Am I Popularizing Sylvia Browne?

[Minarvia]

No! Your site has done more to damage her than anything else could have. She wouldn't have publicly said on Montel "lousy blogger" and other such complaints if she wasn't really smarting and also hurting.

She's lost a lot of business and even her Ministers are leaving. And you get emails from grateful ex-believers all the time.

Don't doubt yourself. You are doing just fine. Well, more than that. Great job!

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

This was my friend Zach's constant argument (when it wasn't "Aren't people stupid enough to believe this too dumb to understand your arguments?" and "Isn't someone stupid enough to believe this asking for it?" and "Aren't there more important things in the world?").

He told me "Aren't you and your friend Robert and James Randi giving her more attention?" and "Aren't you really making her more famous?".

No. I'm making the arguments and evidence against her more famous by giving them more attention.

 

[Uncayimmy]

The type of logic that someone gets popularized by someone being against them is just silly.

That's not what the person suggested in their e-mail. They suggested that it gives Sylvia and her minions someone to demonize and rally against. That's not quite the same, but at the same time it can refute your notion. Take some random person doing what Sylvia does but without the fame. She's got some "fans" who think she's the bee's knees. They don't actively promote her because there's no strong reason to do so. They are happy that she's a good little psychic.

Now suppose somebody comes along with a StopJane website. Jane's fans think it's unfair and a personal attack. This doesn't have to be "true" for them to perceive it that way. The natural reaction is to rally behind Jane and join together against the common enemy. They write blogs. They tell their friends about how this wonderful psychic is being "maligned" by some "cynic" who is afraid of accepting the supernatural. This "atheist" rejects Jane's gifts because they come from God.

I can certainly see how that could happen, and don't think I didn't take this into consideration when starting my StopVFF site about VisionFromFeeling/Alenara.

In this regard the key difference between Sylvia and VFF is existing fame and support. VFF had virtually none. Sylvia had a ton. I don't think it was a big effect in either case. However, I would be more concerned with "market penetration" of someone in-between the two.

Look at The Professor. In my opinion he played skeptics for all it was worth in regards to the MDC. He executed an effective surgical strike that cost him little (skeptics weren't his audience) but rallied the believers. He became more prominent in his little world.

But even if popularity doesn't increase, there's still the concern about the effect on the existing market. I think there's a trade-off between Sylvia losing "weak" believers, converting "medium" believers into weak believers and converting other "medium" believers into "strong" believers. It's like a cult leader who loses half his following but gets a stronger hold on the remaining half.

Every benefit comes with a cost. It's foolish to think that only good can came from the efforts of skeptics. It's a matter of weighing costs and benefits, and I'd say StopSylvia has a net positive effect.

If we were to ignore her than all her crap would go uncontested, and yes eventually her star would fade, but with people openly calling her on her claims, people at least have a place to go to see how full of it she is.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that it also hasn't helped her in some fashion. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Whoever sent you the pm or e-mail is either completely mistaken ( if they are a skeptic) or simply trying to crap on your parade, your work exposing The Klaws, has both been informative and an inspiration to at the very least myself to take direct action against these people. Keep up the good work rob, and thanks for fighting the good fight.

This is what I mean. You were inspired by a common "enemy" to so speak. Why can't Sylvia's fans to do the same?

 

[GrandMasterFox]

BTW -- in the annals of irresponsible popularizing of Browne...there is only one real criminal: Montel Williams.

Larry King has his fair share of the blame.

Any of her publishers have a share of the blame.

Any person who paid or took payment from her to stage a show has a share of the blame.

Montel has a lot to answer for, but he isn't the only one at all.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I recently received an email (or perhaps it was a PM) which said, in efffect, that, by publicly criticizing Browne, skeptics such as Randi and I are helping Browne, by giving her fans someone to demonize, and to rally against.
Any thoughts on this?

pfft. Are her fans rallying against you? I haven't seen it. If anything you just bring them shame, and kudos for that!

 

[The Atheist]

Wishful thinking on the part of the sender, and appeal to consequence.

Absodamnedlutely right.

It shows you're really hurting them when they resort to cheap - and wrong - appeals to emotion like that. All publicity isn't necessarily good publicity.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I recently received an email (or perhaps it was a PM) which said, in efffect, that, by publicly criticizing Browne, skeptics such as Randi and I are helping Browne, by giving her fans someone to demonize, and to rally against.
Any thoughts on this?

Eh. I seriously doubt it. I can only speak for myself, but as someone who was on the fence with this psychic junk (when I was in my mid-teens at least), hearing a skeptic always made me kind of think twice. Now, was I just more prone to this anyways? I don't know. But I'm glad there were skeptics out there to reinforce that there is reason to question all this. And in the case of Sylvia Browne, even if you were to believe people can be psychic (which I wholeheartedly don't), she is so obviously not psychic based on her own huge mess ups that she deserves calling out.

Maybe I'm out of the loop, but does she still have a group of loyal followers of any significance?

And by the way, maybe I'm coming up with a false memory, but I seem to remember a Stop Sylvia website even about 10-12 years ago when I first started reading about her. Is this the same one?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

On the one hand, it's a dilemma. On the other hand, this kind of information must be available to the public. Sceptics and fence-sitters deserve to have web sites, TV shows, podcasts and whatnot as much as believers. Sure, it gives them attention, but it also means that sceptics looking for alternative answers can find those alternative answers.

Which is why I'm so easily provoked by people who tell sceptics to shut up and ask me "what the harm is in letting people decide for themselves what to believe". How is a person supposed to decide for himself whether to believe if only the believers get air time? It's like a horrific mutant version of the "Teach both sides" argument - "We'll teach our sides, then those cynical sceptics will shut the hell up, then the kids will make up their own minds".

Sorry, ain't gonna happen. Lancester, Bad Astronomer, Brain Dunning, Randi and all you others, do keep up the good work. You are desperately needed.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Personally, I had never heard of Sylvia Browne before I read your website.
And other than reading your web site, I have never heard of Sylvia Browne otherwise.
(Unless I specifically search for information on her or her appearances).

I had only once in my entire life heard of Browne before Robert's website (a woman I was then friendly with had given me a book of Browne's. I was already a skeptic about psychics but had never heard of Browne and read some of it as an intellectual exercise, to see what I could debunk. It was so noxious that I threw it into the trash, something I now regret, as it was published in the 1980s, is probably no longer in print and pretty rare and could have been used for Bob's site! This was about a year or two before StopSylvia.com was launched. Ah, what foresight would be! And the 2nd time in my entire life that I had ever heard of Browne was when Randi mentioned StopSylvia.com and StopKaz.com in Swift. I got interested and the rest is history.)

As for people who might discover Sylvia (or psychics in general), I actually think a few might. Very, very few- but they might. I've heard of people who got hungry for McDonalds after seeing Supersize Me and some college students who took the great novel The Great Gatsby as a hopeful example of the American dream gone right, which is hilarious, as it is the exact reverse.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

As for people who might discover Sylvia (or psychics in general), I actually think a few might. Very, very few- but they might. I've heard of people who got hungry for McDonalds after seeing Supersize Me and some college students who took the great novel The Great Gatsby as a hopeful example of the American dream gone right, which is hilarious, as it is the exact reverse.

I'd never have bought, or even looked into, Little Big Planet if it weren't for the Q'uran verse controversy.

Then again, that wasn't really an attack on the game itself, but rather on its choice of music, so I guess it's a bad example.

 

[athon]

I recently received an email (or perhaps it was a PM) which said, in efffect, that, by publicly criticizing Browne, skeptics such as Randi and I are helping Browne, by giving her fans someone to demonize, and to rally against.
Any thoughts on this?

I think it is true, to a point, but needs to be seen in context of the potential benefit of what you're doing.

Yes, having a common enemy can help consolidate a group. Pretty basic sociology there. It can also help draw attention away from internal criticism by using another demographic to create an impression of competition (it's us versus them!).

However, refraining from presenting yourself as an opposing force won't have the opposite effect, if that makes sense. They're not going to fracture and fall apart if there is no 'enemy' to rally against. So the benefits of your work are always going to far outweigh any potential assistance you might be providing simply by existing as the bad guy.

Athon

 

[Soapy Sam]

Like others here, I had never heard of Slyvia till I read about her here- ie on JREF, rather than StopSylviaBrowne. So I suppose Randi might be accuse of popularising her to that extent.

But there are two ways to attract lightning. One is to fit a lightning rod and the other is to just build something tall.

I'd compare your site (and JREF) to the lightning conductor. It attracts the lightning and sends it safely to earth. Idiots like Montel and Larry King are just big tall things that glow in the dark a lot. There's a world of difference.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I think it is true, to a point, but needs to be seen in context of the potential benefit of what you're doing.

Yes, having a common enemy can help consolidate a group. Pretty basic sociology there. It can also help draw attention away from internal criticism by using another demographic to create an impression of competition (it's us versus them!).

However, refraining from presenting yourself as an opposing force won't have the opposite effect, if that makes sense. They're not going to fracture and fall apart if there is no 'enemy' to rally against. So the benefits of your work are always going to far outweigh any potential assistance you might be providing simply by existing as the bad guy.

Athon

I wouldn't say always. Take our own VisionFromFeeling. When I started StopVFF, I believed her to be a lone woo. Turns out she had a bit of a following at one time as Alenara. There's the potential for her to leverage this to get a foothold in the woo community. Even without a following, she has an "angle" to set herself apart from other woos - she gets to play the victim. That's much more interesting to talk about than yet another woo claiming psychic abilities. I think she stands a much better chance of being a "woo of note" in the woo community than she did without the site.

However, she's going to have a much more difficult time trying to be a mainstream woo. Anybody wanting to write an article about her or do a human interest story on TV will probably type her name into Google. I made sure my site is #1 for Anita Ikonen. I would say that people are less likely to cover someone claiming to heal migraines when they read about all the other crazy stuff she claims, how she has repeatedly failed tests, and been deceitful in her dealings. They will pick somebody else.

She's also going to have a hard time getting a job in the sciences once an employer does their due diligence on the web. As a scientist is where I think she can do the most damage. She's obviously able to get good grades. She seems charismatic, and from what I have learned, she has done a good job of hiding the, ahem, less than sane parts of her life. The chances of her becoming a tenured professor at a major university and then starting in with the woo studies are much less now.

To me, the net effect is well worth the effort, but it's based on a number of assumptions. For all I know she had no intention of ever becoming a player in the world of woo. My site could be the catalyst that launched a mini woo career once other woos started in with, "Poor Anita! You're so nice and those cynics are unfairly maligning you! Please, tell us more about what you can do!" That kind of attention can be hard to resist.

If that happens, then the net effect would be less than desirable and the site a mistake. With Sylvia she was already in the mass market. The potential benefits for her from StopSylvia were minimal and the potential harm much greater.

 

[rjh01]

What other people have said. Plus I think she could be trying to make a comeback, hoping that you will not come back. So get your computer fixed and start updating the site again. Do a few more interviews. Make her retire for good.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

They don't actively promote her because there's no strong reason to do so. They are happy that she's a good little psychic.

Now suppose somebody comes along with a StopJane website. Jane's fans think it's unfair and a personal attack. This doesn't have to be "true" for them to perceive it that way. The natural reaction is to rally behind Jane and join together against the common enemy. They write blogs. They tell their friends about how this wonderful psychic is being "maligned" by some "cynic" who is afraid of accepting the supernatural. This "atheist" rejects Jane's gifts because they come from God.

This can't be true. Once she's drained everyone in reach, she's got to be promoted to find new cash sources.

 

[RSLancastr]

Wishful thinking on the part of the sender, and appeal to consequence. As I understand it, she lost her weekly free TV appearance, has severely curtailed her Las Vegas activities and went from publishing several books year to publishing none in 2009.

Actually, I think she published another four books in 2009: All Pets Go To Heaven, Passing the Psychic Torch and two others. But your point still stands. thanks.

Who cares if the hard-core fans rally around her- the bulk of her less fanatic supporters, the fence-sitters, the curious, and most importantly, the new victims, are fleeing.

I hope you are right.
thanks.

Personally, I had never heard of Sylvia Browne before I read your website.
And other than reading your web site, I have never heard of Sylvia Browne otherwise.
(Unless I specifically search for information on her or her appearances).

So even is some people do 'discover' her from your efforts, I think there are many more who are rallied against her. Whatever you feel is the truth based on the overall tone of all your emails, I'd go with that, rather than one email.

thanks!

Well I'd not heard of her and was only vaguely aware of Montel Williams before you started.

Now I use them as particular examples of charlatans preying on the weak or taking advantage of the grieving when a discussion moves around to "what's the harm". Also, we've heard from a number of people who have changed their mind about them after reading here or your site.

yup!

Robert: The argument that seems to be made here is that if we just don't talk about syphilis no one will get it. But it is only through exposing syphilis that you might be able to prevent its transmission to a reasonably weary individual.

Sort of like the claim that if we teach teens to use condoms, we are encouraging them to have sex.

The fact that you provide accurate, verifiable and factual information about Ms. Browne -- on your own dime and at considerable personal cost -- is a unselfish public service. You are, if I may, the Penicillin to Browne's STD. Keep it up (sorry about that)!

After that image, I may never "keep it up" again!

Totally disagree.

If you and your web site, and James Randi and his challenge (and all record of it ever having been accepted by Browne) were to disappear off the planet tomorrow, Sylvia Browne would obviously benefit tremendously.

Your existence is not good for her in any way. Much better if she didn't have to bother to try to demonize anyone to defend the problems and issues you bring to public attention.

Especially considering the fact that every time she mentions either of you in order to demonize you, she will inadvertently incite curiosity in a certain percentage of her listeners, who will then look for your web site or want to know more about the challenge.

Also much better for her if the public did NOT have access to the kind of information your web site provides. So any publicity is not always good publicity, at least not in this case.

thanks, exM!

 

[JoeyDonuts]

BTW -- in the annals of irresponsible popularizing of Browne...there is only one real criminal: Montel Williams.

Which makes me sad, really. I used to have a great deal of respect for the man, and with him being a former naval intel officer, I was inclined to trust his judgement by default. I used to work in that field myself.

I find his endorsement of her positively baffling. Does he actually buy into it? Or is he just seing the dollar signs? Either way, I know that naval intel portion of his brain has got to be sending B.S. signals like crazy and being ignored by the part that's either really greedy or needs to believe something amazing regardless of the evidence.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

The fact that you provide accurate, verifiable and factual information about Ms. Browne -- on your own dime and at considerable personal cost -- is a unselfish public service. You are, if I may, the Penicillin to Browne's STD. Keep it up (sorry about that)!

Sylvia-Transmitted Disorders are the worst.

 

[RSLancastr]

Oh, I'd heard of her, all right, I'd an Aunt who was a fan, and a couple of friends who caught a few of her "performance pieces" on Montel, and were heavily impressed. I thank you so much for taking the time to glom all her failures together in one place, I often wished there was some way of stopping the woman and your website is certainly a step in the right direction. And it has made my Aunt and one friend (at least) take a step back and really LOOK at what Brown is doing and saying. I know that everyone on here is a member of the RSL choir (so to speak) already, and so few of us would agree with the thought that you are actually helping Brown with your site, but I know that it has made a difference to a couple of fence sitters who were on their way to being groupies for her. And I offer you a heartfelt thank you for that (which I'm doubting Sylvia would give you).

Good to know, bickerer - thanks!

"There's no such thing as bad publicity" has to be one of the dumbest things that people say while actually thinking they're making an intelligent comment. (Ask Tiger Woods if he thinks all publicity is good.)

If you ran a super-popular web site that received all sorts of general-purpose traffic, and you started talking about some obscure psychic who most people had never heard of, then there might be an argument. But I find it hard to believe that many people are stumbling across the Stop Sylvia Browne site who have never heard of her before.

Uri Geller likes to pull this routine, too, claiming that Randi has helped make him millions of dollars over the years. Strange how Uri didn't seem to think so when he was filing all those lawsuits....

thanks, Dunstan! I wrote to Randi about the OP, and he basically told me to stick to it with the site. I sent him a followup email including your geller reference above - he should get a kick out of it!

Seriously? You had to use an anology that could prompt someone to picture Browne naked?


Damn you, headscratcher, damn you!

It gets even worse if you

Add Kim Jong Il to the image.

RSLancastr, I am that there are many parents who thanks to you have learned about Shawn and Opal and will prevent Sylvia from interfering with an investigation that may save their child's life.

That alone should tell you that you have done a wonderful work and should carry it out with no worries.

I hope so, Fox - thanks!

The Uri Geller analogy is a fantastic ones. Uri Geller was once worldly renowned and today the guy is a walking joke. Yep, when his show about finding a successor aired people tuned in to watch it *JUST* to laugh at the moron on tv and to spot the fake magnets.

The magnets were fake?

I have been a lurker on all the RSL posts for a long time. Never believed in psychics myself, but have a few friends and family members who did. I have pointed them all to your website and it has done a lot to make them think. Thank you for all you do.

Thank you, PrettyKitty!

 

[RSLancastr]

... and thanks to all the rest who replied!