Are skeptics missing a trick?

[Mulder]

Why should only be believers who are allowed to get away with 'selling' their, often bonkers, ideas? Why shouldn't skeptics also use the same techniques? I don't think skeptics should just assume that because they have reality on their side, skepticism will automatically sell. Many technically superior products have been out-sold by inferior goods.

You could have a leaflet with smiling faces on the front, lots of pictures of doves and ranbows. Then inside you use an anecdote to introduce the idea of how logic 'is just fun with rules'!

Let's put together some ideas to sell ideas like logic, reality, evidence, criticism and so on.

[dalriada]

Ooh synchronicity. My morphic fields have been resonated. I was thinking about that very topic this morning.

How to make skepticism sexy?

In comparison to woos, the market for skepticism probably is smaller, in that skepticism requires a minimum of cognitive capacity whereas the woos can just concentrate on pushing feel-good-fuzziness. Everyone wants to feel good but not everyone wants to think. Facts can be uncomfortable. People grow fond of their delusions.

One thing that strikes me, is that skeptics are streets ahead of woos when it comes to humour. Let's face it, if woos had more of a sense of the ridiculous, the sheer conceptual comedy of some of their enterprises would prevent them from ever seriously being put into practice.

Skeptics are a bunch of smartarases telling people things they don't want to hear and on that basis we can't expect to be loved. We are sharp and we are prickly . Popular opinion may not respect those who are right but it does have a bit more honour for those with taste and definitely more liking for those who are funny.

I think those are unique selling points to be ruthlessly exploited for marketing purposes.

Maybe we should do a book on famous fakes, frauds and general foolishness and make it funny. It would probably sell better if it also had picture of heaving bosoms on the front.

[Janot]

I don't think skeptics should just assume that because they have reality on their side, skepticism will automatically sell. But of course it doesn't sell - the vast majority of people don't WANT reality.

UFOs explained: boring. Martians: interesting
Ghosts non-existent: boring.
ESP non-existent: boring.
Psychic powers: exciting
Astrology: explains peoples characters, and predicts the future - nice.

The list is almost endless. Humdrum reality is boring (I don't think so, but most do), people need to spice it up with something unreal.

Human kind .. cannot bear very much reality.

[Mulder]

But of course it doesn't sell - the vast majority of people don't WANT reality.

I don't think you're getting the whole 'selling' thing! I used to know a salesman who said he could sell anything to anybody. He didn't care what the product was (no, seriously!). He probably works for the government now ... :smiley:

It's no use skeptics being right if no one knows or gives a damn.

Selling is not about products, it's about about putting people into a receptive frame of mind. Don't we have any sales or marketing people here who know what I'm talking about?

[Janot]

I don't think you're getting the whole 'selling' thing! ...It's no use skeptics being right if no one knows or gives a damn.

Selling is not about products, I guess you are right, I'm the worst salesperson in the world because my objectivity or fairness would force me to put people off buying anything. I doubt if I could sell an inflatable to someone drowning.

So how do we counter the sales pitches of psychics how are 98% accurate? ::) All we have to offer is a series of denials; this is not a selling point, is it?

[dalriada]

As Janot said earlier, Reality is very hard for human beings to deal with and we are naturally attracted to anything which might lift us above the realms of the everday.

Woo-world does that.
Skeptism dissolves the dream and has the additional side-effect of sometimes making people feel foolish, which naturally they resist.

I propose a creative reframing of woo-world, utilising a particular brand of skeptical cynicism, to allow the public to indulge in woo, without wishing to emulate it. The land of woos is populated with liars, losers, fakes, feckwits, frauds and fools. In short, it is a freakshow and the public love freakshows. These days freakshows are not considered politically correct, but if the freaks therein can be shown to be both morally bereft and particularly stupid the person in the street may well feel perfectly entitled to be entertained and amused by it, while feeling slightly morally superior to people like that. If given a quick dose of skeptical reasoning alongside, they may also walk away feeling that little bit cleverer and people enjoy that.

Thus the border between reality and woo-world can be fortified in the public mind.

Collect some spectacular examples of fakery and fraudulence, round them all up in a edited volume of stories (2000-3000 x 25), picture of cleavage on the front with the warning "DON'T BE A TIT" and (libel Gods permitting) Skepticism is on to a winner...

>:D

[Mongrel]

Collect some spectacular examples of fakery and fraudulence, round them all up in a edited volume of stories (2000-3000 x 25), picture of cleavage on the front with the warning "DON'T BE A TIT" and (libel Gods permitting) Skepticism is on to a winner...

>:D

Nah - people would read it, chuckle at the 'idiots', proclaim they'd never fall for something like that and then fall for it a week later whilst declaring "But this guy is REAL!!"

[dalriada]

Nah - people would read it, chuckle at the 'idiots', proclaim they'd never fall for something like that and then fall for it a week later whilst declaring "But this guy is REAL!!"

Not everyone though... We would make some converts. When I was a kid I totally wanted to believe that one day the supernatural would be proved, and then hearing about Houdini v the spiritualists and Randi v Geller was a complete revelation. I'm pretty much still ready and willing to believe anything and everything- except I have too much self-respect to fall for anything stupid, tasteless or downright ridiculous...which lets face it, is 99.9% of all woo-ness and thus I remain skeptical...

Maybe we should aim at a kids' book. Catch them young at the age when smart-arseyness is still a virtue!

[Mongrel]

Not everyone though... We would make some converts.
Yeah, you're probably right. It's just my curmudgeonly attitude coming to the fore ;)


Maybe we should aim at a kids' book. Catch them young at the age when smart-arseyness is still a virtue!

That's a good idea, not just books though - I remember a few informative kids programmes when I was growing up. How (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_2) and pretty much anything with Johnny Ball in it

[LucaAltieri]

Not everyone though... We would make some converts. When I was a kid I totally wanted to believe that one day the supernatural would be proved, and then hearing about Houdini v the spiritualists and Randi v Geller was a complete revelation. I'm pretty much still ready and willing to believe anything and everything- except I have too much self-respect to fall for anything stupid, tasteless or downright ridiculous...which lets face it, is 99.9% of all woo-ness and thus I remain skeptical...

Maybe we should aim at a kids' book. Catch them young at the age when smart-arseyness is still a virtue!

I understand exactly where you're coming from. There's so much I want to believe but I've developed the (good) habit of checking it out first. One good example is the work of Aubrey de Grey. As far as I'm aware he isn't necessarily wrong in principle so even if a bit far fetched I still cling to the idea he may well be right.

You're also correct with kids being the way to go. There is definitely a market within adults too. Recently I've seen more and more Hitchens and Dawkins books available in the shops, as well as the success of the TV show QI and the spin-off books.

However, it's the kids we need to get to. It shouldn't be that hard. Science is genuinely interesting for most kids. Getting involved with the schools and perhaps suggesting/providing materials would see us gain some ground. Most primary schools have a board of governors. You don’t need to have kids at the school to get on to the board. I think it would be a practical solution to a big problem if sceptic networks started to get involved with schools in that way, even if covertly.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

That's a good idea, not just books though - I remember a few informative kids programmes when I was growing up. How (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_2) and pretty much anything with Johnny Ball in it

Ummm...Magnus Pyke?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Pyke

Please?

[Mongrel]

Oh yeah, forgot about him :smiley:

Although I only really remember him as a commentator or "we need a quote from a boffin!" not as a lead for a science programme :(

[fallible]

Oh he was great. I used to be transfixed by him. I think it was the way that something in the tone of his voice reacted with his mic to make him sound like he was using a vocoder.

Very scientific comment for you there.

[brodski]

Let's put together some ideas to sell ideas like logic, reality, evidence, criticism and so on.

At TAM 5.5 Michael Stackpole (Skeptic, gamer and sci-fi author extraordinaire) gave a talk on this very topic (although his main focus was on how to win a “live” debate).
His most memorable (and he says effective) piece of advice was for winning evolution debates was “pictures of baby animals and dinosaurs”.

I mean, who doesn’t love baby animals? An appeal to emotion helps the message go down. And as for Dinosaurs:? You’re appealing to the thirteen year old kid in eth audience who know that dinosaurs are dammed cool, and they are. And if you want dionos you’re going to have to go with evolution.

This is not about being dishonest, or misleading, it is about presenting the information in a manner which the audience will respond to.

[Admin]

How do you market a product that no one wants? ???

That's essentially what skepticism boils down to.

We can preach to the converted and preach to the damned all we like but it doesn't make much difference. In theory, there's a huge number of people who are in the middle ground who are an ideal target market - but they just aren't interested in skepticism, don't see the need for it, have a completely false impression of it, or can't understand it at all.

I take the point about resorting to some marketing tricks etc. that woos use but I'd say it would be a mistake if we started employing fallacies and such like to persuade people as it's the very thing we should be teaching against.

All this, of course, only applies if we have some coherent plan as to what we want to do and achieve - which we don't. So it's all rather academic at the moment.

I'll be, hopefully, meeting up with Dr B soon (someone who does have some excellent ideas on what to do and how to achieve it) to get the ball rolling........ again!

If anyone's interested in helping UKS out, whether it's doing research, writing articles, talks, etc., just drop me an email or a PM O0

We need to get our heads together and sort out a few realistic (i.e. small but achievable) things to do and get cracking.

[Mulder]

4.12am (in Newcastle, UK)? You keep funny hours John ...

[Cuddles]

I take the point about resorting to some marketing tricks etc. that woos use but I'd say it would be a mistake if we started employing fallacies and such like to persuade people as it's the very thing we should be teaching against.

No-one's advocating resorting to fallacies. There's a big difference between effective marketing and actually lying. Just look at things like Mythbusters and Snopes. They capture the public's imaginations perfectly well without any fallacies involved. Even things like Braniac and Top Gear involve a fair amount of skepticism. The problem is that more serious skepticism just doesn't have the same image, because just presenting facts and telling people to think about them doesn't have the same appeal. What is needed is not to do exactly the same but with some fallacies thrown in, but to present it all in a way that people will enjoy and understand, while keeping the factual content the same.

[Admin]

No-one's advocating resorting to fallacies. There's a big difference between effective marketing and actually lying.

Advertising is all about using fallacies to persuade!

If we do that, we'll be picked apart.

If we decide our objective is to educate, or provide educational material, then we have to find ways of doing it that are of interest to people in general. i.e. educating people without them realising that that is what is being done. We do have some ideas for how to do this - again, mainly Dr B's strategies.

But unless we get a few capable people together and decide to commit to a project or two then none of it is going to happen anyway.

e.g. we could take a leaf out of Robert Lancaster's book and do a StopNamedPsychic type website. UKS can provide the resources to do this (domain, website, blogs, forum, etc.) but it would need people to actively contribute.

The key problem we have is not deciding marketing strategies; it's finding people who are actually prepared to create the content to market in the first place!

[SKIRRID5]

Don't you think attempts to "catch 'em young" would be met with widespread protests if not actual legal action? If you tried it in Arkansas you might win the distinction of being a sceptical martyr.
Look at the response to teaching anything about homosexuality in schools. It was condemned as "promoting" homosexuality. Teaching scepticism would be seen (rightly) as an attack on faith.

[ZERO]

Don't you think attempts to "catch 'em young" would be met with widespread protests if not actual legal action? If you tried it in Arkansas you might win the distinction of being a sceptical martyr.
Look at the response to teaching anything about homosexuality in schools. It was condemned as "promoting" homosexuality. Teaching scepticism would be seen (rightly) as an attack on faith.

A skeptical view of religion does not have to be the first item covered.
Fairies, ghosts, Nigerian emails and Homeopathy are harmless subjects that can plant the seed of critical thinking.

The US bible belt is probably not the best place to teach anything?