The simplest explanation is that he fabricated a piece of evangelical glurge based upon a story he had heard in college. The twist was that he made himself the star.
If he was pranked and never figured it out, that’s sad, but I think unlikely.
I’m most concerned about the people who believed the story that he presented. I guess that’s why Nigerian email scams remain a thing.
Well US democracy is silly, but it’s also unusual in many ways.
One point I’m still missing which everybody else seems to already have…what “honesty” are we taking about, here? The test was burnt, so another test will be required. And that makes all the dishonest students leave? Because they all had cheated on that test that was burnt, and couldn’t pass an honest one?
Is that it?
No you weren’t. They just never brought it up.
With Carson, inaccuracy or downright lying is becoming part of a pattern. He’s running for the most powerful office in the world, and the scrutiny is justifiable. And yes, the media scrutinize Democrats just as much.
I think that is it, in a nutshell. Carson is the only student who didn’t have the answers prior to the first test so when they were told they had to take a different test because the first one got all burnt up, they all, with the exception of Carson, freaked and didn’t show up for the retest as they knew they couldn’t pass it without cheating.
Close enough for a creationist.
I had an impression that the “dishonest” students showed up to take the retest, saw that it was harder, then left and thought that they would then lie and say the didn’t know about the retest, and that way they’d have more time to study for the retest. Nothing about them cheating on the first test or having the answers for the first test. But that still doesn’t make sense, since it’s not exactly a sensible strategy to leave and just assume you can take another retest in the future. And it doesn’t make sense, since his book says the professor gave out the tests and left the room. So maybe I’m missing something too.
Yeah, who knows? It is not really that important a story as far as I am concerned as it happened, if it happened, so long ago.
This isn’t really an investigation of Carson’s childhood or youth so much as an investigation of the adult Carson’s honesty when writing about his childhood/youth (and if he’s dishonest about that, what else is he or will he be dishonest about?).
If the course was really called Psychology Investigations 422 instead of Perceptions 301, it could be explained as mistaken memory two or three decades after the fact. Getting a few details wrong isn’t that big a deal. When EVERY detail is wrong, however, and when the entire incident was apparently invented out of whole cloth, we’re not arguing over 100% accuracy; it’s 100% fiction.
Carson’s big selling point has been his honesty; if he doesn’t have that and his entire story of redemption is just a mass of lies, what’s he got?
Certainly Obama’s biography has been investigated, and the biographies of Biden and Sanders and every major politico. However, “yep, the bio is pretty much true” isn’t a headline story. “He’s lying about his childhood” is a headline story.
I’ve got another take on this. I think that prior to his run for president Carson basically spoke in terms of parables. Ever since Jesus, (and probably before) preachers have peppered their sermons with anecdotes that clearly illustrate whatever point they are trying to make. For this purpose it doesn’t really matter whether Carson actually was the only honest person in his class, or a dying child actually saw the angel of his dead grandfather cure his cancer, or a Samaritan actually stopped to rescue an injured Jew. All that matters is that it feels true and supports his view point. Further saying the story happened to you rather than to someone else just make it all the more personal and inspiring. It makes a much better story to say that it was your niece who was cured, instead of just some child you heard of, even if you don’t actually have a niece. So long as it inspires the faith of the listeners its all good, and the actual facts are irrelevant.
If the audience is supportive of your view and wants to have their faith inspired then this strategy is just fine. No one will bother checking it out, preferring to take it as true on faith. In fact, if pressed some in the audience will admit that what was said may not have actually happened but still think that the point of the story was right. The problem is that now that he is on the national stage and no longer in front of an entirely supportive audience who are more interested in facts than in faith, this strategy will blow up in his face.
Probably right on all that. An article in Salon touches on this too.
The test-hoax story has become his own parable. Hey, I fell for a joke, but it got me to church!
Kenobi 65 thanks for clearing this up and explaining it to me. Now it makes perfect sense and I can see his reason behind his motives.
Still as of yet no one from his childhood past can verify his “violent” past behavior.
Thank you! I don’t get the point of the story, either, whether it’s true or not. I don’t see how the story, as told, make Carson an example of an “honest” man. It just makes the professor an example of a “mean” or “dishonest” man.
For my deuce ex machina to work, I guess the professor had to somehow know that everybody in the class was cheating on the “burnt” test. Or maybe *thought *everybody was cheating but was surprised that there was one student who didn’t? Anyway, that’s why he pulled the old “the fire ate your homework” thing.
Maybe the guy who didn’t walk out couldn’t pass the test either, but figured he had nothing to lose. Maybe not the best plan, but he’s the one guy not smart enough to cheat.
The story makes no sense, I’ll have to vote to acquit.
The intrepid crew of Talking Points Memo has a couple more articles about the “burned test” story up today. One explains:
[Quote=TPM]
Carson referred repeatedly to a “notice” about the makeup exam in “Gifted Hands.” He wrote that the other students filtered out of the room after agreeing that they could simply pretend they never saw notice of the makeup testing session. As for himself: “Like the others, I was tempted to walk out, but I had read the notice, and I couldn’t lie and say I hadn’t,” he wrote.
[/QUOTE]
( Yale Alum: It ‘Wouldn’t Surprise Me’ If Carson Fell For Magazine’s Prank - TPM – Talking Points Memo)
That makes a certain amount of narrative sense at least.
A second article on TPM says that a former writer for Yale’s parody paper at the time confirmed that they staged a hoax similar to what Carson relayed in his book.
[Quote=TPM]
Curtis Bakal, a former editorial assistant for The Yale Record, told BuzzFeed News that he helped write the exam that Carson described taking in his 1990 book “Gifted Hands.” He confirmed to the news outlet that the Record put out a January 1970 parody issue of the university’s student paper, The Yale Daily News, that included a notice saying that “so-and-so section of the exam has been lost in a fire. Professor so-and-so is going to give a makeup exam.”
Bakal told BuzzFeed he could not confirm that Carson, or any single student, was there at the end of the fake test because he himself was not there when it was administered. A Yale Record staffer posed as a proctor for the exam, Bakal told BuzzFeed, adding: "at the end what few students remained — it may have just been one or two, I wasn’t there — received a small cash prize.”
[/quote]
(2nd Yale Alum: Yeah, Carson Got Pranked By Fake Psychology Exam - TPM – Talking Points Memo)
So. Accepting this all at face value, Carson didn’t exactly lie about the story. He just fell victim to an elaborate con and, even years later, didn’t realize he’d been had. I feel a certain sympathy for him. But perhaps he’s not the guy to be trusted with, say, negotiating a nuclear weapons deal.
I find it mildly ironic that this paragon of honesty’s initials are BS.
Can not feel much sympathy for Carson, people that deserve it do acknowledge that they were punk’d and either laugh it off or just let it die with not much comment other than to say that he was the subject of a juvenile prank.
Carson is not acknowledging that he was pranked, he is for all purposes insisting that what he thought it took place was still 100% what he thought it was.
This looks to me like a grown up man that saw Santa in the mall as a kid that is still going around insisting that Santa was real. And it is now unwilling to face the truth. Instead of accepting the obvious he instead calls even more attention to the evidence he thinks it redeems him that (in this example) shows a photo of a Santa in a poor community center that many notice and was confirmed later to be a woman with a very fake white beard.
Only a guy like Carson would think that pushing that evidence would not make him look even more pathetic.
And, he got a present, which proves he was a good boy!
Sorry maybe I’m a dope too but could someone explain what this prank was?
The humor magazine published a parody newspaper that announced a fake makeup exam because some got burned?
How does this equal an actual real life event?
That is the problem indeed, if pranksters made it was not real at all.
I think one should imagine like if Carson is one of those guys that claimed that “if life throws you lemons, you make lemonade”.
But now we learned that life was actually tossing him bananas…
How he managed to make lemonade boggled the mind, but now he shows you how he did it and… it turns out that he was making smoothies all this time, but you or no one before ever had the courage to tell him…
Before he decided to go to the biggest lemon festival in the land with him expecting to get the top price. 