Salem's relation to today

Salem

When we studied Salem, the part that stuck with me was not the courtroom. It was how quickly a community decided what it believed. Nineteen people were executed, and hundreds more were accused, and much of the damage came from the pressure to pick a side. Once an accusation had momentum, doubting it became risky.

I won't share my opinion on the cases I'm about to mention, but the pattern reminded me of the way people are reacting to two current stories: the Lindsay Clancy case and the Cornell 7 case. Both involve extremely serious allegations, and both have been argued out online faster than they have moved through the legal system. In the Cornell case, none of the seven men had been criminally charged, and people are making strong opinions and judgments without even reading the full case. In the Clancy case, people were debating whether or not she committed the murder of her kids, which was not even what the trial was about.  In both cases, people form an opinion or judgment without knowing all the truths and information about the cases.

Yes, these are different than the Salem, but at the same time they aren't THAT different.  The parallel is in the process. Crowds decide early; short videos and viral videos replace slow facts, and each side treats the other as ignorant or dangerous.

This connects to our confirmation bias unit. People tend to look for the version of the story that fits what they already believe, and algorithms are built to serve us exactly that. Salem had pulpits and gossip. We have TikTok.

My takeaway is that I can care deeply about a case and still wait for the evidence. A courtroom is slow on purpose, and that slowness is the thing hysteria destroys.

AI use: I used Claude to help organize my notes and edit this post. The reflections are my own.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Truth Confirmation Bias and Propaganda

Before this class, I would have told you I was pretty good at spotting bias in other people. The confirmation bias videos made me realize the person I should have been watching was me. Somewhere in the middle of those clips, I caught myself doing exactly what they described: gravitating toward information that already agreed with what I believed and brushing past everything else. I know it can sound egotistical to say this, but I am much more aware of it now. I haven't fixed it completely, and I doubt anyone does. What has changed is that I notice the pull. When I feel that quick satisfaction of seeing something that confirms my opinion, I now treat it as a signal to slow down, not a reason to keep scrolling. For the most part, I have learned not to only listen to the content that tells me what I want to hear. The propaganda material changed how I read the world around me, especially in three areas. Politics is the obvious one, since so much of it is built to trigger a reaction bef...
Read more

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels I presented on Dirty Rotten Scoundrels , and I'll be honest: I did not expect to like it. It's an older comedy, and I went in expecting to sit through it for the assignment. Instead, I got hooked. The movie did its job, and that is the part I keep thinking about. The two con men are charming, funny, and confident, and somewhere in the first stretch of the film I realized I wanted them to succeed. In the context of the movie, I ended up calling them heroes. The film makes you comfortable with deception by making the deceivers likeable and the targets easy to laugh at. That is strange when you think about it, because these characters lie to people and take their money, and I (plus the rest of the class) was cheering for them anyway. That connects directly to what we've been studying. Con artists succeed because people trust them, and people trust them because they are charming. The movie used the same tool on me. I was never conned out of money, but...
Read more