Blindly accepting UM theories as absolute truths...

[justins5256]

Does it bother anyone else that when you go to some of these "other" UM sites and start reading the comments that the majority of posters agree with the theories and conclusions drawn by the segment?

Maybe I'm expecting too much since the comments are typically those of casual viewers. However, this forum in particular has been invaluable to me over the years in enlightening me to different schools of thought. If anything, I find myself questioning UM's presentation more often than I did in years past. It starts to become apparent how UM "spins" things so the viewer arrives at a certain, likely predetermined, conclusion.

I guess what I'm getting at is...what happened to critical thinking skills? I just can't believe how many people blindly accept the theories proposed on UM without further question.

I'm realize I'm probably over-thinking and just expecting too much, but still, it's kind of alarming to think how easily people can be swayed.

[asmitty]

I can certainly understand your frustration with this. I do believe that critical thinking skills are on a downward slide in this country. I credit, in part, the changing nature of our educational system. The substance of education has moved away from problem solving and toward mere presentation of facts in the last 20 years. Additionally, even college education has moved in a way that is not as conducive to critical thinking in years past. Four year degrees are becoming more and more like technical school education all the time in that they are more about career prep than education. During college, I majored in Interdisciplinary Studies which allowed me to basically design my own major from available courses. I chose this option because I wanted a degree to give me career potential but didn't want to be limited to a specific career out of college. I'm a big proponent of the classic liberal arts education. I focused on Biology for the core component of my degree, but for the rest, I took 2-3 classes from almost every department the university had. I was asked in an interview once what the most important course I took in college was. I responded with Intro to Logic. It was a lower level course in the Philosophy department, but it gave me so much insight into making arguments and breaking down ideas for validity and truth. It truly was a course in the science of critical thinking. It's also helped a lot in my career as I'm now a computer programmer (lots of logic involved).

On the other hand, we're dealing with people who have a lot less knowledge of things than those of us here. Those of us here are fans, not just of UM, but of true crime stories in general. We have a much deeper insight into investigative techniques, forensic science, and crime statistics. We also have researched UM cases beyond what was presented on UM and/or have seen those cases on other shows that provided more information. Critical thinking skills aside, I can see how someone who is not a "true crime" buff and is only given the information presented on UM could come to believe the theories they present on quite a few of their cases.

[The Third Man]

There also is the fact that this UM board has a longer history and therefore a longer institutional memory than other boards. Posters have brought in articles and even personal accounts which UM either failed to mention or willfully excluded from their segments. I'm thinking of information like "Angela Hammond was pregnant by the boyfriend who claimed to save her" which dramatically changes the tone of the segment.

I think, too, the overall climate of specific message boards contributes to the way posters write. Most posters don't want to rock the boat. If a message board is mostly skeptical, new posters will likely either be skeptical or feel that they're out of place and go to another, less skeptical board. If I went on one of those "other" sites and said something like "I think Paul Freshour was one of the Circleville letter writers and here's why," I probably wouldn't be accepted as one of the group, and I'd either give up or come back here.

I agree that there is a greater lack of critical thinking skills these days, but I don't think it necessarily explains why other sites are, well, more credulous about UM's explanations. Indeed, what I usually see on message boards is that posters are even more cynical about authority than they perhaps should be, and see conspiracy and coverup in just about everything.

[TracyLynnS]

In addition to what's been presented by the posters above, there's also the human tendency to believe that everything presented on TV or published in a book or newspaper MUST be true so some people don't even suspect that the information may be slanted, deliberately misleading, or poorly researched and presented.

[RobinW]

Originally Posted by TracyLynnS

In addition to what's been presented by the posters above, there's also the human tendency to believe that everything presented on TV or published in a book or newspaper MUST be true so some people don't even suspect that the information may be slanted, deliberately misleading, or poorly researched and presented.

So true. From my experience working at Blockbuster Video for several years, I've encountered many people who honestly believe that any movie "based on a true story" is 100 % accurate. I once had a big argument with someone who was adamant that everything in the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" remake actually happened because the movie said it was "based on a true story" and they had trouble differentiating that with the concept of "loosely inspired by real-life events". These are exactly the type of people who would believe that any theory presented on UM must be gospel.

I think one of the biggest causes of wrongful convictions in this country is people like this making it onto juries because they hold the mindset that anyone who's on trial must be guilty and don't do any critical thinking to determine whether there's reasonable doubt or not. The ironic thing is that these same people would probably watch an UM "Final Appeal" segment on someone like Paul Ferrell and automatically think: "Oh, well, if the show says he might be innocent, then he MUST be innocent".

[thinwhiteduke74]

It has little to do with the so-called decline in critical thinking or the gullibility of our fellow citizens. Our site is better because our avatars rock.

[DarkDante]

Originally Posted by justins5256

Does it bother anyone else that when you go to some of these "other" UM sites and start reading the comments that the majority of posters agree with the theories and conclusions drawn by the segment?

Maybe I'm expecting too much since the comments are typically those of casual viewers. However, this forum in particular has been invaluable to me over the years in enlightening me to different schools of thought. If anything, I find myself questioning UM's presentation more often than I did in years past. It starts to become apparent how UM "spins" things so the viewer arrives at a certain, likely predetermined, conclusion.

I guess what I'm getting at is...what happened to critical thinking skills? I just can't believe how many people blindly accept the theories proposed on UM without further question.

I'm realize I'm probably over-thinking and just expecting too much, but still, it's kind of alarming to think how easily people can be swayed.

Good points but one thing to consider is a lot of people just view UM as entertainment. I mean I remember a period of time where a lot of people thought of programming on Lifetime as being "Endless Mindless" which meant that you could literally tune into that channel and get drawn into hour after hour of mindless programming.

I'm not saying UM fits into that category but although I still question the outcomes over certain cases now over twenty years down the line I don't necessarily analyze them like I used to. Most of them are what they are at this point although I'm always happy to see an update on these forums about a new solve.

[WishfulDreamer]

I agree with all of the above.
1) Education. I am jealous of anyone who graduated pre-2000. My public school experience made me a steadfast fan of putting any children I may have in private schools or at least schools with prestige even if I have to go in debt to do it. If I do send a kid to public school, I will thoroughly investigate said school rather than trusting the neighborhood outlet to educate my child properly.

2) Mindless TV. Not to bash reality TV fans, but the amount of shows like Jersey Shore and Toddlers and Tiaras as well as the people who take said shows seriously, are on the rise. I think this programming does contribute to intellectual decline.

3) Gullibility. This problem is nothing new.

I'd like to add
4) Recent technological advances. I'm not trying to say that the internet is making us dumb or is a problem. Heck, I love the computer! But this is an era of instant gratification and more people seem to prefer taking things as is than doing any critical thinking/research. Laziness and apathy are causing less people to "think outside the box" if you will.

[MegtheEgg86]

Originally Posted by asmitty

Four year degrees are becoming more and more like technical school education all the time in that they are more about career prep than education. During college, I majored in Interdisciplinary Studies which allowed me to basically design my own major from available courses. I chose this option because I wanted a degree to give me career potential but didn't want to be limited to a specific career out of college. I'm a big proponent of the classic liberal arts education.

I am a big opponent of the so-called liberal arts education for everyone. I also think it's great that universities and colleges are moving away from constantly injecting liberal arts requirements into more technically-oriented degrees such as engineering, nursing, pre-med, and architecture. I think the liberal arts overemphasize "big picture" thinking and theoretical concepts, and tend to underemphasize the importance of outlier data--as well as completely ignore the scientific method (no matter how loudly "soft science" academics scream that their fields of study are, in fact, REAL SCIENCE!)

I hold a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Tennessee. I was required to take rhetoric and philosophy courses, in addition to sociology and political theory courses. It's absolutely fabulous for laying the groundwork to become an attorney, which was the plan for me at the time--then again, so is a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering. You're forced to critically think in both programs of study--just in different ways.

I remember attending a job fair between my junior and senior year of college, around 2007. The FBI was there of course, handing out their brochures and whatnot. They had a list of majors they were especially interested in, and at the top of that list was Engineering and a number of so-called "technical" degrees. I overheard a representative explain to another student that the reason they were seeking those students was because they historically do very well with critical thinking. I was able to see this for myself when I went through military schools.

When I attended Military Intelligence Basic Officer's Leadership Course (a military commission is about the only thing useful that B.A. in Poli Sci managed me), we were required to take a block of instruction on logic. I was able to see firsthand how the "liberal arts education" worked for many of my peers. Their analyses and predictions were often based on theoretical concepts rather than hard data--which is what the OCS graduates and technical majors tended towards. The latter usually ended up making the correct moves in our exercises, and I totally believe it was due to the fact that their backgrounds were based in the hard sciences and/or technical careers rather than in the liberal arts. If it was measurable and testable, it was probably a good indicator. If it was something like "well, Group A is Muslim, so they'll never be in Area 1 on a Friday because they'll be at the mosque, so I won't put (surveillance) assets out there that day", you can bet Group A showed up in Area 1 on Friday---because if my fellow students had studied the trend data products carefully, they would have been able to predict that very thing.

I find the "humanities" discourage--dare I say hostile towards?--scientific thinking, contain sometimes unverifiable data, can be culturally biased and therefore non-universal (especially philosophy), and are at times often completely based on untestable theory. I find that to be the antithesis of logic. I'd sooner take someone who was "career prepping" in a technical field than waxing eloquent about a metaphysical theory any day.

This, of course, is all anecdotal and only my opinion. There are brilliant people from all schools, studies, occupations, and walks of life, and that's something I've also seen firsthand.

[asmitty]

Originally Posted by MegtheEgg86

I am a big opponent of the so-called liberal arts education for everyone. I also think it's great that universities and colleges are moving away from constantly injecting liberal arts requirements into more technically-oriented degrees such as engineering, nursing, pre-med, and architecture. I think the liberal arts overemphasize "big picture" thinking and theoretical concepts, and tend to underemphasize the importance of outlier data--as well as completely ignore the scientific method (no matter how loudly "soft science" academics scream that their fields of study are, in fact, REAL SCIENCE!)

I hold a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Tennessee. I was required to take rhetoric and philosophy courses, in addition to sociology and political theory courses. It's absolutely fabulous for laying the groundwork to become an attorney, which was the plan for me at the time--then again, so is a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering. You're forced to critically think in both programs of study--just in different ways.

I remember attending a job fair between my junior and senior year of college, around 2007. The FBI was there of course, handing out their brochures and whatnot. They had a list of majors they were especially interested in, and at the top of that list was Engineering and a number of so-called "technical" degrees. I overheard a representative explain to another student that the reason they were seeking those students was because they historically do very well with critical thinking. I was able to see this for myself when I went through military schools.

When I attended Military Intelligence Basic Officer's Leadership Course (a military commission is about the only thing useful that B.A. in Poli Sci managed me), we were required to take a block of instruction on logic. I was able to see firsthand how the "liberal arts education" worked for many of my peers. Their analyses and predictions were often based on theoretical concepts rather than hard data--which is what the OCS graduates and technical majors tended towards. The latter usually ended up making the correct moves in our exercises, and I totally believe it was due to the fact that their backgrounds were based in the hard sciences and/or technical careers rather than in the liberal arts. If it was measurable and testable, it was probably a good indicator. If it was something like "well, Group A is Muslim, so they'll never be in Area 1 on a Friday because they'll be at the mosque, so I won't put (surveillance) assets out there that day", you can bet Group A showed up in Area 1 on Friday---because if my fellow students had studied the trend data products carefully, they would have been able to predict that very thing.

I find the "humanities" discourage--dare I say hostile towards?--scientific thinking, contain sometimes unverifiable data, can be culturally biased and therefore non-universal (especially philosophy), and are at times often completely based on untestable theory. I find that to be the antithesis of logic. I'd sooner take someone who was "career prepping" in a technical field than waxing eloquent about a metaphysical theory any day.

This, of course, is all anecdotal and only my opinion. There are brilliant people from all schools, studies, occupations, and walks of life, and that's something I've also seen firsthand.

My definition of "classic liberal arts education" is not one that focuses solely on philosophy and "soft sciences." Instead, what I'm referring to is a more well-rounded education that includes both hard science and liberal arts courses in equal measure. I had three different majors in college. One of them was mechanical engineering for two years. I can honestly say that I learned as much about research, interpreting data, and drawing conclusions from that data in my composition courses as I did from my biology, physics, and chemistry courses. I agree that the liberal arts overemphasize big picture thinking, but I also believe that a sole emphasis on hard sciences and technical courses can inhibit creativity and "thinking outside the box." I think that too strict an adherence to either side of the coin results in individuals who, "can't see the forest for the trees."

Also, only my opinion, based on my observations of the people I've known and been exposed to.

[1990 UM fan]

For one, I think Stack and the producers tried to make the show as mature and friendly as possible. There is some things they couldn't share on the show because the families involved didn't want extra information to be known and/or they didn't have permission to share certain details on air. Obviously, alot of people have found out the extra details in the years to come but that's the beauty of finding out for yourself.

I don't think all UM viewers are gullible, but since some don't know the cases like the rest of us here and the authorities involved do, they take it at face value. You can be left to a few options though, like:

1. Take the case(s) at face value and believe what they're telling you
2. Come up with your own conclusion/scenario based on what you've learned, whether or not it's true (but who's to know?)

Some people also don't want to go through all that digging to find all the information, as which can be said about people who buy into all the mainstream case fodder (Casey Anthony's case for example). I'd also like to add that Unsolved Mysteries may not be or have been televised outside the US/North America, so other intellects may have been left out of discussion and not be so fortunate as us here to talk about these cases and come up with their own theories.

[WishfulDreamer]

I just got my B.A. in Creative Writing and I've always tried to be and been taught to be theoretical AND make use of data to form sound conclusions. But I know what you mean, Meg, and no offense taken whatsoever; I think I lucked out with the university I went to because I know that other liberal arts programs do indeed gloss over things and encourage theory over solid data. My experience sounds closer to asmitty's. There were ample core requirements to ensure that all majors had to tap into the different fields of study, which at my college was great for becoming well-rounded.

[WishfulDreamer]

Originally Posted by 1990 UM fan

I'd also like to add that Unsolved Mysteries may not be or have been televised outside the US/North America, so other intellects may have been left out of discussion and not be so fortunate as us here to talk about these cases and come up with their own theories.

It actually was (and possibly still is) broadcast in several other countries, particularly in the UK. I've seen a view of these viewers on boards online, but not many of them. It would be nice to hear more about their opinions!

[McBevis]

Originally Posted by TracyLynnS

In addition to what's been presented by the posters above, there's also the human tendency to believe that everything presented on TV or published in a book or newspaper MUST be true so some people don't even suspect that the information may be slanted, deliberately misleading, or poorly researched and presented.

As far as information being slanted, deliberately misleading or poorly researched and presented, I agree that it happens, but I don't hold UM in contempt for that. As far as I've always been able to tell, UM is not a deliberately farcical show. There have certainly been interviewees who, much to the embarrassment of UM, have used the show as an outlet for spreading lies, and many people on the show, both liars and truth tellers, have been proven wrong about things they've uttered on the show, but I sincerely do not believe that UM would be deliberately involved in the production and broadcasting of a segment that they already know is BS.

[Rose Andrews]

Originally Posted by justins5256

Does it bother anyone else that when you go to some of these "other" UM sites and start reading the comments that the majority of posters agree with the theories and conclusions drawn by the segment?

Maybe I'm expecting too much since the comments are typically those of casual viewers. However, this forum in particular has been invaluable to me over the years in enlightening me to different schools of thought. If anything, I find myself questioning UM's presentation more often than I did in years past. It starts to become apparent how UM "spins" things so the viewer arrives at a certain, likely predetermined, conclusion.

I guess what I'm getting at is...what happened to critical thinking skills? I just can't believe how many people blindly accept the theories proposed on UM without further question.

I'm realize I'm probably over-thinking and just expecting too much, but still, it's kind of alarming to think how easily people can be swayed.

I think people in general will accept anything at face value without questioning the facts presented.Critical thinking has gone out the window .... Most folks,have just gotten lazy IMHO.I keep thinking of how many movie goers actually accepted the history of the sinking of the Titanic through the lens of James Cameron.You wouldn't believe how many people actually took it as fact rather than fiction.You would think that an event that was so well known in the 20th century people would have had the sense to know the differance.If someone can't do that,why would they be able to digest a case that needs to be solved ?Different sceniros that could happened to the indivual etc etc.It requires too much thought.