Topic: Episode #347

[GodSlayer]

Am I the only one who thought the Kony / LRA business was completely out of place in the Skeptics Guide podcast?

OK..... what's this got to do with science or skepticism?

I thought Rebecca actually offered a lot of interesting commentary on the matter, and made it perfectly obvious (even using the word skepticism several times) why it belonged on the show.

[Moloch]

Feel free to explain it to me, since nobody else has mentioned it.

Rebecca's analysis of the KONY situation was a lesson on critical thinking in the digital age. It was a critical analysis of a phenomenon in popular culture, perfectly in keeping with the show's normal content. Not every segment has to be related to medicinal woo or creationism, sometimes it is a political situation that deserves the skeptical treatment.

Rebecca avoided the type of value judgements that are normally the domain of political discussion and focused on the factual claims made by Invisible Children and it's critics.

I myself find it a fascinating case study; you have people out there desperately trying to tie KONY 2012 to American oil greed, others calling it a scam/hoax, arguments about the role that religion plays, arguments about the power of the figurehead, the ethics of supporting a lesser evil (Ugandan Army) to defeat a greater one (LRA) and so much more.

I enjoyed the segment, thanks Rebecca!

[Thomunist]

Great interview this week. I love the occasional discussion on things related to, but not quite what you normally talk about. The novel sounds great and I can't wait to read it.

I also want to chime in to earlier posted discussions after hearing the interview I kinda agreed with Johnny about the seemingly implied inferiority of the 'gardener style' vs the 'architect' style of writing during the interview.
" 'Yeah we did just make it up as we went along.' It's laziness."
"That's a very poetic way to put something that people find infuriating."
"If he's just gardening and has no idea what's happening. That's disappointing to me"
(these quotes could be taken a couple of ways, but I could easily see how someone who loves the gardener method would hear this as attacking their favorite style.)

personally i love the endings where the author doesn't wrap everything up, and where not everything from the story come back. They seem more realistic to me a make me feel more like I've experienced a interesting world rather that just been told a great story. I don't even mind the magical endings if there done well. It's not really 'magical' but one of the most clever endings of a movie I've ever seen was the Holy Grail ending

(click to show/hide)

where everyone gets arrested.

(does internet protocol require you to warn of spoiler when referencing an almost 40 year old classic? Ah better be safe.)

I also really disagree(disagree seems a horrible word choice for a counter argument of someone's taste preferences) with with Steve's comments on GoT and it not being a Heroic Fantasy and that being disappointing. For me I love when novels do that. I don't want to read a novel that fits into a set Genre perfectly. Other wise you end up with one of the thousand Lord of the Rings ripoffs where every new story is the same one as the last. I might misinterpreting you there, because you mentioned that if it's 'deliberate' it's fine and I have no idea you mean by that. How couldn't something like that not be 'deliberate'.

great interview
interesting discussion
just try a little harder to be right next time

[GodSlayer]

I enjoyed the segment, thanks Rebecca!

I'd enjoy something similar, even if not so topical. like, if her knowledge of marketing/advertising could yield any insights on mundane products or services the rouges encounter that people might not see what to be distrustful of (just as they do for more obviously quacky products, supplements, MLM, etc.)

[GodSlayer]

I also want to chime in to earlier posted discussions after hearing the interview I kinda agreed with Johnny about the seemingly implied inferiority of the 'gardener style' vs the 'architect' style of writing during the interview.
" 'Yeah we did just make it up as we went along.' It's laziness."

I understood that particular remark (paraphrasing?) as pertaining exclusively to the people behind Lost, not as a condemnation of shows more generally. The creators had always said things were important and it would all make sense in the end, everything would be explained, but it turns out that the major secrets of each season were just there to stall for time or throw people off, or mess with us, get hype, etc. -- as if to milk more the show for as many seasons as possible, rather than actually telling whatever main story they had in mind in the beginning, and ultimately the main character -- the mystical ancient teleporting island -- was what we learned the least about.

[Thomunist]

I also want to chime in to earlier posted discussions after hearing the interview I kinda agreed with Johnny about the seemingly implied inferiority of the 'gardener style' vs the 'architect' style of writing during the interview.
" 'Yeah we did just make it up as we went along.' It's laziness."

I understood that particular remark (paraphrasing?) as pertaining exclusively to the people behind Lost, not as a condemnation of shows more generally. The creators had always said things were important and it would all make sense in the end, everything would be explained, but it turns out that the major secrets of each season were just there to stall for time or throw people off, or mess with us, get hype, etc. -- as if to milk more the show for as many seasons as possible, rather than actually telling whatever main story they had in mind in the beginning, and ultimately the main character -- the mystical ancient teleporting island -- was what we learned the least about.

Yeah I think you're probably right. I never really payed attention to lost or any of its hype so I am missing a little bit of context there.

[Moloch]

I couldn't help but think of D&D when they were talking about architect vs gardener as the same spectrum exists there (DM'ing is a form of writing I guess). Some DM's plan everything beforehand and have their characters journey down a fairly set path while other DM's essentially make it up on the spot. While the gardener style might lack a certain over-arching cohesiveness often times the luxury of improv leads to the best stories.

Most DM's fall somewhere in middle, as do many authors.

[Steven Novella]

A lot of the interview was edited out for time, and this is a complex topic, so let me further clarify the position I was taking.

1 - conventions exist for a reason
2 - breaking conventions are OK, but the artist better know what they are doing. They need to particularly ask themselves - how is this experience going to be satisfying to my reader (not happy, heroic, or good, necessarily - just satisfying)
3 - the gardening style of writing may be incompatible with #2 (i.e. crafting the experience for the reader) So either follow convention, or garden, but doing both is risky. (And again - all will be forgiven if Martin pulls out a satisfying ending - even if that ending means that I was really reading a horror novel the whole time.)

Also, regarding fantasy, I think it's OK to have magic or even spirituality in fiction. We are all perfectly OK with it. And we are OK with creating expectations and then violating them. That keeps things interesting.

My point was that the "switch" I find the least satisfying is creating the expectation that there is a hard science/rational explanation and then switching to "wait, never mind, it's all magic."  Going the other way is fine.

And I acknowledge that I find the magic bait-and-switch annoying partly because I find that thought process to be so lazy and counterproductive in real life - essentially giving up on an interesting question and concluding that it's paranormal or goddidit.

[rebecca]

I enjoyed the segment, thanks Rebecca!

I'd enjoy something similar, even if not so topical. like, if her knowledge of marketing/advertising could yield any insights on mundane products or services the rouges encounter that people might not see what to be distrustful of (just as they do for more obviously quacky products, supplements, MLM, etc.)

Thanks, guys, glad you enjoyed it, and I'd be happy to do more marketing/ad-based skepticism stuff in the future.

I'm glad it came through to most of you that the entire point was that I didn't want to make up people's minds for them about whether or not to support Kony 2012 precisely because it's a more complicated situation than the Kony 2012 campaign makes it seem and because I would never be able to distill all the issues down to fit into a podcast segment ("long-winded" as it may have been!) that would be sufficient basis for someone to decide whether or not they want to support Invisible Children. Grognard, it's a shame that you took that to mean "I'm not sure what to think about it and I don't know that much about it."

[Beep Boop Boop]

I enjoyed the segment, thanks Rebecca!

I'd enjoy something similar, even if not so topical. like, if her knowledge of marketing/advertising could yield any insights on mundane products or services the rouges encounter that people might not see what to be distrustful of (just as they do for more obviously quacky products, supplements, MLM, etc.)

Thanks, guys, glad you enjoyed it, and I'd be happy to do more marketing/ad-based skepticism stuff in the future.

I'm glad it came through to most of you that the entire point was that I didn't want to make up people's minds for them about whether or not to support Kony 2012 precisely because it's a more complicated situation than the Kony 2012 campaign makes it seem and because I would never be able to distill all the issues down to fit into a podcast segment ("long-winded" as it may have been!) that would be sufficient basis for someone to decide whether or not they want to support Invisible Children. Grognard, it's a shame that you took that to mean "I'm not sure what to think about it and I don't know that much about it."

I really wouldn't support them at all.  I know this isn't truly skeptical but I'm extremely leery of supporting an organization that is seen by the craziest of the far right as a cause to support.

[rebecca]

I enjoyed the segment, thanks Rebecca!

I'd enjoy something similar, even if not so topical. like, if her knowledge of marketing/advertising could yield any insights on mundane products or services the rouges encounter that people might not see what to be distrustful of (just as they do for more obviously quacky products, supplements, MLM, etc.)

Thanks, guys, glad you enjoyed it, and I'd be happy to do more marketing/ad-based skepticism stuff in the future.

I'm glad it came through to most of you that the entire point was that I didn't want to make up people's minds for them about whether or not to support Kony 2012 precisely because it's a more complicated situation than the Kony 2012 campaign makes it seem and because I would never be able to distill all the issues down to fit into a podcast segment ("long-winded" as it may have been!) that would be sufficient basis for someone to decide whether or not they want to support Invisible Children. Grognard, it's a shame that you took that to mean "I'm not sure what to think about it and I don't know that much about it."

I really wouldn't support them at all.  I know this isn't truly skeptical but I'm extremely leery of supporting an organization that is seen by the craziest of the far right as a cause to support.

Personally, I think it's perfectly fair to not support a cause that is promoted by someone you are ideologically opposed to. As much as I'd love for everyone in the Western world to become more educated and concerned about what's happening in undeveloped countries, there's only so much time in your day to research every cause someone asks you to support. I'd suggest that it's more important for those who are acting (by contributing to an organization) to do their research than those who choose not to act (by not contributing to the org).

[Jeremy's Sea]

I will preface a disclaimer that all comments I am about to make come purely from this discussion as I haven't gotten to the week's podcast yet... 

I am actually fairly encouraged by how fast the "take down" on Kony 2012 happened. Within a day of the Kony 2012 video showing up in my facebook newsfeed I saw equally as many rebuttals. Of course there was a certain factor of a cynical take down style in sabotaging the latest cool thing, but the fact that people are finally not taking every slick marketing video at full face value shows that the internet is starting to demand a higher level of reality and balance in it's stories. That's a good thing as it elevates the discussion (though the cynicism definitely doesn't help).

As a writer I can't say I have ever met another writer that is strictly an architect. If you don't do some gardening you're insane and your stories will more than likely suck. Of course conversely the trick is not getting lost in the forest... If the architect method is too strict you end up having to shoe horn in your characters as everything becomes a servant to an ideal, and that never works out well.
"Lost" would be the poorest example of any fiction I can imagine, a complete waste of viewers time and an exercise in writing masturbation. The writer's finally admitted they were making it up as they went along because they didn't believe they were going to get renewals and then were left holding the bag when people loved the show precisely because they had the hook in mouth already set. That wasn't even gardening, that was naivety, and even worse when they thought we would buy the fact they were architects the whole time. 

Anyway, tl;dr. Looking forward to another great podcast as always.   

[amysrevenge]

I enjoyed the interview and the Kony piece.  Probably my favourite recent show.  Thanks!

[Chriskeptic]

I thought Rebecca did a good job on Kony 2012. It's worthy of discussion because it is a new phenomenon as far as I can see in so far as it is a campaign with unique characteristics. It is self time limited - it will stop at the end of this year. Its aim is the capture of an internationally known criminal. Kony 2012 did not make him a bad guy - he is number ONE on the ICCs Most wanted list. He continues to kill and cause suffering because of a lack of interest from the international community. Uganda should have sorted him out, but they didn't, and that's no reason to not address the issue. Not to put too fine a point on it, the USA has engaged in foreign adventures in the last decade and assassinated Bin Laden in Pakistan completely unilaterally.  Kony 2012 doesn't want him dead, just stopped and brought to justice. Kony 2012 does not make any profits. In the video Jason Russell meets Jacob and promises him that he will stop Kony. That moment, when he made that promise, has shaped his life and brought him to where we are now. How many of us could even dream of making such a promise and meaning it, still less delivering on it.

Kony 2012 isn't asking for money to spend on people. The whole aim is to put pressure on OUR REPRESENTATIVES to do what WE think is important. They don't think it's important to us because we aren't talking about it. Kony 2012 is putting Kony front and centre, and putting pressure on our representatives to explain why they are not doing more to address the huge injustices in the world, which they are perfectly capable of doing. Kony 2012 may be guilty of oversimplifying the situation, but who can argue that bringing Kony to Justice would be a bad thing?

The harnessing of Facebook and YouTube is not new, but is being taken to a new level of effectiveness, and is truly democratic.

I sense from the few comments on this forum on the topic a rather jaded attitude to Kony 2012.  Perhaps as skeptics we have seen so many sexy new websites/products/philosophies which turn out to be scams, we cant help but have our balony detector at the ready. But I honestly think that Kony 2012 is exactly what it appears to be: a wonderful, moving and noble endeavour. Please don't think that being skeptical means you have to stow away your compassion.

[donmac]

I love it when the SGU goes off on a tangent talking about sci-fi and fantasy shows, movies, and books (I like to call it the "SGU Totally Geeks Out" segment).

But one thing I thought was missed in the discussion about George R.R. Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire" book series and the "Game of Thrones" tv series based on them is that Martin has already said that if the tv show continues to have a new season every year then he probably won't have the remaining books written in time for it, so the tv show will, at some point, go off on its own storytelling path.  If this happens, it'll be interesting to see if the tv writers can satisfactorily conclude the established storylines independent of Martin's books.  It'll also be interesting to see if how the tv series' way of wrapping up stories then in any way affects how Martin writes the final books of his series.