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

[Helen]

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.


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

I agree, kids know that magic isn't real, and solving mysteries, for instance (which most fantasy for kids is about, it seems) in a magical world could be as good examples of critical thinking as any stories set in the old, boring world. Lure them in with magic! I suspect most of the people here started out believing in all kinds of wonderful fantasies. And most of you still want to read/watch fantasy and sci-fi.

And trying to smuggle in lessons in pop culture hardly ever works; unless they are a seamless part of it, they will just be off-putting.

 

[ahhell]

I agree, critical thinking can exist in fantasy, Terry Pratchett was decent at it. The way to make it work is have magic work within established limits. Which, in my opinion is better fantasy than magic can do anything to start with.

 

[Helen]

I agree, critical thinking can exist in fantasy, Terry Pratchett was decent at it. The way to make it work is have magic work within established limits. Which, in my opinion is better fantasy than magic can do anything to start with.

Terry Pratchett was great! I'd happily put the Tiffany Aching books in the hands of kids, and expect them to come out on the other side, happier, wiser, and far more skeptical. And also clamouring for more

 

[Wowbagger]

Nobody likes preaching in the middle of their escapist entertainment. You're barking up the wrong tree.

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.

Obviously, if it was preachy, it wouldn't stick. That is correct! So, HOW can we make it stick?!!! AND make it entertaining at the same time?!!

It's okay if you don't have answers. Not everyone will have some. But, perhaps some folks around here will. You don't have to assume it's impossible, and that no one can ever do it.

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.

Yes, that would be more like it! It could be the A-plot as well, but NOT in a preachy way, and such.

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.

I didn't think of courtroom movies. My Cousin Vinny might be a fairly good example. Though, not a terribly recent one.

I suggested getting involved in the education system, but that doesn't seem to have any support here.

What makes you say that?! I am fairly certain most folks in this forum would want to support critical thinking education in schools and such.

Right, folks?

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.

Scooby Doo is the classic example, though quite an old one.

Penn & Teller are almost great at this, though perhaps a tad too preachy for most folks.

 

[Wowbagger]

One important correction I need to make within this thread: The character in question is actually named Healer Han, NOT "Dr. Han". It turns out his character is never referred to as a doctor.

 

[theprestige]

Obviously, if it was preachy, it wouldn't stick. That is correct! So, HOW can we make it stick?!!! AND make it entertaining at the same time?!!

It's okay if you don't have answers. Not everyone will have some. But, perhaps some folks around here will. You don't have to assume it's impossible, and that no one can ever do it.

I'm not assuming it's impossible. I'm saying that based on my observations, entertaining skeptical examples already abound in popular entertainment. If they're not already sticking in people's minds, the problem must lie elsewhere. The entertainment you think will help already exists, and it doesn't actually help.

Yes, that would be more like it! It could be the A-plot as well, but NOT in a preachy way, and such.


I didn't think of courtroom movies. My Cousin Vinny might be a fairly good example. Though, not a terribly recent one.

Alright, then: Slow Horses. A very recent entertainment that's all about not trusting surface impressions, and digging down to what's actually going on.

What makes you say that?! I am fairly certain most folks in this forum would want to support critical thinking education in schools and such.

There's a huge difference between waanting to support critical thinking education, and actually getting involved in the effort to make it happen. This is what I was trying to explain to dann - Dennis Praeger is actually getting involved in producing the kind of education he believes in. He's literally being the change he wants to see in the world.

So perhaps the real question is not, how can we make skeptical examples in popular entertainment stick, we should be asking, how can we get skeptics to make the transition from wanting that change to being that change?

Right, folks?


Scooby Doo is the classic example, though quite an old one.

Penn & Teller are almost great at this, though perhaps a tad too preachy for most folks.

Penn & Teller have a combined net worth of ~$400m. They have the longest-running headline act in Las Vegas. They're obviously doing something right.

 

[arthwollipot]

Penn & Teller have a combined net worth of ~$400m. They have the longest-running headline act in Las Vegas. They're obviously doing something right.

The thing about Penn & Teller is that for everybody other than us, they are magicians and entertainers first, and their skeptical message is often lost. When I went to see their show in Vegas, their objectivist politics overwhelmed whatever skeptical message they had (they sold as merch card-sized bits of metal with the Bill of Rights printed on them with the express purpose of setting off metal detectors at airports so that TSA would be forced to take away your rights and you could make a big scene about it). The only time skepticism was brought up was during a talk they gave (this was at TAM) prior to the show in which they told us (TAM attendees) that there were three times during their show that they outright lied to the audience. We took it as a challenge to try and work out when those times were. I think we were able to clearly identify one of them. This was the routine:


We (TAM attendees) decided that this was not, as claimed, a memorisation trick.

 

[Wowbagger]

Anyway, thanks for the responses, everyone! The REAL reason I started this thread was because I wanted to talk about KPDH somehow at SkeptiCamp NYC (December 6th!). And, I wasn't sure exactly what direction to go, at first. I was thinking about discussing either: A list of skeptical stuff in recent pop culture OR discuss how to make skeptical messages stick in the rare cases they do show up in pop culture.

But, I don't think I will go in either of those directions. Instead, I will just do a relatively simpler analysis of the Healer Han scene. And, at the end, perhaps I will introduce those two previous ideas as bonus questions.

 

[Wowbagger]

The song "Wonderful" in Wicked: For Good, along with the dialogue segment before it, might actually count as a good example of critical thinking lessons held within pop culture products.

 

[acbytesla]

Does anybody except a few greybeards really think a "skeptical" message is of value? Couching a good lesson in such a phrase muddies the waters, as in common parlance, "skeptical" is a bad thing or at least needs to be qualified, and by then, you've lost any edge you might have gained in a message.

Whereas now, "debunking" and "fact-checked" and "logical" are a good thing. Ditch "skeptical".

No, I disagree. There's a difference between skepticism and cynicism. I value the first and not the second. The time to believe anything is "after there is evidence for it. Never before. That is the essence of skepticism. But there are ideas and beliefs I accept conditionally on less evidence than other beliefs.

If you tell me you have a new puppy, I give that claim the benefit of the doubt. People get puppies. It would be cynical of me not accept your story on you telling me that.

OTOH, If you told me that the puppy was brought to you by aliens, I'm going to apply a hefty dose of skepticism to that story.

So no. Skeptical is good.

 

[ahhell]

No, I disagree. There's a difference between skepticism and cynicism. I value the first and not the second. The time to believe anything is "after there is evidence for it. Never before. That is the essence of skepticism. But there are ideas and beliefs I accept conditionally on less evidence than other beliefs.

If you tell me you have a new puppy, I give that claim the benefit of the doubt. People get puppies. It would be cynical of me not accept your story on you telling me that.

OTOH, If you told me that the puppy was brought to you by aliens, I'm going to apply a hefty dose of skepticism to that story.

So no. Skeptical is good.

You aren't wrong but, in my experience, only some self-professed skeptics think that, other self-professed skeptics are really conspiracy theorists, and most people think skeptic is synonymous with angry old man and/or cynic. Which I think is Orphia's point. Not that skeptic shouldn't mean something other than cynic but unfortunately, in most people's minds, it doesn't.

 

[theprestige]

A court of law is probably the most skeptical venue ever. But even a court of law appreciates that there is more than one standard of proof, and that each has its place:

• Probable cause
• Preponderance of evidence
• Beyond reasonable doubt

Note that all three of these are subjective in nature. Logical certainty doesn't enter into it.

Someone tells me they bought a puppy, nine times out of ten I have probable cause to accept the claim at face value.

 

[arthwollipot]

A court of law doesn't care about reality, only whether a lawyer can prove their case.

 

[theprestige]

A court of law doesn't care about reality, only whether a lawyer can prove their case.

Haha no.

 

[arthwollipot]

Haha no.

Haha yes. Think about it. A lawyer looks for evidence to support their case. They don't look for disconfirming evidence, they don't try and falsify their argument. They start with the argument, then try to prove it. If one lawyer is better at proving their case than the other, then the judgement goes to them regardless of the truth of it. That's not how science works.

This is how noted successful litigant RFKJr determined that Tylenol caused autism. He had his team of junior lawyers to scour through the literature to find evidence to support his case. It's profoundly unscientific.

 

[acbytesla]

You aren't wrong but, in my experience, only some self-professed skeptics think that, other self-professed skeptics are really conspiracy theorists, and most people think skeptic is synonymous with angry old man and/or cynic. Which I think is Orphia's point. Not that skeptic shouldn't mean something other than cynic but unfortunately, in most people's minds, it doesn't.

That's their problem. It isn't.

People naturally apply skepticism daily. And if you don't, you're just setting yourself up to be taken advantage of. Skepticism simply means using basic critical thinking skills to every day life. Do some due diligence. You don't loan just anyone money. At least not large sums of it that you cannot afford them not repaying.

I am not cynical in the least. I generally have a very positive outlook on life. But I require evidence the more important and unreasonable it is. So do banks, business and bosses. You might get a pass on the evidence from friends and family. But even they will apply skepticism.

Teaching people the basics of skepticism is incredibly important. But you don't have to call it that. Learn logic, syllogisms and fallacies and you're done

 

[Orphia Nay]

Teaching people the basics of skepticism is incredibly important. But you don't have to call it that.

You seem to be violently agreeing with me.

 

[acbytesla]

You seem to be violently agreeing with me.

I'm not so sure. I get your point that some people conflate skepticism and cynicism. And while I don't think it is necessary to use the term skeptical or skepticism, I do think people should learn what the word means and not be afraid of it. However, far more important than the word, it's important that people learn and embrace critical thinking.

 

[arthwollipot]

The problem is, according to the definition, a person can be skeptical of climate change, or skeptical about the moon landings. They're not practicing skepticism, but it's a valid usage of the word. Practicing skepticism means more than just being skeptical of things. It's that more that most people don't understand.

 

[acbytesla]

The problem is, according to the definition, a person can be skeptical of climate change, or skeptical about the moon landings. They're not practicing skepticism, but it's a valid usage of the word. Practicing skepticism means more than just being skeptical of things. It's that more that most people don't understand.

That's the problem. Words really don't have fixed definitions. It's all about their usage.

This reminds me of the word theory. There is the colloquial definition and how scientists generally use the word. And even they sometimes use the term less rigorously than they should. That's why I hear theist say that "evolution" is just a theory. As if the theory of evolution was just wild idea pulled out of someone's ass. As opposed to what it really is, a comprehensive framework that is a key foundation of modern biology. I tend to get annoyed when I hear the term "string theory" which from my perspective, is not much better than the crazy ideas I hear from the uneducated. It's a string hypothesis at best.

I like the term skepticism. I just don't like how some people use it.