of news- including in the US),
    > and
    > > thus open to interpersonal influence. Saturation coverage is no answer
    > to
    > > this, because the second problem then emerges- such a view ignores why
    > many
    > > others haven't done this. In other words if it is merely the
    > dissemination
    > > of such actions that cause them to be imitated by others why haven't we
    > seen
    > > more attacks, especially given the level of coverage globally?
    > >
    > > With Phillips-like research, in which such views are rooted, the 100%
    > > increase in people flying a plane into a building deliberately would be
    > > proof of cause and effect, but I see no evidence of this. Paul
    > predicted
    > > such copy-cat attempts pretty soon after the original attack, but
    > several
    > > months on there has been this one case. How long does media coverage
    > > resonate with audiences with contagious effect? In other words what is
    > the
    > > period in which such contagions remain powerful? Is it only on
    > immediate
    > > exposure, does it seep into people to reemerge weeks, months, years
    > later
    > or
    > > what? There's no coherence to this kind of contagion idea to my mind.
    > >
    > > This poor young lad obviously had particular problems that led to this.
    > He
    > > also had access to flying lessons, and some ability to fly a plane.
    > One of
    > > the problems with contagion theories is the problem of context- from
    > social
    > > ones (e.g. why most people don't go on killing sprees after watching
    > Natural
    > > Born Killers- we know it's wrong, or at least that we'd probably get
    > > caught), to logistical ones (in this case getting a plane, and having a
    > > skyscraper to hit).
    > >
    > > On a mor polemical note, again the risk of this kind of argument- even
    > given
    > > its clear relevance to memetic debates- is not seen by its proponents.
    > What
    > > solution is there, IF such things are being caused by information
    > > dissemination? There is only one, something both US networks and the US
    > > public (if the Pew Center surveys are anything to go by) agree with,
    > > censorship. Yet censorship of al-jazeera didn't stop this lad.
    > >
    > > Oh and a belated happy new year everyone!
    > >
    > > Vincent
    > >
    > >
    > ===============================================================
    > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    > see:

    The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by
    charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA.  Privileged/Confidential Information may
    be contained in this message.  If you are not the addressee indicated
    in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such
    person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone
    and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
    prohibited and may be unlawful.  In such case, you should destroy this
    message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.  Please advise
    immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email
    for messages of this kind.  Opinions, conclusions and other
    information in this message that do not relate to the official
    business of the University of Stirling shall be understood as neither
    given nor endorsed by it.

    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 08 2002 - 15:46:52 GMT