TurboFool (Neither, really)

So yesterday I attended my first meeting at IIG (Independent Investigations Group) West, which is a division of the Center for Inquiry West. Before yesterday I hadn’t quite realized the history of the CFI. It encompasses several sub-organizations, the original of which was CSI (The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, formerly CSICOP), which was co-founded by Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov. I got quite the chill when I realized the history of the place I was in at that moment. Exciting stuff. It also houses the Steve Allen Theatre where they put on some fascinating products I hope to attend in the future.

Anyway, the meeting itself was interesting enough, although mainly just your standard committee meeting of sorts, discussing ongoing and upcoming investigations and events. It’s not the sexiest stuff, but as a skeptic it was interesting to see the process that goes into planning the investigations that we later only hear the results of. They’ve pulled a lot of great stunts for the sake of education, like the fake continuing education course for the CBRN (California Board of Registered Nurses) that they were licensed for containing such things as Chinese shéyou (literally translates to “snake-oil”), anthropomancy (fortune-telling via human entrails), and canupiary flexibility (canupiary exists in no language anywhere in the world). Their point was that after years of trying to point out the flaws in the CBRN’s system and getting no response, they decided to prove via a stunt how poor their standards are. There’s a lot of tricks they pull like this, and finding out how much work and planning go into them is fascinating.

One thing that did stand out was the attendance and subsequent joining of our group by Anita Ikonen, who was the previous paranormal challenger at the IIG, being tested on her ability to see inside the human body by having her figure out which of 12 people, facing away from her, was missing a kidney. She claims to have since realized her history of woo (such as her reliance on Breatharianism, the belief that we get all the sustaining nutrients we need from the air, making water and food unnecessary) was misfounded, and her new pursuit of degrees in physics and chemistry have given her a better perspective on science and the way the world really works. While some expressed skepticism (no joke intended) at this change of heart, when it comes to humans striving to improve themselves I try to keep the most open mind of all, and I wish her the best of luck.

I also had the good fortune of meeting Mark Edward, a world-renowned magician, mentalist, and reformed psychic who now fights on the side of good and honesty. He’s appeared on Penn & Teller: Bullshit! at least once (pilot episode), and is great at proving the tricks and trades of mediums, psychics, palm-readers, etc. by giving the exact same types of readings they do, with the same results, and then explaining how he did it. He’s one of the best forms of proof we have that the amazing revelations people believe they’ve been provided by these charlatans can be easily repeated by someone who makes no such claim to have those abilities, using good old-fashioned trickery and deceit. He was there to lend his expert oversight of the test and hopefully to catch any parlor tricks being pulled by the challenger, although as you’ll see later that was probably unneeded.

Mark wasn’t the only exciting person I met there, although the others are less of a celebrity to the average person. Derek Bartholomaus is a well-known skeptic and creator of the deeply valuable Jenny McCarthy Body Count, and has been interviewed on various podcasts. He’s another person I’ve definitely known of, and although I’ve conversed with him on Twitter and Facebook, this was the first time I got to meet him and hang out with him. As well, I met SurlyAmy of the incomparable SkepChick blog which is hugely valuable within the skepticism circles. She and I share a birthday, and it was agreed that this makes us both awesome. While that claim may have little substantiating evidence beyond mere coincidence of birth, I’m quite comfortable that the results are accurate without requiring further investigation. I also met several people from the CFI who I later realized were already familiar to me from having appeared on Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, such as Jim Underdown who also appears in the pilot.

One truly amazing thing about this group of people is how comfortable they are with one another as well as newcomers such as myself. I was instantly welcomed, with people introducing themselves to me, asking me questions about myself, and carrying on in-depth conversations with me as though I had been a member of the group for years. It was an instant and trusting connection, and something I feel honored to be a part of. These are truly good, honest, caring people who want nothing more than to help cut the bullshit out of the world and make some progress in letting people focus their health and resources on reality.

Anyway, after a nice lunch at Bamboo House (a very good Thai place within walking distance), we returned to where the test circumstances had been prepared. The challenger, Regen, had come in from Seattle via bus the day before with a buddy of his. His previous scheduled challenge had to be delayed as he was in jail at the time. I made a conscious effort not let this prejudice my opinion of him. People make mistakes, and it doesn’t always reflect them overall, not to mention it should have no bearing on whether they have supernatural powers.

Speaking of which, Regen’s claim (or at least the aspect of the claim being tested yesterday) was that he could project images telepathically to another person (hence the buddy) through walls. So the test was pretty simple. Deck of cards, shuffled, and displayed to him one by one while his buddy in another room, visible to him via a CCTV, “received” each card and noted it, with each card being numbered and documented on the other side. Afterwards the results would be compared and if he got 7 out of 52 matched (somewhere in the 13,600:1 odds range), they’d consider the preliminary test passed and move on to the final test with stricter standards at a later, and far more publicized date. Logical enough.

My first sign that something wasn’t quite right was when Regen walked into the room. His limbs were all over the place, he was muttering to himself, and as he sat down in his chair he reached up and yanked off his shirt. I initially suspected he may have been mentally challenged in some way, but it quickly became apparent that he was merely drunk and/or high. He later confirmed on more than one occasion throughout and after the test that he was drunk. So much for taking this seriously.

Thing is, though, he did seem to take it quite seriously. Throughout the test, despite occasionally forgetting the card he was just looking at, saying the card out loud (against the rules), forgetting how to spell “spades,” talking in general, and occasionally forgetting whether he was supposed to be sending or receiving the card, he would get quite upset at the fact that his buddy didn’t appear to be moving on-screen. He expressed concern that we might have frozen the feed and were cheating in some way. While a rule had been clearly set in place that there could be no form of communication between the two of them in either direction, Jim (the person officiating the test in a sense) did go ahead and radio back to have his friend raise three fingers or give another signal occasionally. Regen seemed pleased with this result each time before paranoia set back in.

Eventually the test concluded, his friend was brought out, and the results were tallied in front of everyone. First the actual cards that had been drawn were put up on the board. Everyone in the audience had also been given score sheets so we could play along. Some, such as myself, tried to also receive his signals, but those signals seemed to come in the form of me thinking about cards and randomly picking them, and carefully re-reviewing my list and making sure I didn’t repeat any. Near the end of filling out my sheet I noticed I had left out 10s completely and had to shoehorn them in the remaining slots. Others, such as Mark Edward himself, went ahead and predicted the entire thing ahead of time. Although they asked us officially at the end what our results were, we were pretty much calling out our hits as we went along. I actually had one match, as did several other audience members, and even Mark Edward. Apparently the odds of that are 1.75:1.

Next they pulled out his friend’s sheet and put those results up on the board. Although the results were clearly posted, Regen gave his own audible play-by-play of the results as he read his sheet, trying to claim hits when one half of the card (suit or number) was a match, or commenting on how drunk he must have been when he made his notes as what he wrote made no sense (“on that one I just wrote ‘okay.’ I don’t know why.”). I decided for the heck of it to track my results against his friend’s, just in case Regen really had been transmitting results, just the wrong ones. Sure enough, I matched TWO of his buddy’s results, which must mean… something… … ? Yeah.

Anyway, the long and the short of it is that Regen has no telepathic transmission abilities, or his buddy sucks at receiving them, or he should have laid off the sauce, as they got a perfect 0 out of 52. Not a single card matched. So yes, even I and Mark Edward and several audience members managed to do slightly better by guessing. When confronted with this, the guys mostly just laughed it off, blaming it on being drunk (calling themselves Cheech and Chong, although initially reversing the ethnicities before catching their error), referring to it as “just a game,” and taking it as no big deal. An interesting juxtaposition from his earlier concern over everything being done properly. Either way, he and his friend seemed to have a good time and said as much, and it was definitely entertaining for the rest of us, although not necessarily in the ways we expected.

btw, one person suggested that his friend learn to count cards so he could be a bit more convincing. I’d have to agree, as reviewing the results showed a lot of obvious patterns. He passed on two three, and used 10 5s and 11 3s in his results, and almost no face cards. Definite signs of the human mind’s attempt at random guessing. As well, when asked if they had practiced at all under the test conditions they had agreed upon ahead of time, and per the recommendation of the center, they admitted they had not. I wasn’t surprised as I had learned earlier that this answer could pretty much be predicted with almost flawless accuracy in all challenges. Over-confidence can be a killer.

You can find the full video of the event here, although it did run a couple of hours. That said, if you’re into drunk guys getting confused while telepathically transmitting playing cards, I think it may be the only show in town. Enjoy!

So tomorrow I’ll be attending my very first skeptical challenge, held at IIG West in Hollywood. If you don’t know what a skeptical challenge is, read on for a basic explanation.

The most well-known challenge is the Million-Dollar Challenge by the James Randi Educational Foundation. The principle is simply that if someone with paranormal abilities can prove themselves to the judges of the challenge, they win a million dollars. The IIG challenge I’ll be witnessing tomorrow is for “only” $50,000, which would certainly pay off my debt and give me more money each month to spend on enjoying myself, so you can see the appeal in applying.

Thing is, though, not that many people apply. Certainly not the big fish, like the television psychics, or the people who push their books and videos and such in infomercials and online, or hold live events. People like John Edwards, or Sylvia Browne, or Uri Gellar are all held in such high regard by their believers, and claim without a shadow of a doubt that they’re the real deal, really knowing things they shouldn’t be able to know, talking to the dead, telekinetically affecting the world around them, etc., and yet they all avoid these challenges. When asked, they’ll make up excuses such as, “I don’t need the money” (bet you a charity could use a donation in your name if you’re really that rich), “I know what I can do and my followers know what I can do, so I don’t need to prove it to anyone else” (imagine how many MORE followers you’d have to pay for your services if you did prove it), or “the challenge is rigged to prevent a person from winning because all the skeptics really want to do is disprove your abilities.” And THAT’s the sticking point I want to discuss in this post.

This isn’t an uncommon belief, and I suppose I can see where it’s coming from. It’s hard to believe anyone would actually want to fork over a million dollars, and when the people doing so have spent their entire careers consistently disproving supernatural phenomena, it’s easy to assume that’s all they do, that’s their focus and goal. But it’s actually not entirely true. Yes, one of our main angles as skeptics is to help prevent the public from being hurt by hucksters, scam artists, thieves, and charlatans who are out to take their money in exchange for false promises. We expose lies in alternative medicine to prevent people from avoiding REAL medicine that could actually solve their problems. We expose people who will do anything to separate you from your money and give you nothing in return. But that’s not all we do, and it’s not the entire purpose of the challenges.

See, deep down inside, many skeptics WANT to believe. I know, this seems contrary to everything I’ve said above as well as our image, but bear with me for a minute here. Skeptics are people just like everyone else, with interests and hobbies and fascinations, one of which happens to be an intent focus on scientific exploration of the world, and making decisions based upon that. But something that goes alongside a love of science is that most of us tend to be geeks to some degree or another (the cool, lovable modern geeks, that is). And as geeks, we tend to have certain specific interests, although they’re slowly becoming more mainstream. Things like speculative fiction (science fiction and fantasy), horror, magic, comic books, and science are all part of the stereotype. And the stereotype has some truth to it. No, this doesn’t fit each and every individual in the group, but each of these concepts is much more popular among the geek segment, and likely among the skeptical circles. So what’s my point?

Having grown up with these concepts and loves, us geeks spent much of our lives, and probably still do, fantasizing about a world where these things were all real. We’ve dreamed, we’ve written stories, we’ve wished and hoped that some of these things might actually exist out there. Sure many of us have grown jaded as we’ve gotten older and accepted that they don’t, but that doesn’t stop us from wanting them to. And every last one of us would be excited beyond belief to discover that just one of these loves was actually true.

Sci-fi geeks would kill to find out that quantum mechanics allows for technology beyond our dreams that defies the laws of physics. Fantasy dwellers would love to find out that mythological creatures really do exist and are hiding in the world among us. Horror aficionados disappointed by the lack of dark corners in our world to be freaked out by would go ga-ga to learn that ghosts and hauntings are real. Magic nuts would trip out if a magician came about who did tricks that had no grounding in sleight of hand, but really were beyond a normal person’s abilities. Comic book-lovers would kill to find out superheroes really exist among us, with crazy abilities that they have to hide from the world. And scientists dream of discovering new principles beyond the current rules of science that could open up entire fields to explore and research, also opening up research funds, Nobel prizes, and the like.

See, all of these types of people would love to find out that our world encompasses these very things we geek out over in a very real sense. And if there’s even a slim chance they could exist, we want to find them. And THAT’s another place these challenges come into play, as a tool to find the unknown.

Currently our world is full of the liars I mentioned earlier, and they ruin our chance of finding anyone who might really, truly have something to show us that fits the bill of an amazing discovery. They distract us with their tricks and hoaxes, and take up valuable time that could be spent researching the real deal, if it so happens to exist. So if we just opened up a center of sorts to look at anyone who claimed they had special abilities, we’d get pretty much only people wasting our time. But the challenge acts as a filter. We’re willing to put up the money if you’re willing to meet the rules to PROVE you can do what you say you can do. The liars and cheats look at this, read the rules, and realize there’s no way they’re getting that money, and they walk away. This leaves only the people who actually BELIEVE they can do what they say they can do. And this is a much, much smaller group, making it a lot easier to weed through them to possibly find something promising.

Another question asked is why would we WANT to give up the money? Even if they had the abilities, and assuming we genuinely DO want to find those abilities, isn’t it still in our best interest to cover it up so as not to have to shell out a large amount of money? Who’s got $50,000/$1,000,000 to just give away? Well, there’s a simple answer to this one, too: Those dollar figures are PEANUTS compared to the money that could be made promoting someone who passed the challenge. If you found the first person truly proven to have supernatural abilities, can’t you imagine all the ways in which you could make a fortune off of it? There’d be tours, talk shows, book deals, television appearances, advertising, and more. Not to mention likely awards (Nobel being one of many possibilities), positions involved in further testing of the ability and the scientific research that would go into it, etc. There would be far more money, fame, notoriety and excitement to be had from awarding the prize than ever to continuously turn it down.

Now I’m not going to lie and tell you there isn’t a certain expectation that the people participating in the challenge are going to fail. Let’s face it, nobody’s ever passed, we have a pretty darn good understanding of the laws that govern our world, and the pattern’s pretty firmly fixed. Nobody’s surprised when someone fails because the reality is that’s exactly what’s expected. But my point here is to explain that despite that expectation, despite that assumption that there is nothing supernatural in this world and nobody’s going to win that prize, that doesn’t stop us from wanting it to happen. As skeptics we’re not immune to excitement, and it’s not our goal to pee in people’s cornflakes. We just value honesty and reality more than lies and cons and self-delusion. But like everyone else, we root for the underdog, and we all hope to be involved in an incredible discovery that changes the world. And that’s one of the opportunities these challenges provide, and it’s one I’m going to try to keep in mind tomorrow. Regardless of what I expect to happen, I WANT the person being tested to truly be someone special, and it would be a hell of an experience to get to tell my grandkids about in the off-chance it happens. So I’ll go in tomorrow as open-minded as I always am and root for the underdog, all while carefully paying attention to reality and preventing myself being fooled. Either way, I’m sure I’ll have a lot of fun.

Religious folk have it easy (minus that whole eternity of nightmarish torment for kissing the wrong person thing). See, they get to live in a world of black and white, good and evil, right and wrong, yes and no, heaven and hell, The Beatles and Celine Dion. They get to state absolute certainties regardless of their inability to back them up because they have “faith.” And it’s really quite an enviable position, as it doesn’t require much in the way of intellectual leg work*. Debates can pretty much start and end with “this is just how it is,” and anything they add as to why or how is icing on the cake and optional (not to mention easily changed on the fly if the person they’re arguing against calls them on it). They know what they know, and usually can’t be swayed, which makes them look pretty darn strong to an unbiased and inexperienced onlooker.

This difference puts those of us who invest in science, reason, and honest self-examination at a bit of a disadvantage. When we’re explaining our position on a subject to a third party, assuming we play by our own rules, we must readily and honestly admit when we DON’T know something or can’t be 100% certain. While there’s much we’re clear on, there are many topics that aren’t cut and dry, or that we can’t prove/disprove beyond all shadow of a doubt. But those who subscribe to religious beliefs can claim with absolute certainty anything they feel, and when someone’s looking for an answer, especially in a moment of weakness, self-doubt, grief, loss, fear, pain, etc., certainty sure is nice to have.

This comes up quite heavily on the issue of God (we’ll simply go with the Judeo-Christian one for simplicity here, but this applies equally to all other deities and spiritual forces and such), and especially the matter of his existence or lack thereof. See, while religious folk are quite happy to stick with a firm, hard, unwavering “yes, He definitely exists,” those of us with a more scientific angle can only stick to much more wishy-washy answers such as, “we have no evidence he exists,” “his existence is highly improbable,” “while I can’t rule out the possibility entirely, I’m not convinced,” etc. As I remember hearing someone point out recently (wish I remember who so I could credit them), a true scientist if asked whether the sun would rise again tomorrow would say, after pointing out the inaccuracy of the phrase, that all he or she can state is that all observable evidence suggests so. We simply cannot guarantee that a cosmic disaster won’t take place before that moment, or that some reality-altering shift in the universe won’t change all that we know. We’re pretty frickin’ damn sure it’s going to “rise” again tomorrow, as it has every day throughout recorded history, and well before that as we can extrapolate from the preponderance of evidence, and we see no sign of impending doom in any of the vast fields of research in which such an event could be foreseen, but committing 100% is foolish when looking at something scientifically. The unknown must always be accounted for. So the same has to apply to this question of God’s existence, no matter how sure we are he doesn’t exist.

What I’ve noticed from this is that it often affects how a person portrays their philosophy on the subject, leading some to describe themselves as agnostic simply due to accepting this minute possibility that they’re wrong. Now this seems to me a very slim minority of those who are agnostic, with most somewhere between simply not caring and lacking the knowledge to make an informed decision. But some actively decide that it’s impossible to know for a fact or dishonest to state it as such, therefore they’re unwilling to come down on either side of the fence. And while I find this quality admirable, and befitting the attitude of the true rationalist, it just doesn’t work for me on a personal level.

See, I too accept the possibility that I could be wrong, simply because the claims are NOT falsifiable. If it can’t be disproven 100%, I can’t say I’m 100% sure it’s not true. So much like Richard Dawkins, I have to place myself as a 9 on the scale of hardcore believer to hardcore unbeliever, as stating definitively that there is no God is just as dishonest as stating there most definitely is. I can’t say it’s impossible, as the rules under which he fits are just wide enough that I’d be lying if I said I know I’m right. So then why am I an atheist and not an agnostic? Simple: are you an atackliotist, or are you agnostic to Tackliots? What? You don’t know what Tackliots are? You’ve never heard of them before? That’s because I just made them up, but shhh, don’t tell anyone. Let me fill you in on the background of the amazing being known as the Tackliot:

The Tackliot came into existence before the dawn of time. Now I know what you’re thinking: How can something come BEFORE time? The answer, of course, is shut up. Now the Tackliot was simultaneously everything and nothing. That Tackliot was not only the entire universe, despite the fact that it didn’t yet exist (buh- buh… that’s better), but it also wasn’t the universe. Not even slightly. I’m blowing your mind, right? No? Read it again and then answer that. Not even a little? Try again, but squint this time. Now? Tiny headaches count as a sort of blown mind… Okay, sweet. Anyway, the Tackliot got bored with complete lack of time and a universe, and decided to make one. Since the Tackliot was everything and nothing, it was a simple task to instantly create every possible combination of designs for the universe at once, and then pick its favorites to keep. The Tackliot then absorbed the rest back into itself, and left the remaining universes intact. This meant the Tackliot was no longer everything as some universes now existed outside of itself. Thankfully it couldn’t cease to be nothing, so was able to enjoy this small cold comfort. However the Tackliot soon found that the universes it had created were full of small flaws and holes, and its work was cut out for it patching and fixing all of these various issues, tweaking something here, mending something there, until it had managed to give all that remained of itself to the various universes it had created, once again managing to become everything, and also nothing (see how I tied all that together so masterfully? Yeah, I’m totally down for drinks…). Our universe is but one of the myriad of universes that make up the Tackliot, and we should remember every day the beauty and history of this being that put us here in the lives that we lead. Also, next time you masturbate, remember that the Tackliot is watching you from the air, the walls, the ceiling, the floor, that sock, and is also your hand and junk. Have fun!

Now I know what you’re thinking right now after reading that wacky paragraph: that is AWESOME! Right? No? Try reading it again, but put on 3D glasses this time. Mind-blowing headache, right? Anyway, point is, there’s a being who may or may not exist. Its legacy makes as little or as much sense as most other religious stories about the origin of the universe, and we can’t disprove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it doesn’t exist. Now before you read this, you had to have been an atackliotist because you had no belief that the Tackliot existed. Now that you know the possibility exists, it would arguably be dishonest to say it’s 100% impossible as the story really didn’t provide any falsifiable details.

Of course one thing the story of the Tackliot lacks that the religious stories have is a vast backlog of books, stories, hymns, etc., all backing up the story. It also lacks the thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, or billions of fellow believers in the story. It lacks preachers, evangelists, and missionaries spreading the word of the Tackliot. So my story is at a pretty serious disadvantage, leaving it still pretty logical to be an atackliotist and not agnostic to his beauty, despite the inability to disprove the story. But what if Christianity didn’t have all of that? What if it lacked the books, the believers, the evangelists, etc.? Would it be any more convincing than my story? Well, without all of that vast wealth behind it, it really is just another story. No better, no worse than the rest. And just as unconvincing. But thankfully for it, it does have all that backing, right?

The thing is, though, for some of us Christianity DOES lack all of that. Because when I examine all of the materials used to prove the subject, I’m left thoroughly unconvinced, not to mention underwhelmed. I find the holy texts lacking all evidence, backing, logic, reasoning, structure, consistency, or believability. They seem to scream to me that they were written by primitive men who needed to explain the world around them based on the limited knowledge they had, while infusing it with stories and rules that backed up what was already important to them while condemning what their enemies held dear. So that, for me, cancels out the books, stories, hymns, etc. They might as well not exist for me.

But then what of the preachers, evangelists, missionaries, and believers? Surely I can’t discount all of them? But I can, because they exist only because of that now-forgotten evidence that left me so very, very unimpressed. They bought the stories that I didn’t. They believed the tales I saw as no different than the average fable. They accepted the stories of other believers who fell for the same poorly-written evidence that left me feeling unimpressed. And for this reason, they no longer exist in this equation. And what does that leave us with? Just another story. Just another story that had I not heard it before, just like you hadn’t heard the story of the Tackliot 10 minutes ago, I would never have even considered as an option in the way the universe works. I’d lack belief in it simply by virtue of the thought never having entered my head. And once I examine the evidence, discount it, and discount all of the surrounding noise that came from it, I have no remaining reason to treat it as anything more than just another story that in another universe I may never have even heard.

It’s for this reason that I, a rational-minded, free-thinking, skeptical, scientific person who must readily admit what he can’t know for certain, and who listens to evidence and changes his position when it becomes clear that it’s time to do so, still chooses to label himself as an atheist and not an agnostic. I was born an atheist, as is every other human being on this planet, and until I’m given something more than noise to consider, I’m going to remain one. Prove me wrong. Please. It’ll blow my mind (more than just giving me a headache), and open up this already incredible universe we live in even further. And contrary to popular belief, there are few things scientists love more than finding out what they believed was wrong and they have a whole new field to explore, complete with vast amounts of research grant dollars. As a mere science spectator (to borrow a term from Penn Jillette), I won’t benefit from the grant dollars, but I’ll be cheering on from the sidelines as we expand the world’s awareness that much further. Yeehaw!

*I need to clarify here that I very much am generalizing for the sake of dramatic effect. I know many religious people who would fit my description of being some of the most intelligent, thoughtful, insightful people I’ve ever known, and I’m lucky to have them and their brilliance in my life. But they’re the minority of what I see from those making religious arguments, especially on the Internet, and so I go after the low-hanging fruit. If you don’t fall into the traps I describe in this post, consider yourself not someone I’m describing.

Well, the latest episode of Mr. Deity is out, and it’s a doozy. One of my absolute favorite yet. And that has nothing to do with the fact that I was there, on-set, when it was filmed, operated the cameras, worked as script supervisor, and provided real-time production feedback. I’ll totally skip over the facts that the cameras were completely pre-configured and all I had to do was start and stop them, the cast was so spot-on that dialog reminders were virtually never needed, and my real-time production feedback mostly consisted of laughing at funny things during rehearsal that they had been considering taking out, or reminding them later of hilarious things they improvised earlier that they should use again. Crap, I wrote that out loud, didn’t I?

Anyway, whatever the case, enjoy. And stay tuned for some special news under the video…

Pretty damn good, right? Now in case you were wondering how I got so lucky as to be on the set for this production, it was because I had to have a little meeting with Mr. D himself to discuss my upcoming role in a future episode. That’s right, yours truly will be starring in an episode of Mr. Deity later this year! Who will I be playing? Well, that’s going to have to remain a secret for now, as it’s just too delicious to spoil. Only hint I can give is that I’m going to have to revise a philosophy of mine from my most popular blog post.

Stay tuned for more details…

EDIT: In case anyone ever checks in and asks, the role I eventually ended up playing is NOT the one originally planned. It’s not my place to give away future plot points, which is why I’m not going to specify anything right now, but while it would have been a fun and unusual role to play, I’m much more at home as Timmy, and he provides me with a lot more opportunities.

I don’t post ALL the Mr. Deity episodes (they’d quickly flood my blog with how little I write on my own), but the latest features Michael Shermer, so I had no choice. Enjoy:

So according to USA Today, high-level video game publisher Ubisoft has chosen the famous anti-science, pro-Measles, “mother warrior” Jenny McCarthy to front their new fitness game for the Wii, Your Shape.

The game’s a big deal for Ubisoft as it was hinted at back during E3 for coming with a camera accessory that the company is comparing (loosely) to Project Natal, Microsoft’s exciting new motion-tracking peripheral. Ubisoft’s idea is that the camera can scan and map your body for the sake of fitness tests, and likely for more advanced tracking of your routine than the balance-based tests the Wii Balance board currently uses.

Jenny McCarthy with her son, as well as boyfriend Jim Carrey, at a "Green Our Vaccines" rally

Where Jenny comes into play appears to be both as a pitchwoman of sorts (likely appearing on the packaging and in commercials), as well as an in-game avatar who guides you through your routine. Because who’s a better source of advice on health and fitness than someone with incredibly inaccurate knowledge of biology, chemistry, neurology, psychology, and any other field that can affect a person’s health, despite having been corrected time and again by people with drastically better education than she has? She actively promotes the falsehood that vaccines are toxic and cause Autism (completely untrue in every possible way), was way too far into the Indigo Child absurdity until she realized her child was Autistic and [poorly] wiped all traces of the previous belief from the web, highly recommends injecting oneself with Botulinum Toxin (Botox) without a hint of irony, has indirectly led to over 200 deaths at last count, and over 47,000 illnesses through her spread of bullshit, and believes these deaths (and more) are a necessary loss in her war against a problem that doesn’t exist. Yes, THIS is the woman I want helping teach my family how to be healthy.

I think Ubisoft has failed to take this into account with their choice, and probably isn’t even aware of this controversy. They see her as a popular and attractive woman who, thanks to Oprah, is in the limelight quite frequently, and they see paydirt. But maybe, just maybe (probably not, but still), if we all make the effort to make them aware of the hypocrisy of this decision, they’ll reconsider. It can’t hurt, right?

So how do we do it? Well, we head on over to Ubisoft’s corporate site, click on the Contact Us link (I’d link to it, but it appears to be session-specific), and speak our minds. Now, let’s do so rationally and calmly, treating them with respect. This is a major company full of likely extremely intelligent people, many of whom are probably full of integrity. We stand the best chance of getting through to them by appealing to them on a rational level instead of just displaying the outright anger this woman fills us with. Link to fantastic sites like Jenny McCarthy Body Count and Stop Jenny as resources, and pick out articles from the many wonderful sites on the body count links page as evidence, or find your own. Point is, give them the sound reasons why this choice not only reflects poorly on them, but helps further promote the incredibly wrong idea that Jenny McCarthy is an authority on health. Oprah’s support has already done enough harm, but now a major video game directly connecting this woman to fitness will only serve to further convince families that this is a woman they can trust to keep their family safe, when that couldn’t be further from the truth.

Now I may get blasted in the comments for this (heck, I may actually GET COMMENTS), and I’m prepared for that. I will not censor them (minus the usual rules about personal threats and such), but I may also try to refrain from responding for the good of my blood pressure. Odds are the haters will make my case for me based on how they write on most other blogs that dare suggest science knows better than mommy instinct.

One note: I purposefully avoided making a petition for this. They don’t work, and they’re too easily ignored. Besides, they let people be lazy by simply copying a pre-written form comment to the company which diminishes the impact. If you care, please write your own thoughts on the subject. The more intelligent people they see putting in the effort, the more it’ll mean.

Good luck, and thanks in advance for the help.

As I get more and more involved in the world of skepticism, my skills at smelling bullshit become more finely honed (and boy is there a lot of it). I have a long way to go, but I still find myself picking up on things much faster than I did before, even if I can’t pinpoint what’s wrong, but just feel like there’s something “not right.”

Lately there’s been one word that, more and more, sets off my alarms whenever I see it. When I’m reading an article, or having a conversation, and this word comes up I start analyzing the subject much more closely than I might have before, and I begin to question my own instinctual reactions, opinions, and beliefs about the subject. What’s the word?

“Tradition”

Anybody who knows me personally and knows my politics has to know right off the bat what the most recent example of this for me has been: California’s Prop 8. That’s right, the supposed “re-affirmation of traditional marriage,” which is a friendlier way of saying, “we can’t publically admit to being religiously-motivated bigots, so we’ll pretend this isn’t about keeping you homos from that last piece of equality and recognition as human beings of which you just recently managed to get a tiny taste. (whew)”

And more and more often this word seems to be the excuse for all sorts of intolerance or backward thinking. The so-called “war on Christmas” exists in the minds of Christians who see their holiday being eroded by people and businesses who recognize that, shocker, everyone’s not a Christian, and it might just be a nice thing to include these people in your well-wishing. Suddenly people are forced to confront the awful realization that that one time a year (which is really one of many) that they think is all about their messiah (regardless of what history has to say about the real reasons for the season) is being filtered down to include everyone! Sure, it was already filtered down to a shopping holiday decades ago, after having been filtered from prior celebrations, but that’s irrelevant, because at least the name still had “Christ” in it! So what can they do? Why, they can complain about how people are trying to ruin “tradition,” and be intolerant of them! And who wants to do that?

The word “tradition” seems to strike a chord with people. Most traditions are pretty innocuous, consisting of silly things like family members taking turns setting the table for dinner, playing license plate bingo on road trips, what foods are served at what holidays, etc. These sorts of traditions are fun and harmless, of course, but they also provide stability, and stability provides comfort. The average person generally tries to stay as far-removed from change as possible (some political persuasions more than others), so anything they can do to stave off change is A-OK by them.

Now this isn’t anything new. Doing things the traditional way has existed for ages (duh), and it’s likely hard-wired into our brains. We’re pattern-seeking beasts, and when we find something that we can recognize works, we hold onto it tightly. But it still seems like lately I’m butting up against this word more and more, and it seems less and less harmless every time. Whether it’s traditional marriage, traditional holidays, traditional beliefs, etc., it just seems more and more like an excuse not to include people who don’t follow your way of life, or even to force that way of life upon them regardless of whether they believe it. And for me it’s turning into a bright, flashing bulb of a clue that whatever follows that word may be completely worthless.

Has anyone else had trouble with this, or any other words or concepts lately? Are there any other common signs you use to pick out fruitless, lazy arguments from the genuine ones? I’d love to get some feedback on your own experiences with these types of buzzwords, or anything else that makes a blip on your skeptical radar when it comes to social and societal concepts. Or maybe you disagree with my opinion on this word and feel there’s greater value to it than I’m taking into account. Let me know.