We've moved to a better place...

You will be automatically redirected to the new address. If that does not occur, visit
http://www.relativelytinteresting.com
and update your bookmarks.

Showing posts with label skeptical. Show all posts

Thursday, December 29, 2011 ~ Have your say...

Celebrities and Misinformed Science Claims

, , , , ,

Sense About Science is a charitable organization that equips people to make sense of science and evidence.  

Since 2006, they have reviewed the misinformed science claims that celebrities have made - about diets, cancer, magnets, radiation, and more.  Many of these claims promote theories, therapies and campaigns that make no scientific sense and are not backed by legitimate scientific evidence. Sense About Science then works with scientists to respond to these claims, helping the celebrities to realize where they are going wrong and helping the public make sense of these often strange claims.

A few of the highlights from the report include:

  • Jersey Shore's Snooki's remark that the oceans are salty due to an abundance of whale sperm...  Snooki, that would have to be a lot of sperm to make the entire ocean salty.
  • Bill O’Reilly, US TV host and political commentator reference to the tides:   “In my opinion – alright? Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that. You can’t explain why the tide goes in.”  Bill, try "the moon's gravitational force."
  • Michelle Bachman, member of the US House of Representatives and Republican Presidential Candidate, told journalists: “There’s a woman who came up crying to me tonight after the debate. She said her daughter was given the [HPV] vaccine. She told me her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result. There are very dangerous consequences.”  In reality, there is no evidence to suggest that the HPV vaccine causes mental retardation or that there are dangerous consequences. Cervical cancer, however, does cause deaths. The vaccination program in the UK is forecast to save 400 lives per year.
Why is the report relevant and important? 

Tracey Brown, Managing Director at Sense About Science for the Guardian UK explains:
"Celebrity claims have a particular kind of reach. They boast a large share of high-impact broadcast and social media followed by the longevity of weekly and monthly magazines which then float around indefinitely in doctors' waiting rooms. Once uttered, their views go viral and global, and it is hard to mount an effective response, especially on subjects like vaccine safety.  It’s tempting to dismiss celebrity comments on science and health, but their views travel far and wide and, once uttered, a celebrity cancer prevention idea or environmental claim is hard to reverse. At a time when celebrities dominate the public realm, the pressure for sound science and evidence must keep pace."
Sense About Science is doing their part to promote critical thinking and skepticism.  Read the report,download the PDF for free, and share it to do your part.



Friday, October 28, 2011 ~ Have your say...

Looking Through the Eyes of the Skull of Doom

, , , , , , , ,

Magical Artifacts Or Man-Made Marvels?

Behold, the Crystal Skull of Doom (image, left).  This fine piece of workmanship is shrouded in mystery – from its origin to its special powers.   Some have said that it was handed down by extraterrestrials to the ancient Mayans. Others theorize that the crystal skull originated from lost a civilization with advanced technologies for their time - like the inhabitants of Atlantis.

Modern New Agers believe that the crystal skulls have supernatural abilities like healing or “visions of the past, present and future”. They also claim that at certain points on the Earth, the crystal skulls vibrate and project images similar to a hologram.  Some say that, when placed close together, they will produce an audible hum.

"I personally feel that the Crystal Skulls are not only here to share ancient knowledge and wisdom, but to assist in awakening our race to higher spiritual laws and understanding of itself....If the Crystal Skulls were not brought by extraterrestrials then certainly we must conclude their [sic] have been civilizations much more technologically or spiritually advanced than our own today." --Joshua "Illinois" Shapiro

"[The] crystal stimulates an unknown part of the brain, opening a psychic door to the absolute." -- Frank Dorland

Behold - The Skull of Doom!

Skulls have often been associated to the symbol of death in many different cultures.  Crystal skulls entered the public eye around 1943 when the Mitchell-Hedges Skull, more affectionately known as the Skull of Doom, was allegedly found by archeological excavator F.A. Mitchell-Hedges' daughter, Anna Mitchell-Hedges, during her father's exhibition to discover Atlantis*.
According to F.A Mitchell, Anna was rummaging around while her father was working, and she stumbled upon an altar in a temple where she found a crystal skull.  There’s no hard evidence for this claim, and there’s no evidence of Anna tagging along with her father to the Lubaatun exhibition.  In fact, there is contradictory evidence in a 1936 journal which states that the Crystal Skull belonged to an art trader by the name of Sydney Burney.  Interesting.  Without going into the fine details, the skull traded hands a number of times before resting at the Smithsonian Institution today.

All Things Evil

Anna believed that the Skull of Doom embodied all things evil and that it was a piece of an important ritual. According to Anna, when an old priest was about to die, he would pass all of his knowledge to the younger priest through the crystal skull before passing.

Besides the Skull of Doom from Mitchell-Hedges, there are other discoveries of crystal skulls, like the British Crystal Skull, the Paris Crystal Skull, the Mayan crystal Skull, the Amethyst Crystal Skull, Max, ET Skull, Rose Quartz Skull, Brazilian Crystal Skull, and "Compassion" - the Atlantean Crystal Skull. According to avid new agers, there are 13 'master' crystal skulls all together, if brought together would unveil secrets and knowledge beyond the world.  Just like a scene out of an Indiana Jones movie.

Oops, a Contradiction

Now, scientists, researchers, and skeptics claim that the crystal skulls are frauds and made recently. Studies from a Hewlett Packard lab (there are no evidence or report that this took place!) states that some features of the crystal skull cannot be emulated even with modern technologies, like how it is carved against its axis, which would usually shatter the crystal.  Trouble is, there actually no evidence for the study at HP.

What about a real study?  Glad you asked.

Using real science like a microscopic analysis and newly discovered archival documents, Smithsonian anthropologist Jane Walsh has revealed the Mitchell-Hedges skull to be a modern creation about which a mythology was deliberately spun.

Just the Facts

In her article, “The Skull of Doom”, published on Archeology.org, author Jane MacLaren Walsh states:

 “Analysis of the Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull using SEM (scanning electron microscopy) leaves little doubt that this object was carved and polished using modern, high-speed, diamond-coated, rotary, cutting and polishing tools of minute dimensions. This technology is certainly not pre-Columbian. I believe it is decidedly 20th century. The similarities between the Mitchell-Hedges skull and the British Museum skull suggest that the former is an improved copy of the latter. The recently published SEM study of the British Museum skull additionally suggests it was probably carved within a decade of the date it was first offered for sale in 1881 (Sax, Walsh, et al. 2008: p. 2759). It is not unreasonable to conclude that the Mitchell-Hedges skull, which first appeared in 1933, was also created within short time of its debut.”

The Less-Than-Exciting Conclusion

Frederick Mitchell-Hedges warned that the skull was “the embodiment of all evil” and that “several people who have cynically laughed at it have died, others have been stricken and become seriously ill” (1954: p. 240).  Worry not - the Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull is not ancient, and not even very old. It was probably made in Europe in the 20th century, and was not polished for five generations. It is not powerful, not scary and not at all what it purports to be.  It’s just a fine piece of workmanship, at best.


*  They never found Atlantis…  yet people today still attribute the skull’s fictional powers to the fictional island and fictional people of Atlantis.

References:
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/mitchell_hedges/
http://www.skepdic.com/crystalskull.html

Thursday, October 13, 2011 ~ Have your say...

Does eating turkey really make you sleepy?

, , , ,

Thanksgiving has come and gone here in Canada, and is coming up in the USA.  Around the office and among friends, someone will undoubtedly comment that they were sleepy after their turkey dinner, and then someone else will pipe up and say, “That’s because turkey contains tryptophan, which makes you sleepy.”

While it is true that turkey does contain tryptophan and tryptophan does make humans sleepy, it’s not necessarily true that “eating turkey makes you sleepy”.  Here’s why.

L-tryptophan is an essential amino acid with a scientifically recognized sleep inducing effect. It is used in the body to produce niacin, a B Vitamin. Tryptophan can be metabolized into serotonin and melatonin, which are neurotransmitters that cause a calming effect and help to regulate sleep. But here’s the kicker:   L-tryptophan needs to be taken on an empty stomach and without any other amino acids or protein in order to make you drowsy.  In other words, the act of eating turkey (a source of protein) negates the sleep-inducing effects of tryptophan.

It's also worth noting that several other foods contain as much or more tryptophan than turkey including chicken, pork, and cheese. As with turkey, other amino acids are present in these foods besides tryptophan, so they negate the sleepiness effect.  Tryptophan also occurs naturally in red meat, other dairy products, nuts, seeds, bananas, soy products, tuna, and shellfish.  So turkey is nothing special when it comes to its concentration of tryptophan – you can get a similar dose by eating shrimp, tuna, snapper, and even chicken breast.  Oddly enough, people don’t react the same way after eating those items, do they?

So why do we feel sleepy after eating our turkey dinner, if it’s not the tryptophan?  

Consider this:  you’re on vacation, and you’re already feeling pretty relaxed.  You just ate a massive meal and probably ate too much.  You probably had high levels of carbohydrates and fats with your meal, and you probably had a drink or two (or three… or four).  

Digestion of large meals (overeating) causes blood to be directed away from your organs and nervous system to your digestive system, which induces sleepiness.  A meal that contains a lot of fat will cause the same effect.  The less blood you have circulating around the rest of your body, the more sleepy you will become.  Alcohol is a depressant and will, for a large part of the population, make you drowsy. All these things combine to make you sleepy and lethargic after your Thanksgiving feast!

Thursday, September 22, 2011 ~ Have your say...

James Randi to speak in Toronto

, , , , ,

Noted skeptic and magician James "The Amazing" Randi will be giving a talk on September 27th in Toronto.  I will be attending and blogging about the event.
 
James Randi exposes popularly accepted fakery by discussing with his audience everything from UFOs to the Bermuda Triangle, from the Von Däniken “Chariots of the Gods” fraud to the notion of a lost continent named Atlantis. Randi reveals what really took place in the last three decades in the labs of various prestigious “think tanks” that verified a series of simple magicians tricks as genuine miracles, thus launching a world-wide plague of misinformation, the repercussions of which can still be felt today.

This unique and provocative lecture is not only educational but also highly entertaining. It attracts persons of all educational and social backgrounds and provides a rational perspective on the seemingly paranormal and otherwise unexplained happenings in our day-to-day life.

Mr. Randi illustrates how a “politically-correct” attitude has blinded scientists — who should know better — to the fact that they are not proficient at detecting fraud, often managing to fool themselves, when the prize is sufficiently attractive. Randi offers a million-dollar award to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal "powers".

The Million Dollar Challenge

The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.

From the JREF website:  At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."

To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests, and major psychics like Syvia Browne have declined to take the challenge.

Saturday, March 19, 2011 ~ Have your say...

Science and Skepticism and Blogging - oh my!

, , , ,

What this blog's about...


I'm often asked how I got interested in skepticism and why I started this blog.  So, finally, I'm going dedicate a post to answer these questions.  This post will also be added to the About page.

Formally, the purpose of this blog is to promote science, skepticism, critical thought, and the beauty of the natural world.  I created that mission with four "pillars" in mind.  They are:


Science: 

Science is a powerful tool that allows us to discover truths about the natural world.  The scientific method seeks to explain what happens in nature and then makes useful predictions.  It allows us to solve problems while minimizing the effects of subjective bias.  Science is empirical and subject to falsification, which allows theories to “evolve” over time as scientists gather new information.   Science does not claim certainty; it aims to come as close to truth as possible.

Skepticism:

Skepticism can be somewhat controversial because it forces people to question beliefs that are often taken for granted by the general population.  A skeptic is not someone who simply “questions everything”, but rather, someone who tests the probability and reliability of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation:  the scientific method.  “De-bunking” claims is a subset of skepticism, and although important (and fun), it is only a part of the definition. 

Critical Thought:

When we are presented with information (especially from the media), we can choose to ignore it, believe it, disbelieve it, or think about it and then make a decision.  We live in an extremely fast paced world, and often there simply isn’t enough time to sit back and digest information.  And this is a problem:  critical thought is not part of our daily lives, and it needs to be.  We need to assess information and make educated decisions based on the assessment. 

The Beauty of the Natural World:

It’s important to realize that our natural world is incredible, awe-inspiring, and downright unbelievable at times.  For this reason, it’s not necessary to invoke the paranormal, cryptids, myths, legends, UFOs, Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster (among many).  You only have to look in your backyard to be amazed by nature’s complexities.  Look at the composition of matter at or below the microscopic scale; or look at the enormous, incomprehensible size of our universe; or the dynamic array of species and life on Earth.


About This Blog, and How It Came To Be

The Early Years
I was very fortunate to have parents that encouraged me to read at an early age.  My father would read me Tarzan stories before bed, and my mother would sit with me as I read my first book, “Big Machines”.  Based on my Big Machine learnings, my mother frequently took me to a nearby construction site, where I quietly observed the steam shovels, loaders, and dump trucks do their thing.  I was amazed by their power, and could not imagine how machines so large could operated by people so small, and that, eventually, a field turned into a hole, a hole turned into a foundation, and a foundation into a building.  I was a curious and inquisitive little boy, and thankfully my parent’s encouraged me to forever ask “why?”.


Dinosaurs, Badlands, and Paleontology

At around 6 years old, I was introduced to my first book about dinosaurs.  I decided shortly thereafter that I would move to Alberta to work the Badlands as a paleontologist.  I of course didn’t, and instead stayed in my home town of Montreal and collected dozens of books about dinosaurs, and could rhyme off many of them, including whether or not they lived during the Triassic, Jurassic, or Cretaceous periods.  I couldn’t get enough of them.  I loved the idea that these creatures roamed the Earth millions of years ago.  Paleontology forced me to learn a bit about geology, which then led me to learn about weathering and erosion, climate, eco systems, biodiversity, extinction, evolution… and more. 


I Then Looked to the Skies

In my high school chemistry class, I had to do a large project and decided it would be interesting to study the life cycle of stars.  Dinosaurs and paleontology took a backseat while I soaked up astronomy – and this became my new fascination and obsession.
 

Astronomy, for me, tied the world of physics and chemistry.  After the project’s completion, I got my first telescope - a 4.5 inch Newtonian Reflector.  I hastily set it up and pointed it at the moon.  I could not believe what I saw.  Craters, shadows, ridges, valleys – the whole moon was magnified so much that it couldn’t even fit in my field of view.  I remember calling my father over and showing him – he thought I had placed a card in front of the telescope.   It was literally that unbelievable.
On clear nights, I would set the telescope up outside (we lived in the country, so I was fortunately not affected by light pollution), and point it to Saturn, Venus, and Jupiter – they were easy to find, and would blow people’s minds when they saw them.  Especially Saturn – seeing the rings by yourself (not in a picture, or on TV) is, to me, a life changing experience.  To sit and really think that you are looking at something so large and so far away is mind boggling.

Astronomy also introduced me to Carl Sagan, one of the “fathers” of skepticism.  I watched Cosmos on TV and VHS, and read the book twice.  He spoke with such passion and clarity, and in a way that non-scientists could understand.  He helped bring science to the mainstream.  When he died in 1996, I was extremely sad, and deeply touched.  I had only known of his work for a short time, but was deeply affected by his passing because I felt it was a huge loss for both the scientific community and the general public.

High school passed, and I moved on to university to study computer engineering – hoping to leverage off the .com bubble (which, with my luck, burst just before I graduated).  During that time, I read the works of Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking, more Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Pinker and host of others.  I got deeper and deeper into astronomy and cosmology.  I started to question life; how it arose amongst the vast emptiness of space.  I questioned religion, and the need for a god (non-specific to any religion).  I questioned psychology, the mind, consciousness, and what that all meant. 

 
A Brave New World (With Disposable Income)

After graduation, I got a job and became a full-blown consumer with a bit of a disposable income.  It was really only at that point - when forced to make decisions about how to spend my money on things that were not school related -  that I began to question “products” and the media.  Did taking vitamins work for an average guy like me?  Would ginko-biloba improve my memory?  Should I take mega doses of Vitamin C and Echinacea when I have a cold?  Are UFO’s even plausible?  What about the Loch Ness monster (my childhood favorite)?  Is it the end of the world as we know it?  Is there any truth to Astrology?  What about the stuff I hear on television, the Internet, magazines, and radio?  Armed with Google’s search engine, I started researching


A Discovery

Browsing the magazines in Chapters – looking for the latest copy of Discover or Scientific American – I stumbled upon a magazine called “Skeptic”.  I flipped through it, and realized, “There’s a whole group of people out there just like me!”.  I devoured the magazine’s content, and then moved on to the Skeptical Enquirer.  These magazines led me to more books – Demon Haunted World and Flim-Flam, among others.  I discovered the podcast “Skepticality”, “The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe”, Skeptoid, and devoured their content too.  I read the works of Michael Shermer, StevenNovella, Phil Plait, James Randi.  I learned about logical fallacies, how to argue and debate, and to be culturally sensitive when discussing controversial topics, and how to dissect information into understandable parts so that it can be used to make educated decisions.  I’m still learning all those things today.  I asked myself – am I a “skeptic”?  Yes, I was.  But what exactly was a skeptic?


“Skeptic” :  My Favorite Definition

I like to use Steven Novella’s definition, which is as follows:

“A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion.”

And Now, The Point (of the Story, and of This Blog)

What’s the point of this long winded story? 
 
Had it not been for the exposure I was so luckily given – the books, the media, the telescope, the projects, the classes, the podcasts, the blogs, and the people – I would not have taken an interest in any of these fascinating areas of thought.   I would not have dived so deep into science and discovered so many awe-inspiring things.  For that reason, I created this blog – so that others may experience and enjoy what I have.  To the best of my ability, I present information related to the four pillars in the mission:  science, skepticism, critical thought, and the world’s natural beauty.  I hope to encourage others to think rationally, critically, and enjoy what science and this incredible world has to offer.

Thursday, February 24, 2011 ~ Have your say...

Conspiracy Theories: An Interview with Karl Mamer, The Conspiracy Skeptic

, , , , , , , , , ,

Conspiracy theories can sometimes be so compelling and well presented that it can be easy to be swept up in them.  Thankfully, there are people out there who are experts in dealing with the misinformation and disinformation found within them.

Allow me to introduce Karl Mamer, host of The Conspiracy Skeptic podcast, who will take us through a discussion about conspiracy theories.   Be sure to visit Karl’s site over at http://www.yrad.com/cs/ and subscribe to his podcast on iTunes.


Tell our readers a bit about yourself… what got you interested in conspiracy theories and how did it lead to the website and podcast?

I studied some informal logic in university (basically you study all the classic logical fallacies like Straw Man, False Dichotomy, etc.). It was a lot of fun going through letters to the editors and op eds and finding logical fallacies. It was like getting a university credit for doing crossword puzzles (and given my BA was in Psychology, I spent a lot of time in classes doing crossword puzzles). This was pre-Internet days (I'm 44). By the time I got onto the Internet I started noticing all these conspiracies on the old Usenet newsgroup system. I was like "oh, they're using all the logical fallacies we used to have so much fun finding in my informal logic classes."

As well, I did my honors thesis on urban legends. It struck me that many urban legends seemed to have the function to pass on safety tips (be careful of insane killers with sharp spikes for hands). At the same time, they seemed unnecessarily cruel and horrific. Did increased horror make the legend seem more believable and hence helped propagate the core message? I didn't actually find this in my research. But when I started to encounter conspiracy theories on the net, I began to notice more parallels with urban legends.

At some point I started a site called The Conspiracy Arc-Hive that archived and categorized all the various conspiracy theories. The site died when the company that hosted the site for free died. Fast forward about 10 years and I was doing a podcast called Seoul Survivors. As the name implies, I was in Seoul and doing a podcast about thriving and surviving in Seoul. I tried to sneak in as much skeptical content as I could and my co-host Jennifer Young seemed a natural skeptic as well. After Korea I wanted to keep doing a podcast and do something that was all skeptical content. So I resurrected by interest in conspiracies.

What exactly is a conspiracy theory, and what sets them apart of normal theories?

A conspiracy theory is basically a seemingly tidy narrative that tries to explain some given set of conditions, typically conditions the conspiracy theorist doesn't particularly like: Why is there still cancer? Why do I not have the power and prestige I think I deserve? How come we've not gone back to the moon? Why is George W. Bush so darn evil?

Any good explanation, of course, starts with a narrative. "I think Rome fell because of x, y, z." As humans we can't help but try to tie together random facts into a sanity preserving narrative. But real theorists (from scientists to historians) take that extra step to marshal positive evidence for their theory. They consider evidence against their theory.

Conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, start and stop with their convenient narrative. They rarely have positive evidence. They seem content to rely on a belief that if it could have happened that way then that's good enough. It's a classic god-of-the-gaps fallacy but for conspiracies. I can't explain why this 22 year old would shoot up a school, therefore I know why: CIA mind control.

Top 3 conspiracies?  How come?

I like conspiracy theories that help me learn something. I always tell people you're not going to convince the true believers but the true believers do help question our basic assumptions. They force you to ask yourself "yeah, how do we know what we know?" How do we know we really landed on the moon? How do we know HIV causes AIDS? Is the banking system really just a big scam?

To that end, I'd say the conspiracies that I've learned the most from, hence my favorites, are:

The International Banking Conspiracy: You really got to delve a lot into finance to figure this one out.
HIV is a Myth: An interesting education in virology and what a disease actually is.
The Bilderbergs: You learn a lot about Western European post-war politics.

What’s the deal with the “New World Order”?  I hear this come up time and time again as an overarching conspiracy theory…

There's a problem with the term itself. It was used a lot in the early part of the 20th century in a manner very different than it is used conventionally today. It's a bit like how Darwin would talk about "favored races" but that would sound racist to us today. To a historian of International Relations, when politicians talked about a new world order, they were talking about a remarkable new idea where nations (mostly nations that had fought for a long time over colonies) cooperated, not competed. It had nothing to do with giving up national sovereignty.

Today, it's used by conspiracy types to mostly mean just that: nations giving up sovereign rights to some one world government. It's a catch all label that really explains nothing. Even granting someone has a plan to create a one world government, just as someone had a plan to tie together 13 colonies into a "united states", you have to ask your friendly neighborhood conspiracist what is the difference between a nation state giving up some portion of sovereignty to a super state as compared to Delaware giving up some rights to form a new super state?
To my mind, there is no difference. As long as it's the will of the voter.

Many conspiracy theories are harmless - stuff like crop circles, or the government hiding information about UFOs and aliens – but what about conspiracies like 9/11 (the Loose Change video) or the generally angry sentiment towards Big Pharma…  do you think there’s any harm in these?

I remember arguing with an HIV denialist and he claimed if HIV were real, they should be able to photograph it. I pointed out to him a photo of the virus on the wiki page. He noted the photo credit indicated the photo was from the CDC. Since the CDC was owned by the government and the government lied to us about 9/11 then they weren't above faking HIV photos. *face palm*

The problem with many conspiracy types is they're always prepared to disbelieve the official story. But sometimes the official story is true. Sometimes not believing the official story can harm you or the ones you love. Yes, sometimes Big Pharma tries to sell us (or doctors) on drugs we don't need. But probably most of the drugs they sell are safe and effective. Yes, sometimes governments lie to us. But when they tell you your milk is safe to drink or your baby car seat is safe for your child, they're likely telling the truth. Conspiracies can lead us so far down a hole of distrust, it's a wonder how some of these people leave their house in the morning.

I’ve debated with conspiracy theorists on a number of occasions, and found it to be very difficult to “win” the argument.  For example, someone will make a claim that “crop circles are made by aliens”, and I’ll point out that this has, time and time again, been proven to be a hoax.  In fact, the people often admit that they did it!  But the conspiracy theorist will argue “they’ve been told to say that – it’s all part of the conspiracy.”….   So how do you debate a conspiracy with a “true believer”?

As noted above, don't debate to win. Debate to learn. And debate to convince the fence sitters. Most of us, especially when we were younger, grew up believers in UFOs, ancient aliens, and psychic powers. As we got older most of us probably became more fence sitters. But when we saw there was another explanation, one based in verifiable fact, we got off the fence. Don't underestimate the number of people who can, online, look into your debate and see when the facts are on your side.

Do you think you’ve ever been able to change a conspiracy theorists’ mind?  Or is that pretty much impossible?

Probably not. They know they have the truth. Even if you show them the facts don't support their position, they will always be able to take shelter in the belief the facts are simply made up or new facts will eventually emerge to prove they were right. Still, have you ever argued with a friend and passionately defended your position but then mulled over the arguments later and shifted your position? Ah, maybe you can get some people to shift their beliefs over time. And don't forget, sometimes people have a growing sense they're actually wrong but argue passionately for their belief to convince themselves they're right and don't want to abandon a comfy world view. Again, time can be an ally.

Any final words for our readers?  Any shoutouts?
For your Canadian readers, Vision TV has a new conspiracy TV show. I'll be the skeptical guest on the March 18 and March 25 episodes. I might only have 2 minutes of screen time. If they use my best stuff, I like to think I got some of the conspiracy claims dead to actual facts.

As of this writing, I've only seen the first two episodes. It's better balanced than Jesse Ventura's awful awful conspiracy series. Ventura's show leaves you actually stupider. The Canadian conspiracy show is hosted by Richard Syrett. One of Syrett's producers is a skeptic, Ron Craig. His hand in the show gives me some confidence.

Like I say, I've only seen the first two episodes so far. As a skeptic, I would have naturally liked if they gave the skeptics more screen time. Or there was more of a point-counter-point aspect. Some of the believer claims really begged to be challenged. For example on the UFO show, the believer guest trotted out the claim that George Bush as head of the CIA denied a specific request by President Carter for UFO information. As any skeptic who listens to the SGU podcast knows, Jimmy Carter himself was quite clear that incident never happened. It's a fabrication of the UFO community that gets told and retold.

Beyond that quibble, Syrett and his crew seemed to do their best to get the best skeptics they could for each episode. Each skeptic went in with eyes wide open. This wasn't an Expelled type stitch up. Syrett himself hosts a Coast to Coast type radio show that delves into conspiracies and paranormal topics. Syrett has his beliefs and the Coast to Coast type are his constituency.

A new TV show that can bring in a core audience has a better chance of getting made. However, Syrett struck me as a reasonable and genuine man and just a really, really nice guy.

Anyway, it's not Penn & Teller's Bullshit!, but Syrett's Conspiracy Show certainly gives skeptics more screen time than any woo-show infesting History channel these days. If there's a Season 2, I sure hope I can weasel my way into the show on the writing, research end!

Sunday, January 30, 2011 ~ Have your say...

Pyramid Schemes Explained (And Why They Are A Scam)

, , , , , , , ,

Pyramid Schemes: An Impossible Way to Make Money

At some point in your life, you were probably approached by a friend or acquaintance who just discovered an incredible investment or business opportunity, and said that you, yes you, could join him and reap the benefits. All you have to do is pay your buddy $100, and then get 6 other people to do the same for you – for a cool $500 return on your investment! You would tell your recruits to do the same thing – to each recruit 6 more people. And on and on it would go. At this point, your skeptical senses should be tingling and you should ask yourself, "This sounds too good to be true. Could it be a pyramid scheme?"

I'm often asked for a "practical" use of skepticism and critical thought. Well, here's a great example where skepticism can save you money and time. Pyramid schemes are a scam, plain and simple. Worried that your investment opportunity is a pyramid scheme? Read on, my friend.

What is a pyramid scheme?

There are two kinds of pyramid schemes: naked, and product based. A pyramid scheme works well for only a very small number of people at the top of the pyramid. The main characteristic of a pyramid scheme is that is that people only make money by recruiting other members. The number of people involved in the scheme grows geometrically, so that the base of the pyramid becomes very wide, very quickly.

In a naked pyramid scheme, there isn't even a product. The formula for "success" is as follows:
  • One person recruits 6 other people to participate in the "wonderful opportunity"
  • The 6 new recruits each pay the recruiter $100
  • The recruiter now tells them to recruit 6 more people and do the same
  • So if each recruit gets someone new, they will each end up with $500 from a very cool $100 investment.
So what's the problem? Pyramid schemes become unsustainable very quickly.

For example, assume the 6 new recruits each find 6 more people to make their $500. Now these newer recruits will need to find 216 people so they can each make their $500. Assume again, for the sake of argument, that these 216 newest recruits are successful. They have to find 1,296 people just so they can each make their $500.  At this point, you're at the size of a small town, and at the next level, 7,776 people are needed. Pretty quickly, you run out of people to find as new recruits, and the pyramid collapses since everyone at the bottom has lost their investment... By level 11, you require just about every person in the United States to become a recruit, and by level 13, you've exceeded the Earth's population! The larger the initial group of people, the less levels needed until the pyramid collapses.

In a product based pyramid scheme, it's the same idea, except that it's masked as a "sales" opportunity, usually of a bogus product:
  • A distributor recruits 6 salespeople who each pay $100 for a starter kit of products to sell.
  • The distributor gets 10 percent of each starter kit that's sold.
  • The distributor also gets a cut of 10 percent of each product that any of the recruits sell (including additional starter kits).
  • The recruits are told that the fastest way to make money isn't by selling products, but by recruiting more people to buy starter kits (sound familiar yet?)
  • The people at the top of the pyramid get commissions from everyone in their downline (the people below them in the pyramid).
Usually, the products have such a low margin, that it's nearly impossible to make a profit without getting more recruits... and we we know what happens then. By the time you're at the 12th level of the pyramid, you need to recruit 2 billion people so that everyone can make back their money. At the ninth level, you'd need 13 billion people... which is almost twice the population of the Earth.

Now, take a light break before we get into the mathematical proof...

Michael Scott from The Office gets himself into a pyramid scheme, and, as usual, hilarity ensues:



The folks over a FraudSquad have made a short video to help explain pyramid schemes:

Mathematical Proof that Pyramid Schemes Are A Scam

For simplicity, assume there is one person on top of the pyramid and this person asks for a fixed amount of money, say $1, to a second person, with the promise that if he convinces two more people to join and pay the entrance fee of $1, he will get $2 which would double up the initial investment.

At this point the first two people have made $1 dollar each. The other two people have to recruit two people each in order to double up their money. Now, we're at the fourth level of the pyramid, where 1+1+2+4=8 people are involved in the scheme.

As the pyramid grows and more levels are added, the number of people involved increases geometrically, so that at level n there will be 1+1+2+...+2n-2 persons in the scheme, and the bottom 2n-2 have to recruit 2n-1 new people in order to receive money. For example, when n = 34 (ie, there are 34 levels in the pyramid), the number of people invovled is 234-1 or 8,589,934,592 people, which again, is larger than the population on Earth (I chose n = 34 levels to illustrate that point).

This is what makes the scheme fraudulent: since the amount of people involved increases geometrically, the pyramid collapses because there are no more people to recruit and the people at the bottom of the pyramid all lose their initial "investment".

This table shows how many new paying members must be recruited at each level for programs (schemes) that require each new member to recruit 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 new members. (data courtesy http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/MLM_pyramid.php ).  Red cells indicate the times when it's literally impossible for the scheme to work, as too many people are involved.  Orange indicates the instances where it's theoretically possible, but realistically impossible (since no organizations exist with that kind of magnitude.  Yellow cells indicate that it's possible, but you'd have to be an incredible salesperson to succeed... and be part of a large international organization...


Level
 Number of new members each level must recruit to be profitable. (columns indicate the numbers for requirements of recruiting 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 new members)
4
5
6
7
8
1
4
5
6
7
64
2
16
25
36
49
512
3
64
125
216
343
4096
4
256
625
1,296
2401
32,768
5
1,024
3125
7,776
16,807
262,144
6
4,096
15,625
46,656
117,649
2,097,152
7
16,384
78,125
279,936
823,543
16,777,216
8
65,536
390,625
1,679,616
5,764,801
134,217,728
9
262,144
1,953,125
10,077,696
40,353,607
1,073,741,824
10
1,048,576
9,765,625
60,466,176
282,475,249
8,589,934,592
11
4,194,304
48,828,125
362,797,056
1,977,326,743
68,719,476,736
12
16,777,216
244,140,625
2,176,782,336
13,841,287,201

13
67,108,864
1,220,703,125
13,060,694,016





Pyramid Scheme Statistics:
  • 88 percent of the members will be on the bottom level of most pyramid schemes will lose their investment.
  • In a naked (productless) pyramid scheme, 90.4 percent of people lose their investment.
  • In product-based pyramid schemes, 99.88 percent lose their investment.

What About Multi-Level Marketing Schemes?

Multi-level marketing (MLM) is similar to pyramid schemes in that, to be successful, you have to recruit new members from your network and form a downline. In MLMs, you earn money in two ways: by selling a product, and/or by receiving commissions from the sales of your downline. MLMs, although subject to constant debate, are legal, however, pyramid schemes are not. An example of a popular MLM is Amway Corp.

Even though MLMs are legal, they still provide a terribly low income for most people. Several sources have commented on the income level of specific MLMs or MLMs in general:
  • The Times: "The Government investigation claims to have revealed that just 10 per cent of Amway's agents in Britain make any profit, with less than one in ten selling a single item of the group's products.
  • Scheibeler, a high level "Emerald" Amway member: "UK Justice Norris found in 2008 that out of an IBO [Independent Business Owners] population of 33,000, 'only about 90 made sufficient incomes to cover the costs of actively building their business.' That's a 99.7 percent loss rate for investors."
  • Newsweek: based on Mona Vie's own 2007 income disclosure statement "fewer than 1 percent qualified for commissions and of those, only 10 percent made more than $100 a week."
  • Business Students Focus on Ethics: "In the USA, the average annual income from MLM for 90% MLM members is no more than US $5,000, which is far from being a sufficient means of making a living (San Lian Life Weekly 1998)"
  • USA Today: "While earning potential varies by company and sales ability, DSA says the median annual income for those in direct sales is $2,400."In an October 15, 2010 article, it was stated that documents of a MLM called Fortune reveal that 30 percent of its representatives make no money and that 54 percent of the remaining 70 percent only make $93 a month.

How To Avoid Being Sucked Into A Pyramid Scheme:
  • Be skeptical, be careful, don't let a sales pitch get you so excited that you can't even think straight.
  • Get an unbiased opinion from a family member or friend before jumping in.
  • Research the "investment opportunity", make sure the company is legitimate.  Verify the claims - check the organizations track record.
  • Make sure you fully understand the business strategy. Don't jump in because it sounds too good to be true, because it probably is too good to be true.

The Ironic Conclusion

Pyramid schemes are a scam, plain and simple. Multi-level marketing schemes are barely legal, and offer very little return for their required investment of cash and time.
So, did you find this article helped to improve your understanding of pyramid schemes? If so, do your friends and family a favor by sharing this information with at least ten of them. Then ask each of them to share it with ten more people, and suggest they tell each of them to share it with ten more, and . . . .



References:

Older Posts
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...