How does one market skepticism?

[jj]

In the midst of a horrid argument down in the alternate flame-wars forum (***community***) a very good point has come up, and some reasonable issues have emerged.

The point is that skeptics aren't getting the message out to minorities, either in terms of race, social status, or gender. The evidence does seem pretty clear to me in a lot of ways.

There are, at least in some cases, very obvious social barriers that have to be overcome in order to do this.

Someone has asked a question. The question, which really does cut to the sixtifour of things, is "How do we market Skepticism" (I may not be exactly quoting the original, but I don't think I'm massaging the message.)

That is a very good question. How DO we get the "message" (which I would regard as "falsification, verification, and replication" out to "the masses", no matter who "the masses" are?)

Marketing does matter. It's not something we can ignore and avoid, because we'll be out-marketed by Sylvia, Victor, Gary, and Mr. Edward, and a host of imitators, would-be's, and sincere people who don't understand either what placebo's are or why DBT's (or some cognate) are required.

Your thoughts, folks?

 

[Pragmatist]

In the midst of a horrid argument down in the alternate flame-wars forum (***community***) a very good point has come up, and some reasonable issues have emerged.

The point is that skeptics aren't getting the message out to minorities, either in terms of race, social status, or gender. The evidence does seem pretty clear to me in a lot of ways.

There are, at least in some cases, very obvious social barriers that have to be overcome in order to do this.

Someone has asked a question. The question, which really does cut to the sixtifour of things, is "How do we market Skepticism" (I may not be exactly quoting the original, but I don't think I'm massaging the message.)

That is a very good question. How DO we get the "message" (which I would regard as "falsification, verification, and replication" out to "the masses", no matter who "the masses" are?)

Marketing does matter. It's not something we can ignore and avoid, because we'll be out-marketed by Sylvia, Victor, Gary, and Mr. Edward, and a host of imitators, would-be's, and sincere people who don't understand either what placebo's are or why DBT's (or some cognate) are required.

Your thoughts, folks?

"Marketing" implies that you are putting across a message as to the desirability of a product. But what if the customer simply doesn't want the product?

Why should our "product" be more desirable than others? What is our "unique selling point"?

On another point, I've seen no evidence that we are not getting our message to "minorities". The only evidence we have suggests that some "minorities" don't respond to indicate that the message has been received. And that in turn could be due to any number of reasons. The message indeed may not be received. But the message may also be received and rejected. The message may be received and accepted but the receiver may see no benefit in confirming that fact. And so on...

Therefore I don't believe that a case has been sufficiently made in the first instance that special "marketing" is required.

 

[jj]

Re: Re: How does one market skepticism?

"Marketing" implies that you are putting across a message as to the desirability of a product. But what if the customer simply doesn't want the product?


Um, need I point out to you that the purpose of marketing is to convince others that they want the product?


Why should our "product" be more desirable than others? What is our "unique selling point"?


Indeed, that is precisely what I'm asking. Have you any suggestions?


On another point, I've seen no evidence that we are not getting our message to "minorities".


Given who I meet at skeptic meetings (for the most part), who I see writing skeptical articles (of course, for the most part), and such, I think the evidence is plain, clear, and obvious. If you don't want to see this evidence, I can't make you see it.


The only evidence we have suggests that some "minorities" don't respond to indicate that the message has been received. And that in turn could be due to any number of reasons. The message indeed may not be received. But the message may also be received and rejected. The message may be received and accepted but the receiver may see no benefit in confirming that fact. And so on...


All irrelevant. You're trying to shift the burden. You need to provide evidence to counter the obvious inequity in skeptical organizations. It is you who suggest that someone doesn't respond, it isyou that suggest that the message isnt' recieved, it is you who suggest that it is recieved and rejected, or accepted without comment, BUT YOU PROVIDE NO EVIDENCE.

On one hand, we have the clear evidence of lack of diversity in skeptical organizations.

On the other hand, you present your hypothetical cases with no visible support.

I'm sorry, you don't get to shift the burden.


Therefore I don't believe that a case has been sufficiently made in the first instance that special "marketing" is required.

Then don't participate in this thread. You have no business arguing that an observed issue is nothing but observation error until you have some evidence for your various apologia.

 

[jmercer]

Someone has asked a question. The question, which really does cut to the sixtifour of things, is "How do we market Skepticism" (I may not be exactly quoting the original, but I don't think I'm massaging the message.)

That is a very good question. How DO we get the "message" (which I would regard as "falsification, verification, and replication" out to "the masses", no matter who "the masses" are?)

Marketing does matter. It's not something we can ignore and avoid, because we'll be out-marketed by Sylvia, Victor, Gary, and Mr. Edward, and a host of imitators, would-be's, and sincere people who don't understand either what placebo's are or why DBT's (or some cognate) are required.

Your thoughts, folks?

I worked in publishing for quite some time, both before and after I got into Information Technology as a career.

First thing is to remember that you're not marketing a product; you're marketing a viewpoint/philosophy/belief system. There are pretty well defined methods of doing that - PAC's have been doing it forever, so have religious organizations, political parties, etc. That's the approach to take because it works, and it's designed to sell a point of view (or reduce the credibility of an opposing point of view.)

I don't think the obstacle is the "how" - it's the "how much will it cost". Randi's million would be swallowed up without a ripple to do this on a par with religious organizations, etc. All of the groups I cited have incomes substantial enough (and steady enough) to pay for this kind of marketing. AFAIK, skeptical organizations don't.

So the first step is fund raising on a large scale.

 

[Pragmatist]

Re: Re: Re: How does one market skepticism?

jj: I hope I'm reading your tone wrongly because I don't see any need for hostility here.

I am playing Devil's Advocate - which can be a useful position in clarifying an argument. But that aside, many of the things I have said are quite real concerns. You assert that our message is not getting across to "minorities" (I see no definition of what you believe consititutes a "minority"). You claim it as though it were an absolute statement of fact, but the only evidence you offer is your personal observations regarding (some) skeptical meetings and (some) people who write articles. I have yet to see any evidence that suggests the attendees of "skeptical meetings" - particularly only the ones that you personally have been to, are representative of the wider population of skeptics as a whole. Secondly, I don't know how you "know" that various writers of skeptical articles are, or are not, members of a particular "minority". It is not unreasonable to ask these things because, unless I am seriously mistaken, that is precisely what skepticism is about - not accepting bare assertions as fact.

Is it too much to ask of someone that wants to promote the "skeptic message" that they demonstrate that they themselves are doing it, not just talking about it?

Which leads me on to another point. I don't believe you can "sell" skepticism (I am open to being convinced otherwise of course) and I believe that one of the best ways to go about demonstrating it is by example. I don't know of any way to get people to listen if they don't want to listen.

With regard to "shifting the burden", the fact of the matter is that we have an observation (your experience). Your hypothesis is that the message isn't getting through. I have proposed alternate hypotheses that could just as easily explain the observation - I certainly don't suggest they are factual, they are hypotheses, nothing more. In a scientific fashion it is not up to anyone to have to prove all or any of the alternative hypotheses in order to falsify the original one (although a proof of any the latter ones might indeed the falsify the original one). I offer no evidence because I genuinely don't know whether there is any such evidence - I am not the one making a claim. It is your claim that there is an inequity in the skeptical community - therefore the onus is on you to provide evidence of sufficient quality that will leave no doubt that any reasonably alternative hypothesis is false. Saying that you can't make me see the evidence is a total red herring - make me see what evidence? How am I to see what you claim to have experienced? Especially when you offer nothing other than your bare assertion that it is so.

Having said that, I am quite prepared to take your word that your experience of the skeptical meetings as related is accurate, I have no reason to doubt you. But I see no reason why I should accept the specific conclusion you draw from that evidence. Your claim about the article writers is less clear cut. Unless you show some basis as to how you know what "category" each and every writer is, I can't see how you could know whether they are members of "minorities" or not. Therefore, in the absence of evidence that I can check and verify for myself, what do you expect me to do other than to ask?

Then don't participate in this thread. You have no business arguing that an observed issue is nothing but observation error until you have some evidence for your various apologia.

If you think that is a skeptical argument, then perhaps that explains why you believe you have trouble getting your message across.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The point is that skeptics aren't getting the message out to minorities, either in terms of race, social status, or gender.

If when you say "gender", you're thinking of women, they're not actually a minority: they just behave as though they are and hope that no-one will notice.

As for "social status", which minority did you have in mind? I think we should try to attract more billionaires.

"Race"? I'm guessing we have quite a cachet among that minority of the planet's population who happen, through no fault of their own, to be white.

 

[Dr Adequate]

... but seriously, folks.

SherryA posted this over on the thread about Larry King, and I thought it deserved reposting here:

I also think it would be helpful to buy a copy or two of Randi's SECRETS OF THE PSYCHICS and donate them to libraries. I've also done this with books, Randi's as well as Sagan's DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD. If you put bookplates in front of the books saying "donated by...name of you, a local person" these books are much more likely to stay in the library even if they are under-read. ---Sherry Austin.

We could all do that. And thank you, SherryA.

 

[jj]

Re: Re: Re: Re: How does one market skepticism?

I am playing Devil's Advocate - which can be a useful position in clarifying an argument.

First, to my tone of voice, this is a skeptic's board, and I don't think there is going to be substantial lurker interest. I could be wrong, of course.

Second, yes, devil's advocate can be a useful position, but we're back to the question of measurements on one hand (the number of non-white skeptics) vs. a variety of proposed reasons for why that is on the other side.

I don't want to deal with the denial side, unless there really is some substantial meat to your suppositions, I know that rather too many people are either denying or simply ignoring this issue in the first place. (And were your suppostions to have meat, that would indicate that we would need new approaches, instead of "no approach". Marketing is SUPPOSED to get disinterested people interested. Pointing out that people are not interested is preaching to the choir, tell me that they don't care is preaching to the choir, the question is how we get them to be interested even though they are presently not. That's what marketing is about.

 

[jj]

Re: Re: How does one market skepticism?

If when you say "gender", you're thinking of women, they're not actually a minority: they just behave as though they are and hope that no-one will notice.


Ahh, yes, what we have here is called "quibbling". Women are a minority in most skeptical organizations, regardless of their status worldwide.

And yes, many people have noticed that. The wider issue is not what we're addressing here.


As for "social status", which minority did you have in mind? I think we should try to attract more billionaires.


More Johnny Carson's wouldn't hurt at all.

On the other hand, it's very hard for people who are just scraping by to support the cause other than by being skeptical. They haven't money to fund others, they can barely fund themselves, but they ought to be very, very welcome none the less, and we ought to find a way to interest them. I was in that catagory once, it really does kinda (rule 8) to be there, too.

I know some folks where I grew up who are the epitomy of skeptics, who haven't many dollars, but who do work (via teaching astronomy, etc) at spreading the word about nonsense like "creation science" and so on. I've tried to get them interested here, they don't seem to think they're welcome. That's just too (*&(& bad, I think. At least one of the fellows could relate some really gritty examples of religious intrusion into teaching at the college level.


"Race"? I'm guessing we have quite a cachet among that minority of the planet's population who happen, through no fault of their own, to be white.

Yeah, so we ought to extend that, eh, to other people. On the other hand, I submit more white people think Pat Buchanan or Jerry Falwell have a cachet than think we have a cachet, unless we're talking about unpleasant fragrances. I dare say we have a long, long way to go in the white community, too.

 

[jj]

Re: Re: How does one market skepticism?

So the first step is fund raising on a large scale.

But we need followers before we can do that.

Great catch'22, isn't it?

Note, I'm NOT arguing with your statement of how to go about it, I'm looking (we have really sharp minds here, right?) for ways to do it on the cheap to get ourselves bootstrapped.

 

[jj]

... but seriously, folks.

SherryA posted this over on the thread about Larry King, and I thought it deserved reposting here:

We could all do that. And thank you, SherryA.

Yes, I agree. Been there, done that, still doing that.

At least some libraries have had a serious problem with loss of skeptical books, especially "Demon Haunted World" and Paul Kurtz' book on religion. Sometimes after a librarian has had somebody hiss at them and wave the book in their face, too.

It seems to me that for some people, morals are very, um, situational, never mind the decalog of their choice.

 

[jj]

Re: Re: Re: Re: How does one market skepticism?

With regard to "shifting the burden", the fact of the matter is that we have an observation (your experience).


What we have is a number of measurements. You can call them "observations" if you like, but counting people is a measurement.


Your hypothesis is that the message isn't getting through.

My hypothesis is that such people don't care enough to come.

And, you're missing the whole point, I think, when you say "maybe they don't want to". I PRESUME they don't. Hello? If they did, some of them would be there.

The question is, when we get out of the world of idealism and into realpolitic, HOW DO WE GET THEM TO WANT TO COME? How do we get them to want to participate?

You're worrying at the wrong question.

It doesn't matter WHY, except as how we might change their minds by understanding that. (Don't get me wrong, understanding why is important, but you seem to be suggesting that the "why" means that we shouldn't try, and that seems just ridiculous.)

If we're just going to stand here in our ivory tower and preach to the air, we won't accomplish anything. Ivory towers are cold, lonely, and short on furniture, and I don't want to camp in one, let alone live there.

I'd rather accomplish something, get more people interested (of all sorts, just because I see mostly white people, many of them men, does not mean I don't want more of them, either, for Ed's sake), and in order to do that, we need to market skepticism. You may think we can't. You may not want to. That's fine. You don't have to, but I am convinced we must, and that's what this thread is about.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think Penn and Teller have the right idea. Sure, it offends some bleevers, but those that are on the fence can be encaptivated by how trickery and flummery work.

 

[CFLarsen]

Do we have some hard data to work from?

Hey, just a suggestion.....

 

[jj]

I think Penn and Teller have the right idea. Sure, it offends some bleevers, but those that are on the fence can be encaptivated by how trickery and flummery work.

Well, not being cursed with HBO, I don't know it firsthand, but I certainly think they have a good idea or six.

 

[jj]

Do we have some hard data to work from?

Well, I do. As a result I think there's a problem.

If you don't, you don't have to bother. Carry on.

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Re: How does one market skepticism?

But we need followers before we can do that.

Great catch'22, isn't it?

Note, I'm NOT arguing with your statement of how to go about it, I'm looking (we have really sharp minds here, right?) for ways to do it on the cheap to get ourselves bootstrapped.

Noted. But you don't need a large group of followers - the ones in JREF and CSICOP will do nicely as a kernel.

There are people who are hired by non-profit organizations whose job (and profession) is strictly fund-raising. They know how to do it, and many of them have the social & business connections to get things started, and will often work for pay based on results.

I would suggest that a great place to start fund-raising on an organized basis would be within the scientific and medical industries, not to mention the teaching profession and the aerospace industry. They're large enough to be a significant income base for an organization. Plus, how many of these people are restrained by socio-political considerations that otherwise would LOVE to publicly give the woo's a black eye?

If approached for contributions for a PAC to represent reason and science, I think there's an excellent chance for large-scale contributions from these and some other sectors.

(Edited to clarify some comments)

 

[DaveW]

Well, not being cursed with HBO, I don't know it firsthand, but I certainly think they have a good idea or six.

It's Showtime, and Season 1 and 2 are available on DVD now, just to be a little nitpicky...

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, I do. As a result I think there's a problem.

Can I see the data?

If you don't, you don't have to bother. Carry on.

Let's see the data first. Then we can decide if there's a problem.

 

[Pragmatist]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How does one market skepticism?

First, to my tone of voice, this is a skeptic's board, and I don't think there is going to be substantial lurker interest. I could be wrong, of course.

Second, yes, devil's advocate can be a useful position, but we're back to the question of measurements on one hand (the number of non-white skeptics) vs. a variety of proposed reasons for why that is on the other side.

I don't want to deal with the denial side, unless there really is some substantial meat to your suppositions, I know that rather too many people are either denying or simply ignoring this issue in the first place. (And were your suppostions to have meat, that would indicate that we would need new approaches, instead of "no approach". Marketing is SUPPOSED to get disinterested people interested. Pointing out that people are not interested is preaching to the choir, tell me that they don't care is preaching to the choir, the question is how we get them to be interested even though they are presently not. That's what marketing is about.

I apologise if I misinterpreted your tone of voice - I thought you were being overly confrontational - maybe the "problem" is mine. Either way, lurkers or not, it would be prudent to keep a calm tone, particularly given that it concerns an issue that some people can be touchy about.

My intent is not to deny anything or argue simply for the sake of arguing. You believe that there is a problem here (i.e. the racial etc., mix). I am not as convinced that there is such a problem, but I'm open to good evidence and quality argument. Saying that I am not convinced of the nature of the problem (on the basis of the current evidence) is not tantamount to denying it. To illustrate my point, just for the moment let us suppose that there is indeed such a problem. What is the best way of solving the problem? In my experience, before you can properly address a problem, you need to define it clearly. The answer may lie right in one of the grey areas at the edges so to speak. Therefore a careful examination is always a good idea. I don't want to jump to the "solution" stage until I am quite sure what the problem actually is - because I might end up wasting a lot of time solving something that really wasn't the core of the problem in the first place!

To use an analogy, it would be foolish to treat a patient for a disease if we had only a vague idea of what the disease actually was!

I agree that marketing is designed to get disinterested people interested. But again, a proper examination of what it is we propose to market is important. For example, jmercer made a good point that we are trying to market what is essentially a philosophy here. That immediately limits the field. We're not going to be able to use cut price offers or "two for the price of one"! "Our philosophy is cheap" just doesn't cut it!

Joking aside, we can get a better idea by turning the tables. What would it take to interest you in a creationist philosophy for example? What would attract you to such a viewpoint? I'd bet the answer to that one would be nothing. And therein we have defined an important aspect of the problem that may help us to realise an answer. I submit that to a significant extent we cannot "sell" the philosophy directly. If however we can sell some peripheral benefit then maybe people will gradually come round to appreciating our view.

Having said that, what are we left with? It implies that a direct assault on the "forces of darkness" isn't going to get us anywhere. Some people like the dark - metaphorically speaking. Therefore we have an immediate answer that we need to be somewhat indirect. However, having said that, above all, we must be honest - because honesty is one of our USP's. Which leaves us at a point where it appears that some indirect, but nonetheless fundamentally honest approach is required.

I need to think further about that before I comment any more on it. But I believe it illustrates that there is an advantage to careful analysis and reflection. Just jumping in with, "let's try this", isn't going to get us anywhere. If the problem truly exists, then obviously such approaches haven't worked in the past and we should rethink. So yes, I think new approaches are needed - that surely is self evident, otherwise we wouldn't need to have this discussion would we?

Anyway, it's not just stating the obvious that some people are not interested - the question should be why are they not interested? What benefit do they derive from their current status? It is important to ask questions like these, because we are not marketing our "product" in a vacuum - we have competition. Until we know what the competition is, and what is attractive about the competing product our marketing campaign is just so much hot air.

And finally, bear in mind that a bad marketing campaign is worse than none at all. If the "problem" doesn't actually exist, if we are fundamentally mistaken about the demographics of our targets because we couldn't be bothered to research them, then we are at risk of shooting ourselves in the foot. We could easily do something that might be interpreted as insulting or patronising by some demographic - and would that really help "the cause"?

That is why I believe it is sensible to discuss the issue fully and cover all bases.