How does one market skepticism?
- Thread starter jj
- Start date
-
- Tags
- market skepticism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How does one market skepticism?
Well, yes, on the other hand, you have seen Girl 6's summary of TAM, yes? I've been counting at other skeptical organizations I know of, and they are, especially racially, even worse.
While the total data I have isn't something I'm willing to make public, most of it isn't mine, some of it is offered only behind the scenes because there appears to be some serious sensitivity on some people's part about even talking about this (please don't ask me why, I'm talking about it after all, eh?), but it's pretty clear that blacks, hispanics, and asians are all woefully underrepresented as active skeptics, where "active" is defined as "comes to a meeting once in a while". I haven't even seen any statistic on Native Americans.
Now, I agree, this may be because they don't care, or because they agree and don't care to say so, or whatever. The reason they don't come is irrelevant to the existance of the problem, of course it may be very useful to finding a solution.
The question is: How DO we get them to come. They don't. So we should try.
Your argument that trying to fix a non-existant problem could be bad seems utterly without basis, assuming we do manage to muster a reasonable campaign, I have no real problem with OVER-representation at all.
Therein shows the problem with your whole approach. There is, and I've seen no data to the contrary, and all of the data available seems to point to the same way, a lack of ethnic and racial minorities, and to some extent women, who actually come to meetings.
P.S.
Some of the people who provided data do post here. If they are comfortable, I would appreciate their speaking up. I'm not going to do it for them.
Pragmatist said:
Well, yes, on the other hand, you have seen Girl 6's summary of TAM, yes? I've been counting at other skeptical organizations I know of, and they are, especially racially, even worse.
While the total data I have isn't something I'm willing to make public, most of it isn't mine, some of it is offered only behind the scenes because there appears to be some serious sensitivity on some people's part about even talking about this (please don't ask me why, I'm talking about it after all, eh?), but it's pretty clear that blacks, hispanics, and asians are all woefully underrepresented as active skeptics, where "active" is defined as "comes to a meeting once in a while". I haven't even seen any statistic on Native Americans.
Now, I agree, this may be because they don't care, or because they agree and don't care to say so, or whatever. The reason they don't come is irrelevant to the existance of the problem, of course it may be very useful to finding a solution.
The question is: How DO we get them to come. They don't. So we should try.
Your argument that trying to fix a non-existant problem could be bad seems utterly without basis, assuming we do manage to muster a reasonable campaign, I have no real problem with OVER-representation at all.
Therein shows the problem with your whole approach. There is, and I've seen no data to the contrary, and all of the data available seems to point to the same way, a lack of ethnic and racial minorities, and to some extent women, who actually come to meetings.
P.S.
Some of the people who provided data do post here. If they are comfortable, I would appreciate their speaking up. I'm not going to do it for them.
I just thought that I'd point out something... you don't need to necessarily sell your philosophy through marketing - you just need to create enough fear, uncertainty or doubt in the target audience's mind about their existing views, and then offer yourself as an opportunity to explore an alternative.
Just getting anyone to question their beliefs would be a step toward building momentum. But you can't target minorities with this approach - if minorities feel that you are directly targeting their specific belief systems, the hatemongers will scream, point their fingers, and claim prejudice. Your message will be lost in the chaff.
Do it right and you'll get the minorities as well as the majority interested.
Just getting anyone to question their beliefs would be a step toward building momentum. But you can't target minorities with this approach - if minorities feel that you are directly targeting their specific belief systems, the hatemongers will scream, point their fingers, and claim prejudice. Your message will be lost in the chaff.
Do it right and you'll get the minorities as well as the majority interested.
Pragmatist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,529
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How does one market skepticism?
I'm not going to argue about the semantics of whether we call it observation or measurement, but "measurement" does imply that you have some hard figures - if you do, I'd certainly like to see them.
Now, to address why some people may not want to attend a skeptical meeting for example. I can speak for myself. As I mentioned in another thread, I have a condition which is similar in many aspects to mild autism. It's not incapacitating, but I am extremely uncomfortable in some social situations. I couldn't attend TAM this year because I had other committments at that time - but barring that, there is a secondary issue. I would like to attend TAM because I would be meeting some people I've gotten to know and like through this forum. But at the same time I would still be uncomfortable at TAM because it is a social event. Therefore what would tip the balance for me? Right now, at this moment, I couldn't tell you, I'd have to really ponder on it. What I do know is that my natural tendency to avoid social gatherings would make me much more receptive to any excuse to get out of it! Now, whilst I refuse to reveal my race as a matter of principle, let us suppose for the sake of argument that I am a member of one of your "minorities"? Is membership of the latter group a significant factor in deciding whether or not I attend skeptical events? No, it most definitely isn't.
Then, begging the question, is there anything you could market that would overcome my natural aversion to large social groups? The answer is no. The only factor that influences me in favour of the event is the fact that I like some of the people. I wouldn't feel particularly uncomfortable personally meeting one or two skeptics but frankly the idea of being thrown amongst 500 of them scares the (Rule 8) out of me!
Of course I'm not suggesting that all minorities have social problems. What I am saying is that the real reasons for specific, individual decisions may be much more complicated than you think.
At the risk of re-opening some recent wounds - I think it's a big mistake to make assumptions about whole categories of people based on race on other superficial demographics (although I accept that such factors obviously do exist) - first and foremost the product needs to be attractive to the individual. I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that any person might not be somewhat apprehensive about attending a large social event with a large number of people they don't personally know.
Either way, I certainly am not suggesting that anyone shouldn't try to spread the message so to speak. But it has to be done carefully. For example, if you were to set up a skeptical event and then advertise that people with autistic conditions were particularly welcome, I would see that as an insult! Why on earth would I want to attend an event where my welcome was somehow dependent on my being an exception or a minority? I don't want to be reminded of my differences, I want to feel that the people I am meeting look beyond such things.
The "ivory tower" comment is interesting. The answer to that is, that some of us don't practice our skepticism from an ivory tower. Some get down and dirty about it. Yes, even me, in spite of my "condition". I talk to people I know. I teach where and when I can. I often have to step carefully and disguise my true feelings in order to communicate with certain people - but I do it. Getting to the crux of the matter though, I don't believe you would ever be likely to see any of my "converts" at TAM or other key skeptical events. Does that imply that I'm not doing any good? If someone I speak to starts to show signs of critical thinking I'm happy. I don't think it's necessary that they have to be flag waving "Randi-ites" any more than it is required to be a paid up member of a political party to vote for that party.
So, I personally believe the one to one approach is the real answer. Not a global marketing campaign. Sure, a few more public lectures by credible speakers would help.
By the way, I have to consider this, to what extent is your specific experience of skeptical events influenced by the local demographics of the event? Do you suppose that a skeptical meeting in say, Delhi would not predominantly consist of Indians? If Claus held an event in Copenhagen, don't you suppose that he'd see a disproportionate number of Danes and Swedes? Taking it wider, is there any reason to suppose that a 50% attendance of non-whites would be representative in either case? In Delhi I'd expect a majority of non-whites. In Copenhagen I'd expect a majority of whites. I wouldn't see either of these things as being particularly notable.
Finally I have to admit that I probably wouldn't be very interested in a purely skeptical event. I mean I would enjoy hearing people like Randi and Dawkins etc., but honestly I would hope they would find a primary subject in which skepticism is an issue, rather than being purely about skepticism. Therefore I'd love to hear Randi on how the scammers do their tricks, or Dawkins on the scientific evidence for evolution - but the skepticism is woven into and secondary to the actual subject matter. Therefore there is another answer for you - arrange talks on subjects which are of interest to the demographic you want to influence and present them in a skeptical fashion. But don't let the skepticism eclipse the subject matter itself.
jj said:
I'm not going to argue about the semantics of whether we call it observation or measurement, but "measurement" does imply that you have some hard figures - if you do, I'd certainly like to see them.
Now, to address why some people may not want to attend a skeptical meeting for example. I can speak for myself. As I mentioned in another thread, I have a condition which is similar in many aspects to mild autism. It's not incapacitating, but I am extremely uncomfortable in some social situations. I couldn't attend TAM this year because I had other committments at that time - but barring that, there is a secondary issue. I would like to attend TAM because I would be meeting some people I've gotten to know and like through this forum. But at the same time I would still be uncomfortable at TAM because it is a social event. Therefore what would tip the balance for me? Right now, at this moment, I couldn't tell you, I'd have to really ponder on it. What I do know is that my natural tendency to avoid social gatherings would make me much more receptive to any excuse to get out of it! Now, whilst I refuse to reveal my race as a matter of principle, let us suppose for the sake of argument that I am a member of one of your "minorities"? Is membership of the latter group a significant factor in deciding whether or not I attend skeptical events? No, it most definitely isn't.
Then, begging the question, is there anything you could market that would overcome my natural aversion to large social groups? The answer is no. The only factor that influences me in favour of the event is the fact that I like some of the people. I wouldn't feel particularly uncomfortable personally meeting one or two skeptics but frankly the idea of being thrown amongst 500 of them scares the (Rule 8) out of me!
Of course I'm not suggesting that all minorities have social problems. What I am saying is that the real reasons for specific, individual decisions may be much more complicated than you think.
At the risk of re-opening some recent wounds - I think it's a big mistake to make assumptions about whole categories of people based on race on other superficial demographics (although I accept that such factors obviously do exist) - first and foremost the product needs to be attractive to the individual. I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that any person might not be somewhat apprehensive about attending a large social event with a large number of people they don't personally know.
Either way, I certainly am not suggesting that anyone shouldn't try to spread the message so to speak. But it has to be done carefully. For example, if you were to set up a skeptical event and then advertise that people with autistic conditions were particularly welcome, I would see that as an insult! Why on earth would I want to attend an event where my welcome was somehow dependent on my being an exception or a minority? I don't want to be reminded of my differences, I want to feel that the people I am meeting look beyond such things.
The "ivory tower" comment is interesting. The answer to that is, that some of us don't practice our skepticism from an ivory tower. Some get down and dirty about it. Yes, even me, in spite of my "condition". I talk to people I know. I teach where and when I can. I often have to step carefully and disguise my true feelings in order to communicate with certain people - but I do it. Getting to the crux of the matter though, I don't believe you would ever be likely to see any of my "converts" at TAM or other key skeptical events. Does that imply that I'm not doing any good? If someone I speak to starts to show signs of critical thinking I'm happy. I don't think it's necessary that they have to be flag waving "Randi-ites" any more than it is required to be a paid up member of a political party to vote for that party.
So, I personally believe the one to one approach is the real answer. Not a global marketing campaign. Sure, a few more public lectures by credible speakers would help.
By the way, I have to consider this, to what extent is your specific experience of skeptical events influenced by the local demographics of the event? Do you suppose that a skeptical meeting in say, Delhi would not predominantly consist of Indians? If Claus held an event in Copenhagen, don't you suppose that he'd see a disproportionate number of Danes and Swedes? Taking it wider, is there any reason to suppose that a 50% attendance of non-whites would be representative in either case? In Delhi I'd expect a majority of non-whites. In Copenhagen I'd expect a majority of whites. I wouldn't see either of these things as being particularly notable.
Finally I have to admit that I probably wouldn't be very interested in a purely skeptical event. I mean I would enjoy hearing people like Randi and Dawkins etc., but honestly I would hope they would find a primary subject in which skepticism is an issue, rather than being purely about skepticism. Therefore I'd love to hear Randi on how the scammers do their tricks, or Dawkins on the scientific evidence for evolution - but the skepticism is woven into and secondary to the actual subject matter. Therefore there is another answer for you - arrange talks on subjects which are of interest to the demographic you want to influence and present them in a skeptical fashion. But don't let the skepticism eclipse the subject matter itself.
This is an example of what you're up against, folks... (from another thread):
Creative Science Fair
Indoctrination of third-graders. Outreach to multiple, diverse geographies and cross-religious inclusion of fundamentalistic beliefs. If anyone here thinks they can counter this with one-on-one talks, or annual conferences... I would love to hear how you're going to succeed.
When something this pernicious is as wide-spread as this is, you need to think big. REALLY big. As in "Smoking Causes Cancer" big, or "Just Say No" big. The problem exists without regard to race, creed or religion, and if you want to address it, that's how you have to look at it.
In my opinion, of course.
Creative Science Fair
Indoctrination of third-graders. Outreach to multiple, diverse geographies and cross-religious inclusion of fundamentalistic beliefs. If anyone here thinks they can counter this with one-on-one talks, or annual conferences... I would love to hear how you're going to succeed.
When something this pernicious is as wide-spread as this is, you need to think big. REALLY big. As in "Smoking Causes Cancer" big, or "Just Say No" big. The problem exists without regard to race, creed or religion, and if you want to address it, that's how you have to look at it.
In my opinion, of course.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How does one market skepticism?
That's always the sensible approach in my opinion, make it useful to the people in their daily life.
This is, however, something fraught with a variety of obstacles.
Pragmatist said:
That's always the sensible approach in my opinion, make it useful to the people in their daily life.
This is, however, something fraught with a variety of obstacles.
tamiO said:
Let's say that I think it's only a matter of time before I see the announcement around here someplace: CREATION SCIENCE FAIR, SUNDAY FEB. 31
Well, obviously not Feb. 31, but I wouldn't be surprised to see somebody actually do it.
Chocolate Chip
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2005
- Messages
- 581
I'm not professing to have my hand on the pulse of the average joe, this is only what I see.
I work in a blue collar job, live in between what would be considered poverty and lower middle-class. I can tell you what I see in my situation. I see people that just want to get the day over with, pay the bills, make sure the loved ones are safe, basically SURVIVE. I see them very preoccupied with these things, it kind of takes up alot of their interest. What is left over is usually expressed through hobbies and leisure activities. Most of the people I know aren't big church-goers, maybe christmas mass, or weddings, but that's it. As little as that seems, interest in skeptecism is even less. The funny thing is, these guys are some of the most critical thinking people I've ever met. It's just that they apply this critical thought to their everyday problems ie. how the government screws us over, why the boss's decision was a good/bad one, the best way to get the job done, etc.
I can also tell you alot of these people will probably ask, "What's in it for me?". Why should I invest any further of what little time I have into something like skeptecism? Alot of the people that I know would definitely ask this.
SOME of our competition as I see it on an everyday basis:
Movies, most movies are fantasy based, if not outright woo.
example: EVP, The Exorcist, The Grudge, 6th Sense, and so on.
Sports, (yes sports) how many atheletes profess that they don't believe in god? Not too many. But there are plenty who publicly like to thank God for that winning game. Or superstitious hockey players who won't shave because they are an a scoring streak.
Newspapers. I have yet to read a newspaper that does NOT have a horoscope in it, or some story about the paranormal.
Popular Music, just chucked full of fantasy scenario, woo and such.
These things offer an escape from the daily grind, it's what people I know turn to to relax and escape. Even more importantly, these things play a big role in the development of young people. They seem to me to be more media driven, fashion, music, spare time activity.
Personally, I can't fund a skeptics group, but I try to make a contribution when I can. Mostly by word of mouth. For example, I have an aunt who believed the Exorcist was based on a true story. In a very AMIABLE way, I explained to her that it was a hoax. She protested a bit and hummed and hawed, so I gave her a link to the "Haunted Boy" article by Mark Opsasnick for her to read herself. I have yet to hear back from her, but I may have gotten her to think about it. I think alot of us that don't have a vast amount of resources (money), can start by doing the little things, with the people that we know the best, and care about the most. Start there.
I'm surprised that no one else caught this...
The Exorcist is based on a supposedly true story. This has been pretty much disclosed for a long time.
http://theexorcist.warnerbros.com/cmp/phenomenon-fr.html
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0137.html
You can certainly debate the issue of possession with her. Heck, I'll even help you.
But you really can't challenge her on the statement the movie is based on a 'true story'. It's indeed a 'true story' in the sense that something apparently happened, and the movie was created based on that incident.
Chocolate Chip said:
The Exorcist is based on a supposedly true story. This has been pretty much disclosed for a long time.
http://theexorcist.warnerbros.com/cmp/phenomenon-fr.html
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0137.html
You can certainly debate the issue of possession with her. Heck, I'll even help you.
But you really can't challenge her on the statement the movie is based on a 'true story'. It's indeed a 'true story' in the sense that something apparently happened, and the movie was created based on that incident.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,537
I wouldn't say it was a true story, more like a misrepresentation of true events.