>Here's the problem: people impute a motive, and then they turn off
>any other critical thinking or assessment of the assertion. To
>the extent that disclosing "potential conflict of interest" leads
>people to reject a message without actually assessing the content,
>the imputation of a "conflict of interest" is actually
>counterproductive and irrational.
Sometimes the conflict of interest is so overwhelming that it really isn't worthwhile investing time and energy in listening to what someone has to say. A medical researcher for a tobacco company who claims to have evidence that smoking is good for your health can not reasonably expect me to see past the conflict of interest and study the findings carefully.
I have to make a judgement about the merits of spending a great deal of time gathering the facts. In that instance, it wouldn't be useful.
Then again, sometimes the facts are insufficient or inconclusive. For instance:
>Bush says idea of US attacking Iran 'ridiculous'
>
>http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200502/s1308805.htm
>
>US President George W Bush says the idea the United States was
>preparing to attack Iran was "ridiculous," but reiterated that no
>options could be ruled out.
Of course it doesn't really matter what Bush says, as he is a known liar. So, even if he hadn't tripped up by contradicting himself (a very stupid liar too) in the same sentence, the denial tells us nothing.
Clearly the world is interested to know whether the US government is planning to invade Iran, but there aren't enough facts available to make a judgement. The only thing we have to go on is past record and the perceived material interests of the US government.
We know they have form, the US government is composed largely of war criminals and people who have ambitions to become war criminals, so we can assume that moral considerations won't stand in their way.
We also know that they are not very bright. So they are probably oblivious to the dangers of such an invasion.
I think it is also pretty likely that they think they can get away with it. Consider the amazing fact that, despite the litany of horrendous crimes against humanity, no officer of a American Government has ever been tried for war crimes in the past, let alone convicted and punished.
So the only factors that we can really evaluate, are their motives. Do they stand to gain more than they stand to lose, from such a crime? Well, they are losing the war in Iraq and probably don't want to go down in history as losers (war criminal is OK, but Americans hate to be seen as losers) so what have they got to lose? Double or nothing!
On that basis (motive) we can conclude that they are just waiting their chance. They have nothing to lose. Its on for sure. An examination of motive is key to predicting future behaviour.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas