• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Wowbagger

The Infinitely Prolonged
Wowbagger
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
15,660
Location
Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
One of my favorite scenes in the recently popular Netflix movie, K-Pop Demon Hunters involves a holistic "doctor" named Dr. Han. He seems to use a mixture of cold and hot reading techniques (since his patients are celebrities, after all), to sell "tonics" to one of them. Then (only a minor spoiler here)... we find out later that these "tonics" were really just pouches of grape juice.

It is one of my favorite scenes, of course, because of the skeptical message embedded into it. It just seemed like a really good lesson to get into children's heads.

But, then I got to thinking: Are children really going to learn the correct lesson from this sort of scene?

How many kids actually will say:

"I won't go to any holistic doctors, because they are all probably rip-offs like Dr. Han."

Versus:

"Sure Dr. Han was fake, but he was only a movie character. This other, REAL holistic doctor I found is surely a lot more legitimate!"

Unfortunately, I suspect most kids will probably end up thinking the second idea over the first.

So, that brings up the question: What would it take for a skeptical message, embedded in any pop culture product, to actually STICK in the minds of its audience?

I suppose repeated exposure could help do that. If more and more movies and TV shows exposed the fakery of holistic doctors, that sort of reputation will likely take hold in more people's minds.

I also think that if the MAIN plot of the movie revolved around such deceit, it might make a stronger impact, as well. Alas, Dr. Han was only a very minor subplot in this movie.

Any other thoughts anyone might have about this?

Any input from professionals in psychology would be especially appreciated.

And please keep in mind: This thread is intended to be a discussion about skeptical education as applied to pop culture, and NOT a general discussion for the K-Pop Demon Hunters movie. Thank you!
 
Wow. You really missed the boat on this one. Education policy already has a goal, and it isn't skepticism.

And you're talking to the wrong people about education policy.
 
theprestige said:
Wow. You really missed the boat on this one. Education policy already has a goal, and it isn't skepticism.

And you're talking to the wrong people about education policy.
Click to expand...
Education policy is not directly relevant to this thread. This is more about injecting skeptical education into content, regardless of what official policies might be in place.
 
Wowbagger said:
What would it take for a skeptical message, embedded in any pop culture product, to actually STICK in the minds of its audience?
Click to expand...
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".
 

Wowbagger said:
One of my favorite scenes in the recently popular Netflix movie, K-Pop Demon Hunters involves a holistic "doctor" named Dr. Han. He seems to use a mixture of cold and hot reading techniques (since his patients are celebrities, after all), to sell "tonics" to one of them. Then (only a minor spoiler here)... we find out later that these "tonics" were really just pouches of grape juice.

It is one of my favorite scenes, of course, because of the skeptical message embedded into it. It just seemed like a really good lesson to get into children's heads.

But, then I got to thinking: Are children really going to learn the correct lesson from this sort of scene?

How many kids actually will say:

"I won't go to any holistic doctors, because they are all probably rip-offs like Dr. Han."

Versus:

"Sure Dr. Han was fake, but he was only a movie character. This other, REAL holistic doctor I found is surely a lot more legitimate!"

Unfortunately, I suspect most kids will probably end up thinking the second idea over the first.

So, that brings up the question: What would it take for a skeptical message, embedded in any pop culture product, to actually STICK in the minds of its audience?

I suppose repeated exposure could help do that. If more and more movies and TV shows exposed the fakery of holistic doctors, that sort of reputation will likely take hold in more people's minds.

I also think that if the MAIN plot of the movie revolved around such deceit, it might make a stronger impact, as well. Alas, Dr. Han was only a very minor subplot in this movie.

Any other thoughts anyone might have about this?

Any input from professionals in psychology would be especially appreciated.

And please keep in mind: This thread is intended to be a discussion about skeptical education as applied to pop culture, and NOT a general discussion for the K-Pop Demon Hunters movie. Thank you!
Click to expand...

Nothing to contribute, so far at any rate. But cool thread, will follow with interest.
 
Last edited:
Orphia Nay said:
Does anybody except a few greybeards really think a "skeptical" message is of value?
Click to expand...

Yes.

eta:
Orphia Nay said:
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".
Click to expand...

If you mean merely the term itself, as opposed to what it connotes, then sure, no particular reason to stick to it if there's good reasons not to. The term per se is just an incidental detail. (If. Not agreeing there are persuasive reasons. Nor disagreeing. But if there are, then sure, why not.)

 
Last edited:
Orphia Nay said:
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".
Click to expand...
Or use "critical thinking", which is more positive and general than some of those,
 
Scooby-Doo from my childhood comes to mind. Yeah I know they had the occasionally "real" supernatural monster but most often it was a person behind the monsters.
 
Let's NOT bicker and argue about the terminology of the word "skeptic". I agree that it's been problematic. I assumed using that word wouldn't be a problem on this particular forum, given its history. But, I guess that was my mistake.

In the parent thread and title, substitute that word, in your head, with whatever you want: "logical", "fact checking", "critical thinking", etc. are all reasonably good substitutions.

Now, assuming one wanted such messages to be meaningful and stick in the minds of viewers, what are some ways to do that?!
 
Wowbagger said:
Now, assuming one wanted such messages to be meaningful and stick in the minds of viewers, what are some ways to do that?!
Click to expand...
Have the story be sympathetic to the person learning the lesson.

Alternatively, have a belief in woo cause the downfall of an unlikeable character.
 
Darat said:
Scooby-Doo from my childhood comes to mind. Yeah I know they had the occasionally "real" supernatural monster but most often it was a person behind the monsters.
Click to expand...
It was only when Scrappy appeared that the monsters were genuinely supernatural.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom