Aug. Thilo Sarrazin - Deutschland schafft sich ab - Hörbuch. Topics Sarrazin. Collection 3, Views. DOWNLOAD OPTIONS. download 1 file. Thilo Sarrazin beschreibt mit seiner profunden Erfahrung aus Politik und Verwaltung die Folgen, die sich für Deutschlands Zukunft aus der Kombination von. Wie wissenschaftlich ist Thilo Sarrazins "Deutschland schafft sich ab"? (German Edition) - Kindle edition by Rosa Kindl. Download it once and read it on your.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Portuguese|
|ePub File Size:||22.50 MB|
|PDF File Size:||17.48 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Deutschland schafft sich ab [German] by Thilo Sarrazin PDF free ebook torrent download, New Jersey, Trenton - USA, including evolutionary. Available for immediate download by Thilo Sarrazin and Michael Schwarzmaier Deutschland schafft sich ab: Wie wir unser Land aufs Spiel setzen. der Meinungsfreiheit in Deutschland (German Edition) eBook: Thilo Sarrazin: Deutschland schafft sich ab: Wie wir unser Land aufs Spiel setzen (German.
Reptile prime ministers and flying Nazi saucers—extreme and sometimes off-wall conclusion are typical ingredients of conspiracy theories. While individual differences are a common research topic concerning conspiracy theories, the role of extreme statements in the process of acquiring and passing on conspiratorial stories has not been regarded in an experimental design so far. We identified six morphological components of conspiracy theories empirically. These elements varied systematically in terms of conspiratorial allegation, i. When extreme statements were present in the set, the resulting stories were more conspiratorial; the number of official statements included in the narrative dropped significantly, whereas the self-assessment of the story's plausibility did not differ between conditions. This indicates that blatant statements in a pool of information foster the synthesis of conspiracy theories on an individual level. By relating these findings to one of Germany's most successful and controversial non-fiction books, we refer to the real-world dangers of this effect.
McAdams even argues that we are in fact the stories we create. We devised the narrative construction to be a third way, besides questionnaires and interviews. Compared to a questionnaire, this allows for more diversified, idiosyncratic results. Reading, evaluating, sorting and laying out multiple cards can be considered to be more demanding cognitively than serially answering a number of questionnaire items, and it would allow to assess the process of opinion formation, too; for example, by asking participants to think aloud while constructing the story.
This comes at a price: Compared to an interview, narrative construction is tighter. The number of items is limited. A transcription and categorization after the experiment is not necessary, as the cards are coded and the chosen items can easily be written down.
However, in contrast to an interview, a spontaneous introduction of new items is not possible. The participant's attention stays focused on the process of story creation in narrative construction, while an interview introduces a social facet.
It depends on the research question if introducing social interaction is instrumental or a confounder. A simple evaluation of a narrative construction's result would be to count the number of items chosen from each suit for example, internal vs.
By varying specific aspects, the influence some information exerts onto other information can be assessed. For instance, by giving some participants an additional suit , the impact of the availability of this information can be measured.
Another way is handing out some additional cards. Sticking to the control belief example, we could assess how stories change when people are offered cards allowing for counseling or therapeutic advice. More sophisticated assessments could aim at the structure of stories, e. Also, one could test if certain aspects nearly always appear together, or turn out to be mutually exclusive. In sum, whenever a questionnaire seems too rigid, when a thorough and attentive process is desirable, and when narrative structures might be relevant, narrative construction might be an option.
However, when a dyadic social interaction is preferable, when hypotheses are too vague, and when the topics in focus are too broad to be represented adequately with a deck of cards, an interview should be preferred. Yet, there are research questions where a combination of narrative construction and interview is appealing. By interacting with a deck of topic-related cards, participants might get a grip on a topic, by evaluating all aspects the researcher likes to consider.
This sort of elaborate priming might help to facilitate a subsequent interview. With respect to the bottom-up derived elements of conspiracy theories: Each item was present in each suit i.
For example, an official group of conspirers -item was: The card in the limited conspiratorial suit was prepared with an item that contained an explanation describing a conspiracy of moderate strength. Specifically, this level was formed in accordance with Lutter's categorization of conspiracies, corresponding to a conspiracy limited in time and space. This can also be thought as matching Daniele Ganser's n. In this view, the Bush administration did not initiate the attacks, but knew beforehand and did not take countermeasures.
We compiled information from web resources like Wikipedia that matched this level. For example, it read: An exempt was a further category, absurdity, where all items were completely off-wall: The participants were randomly assigned to two groups: The modest contents group was handed out a card deck with 29 items, containing the official as well as the limited conspiratorial suit plus the three-card subset absurd.
The extreme contents group received the same deck and additionally the suit with 13 unlimited conspiratorial items. When the participant had considered the story finished, the chosen items and their layout were written down. Overall, the participants spend 21 min on average to construct their story, with a range from 8 to well over 30 min.
Each group consisted of 13 female and two male participants. To compare the stories between groups, we summed up the number of cards chosen from each conspiratorial level official, limited and unlimited over all categories.
So for each participant, we added up all official items, all limited conspiratorial items and all unlimited conspiratorial items the latter being trivially zero for the group of participants who had not received any of these cards. In the modest conspiratorial condition, participants on average selected 7. On average, When the full set was available, there were 4. With a One-Way Analysis of Variance ANOVA , we tested if number of items selected from the official as well as from the limited conspiratorial item pool these numbers being the dependent variables differed between the two groups.
Importantly, the different composition of items for the single stories did not lead to different plausibility levels, thus potential acceptance of the regarding stories. People had to generate their own stories for one of the most dramatic events of contemporary history. The available building blocks were limited to a number of statements taken from the real world, i. The stimuli were selected to match a set of categories that was identified to be typical for conspiracy theories. The small number of categories and the three-level design confined the stories' content.
Yet, mathematically the participants had the opportunity to build one out of over eight billion possible stories already when the structure, i. Furthermore, there was no time restriction. Our results indicate that people construct a plausible explanation for an important event by integrating all pieces of information available, even if this information implies a huge conspiracy.
While one would expect a going to extremes in a discussion of several persons, the significant drop in the number of canonical items shows that a shift of the bounds of plausibility already begins in an individual's mind. Notably, there was no time pressure, and the time people used can be considered well above the duration of usual media coverage.
Consequently, we would not consider this effect as a heuristics in the sense of a cognitive shortcut. Indeed, the effect appeared as a result of a thorough consideration of information.
The result was not a single-best answer, but a coherent story. As items were taken from real-world sources, they were not matched in terms of representativeness for a given category or factor level.
Thus, there will very likely have been differences in conspiratorialness within the groups. Additionally, there were different levels of mutual exclusion: Other items, however, were mutually consistent; for example, a government lying about Pearl Harbor can be in accordance with an Al-Qaeda attack.
Further research has to show if a matching of items is possible; and if it is desirable, as heterogeneous and in part mutually exclusive information is characteristic of real-world opinion formation.
Another promising research question would be the stability of generated narratives.
Alexa Howard — Deutschland schafft sich ab [German] by Thilo
For example, if participants are asked to construct a story again 1 or 2 days later: The shift from a moderate toward an extreme conspiracy did not come with a decline of self-perceived story plausibility.
What we did not test, however, was to which extent the participants identified with their story. Would they cling to it when they were confronted with the necessity to act; for example, when they would be asked to defend their narrative against critical questions? If so, however, we would have expected a lower plausibility rating on average for this group; or, alternatively, a drop in mildly conspiratorial items when the full set was presented, with the number of canonical items not affected.
While the method and the results presented here could undoubtedly be optimized, they indicate that extreme positions in an alleged conspiracy foster the active acquisition of that conspiracy.
This indicates a danger we will discuss in the light of one of the most heated public debates in Germany of recent years. On the one hand, it was a huge success in terms of publicity, spearheading Germany's non-fiction bestseller list for 21 consecutive weeks Buchreport.
On the other hand, it has mined public debate about the integration of people with migration background until today. In his book Sarrazin devises a scenario which displays all of our criteria for a conspiracy theory: While Germany's population is diminishing, Muslim minorities keep growing due to constantly high birth rates odd event.
Highly fertile, yet unwilling to adopt our value system, these people group of conspirers are secretly non-transparency taking over the German society, gradually reorganizing it in accordance with their religious beliefs.
Sarrazin's line of argument mixes facts, opinions and anecdotes from very different areas and levels of life and knowledge evidence. Many protagonists in the debate refuted the extreme statements about a linkage between religion, fertility and religiously determined intellectual brilliance. Yet, they admitted that Sarrazin had made some important points about migration in general as critically discussed, for example, by Lau , when Sarrazin's views had become public for the first time.
Notably, the book review rated helpful by most other users at the British online bookstore amazon. Our question here is not if these radical aspects of Sarrazin's book had been a means of promotional success, which seems beyond doubt: The validity and non-validity of his assumptions has been discussed extensively, for example in Foroutan Also, the social dimension—has there been a taboo that Sarrazin has dared to break, or has this alleged taboo just been an excuse for some to spread xenophobic attitudes—is not in focus here.
On basis of the findings of our empirical study, we have good reason to believe that the presence of rather extreme statements shifts peoples' cognitive bounds when they construct their opinion about complex political events: In this case: Adaptation research points us in the direction of the possible reason for this: As soon as we perceive and process extreme items, we integrate them into our mental representation e.
What has been shown by these authors to work in the visual domain, seems to hold for verbal, semantic information, too. So a conspiracy theory in the sense outlined here bears many dangers: Extreme constituents attract attention and polarize the debate; and they also might induce a shift of people's individual explanatory constructs toward a conspiratorial plot.
In sum, a flavor of oddness might not be a weakness of such theories, but indeed an integral part and enabler of their persuasive power.
Extreme and sometimes absurd statements seem to be an ingredient of many conspiracy theories. But what role do reptile aliens and flying Nazi saucers play in conspiracy theories? Are such statements merely included for dramatic effect in order to attract our attention, or do they really affect what we believe in the end? We have shown that the presence of rather extreme statements does have an effect on people's story construction. Die Struktur der vorliegenden Arbeit setzt sich wie folgt zusammen.
Handy-Prüfungsfragen: Sportbootführerschein See. Zum Üben per Handy als eBook.
Read more Read less. Enabled Page Flip: Enabled Language: Kindle Cloud Reader Read instantly in your browser. Product details File Size: January 26, Sold by: German ASIN: Enabled X-Ray: Not Enabled. No customer reviews. Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a customer review. Amazon Giveaway allows you to run promotional giveaways in order to create buzz, reward your audience, and attract new followers and customers.
Learn more about Amazon Giveaway.
This item: Wie wissenschaftlich ist Thilo Sarrazins "Deutschland schafft sich ab"? German Edition. Sociology Date: English ISBN Thilo Sarrazin beschreibt mit seiner profunden Erfahrung aus Politik und Verwaltung die Folgen, die sich fur Deutschlands Zukunft aus der Kombination von Geburtenruckgang, problematischer Zuwanderung und wachsender Unterschicht ergeben.
Er will sich nicht damit abfinden, dass Deutschland nicht nur alter und kleiner, sondern auch dummer und abhangiger von staatlichen Zahlungen wird. Sarrazin sieht genau hin, seine Analyse schont niemanden.
Er zeigt ganz konkret, wie wir die Grundlagen unseres Wohlstands untergraben und so den sozialen Frieden und eine stabile Gesellschaft aufs Spiel setzen. Deutschland lauft Gefahr, in einen Alptraum zu schlittern. Dass das so ist, weshalb das so ist und was man dagegen tun kann, davon handelt dieses Buch. Previous editions of this book have sold more than 75, copies, Fisher will hand readers the tools and confidence they need to better plan for the future.