How Can We Make the Skeptical Content in Pop Culture Stick? (Using K-Pop Demon Hunters as an Example)

[dudalb]

What, YouTube? Or trusting a whole lot of different jurisdictions to all do the same thing without oversight or consultation?

In my opinion you can't do education well without some kind of oversight. Devolving that oversight to the States, or even worse to individual school districts, is the perfect way to get a haphazard, inconsistent mess that serves nobody except the people who can somehow profit off it.


I see you have no clue how science works. A good education would fix that.

I don't share your blind faith in a all powerful centrlzed Government.

 

[arthwollipot]

Okay. Try to remember how this exchange started, and the post that initially prompted your reply.

Yes, it was this. I remember it quite well:

My answer to the thread title is basically: We can make the skeptical content in pop culture stick by taking over the means of production. Get involved in the education system, which is how new citizens are produced, and modify the curriculum to meet this goal.

I replied that it looked like you were advocating for a National Curriculum, which in my mind would be the only way to effectively deliver this goal. You then immediately accused me of being a nanny-state authoritarian, which is what you always do.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, it was this. I remember it quite well:


I replied that it looked like you were advocating for a National Curriculum, which in my mind would be the only way to effectively deliver this goalkeeper.

That's your baggage, not mine

ETA: Also, "deliver this goalkeeper"? I think your unreason outran your autocorrect.

You then immediately accused me of being a nanny-state authoritarian,

No I didn't.

which is what you always do.

Not true, but if the shoe fits...

 

[arthwollipot]

ETA: Also, "deliver this goalkeeper"? I think your unreason outran your autocorrect.

I have no explanation for that one. It looks correct to me. I see this (screenshot as evidence):

I have no idea why you're seeing "goalkeeper". It's a you problem.

No I didn't.

Yes you did. You said:

I am utterly at odds with your knee-jerk framing of anything seen as good being something the government should impose on its citizens.

But let's not make this thread about us, hey? For a change?

 

[Trausti]

I see you have no clue how science works. A good education would fix that.

Indoctrination is not education.

 

[arthwollipot]

Indoctrination is not education.

Correct. You get a gold star.

 

[dann]

Of course it is. But it helps to actually try.

No, it doesn't. It very much depends on the specifics of what people are doing to accomplish something. I would expect skeptics to be aware of this. For instance, unlike TM, I don't think meditation actually helps put a stop to wars, so I wouldn't tell the practitioners that what they are doing helps or admire them for 'actually trying'. I use my critical-thinking skills instead.

Maybe it's different in Denmark, but in the US Prager U isn't making it any more difficult to get involved in the education system.

No, Prager U just lies to kids at an impressionable age. It would be a job for skeptics to make them aware of the techniques used by Prager U videos to persuade them that those lies are the truth, and that would be a way of teaching critical-thinking.

At least Prager U is actually trying. But they're not the issue. The issue is that the current people involved in the education system - the teachers, the administrators, the academics - have entrenched a curriculum that doesn't teach critical thinking in any meaningful way. Trying to change the subject to Prager U doesn't address that issue.

Yes, Prager U is actually trying something, but that something is the extreme opposite of teaching kids critical-thinking skills. Or are you suggesting that "Prager U is actually trying" to "teach critical thinking"? If you are, could you link to an example of Prager U doing so?

Trying to find pop culture ephemera that show some semblance of critical thinking application in at least one scene doesn't address that issue. Wringing one's hands from the sidelines does nothing to address that issue.

Go back to start! Unless I have misunderstood what this thread is about, it is actually about examples of "critical thinking application" in pop culture, so you should consider addressing that issue instead of wringing your hands from the sidelines.

What addresses that issue is getting involved in policy-making, or getting involved in the system itself.

And how is that supposed to work? I assume that you are not suggesting that people should apply for a job at Prager U.

 

[dann]

Another one of my favorite comedians:
Pastors are Scamming Believers out of Millions (Josh Johnson on YouTube, Feb 21, 2024 - 16:51 min.)

A much older example of scammers in fiction:

Con Men in Huckleberry Finn (Lit Tips on YouTube, Oct 8, 2019 - )
'The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn' is considered by many in the running for Great American Novel, as it satirizes many of the wrongs of the Antebellum South. However, it is the conmen known as the Duke and the King, and their antics, that exploits societal hypocrisies in a way that is somewhat attractive and also rather revealing.

Mark Twain was a great teacher of critical thinking skills.

Some of the scenes in The Night of the Hunter might come in handy, too.

A thread on Reddit:
Books with con-artist or snake oil salesman character?
One post mentions Terry Pratchett's Going Postal.
(I don't remember if the adaptation is any good: Going Postal on YouTube)
Another one mentions these:

{The Key Man} by Simon Clark and Will Louch
{Chasing Phil} by David Howard
{Bad Blood} by John Carreyrou
{Billion Dollar Loser} by Reeves Wiedeman
{Wizard of Lies} by Diana B. Henriques
{Bitcoin Widow} by Jennifer Robertson
{The Man in the Rockefeller Suit} by Mark Seal
{Charlatan} by Pope Brock
{Handsome Devil} by Jeff Maysh
{A Deal with the Devil} by Blake Ellis and Melanie Hicken
{Provenance} by Laney Salisbury and Aly Sujo
{In Vino Duplicitas} by Peter Hellman
{The Mark Inside} by Amy Reading
{The Confidence Game} by Maria Konnikova

 

[Susheel]

The thing is, are there any critical thinking courses - in school, university or otherwise - being taught anywhere in the world?

I recently read they have something like it in Denmark...
But then, that is probably a communist country according to the prestige

 

[Susheel]

One post mentions Terry Pratchett's Going Postal.
(I don't remember if the adaptation is any good: Going Postal on YouTube)

I think any of Pratchett's books would fall in this category...I would include Small Gods, Pyramids, Jingo, and Feet of Clay.

 

[dann]

I recently read they have something like it in Denmark...But then, that is probably a communist country according to the prestige

I don't know what you are thinking of. Could it be this?
Alt om 'Kritisk tænkning' (Learn2Lead)
Everything about 'Critical Thinking'
"In 2022, The Influence Company acquired Learn2Lead, which was already our licensee operating in Denmark."
The Influence Company appears to be Dutch, and I am not sure that it's the kind of critical thinking we are thinking of.

I found this book - target audience: teachers and young adult students:

Kort og godt – om kritisk tænkning
Kort og godt — om kritisk tænkning (i-bog®) er en indføring i at tænke kritisk. Vi tror, at vi er rationelle og ikke sådan at tage ved næsen, men i mødet med virkelighedens mange påstande og argumenter, hvirvles vi ofte rundt af forskelligt blændværk. Vi bliver narret af vores tillid til personlige oplevelser, forudfattede meninger eller argumenter, der fremstår overbevisende, men som ved nærmere eftersyn ikke er det. Det er en tankevækkende bog med eksempler fra hverdagen, som vil få de fleste til at overveje: Er jeg nu så skarp og kritisk, som jeg går rundt og tror?

In short - about critical thinking
In short — about critical thinking (i-bog®) is an introduction to critical thinking. We think that we are rational and not easily fooled, but when faced with the many claims and arguments of reality, we are often thrown for a loop by various illusions. We are fooled by our trust in personal experiences, preconceived notions or arguments that appear convincing, but which, upon closer inspection, are not. It is a thought-provoking book with examples from everyday life that will make most people consider: Am I as sharp and critical as I think I am?

This page describes the critical thinking skills kids are meant to learn in Danish schools:

Kritisk tænkning i historie - Historie - Grundskole
Kritisk tænkning er en generel kompetence, som eleverne må udvikle for at kunne orientere sig, tage stilling og handle i en verden, hvor mængden af informationer og påvirkningsforsøg vokser eksplosivt.

Critical Thinking in History
Critical thinking is a general skill set that students must develop in order to get informed, take a position and act in a world where the amount of information and attempts to exert influence is expanding rapidly.

Also from the Department of Education - in Danish:
Kritisk tænkning
One of the activities.

 

[Wowbagger]

Sorry it took a while for me to get back to this thread. Other things going on in other places distracted me.

Is the intent here to make everyone hate sceptics because they're the wankers shoehorning a lesson into every piece of entertainment, no matter how escapist or fantastical?

No. Not every piece of entertainment. And, it doesn't need to be shoehorned. The opportunities for these sorts of lessons can emerge, naturally, from certain stories, sometimes. Like it kinda-sorts does in KPDH.

Your thread title suggests you're asking for ways to make skeptical content stick in pop culture. But your example isn't an example of how to do that.

Right. It almost does it, though, I think. And, that's the reason for this thread.

I am NOT suggesting KPDH needs to change in any way. It had its own worthwhile goals to achieve. What I am asking for is: IF someone deliberately WANTED to write a skeptical side quest in some movie as a lesson about critical thinking - HOW could they make that effective?

 

[theprestige]

Sorry it took a while for me to get back to this thread. Other things going on in other places distracted me.

No. Not every piece of entertainment. And, it doesn't need to be shoehorned. The opportunities for these sorts of lessons can emerge, naturally, from certain stories, sometimes. Like it kinda-sorts does in KPDH.


Right. It almost does it, though, I think. And, that's the reason for this thread.

I am NOT suggesting KPDH needs to change in any way. It had its own worthwhile goals to achieve. What I am asking for is: IF someone deliberately WANTED to write a skeptical side quest in some movie as a lesson about critical thinking - HOW could they make that effective?

They couldn't. Agenda movies, sermon movies, didactic movies never stick in the zeitgeist. Nobody likes preaching in the middle of their escapist entertainment. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Besides, the world already has tons of movies with skeptical quests in them. All kinds of political thrillers, spy dramas... What you're looking for already exists. And it already doesn't stick the way you wish it would.

 

[arthwollipot]

They couldn't. Agenda movies, sermon movies, didactic movies never stick in the zeitgeist. Nobody likes preaching in the middle of their escapist entertainment. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Wowbagger isn't talking about making a sermon movie. Skeptical side-quest was the phrase. A b-plot. Maybe even a c-plot. A subtext.

Like, in a whodunnit, a friend of a victim - a minor character - mentions that they went to a psychic but didn't get anywhere. Something like that.

 

[ahhell]

That is the thing with any kind of message in entertainment. Often the folks trying to get the message out are more concerned about the message than actually entertaining the audience. It tends to come off as preaching.

 

[theprestige]

Wowbagger isn't talking about making a sermon movie. Skeptical side-quest was the phrase. A b-plot. Maybe even a c-plot. A subtext.

Like, in a whodunnit, a friend of a victim - a minor character - mentions that they went to a psychic but didn't get anywhere. Something like that.

But we already have tons of movies with skeptical side quests, skeptical quests, the works. People in movies are constantly using reason and logic to solve mysteries.

Alien and Aliens both do this quite well. Encounter a problem, reason out a theory, put it into action. There's even lessons on ethics and moral philosophy to be found in the text. Buffy the Vampire Slayer delivers much the same lesson in almost every episode, with the bonus step of doing research.

Then there's docudramas like Spotlight, and All the President's Men, where investigators use journalistic principles to uncover the truth.

And let's not forget the classic courtroom procedural, My Cousin Vinny, which gives us a master class in not making assumptions about appearances, and using factual expertise to get to the truth.

Are you talking about something more specific? Like, whodunits where there's always a side-character that tries a woo solution, and reports back that the woo solution didn't work, while the main character proceeds to solve the mystery using reason and logic? That specific trope, over and over again? "Remember, kids, woo is never the answer!"

 

[arthwollipot]

Are you talking about something more specific? Like, whodunits where there's always a side-character that tries a woo solution, and reports back that the woo solution didn't work, while the main character proceeds to solve the mystery using reason and logic? That specific trope, over and over again? "Remember, kids, woo is never the answer!"

No, we're not talking about hammering people over the head with it. That's guaranteed not to work.

 

[theprestige]

No, we're not talking about hammering people over the head with it. That's guaranteed not to work.

Well, I'm all out of ideas, then. How do you propose we make the skeptical content in pop culture stick? I suggested getting involved in the education system, but that doesn't seem to have any support here.

 

[ahhell]

Well, I'm all out of ideas, then. How do you propose we make the skeptical content in pop culture stick? I suggested getting involved in the education system, but that doesn't seem to have any support here.

I don't know that education is "pop culture" necessarily.

The original scooby doo was alright at it. The ghosts were always Old Man Withers. You could have mysteries with frauds as psychics? Basically, I think it would just need to be nested in the narrative rather than the core of it. Likely easier to do on TV. Have a show with 80% of the episodes just being entertaining then have an entertaining episode that also involves a conspiracists being debunked, ghost hunters being shown as the fools they are, or what not.

Penn and Teller have been pretty good at it.

 

[theprestige]

I don't know that education is "pop culture" necessarily.

It's not, but the question is, how to make the lessons in pop culture stick? Since my view is that pop culture is already full of examples and role models that promote critical thinking, we need to look elsewhere for a mechanism to make those lessons stick. And my conclusion is that the place to look is the education system.

If educators aren't teaching critical thinking... that's where to get involved.

The original scooby doo was alright at it. The ghosts were always Old Man Withers. You could have mysteries with frauds as psychics? Basically, I think it would just need to be nested in the narrative rather than the core of it. Likely easier to do on TV. Have a show with 80% of the episodes just being entertaining then have an entertaining episode that also involves a conspiracists being debunked, ghost hunters being shown as the fools they are, or what not.

Penn and Teller have been pretty good at it.

I'd argue that you can have good examples of critical thinking even in stories that include magic.