Keyword Hijacking Smackdown! Challenge for HMW (and poll)

[FourthBase]

But what is his theory?

OH COME ON.

That certain words and names are inserted/highlighted into news items and pop cultural events in order to pre-emptively, subconsciously distract/detract from an undesired truth if/when ordinary citizens happen to hear about it or start researching it.

[professorpan]

After all this was a "smackdown" was it not? I would say the "smacking" is complete....

It never became a "smackdown" (which I used jokingly, I hope it is understood) because any competitive match requires 2 willing opponents. I thought Hugh might be up for providing a solid, definitive example of "keyword hijacking" -- and why not, since he manages to insert them willy-nilly into threads about every subject under the sun?

Why not, since he's so absolutely convinced "keyword hijacking" exists? Surely, there is one example that can face open scrutiny?

If asking for an open debate is "bashing," then I guess I'm a basher.

And instead of clearing the air about this topic, and debate it in the open, I guess I'll have to wade into threads about unrelated subjects to do it. That's lame.

[chiggerbit]

Ditto blanc.

[orz]

That certain words and names are inserted/highlighted into news items and pop cultural events in order to pre-emptively, subconsciously distract/detract from an undesired truth if/when ordinary citizens happen to hear about it or start researching it.

None of his examples come anywhere near close to providing evidence for this theory.

[FourthBase]

That certain words and names are inserted/highlighted into news items and pop cultural events in order to pre-emptively, subconsciously distract/detract from an undesired truth if/when ordinary citizens happen to hear about it or start researching it.

None of his examples come anywhere near close to providing evidence for this theory.

There aren't many, actually there might be very very few, but there've been a few instances where the keyword hijacking theory made a lot of sense...just can't remember and don't have the motivation to do an hours-long search. (See Hugh? Make one big thread, because one big thread would be USEFUL) However, unless this is a fucking courtroom -- and it isn't -- whether or not Hugh himself can provide viable particular examples for the theory is irrelevant. If Hugh had been around in the mid-late 60's professing on his own a theory that government agencies were infiltrating radical and progressive organizations, and yet his examples of that theory were almost always retarded, his inability to provide examples wouldn't negate the potential viability of his overall theory. We're not in a courtroom, Hugh isn't on trial, and his theory isn't on trial.

While I think it's crucial for communities like ours to have serious amateur scientific investigations, not every fucking theory has to be strictly subject to the rules of evidence, to the scientific method. Of course, if it's a theory that gets posted in almost every fucking thread ad nauseum as irrefutable fact, then you'd probably like for it to be especially strong and superbly conceived and supported with evidence. Naturally. But that's a flaw in Hugh's tact, not his theory. Anyway, there's a place for rigor and a place for intuition and a place for both. Hugh's theory, as much as he claims it as fact, is far to the intuitive end of the spectrum. That doesn't necessarily discredit the theory. But then again, he hasn't really come up with anything resembling a firm piece of evidence. If you want to talk about his theory, then talk about his theory. If you want to talk about his evidence, then talk about his evidence. If you want to talk about his awful internet manners, then talk about that. Neither of those three aspects is dependent on the other, though. The way I see it, he's got a good theory with horrible evidence and horrible manners.

[slow_dazzle]

...

[orz]

It's possible for you or I to make a good theory out of the vague ideas behind Hugh's posts, but why give him the credit by saying "he has a good theory but..."

He has nothing. A load of totally incoherent and wrong "evidence" which when put aside leaves nothing but a garbled mishmash of various good ideas that Orwell, Burroughs and others covered decades ago.

[marmot]

My apologies before my two cents: I'm sorry I haven't the time to entirely read this lively thread. Btw, I'm amazed at how prodigious Hugh is with his posts. It must be very time consuming to relate so much good information.

Ok, so this: I simply want to encourage Hugh in his efforts. No, he won't be dead-on every time, but the man is most definitely on to something. Most of the time I tend to agree with (at least the gist of) his posts. And I thoroughly appreciate his thoughts, theories, style of writing and especially his good natured personality. Hugh is amazingly brilliant; very insightful; and happens to be my favorite poster on this board. So keep up the good work Hugh!

Just wanted to register my encouragement.

[FourthBase]

It's possible for you or I to make a good theory out of the vague ideas behind Hugh's posts, but why give him the credit by saying "he has a good theory but..."

Because I ultimately don't give a flying fuck about giving him credit or not giving him credit. I only care about figuring shit out. His overall theory seems good to me, and worth considering regardless of whether Hugh himself can back it up properly.

Sports metaphor: If he theorized that Pedro Martinez was a good pitcher and proceeded to prove it by listing the number of times Martinez was called for balking, I would call him on the useless absurdity of his "proof" but still use my own intuition and judgment to decide if the notion of Martinez-as-a-good-pitcher was reasonable.

He has nothing. A load of totally incoherent and wrong "evidence" which when put aside leaves nothing but a garbled mishmash of various good ideas that Orwell, Burroughs and others covered decades ago.

Orwell and Burroughs covered keyword hijacking?
Well then Hugh doesn't have "nothing", he has a good theory...no?
A good theory that he himself has provided crap evidence for.

The only reason this has become a "Hugh thing" is his habit of threadjacking.
Like I said, try to disentangle the issues, there are three that I see.

[orz]

Ok points taken.

Orwell and Burroughs covered keyword hijacking?

No, they covered the political, propaganda, and thought-controlling use and misuse of language, in a more intelligent and worthwhile way than Hugh does. There's absolutely nothing in 'Keyword Hijacking" that isn't covered better in their writings, except for Hugh's (almost all incorrect and/or crazy) specific examples.

Reading Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" and Burroughs' "The Electronic Revolution" and "The Invisible Generation" will serve you much better in life than doing a textual Rorschach test every time you encounter a movie poster.

[FourthBase]

Ok points taken.

Orwell and Burroughs covered keyword hijacking?

No, they covered the political, propaganda, and thought-controlling use and misuse of language, in a more intelligent and worthwhile way than Hugh does. There's absolutely nothing in 'Keyword Hijacking" that isn't covered better in their writings, except for Hugh's (almost all incorrect and/or crazy) specific examples.

Right, well then, Hugh theorizes a particular method of thought control.
I find that method to be quite plausible, despite Hugh's crap examples.

BTW, when Hugh generalizes about the media, I think he's often brilliant.
Not quite as eloquent as the great 20th century masters, but...eloquent.

Reading Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" and Burroughs' "The Electronic Revolution" and "The Invisible Generation" will serve you much better in life than doing a textual Rorschach test every time you encounter a movie poster.

How about I do all of the above, more or less frequently.
(The Orwell essay is among my all-time favorites)

[professorpan]

Fer crissakes, people -- if asking someone to explicate on something they are REGULARLY and VIGOROUSLY claiming is real is too much to ask, I give up.

Smackdown withdrawn due to refusal of challengee to participate. Go about your normal business.

[populistindependent]

New discoveries often take a variety of people with a variety of different styles and approaches in order to build a comprehensive picture. I think I understand the sort of proof that people seek before they can "believe" in this, and I am working on that. It is a big project and will take some time to pull together. Hugh is working on one component of this. I can understand his obsession about this, because it is as though he has hold of the tail of a tiger and doesn't want to let go, and the scathing ridicule and denunciation he is facing would only make him more determined. . Annoying, maybe, but understandable and forgivable.

It is way too early in the process to assert a theory, and specific examples at this point are not useful - specific examples of cause and effect and "who dunnit" and how, which is what the dispute is about. Hugh is theorizing that government spooks are behind a program of keyword hijacking - just a working theory, as good as any at this point and in no way harming anything or preventing us from getting at the truth.

As I have said, I was involved in an extensive project in which we stumbled onto this without realizing the significance of what we were looking at until 2 years later when I read Hugh's posts and the light went on for me. We built a complex set of routines - programs - that enabled us to gather and analyze tens of thousands of words found on websites, cross-reference that with search engine statistics and website traffic statistics and visitor behavior. We weren't looking for keyword hijacking, we were looking to get sales for a client. The pattern we saw surprised us and it was quite clear that there were two tracks - the overt and predictable, and something else. Some words were not behaving the way they should. All of those words were connected back to various organizations, all of which could easily be connected to people who would understand and share the techniques for doing "something" - something powerful - what was it? We didn't have a name for it then, but we do now, thanks to Hugh - keyword hijacking.

It is very difficult for me to imagine that this is all an accident, given the massive amount of work that has been done on looking for techniques to influence people's behavior. Work done by whom? Government agencies, especially the CIA, marketers in concert with psychologists and behavioral scientists, and the industry funded right wing think tanks. Between those three groups, we have a revolving door phenomenon - people moving from one setting to the next.

I am not rigid nor dogmatic about this. It could be a dry hole in some way that we haven’t seen yet. We could be off in our thinking somewhere and headed down the wrong path. We could be making some faulty assumptions. There is a possibility that people are doing keyword hijacking without realizing that they are and that no bright person anywhere figured out how to do it intentionally. But I doubt that, because I stumbled on it when I wasn’t looking for it and we were able to set up experiments and get predictable results and repeat the experiment successfully many times. It is too soon to know the answers to these various questions. The reason I won’t let go of it is not because I am wedded to a theory that I won’t let go, it is because of the undeniable objective evidence that I saw first hand.

I think the critics are saying “prove to us that the CIA got Disney (or whomever) to intentionally use words for the purpose of distraction or else STFU.” That would be the end of the investigation , not the start. An analogy: imagine that this were an investigation of possible murders. Do we now who did them exactly and when and how? No. But Hugh is noticing all of the missing people and the suspicious circumstances around their disappearance, and I am telling you that I have seen the murder weapon, have seen how it could kill people, and have a good handle on motive.

In this case we don’t have missing people, we have missing brain cells as it were—so we have the analog of the “body.” We have motive. We have means. We have duplicated the method under controlled conditions with objective measurements. Since the experimenters in my case were not looking for this result—as people accuse Hugh of doing—that makes it much less likely that the experiment was skewed or biased. Just because we have yet to collar the murderer does not mean the investigation is invalid.

[orz]

We didn't have a name for it then, but we do now, thanks to Hugh - keyword hijacking.

But we need less jargon names for things, not more!

[barracuda]

All right, I'm convinced.

Those who believe in this highjacking stuff should just go to Islambad and give succor to Obama bin Laden.

You're on the side of the terrorists!