UK poll: 23%-Churchill was fiction, 58%-Sherlock Holmes real

Moderators: Project Willow, DrVolin, Wombaticus Rex, Jeff

UK poll: 23%-Churchill was fiction, 58%-Sherlock Holmes real

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:37 am

Here's why psy-ops in TV and movies works so well. -HWM

"The [poll] results provide a fascinating insight into the influence that popular TV, film and fiction has had on the nation's perception of history over the last 50 years. "

"Over three quarters of the nation (77%) admitted to no longer reading history books, or watching historical programmes on television (61%). "

http://uktv.co.uk/gold/stepbystep/aid/598605

Shame-faced Brits are increasingly confusing fact and fiction when it comes to historical knowledge – that's the verdict of a compelling new study which found that most people believe that fictional figures such as King Arthur, Sherlock Holmes and Eleanor Rigby really existed.

The study, specially commissioned by UKTV Gold, tested the nation on its historical knowledge by asking 3,000 people a series of questions relating to famous factual and fictional characters. The results provide a fascinating insight into the influence that popular TV, film and fiction has had on the nation's perception of history over the last 50 years.

King Arthur, Sherlock Holmes and Robin Hood top the list of fictional characters that Brits are most likely to confuse with fact – full top ten below...


Top ten fictional characters that the British public thinks are real

* 1) King Arthur – 65%
* 2) Sherlock Holmes – 58%
* 3) Robin Hood – 51%
* 4) Eleanor Rigby – 47%
* 5) Mona Lisa -35%
* 6) Dick Turpin – 34%
* 7) Biggles – 33%
* 8) The Three Musketeers – 17%
* 9) Lady Godiva – 12%
* 10) Robinson Crusoe – 5%

Top ten historical figures that the British public thinks are myths

1) Richard the Lionheart – 47%
2) Winston Churchill – 23%
3) Florence Nightingale – 23%
4) Bernard Montgomery – 6%
5) Boudica - 5%
6) Sir Walter Raleigh – 4%
7) Duke of Wellington - 4%
8) Cleopatra - 4%
9) Gandhi – 3%
10) Charles Dickins - 3%

King Arthur is the fictional figure most commonly mistaken for fact – incredibly almost two thirds of Brits (65%) believe that he existed and led a round table of gallant knights in the idyllic ancient Kingdom of Camelot.

Sherlock Holmes, the famous fictional detective, was so convincingly brought to life in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novels of the late 1880s that over half of us (58%) believe that the sleuth really lived and worked with his sidekick Watson at 22B Baker Street, North London. Half of those surveyed (51%) also believed that Robin Hood lived in Sherwood Forest during the 14th Century, robbing the rich to give to the poor.

Eleanor Rigby, made famous by the Beatles' song of the same name, is also commonly mistaken for being a real life person, with 47% believing that she was more than just a figment of John Lennon and Paul McCartney's imaginations. Confusion also surrounds the story of Dick Turpin, with over a third (34%) of respondents stating that they couldn't be sure if the notorious stage coach thief existed or not.

When it comes to real historical figures, the nation is just as confused. Nearly half of us (47%) have no idea who Richard the Lionheart was; even though the historical figure has featured in numerous films throughout the 21st Century.

The research showed that the nation's under 20s are lacking the most when it comes to basic historical knowledge. Over one fifth (21%) thought Winston Churchill, arguably Britain's most famous Prime Minister, was a work of fiction, and over a quarter (27%) thought pioneering nurse Florence Nightingale was a mythical figure.

The study notes a marked change in how people acquire their historical knowledge. Over three quarters of the nation (77%) admitted to no longer reading history books, or watching historical programmes on television (61%). One in eight (15%) admitted they rely solely on the history that they learnt at school.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby orz » Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:01 pm

Here's why psy-ops in TV and movies works so well. -HWM

Agree 100%. Strange then that none of the specific examples you present can be proven, or even sanely imagined, to be remotely successful in any way.
orz
 
Posts: 4107
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:25 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby brainpanhandler » Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:55 pm

I'd like to see how the questions were worded. That could make all the difference, of course. For instance, Eleanor Rigby, Mona Lisa, and King Arthur may well be based on historical figures and the Mona Lisa was painted from model. Depending on how the questions were worded people might easily misinterpret the question.

On the other side, historical figures believed to be myth, only the top three are particularly significant. I'm confused by the Churchill figures though. If 23% of the general populace thought Churchill was a mythical figure, then why did only 21% of the under 20's think he was fictional? I would think the under 20's would have a greater percentage than the general poll. Am I missing something?

Even if the study is not flawed, really it's more of an indictment of the educational system than anything else, don't you think?

Sadly, I don't need any more proof the world is getting dumber by the minute.

You recently responded to another member in another thread that the reason they did not get your argument was that the psyop you were pointing out had already gotten to them. Holy crap Hugh. C'mon...

So now if anyone objects to one of your theories you can say, "Ah, they got to you already". Surely you understand how kooky that sounds.

I would like to see a very carefully crafted study along the lines of the one you cite.

I have seen studies where Americans are asked to identify the preamble to the declaration of independence among a list of sources and a shocking number identify it's source as being communist.

I have no doubt people are increasingly becoming confused about what was/is real and what is not and that is to the advantage of our rulers and the elements of their ruling apparatus charged with keeping us brainwashed.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Mutual exclusivity brain phenomenon. And context shift.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:09 pm

brainpanhandler wrote:.....

You recently responded to another member in another thread that the reason they did not get your argument was that the psyop you were pointing out had already gotten to them. Holy crap Hugh. C'mon...

So now if anyone objects to one of your theories you can say, "Ah, they got to you already". Surely you understand how kooky that sounds.


The neuroscience trumps "how kooky it sounds." Memory is strongly biased on a 'first come first served basis.' Like the way children are socialized.

You were referring to a comment in my thread about 'Buckaroo Bonzai' mirroring Richard Case Nagell, a military double agent who knew Lee Harvey Oswald in Japan and shot a bank wall in El Paso, Texas to be safely locked up before JFK's murder.

I've experienced the memory diversion effect myself.
I knew the name of Jason Bourne (Robert Ludlum's CIA character) before I knew the name of the 1916 author of a 'war is a racket' essay called 'War is the Health of the State,' Randolph Bourne.

I kept trying to recall Randolph Bourne's name and couldn't because the Robert Ludlum character, all over the place in movie ads, would pop up in my mind first.
And this was while I KNEW about Randolph and placed heavy significance on his work.

That's keyword hijacking in action, the decoy overrides the target in mnemonic linguistics.

I would like to see a very carefully crafted study along the lines of the one you cite.


Look up "mutual exclusivity." The study of how children learn definitions of words led to confirmation of neurobias towards the first definition of a word learned. First come first served.
I have seen studies where Americans are asked to identify the preamble to the declaration of independence among a list of sources and a shocking number identify it's source as being communist.


Excellent point.
Change of context can really mess with perceptions.
Semantic dismemberment and subtle alteration of key narrative components is a tactic used in decoy movies all the time. The real world eyewitness whistleblower in a scandal gets changed into a liar or blind in the decoy movie, for instance.
I see subliminal negative framing of whistleblowers all the time.

Even interrogation relies on cutting off the victim from all sensory context to make them vulnerable to suggestion.

Seems a common event for so-called Manchurian Candidate assassins is traveling for a few months before the hit. This context deprivation of normal visual and social points of referance probably opens their minds up to increased suggestability.

I have no doubt people are increasingly becoming confused about what was/is real and what is not and that is to the advantage of our rulers and the elements of their ruling apparatus charged with keeping us brainwashed.


Huge swaths of Americans live in a video entertainment world of TV and movies.
Those people comprise the CIA brainwashed of 'Brave New World Revisited.'
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby brainpanhandler » Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:32 am

Hugh, maybe if you read what I write as carefully as I read what you write I would be more inclined to take you seriously.

What about this?


I wrote:On the other side, historical figures believed to be myth, only the top three are particularly significant. I'm confused by the Churchill figures though. If 23% of the general populace thought Churchill was a mythical figure, then why did only 21% of the under 20's think he was fictional? I would think the under 20's would have a greater percentage than the general poll. Am I missing something?
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:09 pm

brainpanhandler wrote:Hugh, maybe if you read what I write as carefully as I read what you write I would be more inclined to take you seriously.

What about this?


I wrote:On the other side, historical figures believed to be myth, only the top three are particularly significant. I'm confused by the Churchill figures though. If 23% of the general populace thought Churchill was a mythical figure, then why did only 21% of the under 20's think he was fictional? I would think the under 20's would have a greater percentage than the general poll. Am I missing something?


So I didn't comment on everything you wrote. Sorry.

I noticed that odd statistic, too.
If it isn't a typo, I think it might point at the influence of the internet on youth.

To have the average percentage higher than the under-20s means that higher numbers of some age group over 20 years old thought Churchill wasn't real, perhaps as a result of having growing up not using the internet and thus being even more shaped by mainstream pop culture.

There might be more recent internet use by under-20s on the subject of suppressed war history like Prescott Bush and Nazis.

I talk to strangers in public and find out what they know. I find that teenagers are much more likely to already know about the role of CIA in media than are older people.

They are getting it from the internet, not pop culture which IS CIA media.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby brainpanhandler » Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:53 pm

Alright, alright... don't get your undies in a bunch. I just thought it was convenient that you chose to skip the bit that undermined the legitmacy of a study that does not seem very legit to begin with.

What the hell is UKTV anyway? Is it a british network? Isn't it a bit ironic that you would cite a casual study from a major western network (if that's what it is) as support for theories about MSM psyops?

As I said, I don't generally disagree with the notion the "study" is aiming at.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Culture Studies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest