Monetization of Skepticism

In the spirit of openness and honesty, let me reveal my intent for this post right up front. I think there should be a practical, reasonable method for active Skeptics to make money doing what they are doing.

Okay, so that's not exactly revolutionary. Michael Shermer is just one very well known Skeptic who sells large stacks of books, magazine subscriptions, and I assume earns a speaking fee (though I haven't checked into this and don't know for sure). In fact, many of the most well known "Skeptics" in the world earn quite a bit by publishing, speaking, and doing what they do best. Again, I'm certainly not privy to the numbers, but I'd venture to guess that guys like Penn and Teller earn a few pennies on their Skeptic themed show "Bullshit." The show Mythbusters has similarly pushed the concept of testing assumptions and learning reality through the Scientific Method. I'm guessing the cast and crew are paid for their efforts.

So, what am I referring to then?

Many, many skeptical activists similarly produce quality writing and podcasts. For whatever reason, there seems to be an unwritten rule that podcasters shouldn't earn money from their efforts. This is probably due to the fact that podcasting began as an underground radio sort of thing and the idea of charging for content seemed to be in poor taste, not to mention untenable. Over the past decade though, podcasting has grown significantly and several prominent podcasters have risen to the top, regularly producing very high quality shows on a predicable timetable.

Within the Skeptical movement, podcasts like Skepticality, Skeptics Guide to the Universe, and Skeptoid are just three of many that are produced and published with professionalism, high quality, and serious entertainment value. The creators of these shows don't get paid a dime for this. To be fair, this was their choice and they knew going in that this was the situation. I haven't heard anyone complaining, but I often wonder the following....

IF SGU actually earned money directly and indirectly so that the cast could live off the profits comfortably, how much better could the show be? Seriously, these guys spend a great deal of every week researching, recording and editing, yet they still need to show up to work each day to earn their paycheck. Imagine if they were able to put 50 hours a week into SGU? I can only imagine the sheer numbers of things they'd be able to do to further spread the message. Perhaps an SGU cable network one day? How much would we all need to pay? In all seriousness, if we had to each subscribe for $1 per month to get the podcast, they could probably all quit their jobs and go full time. I drop $12 every few days on coffee. Why wouldn't I spend at least that much to help these guys continue creating their show?

I could go on and on, but you get the point. Let me try to wrap it up a bit more clearly than I believe I have expressed in the overall post.

1) We need to eliminate any thoughts of profit as a bad thing in the skeptical movement. Let's just realize that if someone is trying to profit, it's because they are trying to make a quality product that is worth something. If the quality isn't there, people won't buy it.

2) In the USA at least, profitability conveys respect. This may or may not be a good thing, but it is what it is. You make money at something, it's considered legit. You don't, it's just a cute hobby. We don't want Skepticism to seem like a cute hobby.

3) Profits for podcasters and/or bloggers will help them produce better content.

4) The current methods for making money aren't cutting it. When guys like P.Z. Myers aren't making much off Pharyngula, which is read by about 3 gajillion people every day, something isn't clicking.

5) The profits I'm encouraging need NOT be direct (though they could be). I'll use The Geologic podcast as a perfect example. I don't know George's mind or plan, but I can certainly see how his free podcast could be a great way to build a fan base for his music and live shows.

6) I make zero money off this blog and my podcast "Meet The Skeptics." That's okay with me. I do both as a creative outlet that I have fun with. Perhaps someday I'll seek to make a few bucks on it all, but I'm nowhere near considering that now. If either gets good enough and popular enough, perhaps I'll think of something.

7) Any methods for profit should be adding value, not holding up faithful listeners/readers for things they are used to getting for free.

8) If a Skeptical blogger or podcaster tries to explore a new avenue for earning money off his/her content, applaud the effort, but only buy if you truly think the value is there. I'm not suggesting we prop up anyone who isn't earning it.

9) Let me know if you agree or disagree.

In conclusion, allow me to list a few great products that may put a few pennies in the pockets of a few hardworking Skeptics. If you find these interesting, please buy them!

Skeptoid: Critical Analysis Of Pop Phenomena

Non-Coloring Book: George Hrab

Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time

Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions

Avoiding the File Drawer

In many areas of research, there's a problem known as the "File Drawer" problem. It appears to be especially pervasive in pharmaceutical research, but it exists elsewhere. Essentially, it's this:

A group or researcher does a huge number of studies about a particular subject. The researcher could then theoretically handpick a small number of those studies that show a hoped for effect and file away the rest. To the outside world, this appears compelling even if the larger body of work clearly demonstrates that the phenomenon doesn't exist.

When psi research is done with apparent positive effects, Skeptics often cite the file drawer problem and suspect that it was one study done among many, but the others have been buried. This may or may not be true, but there's really no way to know for sure. Doubt is cast, not much has been learned.

I recommend that psi researchers (not that they'll take my advice) simply eliminate this argument that we Skeptics have in regards to their studies. Before doing any studies, register the study with an agreed upon authority. Make it a nuetral party that both the psi researchers and the Skeptics agree upon. This party is simply there to verify that the study is registered.

Registration must include proposed methodology and an explanation of what is being studied. After the study is concluded, all results must be published and submitted to the registrar before any are released to the media or proposed for publication. Critics will have ample time to suggest improvements or changes to the methodology. Researchers will not be allowed to register or publish any further studies until all past results have been published. Basically, no filing away of negative results.

This will have the combined effect of eliminating the File Drawer problem AND taking it away as an excuse for Skeptics. Most importantly, it moves us closer to transparency and honesty, which I believe is something the vast majority of us want. Thoughts?

In Defense of Skeptical Marketing

My apologies to those of you who may have been following this blog at one time or another. It seems a bit cliche to apologize for non-blogginess, as all of us have our relapses. Such are the problems with unpaid duties! That said, I was recently prompted to write a little something by a Twitter guy by the name of Greg Taylor from Australia. His Twitter handle is @DailyGrail.

Greg actually seems like a decent guy and his challenging tweets against me are of a respectful tone, so I can't take him on personally. I do disagree with his overall assessment of the situation surrounding the JREF's Million Dollar Challenge. If you're not yet in the loop, here's the JREF's press release:

JREF’s $1,000,000 Paranormal Challenge Now Easier Than Ever

And here's Greg's thoughts on the matter:

Million Dollar Hustle

I see Greg's criticisms as being misguided. Yes, the MDC is a PR campaign. If I proposed that I think blonde haired kids have a better than average chance of picking the suit of a hidden playing card and went to the JREF with the proposal that we join forces and test the proposed phenomenon, they'd decline such an offer. They aren't an organization dedicated to the tireless search for psychic abilities. They ARE a watchdog group that stands in defiance to those who claim to have proven psychic abilities. I will simply state in my argument against Greg that JREF was loudly criticized from the psi community for the stringent rules. Now that they've relaxed them, you're criticizing. I suspect you'd have similarly criticized them had they tightened the rules but I certainly have no way of reading your mind, so I cannot claim that with any fair level of assuredness.

Your argument that they should be approaching more reputable "psychics" similarly falls flat. Randi has for years challenged every major psychic in the world, and they've all avoided it entirely. Perhaps they have their reasons, but I fail to see why they wouldn't at least propose a fair test publicly in counterpoint to Randi's challenge. Instead, they dismiss it as a publicity stunt. No, they don't need the money in many cases, but when a woman like Sylvia Browne claims such a connection to God, wouldn't her religious beliefs compel her to snatch the million and give it to a deserving charity? Just my analysis. If I had a lot of money and psychic abilities, I'd go for it just to shut Randi up.

The Problems with Psychic Research

When tests were recently announced that supposedly proved a certain small level of precognition, I watched more than one television reporter report the results with zero critical analysis. It was trumpeted as "proof found" of certain psychic abilities. Never mind that the tests were cherry picked to show anomalous results that have yet to be replicated. "Psychic abilities proven!" was the story of the day. It was a great story as long as those middling little facts didn't get in the way. The MDC stands as a counterpoint PR campaign to raise awareness of the complete lack of any solid proof of psychic ability.

Part of the problem with psi research stems from misunderstandings of randomness. If I give 100 people a piece of paper and ask them to plot 30 dots in random locations on the paper, the vast majority of the people will produce decidedly non-random results. They will spread the dots out in a somewhat even pattern, subconsciously making sure not to place any two dots too near one another. This is what we think of as random. It is not. It is evenness. Random plotting would leave awkward concentrations of dots, possibly even connecting dots while large areas of the paper would remain blank. It's not until we get into huge numbers (ie: if I asked them to randomly plot 100,000 dots) that we see things gradually shift toward an overall evenness.

I was recently in a casino and chuckled to myself as I watched people at the roulette table analyze the past 30 numbers to have come up. The casinos helpfully display the past numbers so gamblers can make an assessment as to what will come up next. Of course, this is ridiculous and the casino knows they are merely conveying a false sense of assuredness to help people lose their money with more confidence. Each roll of the ball is completely autonomous and independent of any past or future rolls. It is the purest definition of randomness. But what do you think I saw when I looked at the display? The number 16 had come up 4 times in the past 30 rolls. Statistically probable? Heck no. Random? You betcha.

Let's say that ahead of time I had placed 30 people in the room with that Roulette wheel and asked them all to individually concentrate on a single number. Would it be reasonable for me to take the person who was concentrating on 16 and claim that they alone must have some sort of supernatural sway? I hope I don't have to answer that for you. How about the person who was concentrating on a number that never came up? Could I conclude that they must have prevented the ball from landing on that number with their psychic mojo? Unfortunately, this is exactly what many paranormal researchers do. They expect evenness when they should expect chaotic, unpredictable randomness. When results happen to go in favor of what they were looking for? Voila! We've discovered psychic ability!

Randomness assures clunky, awkward results. Science is plagued with paths that led to nowhere because of anomalous results that eventually disappeared under large scale testing. Psi research is not immune to the fact that enough testing will produce positive results here and there, sometimes even impressively positive results. The sheer lack of replicability in those studies indicates that they were simply looking at a strange mass of random dots that happened to land in a single section of the page. If results disappear under attempts at replication, it's reasonable to conclude that the original results were statistical anomalies that we'd expect to happen here and there due to randomness. I've heard psi researchers claim over and over again that psychic ability is simply unpredictable, or that it disappears under the negative energy of skeptics, yada yada yada. Post hoc rationalizations abound, none of which explain why "positive" psychic results routinely display exactly what we'd expect to see under the theory that psychic abilities don't actually exist. We'd expect random results. This is what we see.

Greg goes on for a bit on P values, though I failed to see the P values touted by Greg explained in the MDC test rules. It did state that the results necessary for a "pass" will be agreed upon by both parties as will the test protocol and supervisors. I would ask from the JREF a clarification on Greg's accusation that their rules would prohibit a 19/20 result from being a win when chance would expect around 10/10. I similarly suspect that this is a red herring, but I'll allow the JREF to comment of they are so inclined. In the next few weeks, I'm actually scheduled to interview a few key players at the JREF for my podcast "Meet The Skeptics," so I'll ask for clarification at that time so long as we can coordinate schedules.

For now I'll simply say that the MDC stands as a critical and necessary PR tool to counteract the lack of critical analysis in the general news media. Whether or not the rules are easy or difficult concerns me not. As long as it is there, more people will take unfounded stories with a grain of salt.