Festival of Ideas - 21 October 2017 - Freedom and Persuasion in the Attention Economy

James Williams, winner of the inaugural $100,000 Nine Dots Prize, Oxford doctoral candidate and former Google employee, explains his answer to the set question, 'Are digital technologies making politics impossible?'. Here's a sneak peek. James Williams, a former Google employee and doctoral candidate researching design ethics at Oxford University, won the inaugural US$100,000 Nine Dots Prize with his entry, Stand Out of Our Light: Freedom and Persuasion in the Attention Economy. Challenged to answer the question 'Are digital technologies making politics impossible?', James argued yes, digital technologies are making all forms of politics worth having impossible as they privilege our impulses over our intentions and are 'designed to exploit our psychological vulnerabilities in order to direct us toward goals that may or may not align with our own'. In this event, he will cover: How the 'distractions' produced by digital technologies are much more profound than minor ‘annoyances’ How so-called 'persuasive' design is undermining the human will and ‘militating against the possibility of all forms of self-determination’ How beginning to 'assert and defend our freedom of attention' is an urgent moral and political task This event is organised by CRASSH in collaboration with the Nine Dots Prize and Cambridge University Press.

Conspiracy theories usually arouse scepticism. Yet when we confront them 'in the flesh,' they can appear - at least on first sight - strangely persuasive. Join a discussion about the strategies conspiracies use in making their pitch for plausibility and staking their claim to truth. Organised by the Conspiracy & Democracy project at CRASSH. In the abstract and as a generic class, conspiracy theories arouse scepticism. Yet sometimes when we actually confront a conspiracy theory 'in the flesh,' they can appear - at least on first sight - strangely persuasive. What strategies do these narratives employ in making their pitch for plausibility and staking their claim to be true. The Conspiracy and Democracy Team has been conducting research at CRASSH for the last four years on this intriguing aspect of modern society. In this discussion, some of its members will examine the relationship between conspiracy theories and truth. Andrew McKenzie-McHarg - What role do images play? How can images unveil what is otherwise hidden? Rachel Hofmann - How do revolutions and assassinations provoke conspiracy theories? Why with events of this nature can they attain a degree of plausibility? Hugo Drochon - How do conspiracy theories mobilize emotions? How do they speak to our sense of identity? Hugo Leal - How do conspiracy theories become viral memes? How is their spread promoted by the internet? Alfred Moore - What role do FOIA requests play in this story? Have they suppressed or stimulated conspiracy theorizing?

This talk explores what factors - religious, economic, political - make some and not others believe in conspiracy theories. Hugo Drochon considers what impact that has had on contemporary political events, from Brexit to Trump. Was Diana killed by the Secret Services? Is climate change a hoax? Did man not walk on the moon? Who shot JFK? Drawing on a nation-wide survey conducted with YouGov about belief in conspiracy theories, this talk explores what factors -religious, economic, political – make some and not others believe in conspiracy theories, and what impact that has had on contemporary political events, from Brexit toTrump. Hugo Drochon is a researcher with the 'Conspiracy and Democracy' research project at CRASSH.

We’re bombarded by information about our health. But who should be trusted? Physicians? Scientists? Patients? Pharma? Instinct? Come along for a range of researcher perspectives and to offer your own. The safety and effectiveness of medical interventions is highly contested, even when it is backed by clinical research. Who should we trust? The truth of the scientists loyal to evidence-based medicine paradigms, or that of patients with their lived experience? Should we trust big pharma? Or perhaps no one at all? In this panel discussion, we will address these questions, which are, quite literally, of life-and-death significance. The panel will include five speakers, all from the University of Cambridge: Anna Alexandrova, Gabriele Badano, Stephen John, Trenholme Junghans, and Jacob Stegenga. Speakers will first give a short talk each, looking from different angles at the plurality of actors who claim their perspective should take centre stage in clinical research. Next, they will have a short conversation among themselves before opening the floor to questions from the audience. Organised by the 'Limits of the Numerical' research project at CRASSH.