November 1, 2016


News and Views


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/6-year-old-dies-of-rare-polio-like-mystery-illness/

CBS NEWS November 1, 2016, 3:44 PM
6-year-old dies of mysterious polio-like illness

Photograph -- Daniel Ramirez FACEBOOK/KIRO


A 6-year-old boy from Bellingham, Washington, has died after falling ill from a mysterious polio-like illness that has affected seven other children in the state and dozens more across the country.

Daniel Ramirez was rushed to Seattle Children’s Hospital last month with an unknown virus that caused his brain to swell. According to a GoFundMe page set up by his family, he was put into a medically induced coma, which doctors hoped would help his brain heal.

But on Monday morning, his family announced that Daniel lost his battle to the virus.

“It saddens us to announce that Daniel passed away on Sunday, October 30, 2016, surrounded by his family,” they posted on Facebook. “Daniel was an amazingly sweet little boy, who could put a smile on anyone’s face. He had a personality that made him loved by everyone who ever met him. Daniel was taken from us too soon, but his memory will live on, and he will never be forgotten. Rest In Peace Sweet Daniel!”

CBS Seattle affiliate KIRO reports state and federal health officials are investigating it as a possible case of a rare condition that causes paralysis, called acute flaccid myelitis (AFM) – which is on the rise in American children.

According to the CDC, 89 people in 33 states have been confirmed to have AFM so far this year, most of them children. That’s up from 21 cases in 2015.

There was also a surge of cases in the second half of 2014; the CDC says it received reports of 120 cases across the U.S. between August and December that year.

Experts say they’re worried about why the number of cases seems to be going up again.

“The CDC is concerned about the increase in cases, so we’re actively investigating the cases and working really closely with health departments on it. We’re intensifying our efforts to find out what causes it – we don’t know what causes it,” CDC pediatrician Dr. Manisha Patel told CBS News at the beginning of October.

AFM can affect anyone at any age. It affects a person’s nervous system – specifically the spinal cord – and can result from a variety of causes, including viral infections.

Sudden limb weakness is a telltale sign of the illness, Patel said. “Children present pretty acutely within the first couple of days,” she explained, saying a limp might signal the condition.

Some patients may also experience difficulty moving their eyes, drooping facial muscles and eyelids, difficulty swallowing, slurred speech and troubles with urination.

Though there has been an increase in cases, and it is unknown what is behind it, the CDC emphasizes that AFM is still very rare.

The Ramirez family is currently accepting donations to help with funeral costs.

“This money will be used to give Daniel the celebration of life he deserves, and to help the family stay on their feet while they are grieving,” the family wrote on Facebook. “We appreciate every donation very much.”



http://www.differencebetween.net/science/health/difference-between-syndrome-and-disease/

Difference Between Syndrome and Disease

Syndrome vs Disease

The terms disease and syndrome can puzzle you every time you go to a doctor. Are the two terms different? If so, what are the differences between the two words?

The basic difference between the two terms relates to the symptoms that they produce. A disease can be defined as a health condition that has a clearly defined reason behind it. A syndrome (from the Greek word meaning ‘run together’) however, may produce a number of symptoms without an identifiable cause. They may suggest the possibility of an underlying disease or even the chances of developing a disease.

Let us take up an example. A metabolic syndrome is not a disease. It may indicate an underlying disease like that of type 2 diabetes or a heart disease.

Even polycystic syndrome is not a disease. Rather, it is an indication of a number of other factors that may be malfunctioning in the body-e.g., a hormone disorder or obesity.

A syndrome refers to a group of symptoms, while a disease refers to an established condition.

A disease a condition that is marked by 3 basic factors.
1.An established biological cause behind the condition
2.A defined group of symptoms
3.Consistent change in anatomy due to the condition
A syndrome does not have any of these features. Even the symptoms that are present are usually not consistent, and definitely not traceable to a single cause.

The reason behind most syndromes has still not been identified. For this reason, they are a type of medical mystery. In contrast, the reason or cause behind a disease can be identified very easily.



EXCERPT -- “According to the CDC, 89 people in 33 states have been confirmed to have AFM so far this year, most of them children. That’s up from 21 cases in 2015. There was also a surge of cases in the second half of 2014; the CDC says it received reports of 120 cases across the U.S. between August and December that year. …. Some patients may also experience difficulty moving their eyes, drooping facial muscles and eyelids, difficulty swallowing, slurred speech and troubles with urination. Though there has been an increase in cases, and it is unknown what is behind it, the CDC emphasizes that AFM is still very rare. …. Sudden limb weakness is a telltale sign of the illness, Patel said. “Children present pretty acutely within the first couple of days,” she explained, saying a limp might signal the condition. Some patients may also experience difficulty moving their eyes, drooping facial muscles and eyelids, difficulty swallowing, slurred speech and troubles with urination.”


This is a syndrome, I think, unless the CDC, NIH, etc. identify a virus or other specific biological cause. To me, that means that the only treatment is trying to diminish or eliminate the symptoms. I do hope they can isolate the cause of this new AFM, because it does seem to be increasing in its incidence, and it’s deadly. Since it occurs in clusters, it wouldn’t seem to be inherited rather than acquired from some external source, but it could be water borne or even spread by air. For instance, our first awareness of polio was in 1789 and it took until the 1960s to develop a prevention. Read the following detailed and interesting report on the timeline of polio treatment. Hopefully this one won't be so difficult to decipher.


http://amhistory.si.edu/polio/timeline/, “Whatever happened to polio?”

Through 1799
Evidence of sporadic epidemics of polio predate recorded history.

1789, British physician Michael Underwood provides first clinical description of the disease.

1800 to 1899
1840, Jacob Heine describes the clinical features of the disease as well as its involvement of the spinal cord.

1894, first outbreak of polio in epidemic form in the U.S. occurs in Vermont, with 132 cases.

1900 to 1950
1908, Karl Landsteiner and Erwin Popper identify a virus as the cause of polio by transmitting the disease to a monkey.

1916, large epidemic of polio within the United States.

1921, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) contracts polio at age 39. His example has a major impact on public perceptions of individuals with disabilities. Although FDR is open about having had polio, he conceals the extent of his disability.

For more information on developing a prevention for polio, go to this website.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/biologists-rare-mouse-that-resembles-kangaroo-still-exists-in-new-mexico/

Biologists: New hope for rare mouse that resembles tiny kangaroo
AP November 1, 2016, 6:20 PM

Photograph -- This June 2014, file photo provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shows Debra Hill weighing a New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, which was trapped during survey efforts on the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, N.M. STACEY STANFORD, AP
Play VIDEO -- Giant pandas are no longer endangered, but great apes are
Play VIDEO -- Helping endangered Bewick's swans migrate home


ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Biologists who spent weeks in three New Mexico national forests searching for signs of an elusive, endangered mouse that looks somewhat like a tiny kangaroo have found what they call irrefutable evidence that it still lives in the state for which it is named.

The biologists trapped New Mexico meadow jumping mice and collected fur and fecal samples during summertime surveys in the southern Lincoln National Forest, the northern Santa Fe National Forest and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests along the New Mexico-Arizona border, Beth Humphrey, a district ranger with the U.S. Forest Service, said Tuesday.

With a tail that makes up for most of its length, the rodent is called a jumping mouse because it can leap more than 2 feet into the air when frightened. Super-long tails help the mice keep their balance, especially when they scale plant stems to reach ripening seeds, one their main food sources.

The New Mexico meadow jumping mouse was listed as an endangered species in 2014, prompting the U.S. Forest Service to fence off streams and watering holes in the Lincoln and Santa Fe forests to protect habitat thought to be ideal. That spurred criticism from ranchers and others that the federal government was trampling private access to public lands in New Mexico.

Small populations of New Mexico meadow jumping mice have been found previously in New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado.

But last summer’s surveys turned up the first hard evidence that they still live in areas where they had not been spotted in years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said in an emailed statement.

The discoveries provide “hope that this species can recover over a period of time,” said Humphrey, who works in New Mexico’s Sacramento Mountains.

Humphrey said her district will collect public comments this fall on proposals for long-term strategies aimed at trying to protect and boost New Mexico meadow jumping mouse populations.

The mice live near streams and depend on tall grass to hide from predators. They hibernate for about nine months, emerging in the late spring to gorge themselves before mating, giving birth and going back into hibernation. They normally live three years.

Jack Williams, a wildlife biologist based in the Sacramento Mountains, said the mouse is difficult to trap. His crew surveyed five sites over six weeks and set up more than 5,000 traps.


EXCERPT – “The mice live near streams and depend on tall grass to hide from predators. They hibernate for about nine months, emerging in the late spring to gorge themselves before mating, giving birth and going back into hibernation. They normally live three years.”


This little critter is adorable. There is another small rodent that looks similar, but with a shorter tail, called a gerbil. Gerbils are native to Africa, Asia and India. Both animals jump. One of my ex-husband’s fellow graduate student kept a gerbil in a cage at the lab.



SIMPLY SHOCKING

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mom-warns-parents-after-seatbelt-slices-6-year-old-daughters-stomach-open/

By JENNIFER EARL CBS NEWS November 1, 2016, 11:53 AM
Mom warns parents after seatbelt slices 6-year-old daughter's stomach open

Photograph -- Samantha Swartwout, 6, in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit at VCU Medical Center in Richmond, Virginia. SAMANTHA SWARTWOUT/GOFUNDME
Image -- screen-shot-2016-11-01-at-11-04-19-am.png, Samantha Swartwout, 6. SAMANTHA SWARTWOUT/GOFUNDME


If you think your child has outgrown a booster seat, think again.

That’s the message a concerned mom is spreading after a seatbelt sliced into her 6-year-old daughter’s stomach during a car accident in September.

Samantha Swartwout was riding in the back seat of her dad’s car when the vehicle veered off the road and crashed into a tree 200 feet away. The impact of the collision was so intense that the seatbelt the child was wearing opened up her abdomen.

It was a phone call no mom ever wants to get, Samantha’s mom, Shelly Martin, told CBS News.

Her daughter was severely injured. The young girl had a concussion, a deep cut in her belly, and needed stitches on her forehead.

“Her intestines were out on scene on the left side,” Martin described.

The mom from Richmond, Virginia, said such severe injuries might have been prevented if the girl had been in a booster seat.

According to the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, a child should remain in a booster seat until he or she is at least 8 years of age and 4 feet 9 inches tall.

Though the rules differ from state to state, Martin says parents should heed the department’s recommendations.

“She would not have been this hurt in a booster,” Martin said. “Don’t think that just because your child is 7 or 8 years that they are too big... they aren’t!”

After spending nearly three weeks hospitalized at the VCU Medical Center, Samantha was finally released in early October.

But the car accident may have scarred her in more ways than one.

“She is seeing a psychology doctor for possible PTSD,” Martin said. “She was in the ICU for two weeks and the pediatric floor for another week.”

At times, the 6-year-old’s mom feels helpless, but spreading the word about booster seat safety has given her purpose.

“If we can raise awareness and save another child then at least we can bring something good out of this,” Martin said.


This is one of the most disturbing stories I’ve ever read. The child’s tender age and the unexpected danger she was in from an unexpected source that most of us trust implicitly – a seat belt – is really discouraging. Those booster seats look so uncomfortable to me, but, apparently, they are safer until a child is taller. I’ve seen signs on carnival rides specifying the height that a kid must be to get on.


CLINTON VERSUS FBI

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2016-fbi-email-investigation-huma-abedin-responds-james-comey-criticized/

Lawyer for longtime Clinton aide responds to latest FBI email investigation
CBS NEWS
November 1, 2016, 6:49 AM

19 PHOTOS -- Huma Abedin


With Election Day one week away, Huma Abedin, one of Hillary Clinton’s closest aides, is responding for the first time to the FBI search for emails that may have gone through Clinton’s private servers. The emails were found on a laptop used by Abedin’s estranged husband, Anthony Weiner.

Abedin’s attorney said in a statement: “[Abedin] only learned for the first time on Friday, from press reports, of the possibility that a laptop belonging to Mr. Weiner could contain emails of hers. While the FBI has not contacted us about this, Ms. Abedin will continue to be, as she always has been, forthcoming and cooperative.”

The White House is not criticizing FBI director James Comey for telling Congress about the review this close to the election.

“I’ll neither defend nor criticize what Director Comey has decided to communicate to the public about this investigation,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said.

On Monday, the White House struck down claims that Comey’s actions were political.

“The president doesn’t believe that Director Comey is intentionally trying to influence the outcome of an election,” Earnest said. “The president doesn’t believe that he’s secretly strategizing to benefit one candidate or one political party. He’s in a tough spot.”

Comey is facing criticism for notifying Congress about launching the review less than two weeks before the election.

“Getting involved this close to the election is just wrong,” Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen said.

“You don’t get to be a smearer at large with derogatory information,” Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse said.

The FBI has built a software program that is scouring through hundreds of thousands of emails found on the laptop. Investigators have already seen the subject, date and time of the emails and are continuing to look for classified material or anything that might be tied to Clinton, zeroing-in on emails belonging to Abedin.

Comey’s decision to tell Congress defied a recommendation from Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

In response to calls from Congress to disclose more information about the review, the Department of Justice said they’re dedicating “all necessary resources” and taking “appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible.”

“As much information, as much clarity about the nature of the investigation as can be made available should be made available,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte said.

Goodlatte, a Republican, spoke to the FBI chief over the weekend.

“It was important for the director to make it clear that when substantial new evidence became available, they reopened the case,” Goodlatte said.

Once investigators have a better idea of how many documents need to be searched, they plan to assign a large amount [sic] of people to the investigation. At that point they will have a clearer idea how long the review could take, though it’s unlikely it will be completed before Election Day.


This is one of those statements designed to ratchet up tension and pressure on Clinton, while giving away as little real information as possible. It’s merely the next Republican smear, timed to throw the election as far from Hillary Clinton’s reach as possible. The FBI built a special gotcha computer program to catch Clinton in assumed generic misdeeds, and the White House is choosing not to take a stand on it. The DOJ is taking “appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible.” Clearly, everybody’s ass is covered.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/elections-2016-hillary-clinton-fbi-director-playing-favorites-email-investigation/

Clinton campaign accuses FBI director of "double standard"
CBS NEWS
November 1, 2016, 9:57 AM

Report: FBI says no direct ties between Russia, Donald Trump's campaign


Hillary Clinton says FBI investigation into the emails on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, estranged husband of Clinton’s longtime aide Huma Abedin, will show “there is no case here.”

The latest RealClearPolitics average of national polls shows her leading Donald Trump by just over three points. That is the closest margin in a month. Clinton’s average lead was nearly six points before the new FBI probe was reported.

Set aside for a moment the fact that we have two major candidates accusing each other of being in more trouble with the FBI than they are. The Clinton campaign says what’s unfair is that the FBI director would publicly resurrect her investigation so close to the election, but stay silent about reported investigations into Trump, reports CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes.

“If they want to look at some more emails of one of my staffers, by all means go ahead! Look at them,” Clinton said in Cincinnati.

The Clinton campaign took its fight with the FBI to the next level Monday, accusing FBI director James Comey of playing favorites.

“I’m not confirming that we’re investigating people associated with Mr. Trump,” Comey testified in September during an FBI hearing.

Comey has refused to confirm rumors that agents are investigating Russian ties to some Trump associates. But he did alert lawmakers Friday about new emails in the Clinton case that may or may not be significant.

“That is extremely troubling. And he ought to answer for it,” said Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kaine.

Kaine said Comey isn’t following protocol when it comes to Clinton.

“I’m not raising question about his motives. I’m just saying there’s a double standard and they ought to explain it,” Kaine said.

The goal is to get the focus back on Trump and off Clinton’s lingering legal troubles, not to mention more fallout from her campaign’s hacked emails.

Interim Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile resigned from her contributor role at CNN after WikiLeaks posted another exchange in which she appeared to pass the Clinton camp a debate question in advance. The question was about lead in drinking water. It came up at a debate in Flint, Michigan.

“You see Donna Brazile was fired from the network,” Trump said in Michigan to cheers.

The GOP nominee said the campaign should have come clean about the question.

“Why did Hillary Clinton not turn it in? You know, I have a son named Barron. And I want to tell you, she is a terrible example for my son and for the children in this country. That I can tell you,” Trump said.

In a statement, Brazile said she shared her thoughts with all the Democratic campaigns. The Clinton camp has had no comment.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics

RealClearPolitics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RealClearPolitics (RCP) is a Chicago-based political news and polling data aggregator formed in 2000[3] by former options trader John McIntyre and former advertising agency account executive Tom Bevan.[4][5][6] Though their own political views are conservative,[7][8][4][9] the site's founders say their goal is to give readers "ideological diversity".[10]
RCP has expanded to include a number of sister sites. Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei has called the site "an essential stop for anyone interested in politics".[11]


POLLS, THE BRADLEY EFFECT AND GROUPTHINK

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/10/november_8th_trump_5.html

November 8: Trump +5
By Andrew Grant White
October 25, 2016

Conventional wisdom says Trump's a dead duck, and we all know how prescient is conventional wisdom. Only two weeks left until election, and RealClearPolitics (RCP) puts Clinton about 6 points ahead. So confident is Hillary (supposedly) that one newspaper now urges her to divert some from the presidential campaign and help Democrats in Senate and House races. We should be so lucky.

Back to the point. Presidential polls are split into two camps: MSM polls and non-MSM polls. They have starkly different characteristics and results. MSM polls come from those you already know, and the companies themselves have already shed their last shred of dignity and objectivity to throw in with Hillary. They also poll in discreet measure (i.e., release a poll whenever they want one to come out).

Non-MSM polls are not as well known but quite accomplished (e.g., Rasmussen, LA Times/USC, IDB/TIPP – the most accurate in 2012 election, by the way). They also poll daily (actually an average of the last three days). Finally, MSM polls consistently show Hillary up by an average of 8%, whereas the non-MSM polls have shown variation based on events and a logical current tightening of the polls down to basically +/-1% or so per candidate (e.g., Trump in the lead right now by 2% in Rasmussen's poll).

What if the polls change more favorably for Trump? Great, but I'm not counting that here. What about the 2012 party sampling (or worse) adjustment to data? Have you seen the difference in the candidate's rallies? But so what? I'm not factoring that in, either. No, I'm not talking about poll changes or the supposedly awoken silent majority giant. I'm talking about the Bradley Effect.

For those not familiar with the Bradley Effect, it doesn't happen too often. Specifically, it is named after a black L.A. major who ran for California governor against a white man in 1982 (unusual for the times). Bradley was ahead in the polls when, on election day, the exact opposite occurred. He lost. Supposedly the polls were flawed because people did not want to sound racist when polled. The Bradley Effect is not specific to one race, though, nor to race itself. It occurs in unusual times at different magnitude.

Can you think of a candidate today whose name causes hush practically anywhere you go? I can: Trump – "The Love that dare not speak its Name." Such uniform pervasive societal and personal pressure not to support Trump has led to the distinct possibility of another Bradley Effect. In essence, Trump has closet Democrat, independent, and – yes – Republican supporters whose support simply does not show up in any poll of either camp. How do I back this up? Simple: I don't. It's a gut feeling, an intuition, a logical conclusion for our times, and a resulting 3 points added onto Rasmussen's current Trump +2%.

Therefore, I will now go on record that – even if nothing happens in the polls or sampling of today – Trump will win on November 8 by at least 5%. The man no one said would or could run; the man no one said would make it out of the primaries alive; the man whose epitaph has been written by the MSM so many times, it's even been done literally; the man whom, supposedly, everybody hates...will be president of the United States-elect. Get used to it. Oh, and buy stocks on the market swoon, and dump your debt.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

Bradley effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bradley effect (less commonly the Wilder effect)[1][2] is a theory concerning observed discrepancies between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in some United States government elections where a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other.[3][4][5] The theory proposes that some voters who intend to vote for the white candidate would nonetheless tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for the non-white candidate. It was named after Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American who lost the 1982 California governor's race despite being ahead in voter polls going into the elections.[6]

The Bradley effect posits that the inaccurate polls were skewed by the phenomenon of social desirability bias.[7][8] Specifically, some white voters give inaccurate polling responses for fear that, by stating their true preference, they will open themselves to criticism of racial motivation. Members of the public may feel under pressure to provide an answer that is deemed to be more publicly acceptable, or 'politically correct'. The reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well. The race of the pollster conducting the interview may factor into voters' answers.

Some analysts have dismissed the theory of the Bradley effect,[9] or argued that it may have existed in past elections, but not in more recent ones, such as when Barack Obama was elected and reelected President of the United States in 2008 and 2012 respectively. Others believe that it is a persistent phenomenon.[10] Similar effects have been posited in other contexts, for example, the Shy Tory Factor and spiral of silence.


https://masscommtheory.com/theory-overviews/spiral-of-silence/

Mass Communication Theory
Spiral of Silence

Originally proposed by German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann in 1974, Spiral of silence is the term meant to refer to the tendence [sic] of people to remain silent when they feel that their views are in opposition to the majority view on a subject. The theory posits that they remain silent for a few reasons:

Fear of isolation when the group or public realizes that the individual has a divergent opinion from the status quo.

Fear of reprisal or more extreme isolation, in the sense that voicing said opinion might lead to a negative consequence beyond that of mere isolation (loss of a job, status, etc.)

For this theory to be plausible it relies on the idea that in a given situation we all possess a sort of intuitive way of knowing what the prevailing opinion happens to be. The spiral is created or reinforced when someone in the perceived opinion majority speaks out confidently in support of the majority opinion, hence the minority begins to be more and more distanced from a place where they are comfortable to voice their opinion and begin to experience the aforementioned fears.

The spiral effect is experienced insomuch as this activates a downward spiral where fears continually build within the minority opinion holder, hence the minority opinion is never voiced. Since it’s appearing on this blog you could assume that the theory posits that the mass media has a [sic] effect on this process, if you’re assuming that… you’re right on. The media plays an important role in this process, especially in dictating or perceptually dictating the majority opinion.

The closer an individual feels their opinion resides to the held majority opinion the more likely they are to be willing to voice it in public discourse. A few other important tenets to mention: this theory relies heavily on the idea that the opinion must have a distinct moral component (i.e. abortion, legalization of _______ ), no one will experience the spiral of silence trying to talk out what toppings to get on their pizza with roommates.

The theory has some weaknesses or at least points of contention, two of the most notable are those of the vocal minority and the internet. The internet (a.k.a. interwebs, series of tubes – thanks, Al) seemingly levels the playing field, where a minority opinion won’t be felt by the individual as a minority opinion and might be voiced in that arena whereas the individual would have not been so vocal in another place of public discourse. Second, the vocal minority – you know these people, they may be the only one who thinks that cats need to right to vote, but they won’t shut up about it and are seemingly outside of the effects of the Spiral of Silence.

There you have it… Spiral of Silence. Don’t spend it all in one place.


EXCERPT – “Second, the vocal minority – “you know these people,” they may be the only one who thinks that cats need to right to vote, but they won’t shut up about it and are seemingly outside of the effects of the Spiral of Silence.”


That statement sounds to me like the writer feels that “the vocal minority” is, or should be, viewed as pariahs rather than as heroic champions of intellectual freedom who explore rationally what is right or wrong. So, okay, I don’t’ think it makes any sense for “cats to have the vote,” but I do think that Black, Hispanic people and all other minorities should have that right if they are citizens. I think his pairing of such concepts – cats and voting -- to be a backhanded way of bringing up the deep unfairness to “conservatives’ -- of Blacks having full rights and privileges once they have qualified for it by law. After all, anyone who is born in the US and is not a felon has full citizenship rights. Many of us feel that being a felon who has SERVED HIS TIME ALREADY absolutely should regain his right to vote.

Those people who do value the pressure of the crowd over their own well-considered views, tend to be too timid to stand up for anything or anybody. They are, in effect, “brainwashed.” Naturally they won’t stand up for free thought.

Such hostility against the minority voice as we are seeing today on both sides of the question, is an attitude often held by angry individuals who feel themselves to be – quite unfairly -- disenfranchised, but see no way to change their status; and finally, by the socially and financially comfortable who have never acquired any empathy for those in need, i.e. the ruling classes who have never had to experience what it feels like to be treated unfairly. They quite “naturally” feel that White Power and the social power wielded by “the upper 1%” to be the only true and “fair” way for our society to operate. To be wealthy, after all, means that we are better than the others on lower rungs of the ladder.

That kind of mental and emotional numbness to right and wrong in social settings, is the cause of the pogroms against Jews and others; is shared by the admiring followers of villainous bullies, who imagine that their own status will improve as a result of that association; and is the result of intellectual laziness and what I tend to think of as “social timidity” when there is a need to defend anyone. There are those, however, who do truly hold the view that everything in life is about “winners and losers,” rather than about fairness and decency. Given that view, of course they want to be in the “winners’” group, and will pick up the stone to throw at a woman who has been caught in a sexual liaison or whatever vile thing that “the crowd” is doing. A gang rape, perhaps? There was one in the news just a couple of weeks ago.

It is also a truly held consensus of those who are hostile, abusive and very “conservative” in the way they think. By “conservative” I mean that they just don’t “think outside the box,” and tend to think that those who do so are conceited and dangerous troublemakers. They remind me of a woman I knew some 25 or so years ago who said to me, in describing her (thankfully estranged) Middle Eastern husband who beat her frequently and badly, “He had such a ‘presence’ about him.” I’ll never forget that. He also told her, “You know, in my country I could kill you and never be prosecuted.” This was an intelligent and educated man, but evil.



SEE THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT BY A COMMENTATOR AT THE “UNIVERITY OF TWENTE,” ALSO DISCUSSING THE THEORY OF “THE SPIRAL OF SILENCE.”

https://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Mass%20Media/spiral_of_silence/

Utwente.nl is described at their website as a “top Dutch University.”

SPIRAL OF SILENCE

formation of public opinion
History and Orientation

Neumann (1974) introduced the “spiral of silence” as an attempt to explain in part how public opinion is formed. She wondered why the Germans supported wrong political positions that led to national defeat, humiliation and ruin in the 1930s-1940s.

Core Assumptions and Statements

The phrase "spiral of silence" actually refers to how people tend to remain silent when they feel that their views are in the minority. The model is based on three premises: 1) people have a "quasi-statistical organ," a sixth-sense if you will, which allows them to know the prevailing public opinion, even without access to polls, 2) people have a fear of isolation and know what behaviors will increase their likelihood of being socially isolated, and 3) people are reticent to express their minority views, primarily out of fear of being isolated.

The closer a person believes the opinion held is similar to the prevailing public opinion, the more they are willing to openly disclose that opinion in public. Then, if public sentiment changes, the person will recognize that the opinion is less in favor and will be less willing to express that opinion publicly. As the perceived distance between public opinion and a person's personal opinion grows, the more unlikely the person is to express their opinion.

Conceptual Model

Scope and Application

It is related to the mass media, in such a way that mass media influences public opinion. Shifts in public opinion occur commonly and therefore this theory is used to search an explanation for behavior (speak up or stay silent).

The theory has also been criticized for ambiguity and methodological weakness, but the idea has persisted. Evidence of the spiral effect is usually small but significant.

Example

This example shows an effect of the theory where during the 1991 Gulf War the U.S. support for the war was measured. Either it is a consensus view or did media coverage contribute to a spiral of silence that dampened opposition to the war? In a survey that asked about people’s opinions, respondents were clearly less supportive of the war than the popular support depicted by the media. Those who watched television and perceived that the public supported the war, were more likely tot [sic] support the war themselves. This study supports the spiral of silence and suggests that people are swayed by bandwagon effects rather than fearing social isolation.

References
Key publications

Glynn, J.C., Hayes, F.A. & Shanahan, J. (1997). “Perceived support for ones opinions sand willingness to speak out: A meta-analysis of survey studies on the ‘spiral of silence’” Public Opinion Quarterly 61 (3):452-463.
Glynn, J.C. & McLeod, J. (1984). “Public opinion du jour: An examination of the spiral of silence, “ Public Opinion Quarterly 48 (4):731-740.
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1984). The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion -- Our social skin. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1991). The theory of public opinion: The concept of the Spiral of Silence. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 14, 256-287. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Simpson, C. (1996). “Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s ‘spiral of silence’ and the historical context of communication theory.” Journal of Communication 46 (3):149-173.
Taylor, D.G. (1982). “Pluralistic ignorance and the spiral of silence: A formal analysis,” Public Opinion Quarterly 46 (3):311-335. See also: Kennamer, J.D. (1990). “Self-serving biases in perceiving the opinions of others: Implications for the spiral of silence,” Communication Research 17 (3):393-404; Yassin Ahmed Lashin (1984). Testing the spiral of silence hypothesis: Toward an integrated theory of public opinion. Unpublished dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance

Pluralistic ignorance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In social psychology, pluralistic ignorance is a situation in which a majority of group members privately reject a norm, but incorrectly assume that most others accept it, and therefore go along with it.[1] This is also described as "no one believes, but everyone thinks that everyone believes." In short, pluralistic ignorance is a bias about a social group, held by that social group.[2][3]

Pluralistic ignorance may help to explain the bystander effect.[4] If no-one acts, onlookers may believe others believe action is incorrect, and may therefore themselves refrain from acting.

Research[edit]

Prentice and Miller found that, on average, private levels of comfort with drinking practices on campus were much lower than the perceived average. In the case of men, they found a shifting of private attitudes toward this perceived norm, a form of cognitive dissonance. Women, on the other hand, were found to have an increased sense of alienation on the campus but lacked the attitude change detected in men, presumably because norms related to alcohol consumption on campus are much more central for men than for women.[5] Research has shown that pluralistic ignorance plagues not only those who indulge, but also those who abstain: from gambling, smoking and drinking and among some who follow vegetarianism.[6] The latter has found that Pluralistic Ignorance can be caused by the structure of the underlying social network, not cognitive dissonance.

Famous cases

Pluralistic ignorance was blamed for exacerbating support for segregation in the United States in the 1960s. It has also been named a reason for the illusionary popular support that kept the communist regime in the Soviet Union, as many opposed the regime but assumed that others were supporters of it. Thus, most people were afraid to voice their opposition.[8]

During alcohol prohibition in the United States, most people thought others were for it when in reality most people were against it, including those who were vocal about its initiation. This led to bootlegging liquor becoming an extremely lucrative business because there was a private desire for the alcohol even though there was a large public outcry against it.

Another case of pluralistic ignorance concerns drinking on school campus in countries where alcohol use is prevalent at colleges and universities. Students drink at weekend parties and sometimes at evening study breaks. Many drink to excess, some on a routine basis. The high visibility of heavy drinking on campus, combined with reluctance by students to show any public signs of concern or disapproval, gives rise to pluralistic ignorance: Students believe that their peers are much more comfortable with this behavior than they themselves feel.[9]

Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale "The Emperor's New Clothes"[10] highlights a case of pluralistic ignorance. In this story a whole town fears speaking out on an obvious injustice out of fear that they would stand out believing nobody else could see what they saw. When two con artists come in to the Emperor's kingdom and convince him that they make the finest clothes in all of the land that can only be seen by anyone who was not stupid. The con artists continued to steal gold, silk and other precious items for their "unique creation". Out of fear for being seen as stupid, all of the emperor's men and towns people kept their mouths shut about the fact they could not see the outfit and the emperor was prancing around seemingly naked until finally a small child comes forth and says that the emperor is walking around naked. They believe that if an innocent child can see it, then they must all see it, and finally come forward and admit that the emperor has been tricked and that there was never an outfit being made.

Consequences

Pluralistic ignorance has been linked to a wide range of deleterious consequences. For example, victims of pluralistic ignorance see themselves as deviant members of their peer group: less knowledgeable than their classmates, more uptight than their peers, less committed than their fellow board members, less competent than their fellow nurses (see the Dunning–Kruger effect operating in the opposite direction). This can leave them feeling bad about themselves and alienated from the group or institution of which they are a part. In addition, pluralistic ignorance can lead groups to persist in policies and practices that have lost widespread support: This can lead college students to persist in heavy drinking, corporations to persist in failing strategies, and governments to persist in unpopular foreign policies. At the same time, it can prevent groups from taking actions that would be beneficial in the long run: actions to intervene in an emergency, for example, or to initiate a personal relationship.

Pluralistic ignorance can be dispelled, and its negative consequences alleviated, through education. For example, students who learn that support for heavy drinking practices is not as widespread as they thought drink less themselves and feel more comfortable with the decision not to drink. Alcohol intervention programs now routinely employ this strategy to combat problem drinking on campus.[9]

Misconceptions

Pluralistic ignorance can be contrasted with the false consensus effect. In pluralistic ignorance, people privately disdain but publicly support a norm (or a belief), while the false consensus effect causes people to wrongly assume that most people think like they do, while in reality most people do not think like they do (and express the disagreement openly). . . . .

Although it would seem as if the two are built on the same premise of social norms, they take two very oppositional stances on a similar phenomenon. The false consensus effect considers that in predicting an outcome, people will assume that the masses agree with their opinion and think the same way they do on an issue, whereas the opposite is true of pluralistic ignorance, where the individual does not agree with a certain action but go along with it anyway, believing that their view is not shared with the masses (which is usually untrue).

Related subjects in group behavior and thought:

Abilene paradox
Asch conformity experiments
Conformity
Groupthink
Peer pressure
Political correctness
Silent majority
Spiral of silence
Social norms marketing
Thomas theorem