Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 8486
Joined: 01 Mar 2002, 9:37 am

Post 31 Dec 2010, 8:02 pm

This started as part of a post I was preparing for another thread, but I decided to let it have its own since there's probably more to chew on here than in that other.

According to various polls, pundits, and posters, Americans are almost pathologically prone to believe in various forms of idiocy, such as UFOs, astrology, angels and devils, ghosts, ESP, and creationism. As with fertilizer, a lot of the responsibility for the spread of BS can be laid on those who make some money by spreading it. Wanting to find some way to compare the commercial viability of spreading BS versus the commercial viability of resisting or opposing the spread of BS, it occurred to me that Amazon's publishing of detailed bestseller stats might be useful.

Needless to say, idiots don't read a lot of books, so that part of Amazon is of no real use. But they watch tapes and discs by the bushel, or so I assume. Conveniently, most forms of video are lumped together under "Movies and TV". Even though there's a separate category for Blu-Ray, they are still included in Movies and TV. There are no books here; not even books on tape. So within that category I searched for "creation" and "creationism" and determined that most tapes and DVDs will be classified as "Documentary" by Amazon. I can pull up the top 100 bestsellers in that category and analyze what I find. Maybe something interesting will appear.

Do consumers of arrant nonsense have computers? Do they use the internet? Do they have credit cards? Can they figure out how to order from Amazon? According to one post here, "40% of the Americans believe dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time." Meanwhile: "More than 80% of Americans now have a computer in their homes, and of those, almost 92% have internet access."* So there's got to be a good amount of overlap. For prudence, assume idiots are underrepresented in the Amazon data by half.

At the top of the charts** in Documentaries is "Planet Earth: The Complete BBC Series" on Blu-ray, starring David Attenborough. There are a lot of nature/wildlife vids on the list, and some of them surely include a bit of education about evolution, but I'm going to ignore them (unless evolution is their main topic) for two reasons: 1) they are not anti-idiocy vids any more than a typical WWII documentary is a vid designed to counter Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories, and 2) I've seen a lot of nature vids that seem to go out of their way to NOT mention evolution.

So... where are the vids that spread BS and where are the anti-BS vids?

At #8 is "The Star of Bethlehem" which seemingly is a "scientific" effort to demonstrate some connection between the birth of Jesus and celestial events-slash-astrology. I'll call it BS, though of course I've not watched it. It's #196 in Movies & TV as a whole, whereas (for comparison) the Attenborough disc is #67.

At #33 (and #1412 overall) is "Religulous" which is described as follows: "Bill Maher incurs the wrath of multiple religious zealots of myriad faiths in Religulous, a snarky but unexpectedly powerful documentary. Maher bluntly disputes the value of religion..." Although Maher is a comedian, and not otherwise qualified, I mention this because he criticizes those who "shun scientific evidence" and the vid includes footage of his visit to a creationism theme park.

I note for reference only that at #39 is "Fireplace", which is a 30-minute (repeating) DVD of wood burning. So far there's been no creationism, ghost, ESP, angels, or UFO product, but people apparently are willing to believe that their video screen is a fireplace.

But immediately follopwing, at #40, is "Ghost Adventures". On the cover it says, "The BEST PROOF caught on tape..." so I'm going to consider it BS. It's #1552 overall.

At #45 (#1669 overall) is "Living Matrix: A Film on the New Science of Healing" which seems to be centered on the phenomenon of "miracle cures". Product description: "These experts reveal how energy and information fields - not genetics - drive human physiology and biochemistry, and illustrate the benefits of integrating conventional and alternative health care." Out of 19 customer reviews there's just one 1-star. It says, "This movie claims to show a link between 'quantum biology' and our health/well-being; it categorically fails to deliver. There are no links to any published scientific research about 'quantum biology' either on the DVD or the movie's website. There are some clinical studies in the movie, but none of them ever investigate the mechanism behind the healing. The movie is implying, 'We don't understand how this works, therefore ... quantum physics must be involved!' That's not science; it's speculation." I'll call it BS, but it's probably in a better class of BS than the ghost vid

Finally, at #55 (1969 overall), we find a "refutation of Darwinian theory" in the vid "The Privileged Planet". This is seemingly a production of The Discovery Institute, which is the #1 purveyor of creationist BS. I'm pleased that at their best they can barely break into the top 2,000 vids at Amazon.

At #72 (2514) is "The Lee Strobel Film Collection" which seems to be a DVD presentation of three books this guy has written: The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, and The Case for a Creator. More than the Star of Bethlehem vid (which mixes a lot of astrology into the bible?), this one raises the question of whether religion in general should be considered BS. On the one hand, belief in the virgin birth is no more rational than belief in UFOs, but it hardly seems fair to lump your average church-goer in with someone who espouses pyramid power and wears healing crystals. To an atheist like me religion of course seems like total BS, but I'll call this vid just one-third BS - that last book is probably anti-science.

At #79 (2707) is "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" from actor/lawyer/author/economist/pundit/Nixon-speechwriter/comedian/game-show-host Ben Stein. The film examines how purveyors of creation science are treated unfairly by "the establishment". Stein is one sharp cookie and I bet we could have a lot of fun discussing this vid in depth, but for the sake of this post I'm going to call it BS and move on.

At #84 (3059) is "Ancient Aliens", which is essentially the video form of the book "Chariots of the Gods" by Erich von Daniken. Total BS. A classic.

At #88 we find "An Inconvenient Truth." :? :?: :o

That's it for the top 100, which is all Amazon lists like this. If, in "Movies and TV" you do a search on "evolution" and then click on "Documentaries" so as to avoid works of fiction and things like "Gloria Estefan Live in Miami: The Evolution Tour", you get 168 hits.*** You can then sort on bestselling. This gives us another measure of comparative commercial viability. Of the relevant top ten listed exactly half are BS and half are real science.

Caveats: Americans aren't the only people who can buy from Amazon, and I'm not even sure if sales via Amazon-Italy and others are included in the stats. Also, the stats aren't a perfect reflection of actual sales, but rather something more complex. Also, one must wonder how many BS vids are bought and then played for a room full of people (congregants, students, etc.) versus how many anti-BS vids get such multi-play. Next: While most commercial bookstores cater to demand without prejudice, and thus sell both BS and science, there are two categories of bookstore that don't: church bookstores and university bookstores; do the former out-sell the latter as regards relevant materials? Next: libraries don't usually buy from Amazon, and a sale to a library is a minor bit of data compared to how often that book gets checked out and read.

Needless, I hope, to say, I don't pretend that this post answers any questions in any sort of definitive manner - or even close. It's meant to spur critical thinking. And finally: I'm aware that adopting the word "idiot" (in imitation of the author Ricky posted about) is needlessly provocative and gratuitously insulting. As I think about it, I should probably go back and edit the entire post, but I'm just too lazy. Instead I'll offer this compensation: I do not wish to be disrespectful of those who find comfort, meaning, purpose, or a spur to goodness in faith. Go for it - there's little enough of that stuff as it is, so take it where you can get it. But substituting the book of Genesis for modern biology is arrant nonsense and if you do so vocally and despite access to works of scholarship you deserve all the brickbats and ridicule that come your way.

* http://www.marketingcharts.com/interact ... owth-8280/
** http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/dv ... d_ts_d_nav
*** http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_ ... on&ie=UTF8
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 01 Jan 2011, 12:12 pm

Nice thought X.
I wonder if both the time of year and the source of your bestseller list have an impact. (More books are sold in December than any time of year and they are often gifts... meaning provocative titles might be less attractive?)
The New York Times Bestseller list http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-boo ... /list.html
has the following on it right now:
Sarah Palin (8)
Glenn Beck (10)
Bill Oreilly (11)
This would include sales at Wal-Mart and Price Club that Amazin doesn't get to.... And direct sales from authors web sites...

Okay Jon Stewart is higher but he's a satirist and doesn't expect his book to be taken as "factual" , and George Bush is #1 and that should probably be in fiction (joke) . But Keith Richards is #4. (Well, he wrote it with help. a lot of help. someone who could decipher whatever the hell he was mumbling into the microphone...)
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 8486
Joined: 01 Mar 2002, 9:37 am

Post 01 Jan 2011, 7:29 pm

The NYT bestseller list is based on a complex secret formula. One thing we know is that it reflects what's hot that week, rather than what's sold steadily over a longer period. I've also heard rumors that there's a bit of weighting given to NYC area sales. FYI.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 7378
Joined: 16 Feb 2000, 9:55 am

Post 02 Jan 2011, 9:25 pm

My extremely cleaver and snarky response was swallowed by the aether. Highlights below in bullet points:

- Polling, especially on such topics, is completely unreliable
- I own a copy of An Inconvenient Truth--doesn't believe I mean it
- ESP is like umami--I'm skeptical, but that doesn't make the guy who swears it's in my miso an idiot
- Only things standing against creationism are anti-religious prejudice and Occam's razor; kinda like the notion that the ground zero mosque will promote religious tolerance
- In answer to MinX's questions, I own a computer, use the internet, have credit cards, and order from Amazon. I also read a lot of books

Happy New Year!
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 7378
Joined: 16 Feb 2000, 9:55 am

Post 02 Jan 2011, 9:26 pm

Whoops, forgot one of the best lines:

How can you doubt the existence of UFOs with rickyp right here to provide evidence?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 03 Jan 2011, 7:01 am

Machiavelli wrote:My extremely cleaver and snarky response was swallowed by the aether. Highlights below in bullet points:
I bet you cut right through the bones of the debate, huh?

- Polling, especially on such topics, is completely unreliable
Polling is usually pretty reliable on voting intention, as it usually seems to end up within the margin of error by election day. Regular polls on a question will become more reliable over time.

- I own a copy of An Inconvenient Truth--doesn't believe I mean it
And I don't own one. I think there's a flaw (perhaps intentional) in X's train of thought here. I have several books I've not read. I have some that I've read multiple times. Some I've lent to others. I've had books lent to me. I avoid some books because I see no point in reading them (as repetitive hyperbole and BS bores me) - maybe because I agree, maybe because I disagree.

- ESP is like umami--I'm skeptical, but that doesn't make the guy who swears it's in my miso an idiot
There's more evidence for Umami than for ESP. Or, ESP has been shown to not be there more often than flavour enhancement effects have

- Only things standing against creationism are anti-religious prejudice and Occam's razor;
And that there's no evidence for it. Occam's Razor is a pretty powerful tool, but the accumulated data on evolution is far more compelling and becomes so over time. It's not that it's more parsimonious to accept that data on face value, it's that there's no real evidence for the creationist alternative.

- In answer to MinX's questions, I own a computer, use the internet, have credit cards, and order from Amazon. I also read a lot of books
So do I, but the books I read tend not to be about current politics. Most are fiction, for a start.

I think there's a flaw in the train of thought. Do people buy a book like "America by Heart" or "Common Nonsense" with an open mind, waiting to see if it convinces them? Or is it about confirming already held opinions (even if they are contrary to the content)?

Think for a moment, do we get our opinions directly from the media? Nope. We build them up layer by layer, through listening to those of others, not just on TV and radio, but also family friends and colleagues.

So, with extremist/bizarre politics, hocus-pocus thinking, conspiracy theories, etc, there is not going to be a simple vector, like the Amazon charts, that will explain the prevalence.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 7378
Joined: 16 Feb 2000, 9:55 am

Post 03 Jan 2011, 1:25 pm

Danvion wrote:And that there's no evidence for it.


I'm in complete agreement: there's no evidence for the notion that the ground zero mosque will promote religious tolerance!

Danvion wrote: Polling is usually pretty reliable on voting intention, as it usually seems to end up within the margin of error by election day. Regular polls on a question will become more reliable over time.


Difference is that election polling deals with a fixed and finite range of possible choices that don't tend to shift over time and can only be asked in a limited number of ways ("Who will you vote for?"). Election polls also enjoy about 10 times the response rate of other types of surveys, which tends to limit the influence of survey taker malfeasance (which I believe is huge) and respondent bloody mindedness (I personally love to give crackpot answers just to dick with the people who commissioned some stranger to call me at dinner time). They're better than nothing if you want to know whether Americans like the Big Mac more than the Whopper, but you'd be silly to take them for more than a very, very imprecise guage of...anything, really.

Any first-hand experience of umami, Dan?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 03 Jan 2011, 1:39 pm

Election polls also enjoy about 10 times the response rate of other types of surveys,

Bull.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 7378
Joined: 16 Feb 2000, 9:55 am

Post 03 Jan 2011, 4:39 pm

My estimate is entirely anecdotal, rickyp, based on about a year and a half of employment at a Manhattan polling firm, but I'm pretty confident it's in the ballpark. Uncompensated consumer and "lifestyle" surveys of respondents with no prior connection to the polling organization typically ran response rates below 5%. Political polls, especially close to election time, ran upwards of 50%. Is there a reason--other than general animosity toward me--that you don't find it credible?

On a personal level, would you be more or less inclined to take time out of your day to answer a poll regarding an upcoming election or your views on UFOs, ESP and whatnot? Just curious.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 04 Jan 2011, 7:58 am

mach
My estimate is entirely anecdotal, rickyp, based on about a year and a half of employment at a Manhattan polling firm, but I'm pretty confident it's in the ballpark. Uncompensated consumer and "lifestyle" surveys of respondents with no prior connection to the polling organization typically ran response rates below 5%. Political polls, especially close to election time, ran upwards of 50%. Is there a reason--other than general animosity toward me--that you don't find it credible?

I bear you no animous. I just smelt unsupported BS. And you're in an area I made a living at longer than a year and a half.
Repsonse rates are affected by all kinds of different things... Interview type, compensation or not, survey length and technique all are more important than subject. Many consumer quetionnares don't tip their hands about the content of the poll before the questions begin either....
And, interestingly, there is a predisposition to believe the accuracy of polls with higher response rates. However, little research has actually been done to substantiate that prediposition. In fact, because polls are attempts to guage attitudes ot ideas, they are somewhat etherial. (Good story in Wikipedia on that) For the advertising industry they usually serve as directional guides, not as hard and fast road maps...
The one thing that political polls have, is that they attempt to measure or predict an event that is counted and measured.
So you can measure the effectiveness of the polls.
Here's a little story from Nate SIlver that actually tracked how accurate polls were in the last US election. Maybe the results will be food for thought when appealing to them in the future?
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 04 Jan 2011, 12:31 pm

Machiavelli wrote:I'm in complete agreement: there's no evidence for the notion that the ground zero mosque will promote religious tolerance!
Firstly, I said nothing about the GZM. You did, but I specifically excluded that from where I quoted you, to remain (fairly) within topic. I’d say that there was not much evidence either way, and the analogy you were making was based on things that are not directly comparable. So do you agree that there’s no real evidence for creationist ideas?

On polling, However you seem to be desperate to disprove me while conceding that political polls are indeed not ‘completely unreliable’, which was the point I was answering. Other polling is less likely to be accurate, sure, but will usually improve as it is repeated, and/or standardised. A lot of polling (particularly marketing polls) is essentially about framing the questions to get the answers you want. Still, if you deny the accuracy of polls of Americans on questions like this, do you also reject similar polls of other groups of people asking questions (other than ‘how would you vote in an election?'). Such as those that show levels of support amongst the Muslim population for terrorism?

On ‘umami’, yes I have. And so have you (even if you may deny it). The sources (mainly L-glutamate amino acids) are in human milk for a start, as well as in fish, mushrooms, tomatoes. It is often generated in curing and fermentation processes. When I put some parmesan on my pasta sauce, or when I marinade some meat in Worcestershire Sauce, it’s to combine umami flavours. Of course, there’s Marmite. And MSG.

Basically, before umami was suggested, we had four basic flavours defined - bitter, sour, sweet, salty. Yet there's a lot more to taste than just those four. Umami is kind of like 'savoury' - the non-sweet tastes that aren't salty and are still nice.

Anyway, do you have any comment at all on the rest of my post, about my thoughts on Min X’s choice isn’t going to show a direct relation to opinions? Any thoughts on feedback effects, on confirmation biases, on the various ways that propaganda and rumour are spread?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 7378
Joined: 16 Feb 2000, 9:55 am

Post 04 Jan 2011, 12:58 pm

Nice to know you still love me, rickyp. The sentiment is heartily returned. Thanks for the elaboration on polling--though I still doubt the usefulness of the data MinX has cited.

Sorry to have mischaracterized your response, Danvion--I thought you were highlighting yet another point of similarity between creationism and the GZM. Neither seems terribly well thought-out to me, but (unlike some commenters on this forum) I'm more than willing to let folks make up their minds on those topics for themselves.

I still don't buy umami--fish and cheese share no common flavors that I can discern. That puts tasting umami firmly in the category of ESP for me.

As for the other points you raise: I'm sure they would be fertile ground for further discussion, but, alas, my desperation does not extend so far.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 04 Jan 2011, 2:02 pm

Machiavelli wrote:Sorry to have mischaracterized your response, Danvion--I thought you were highlighting yet another point of similarity between creationism and the GZM. Neither seems terribly well thought-out to me, but (unlike some commenters on this forum) I'm more than willing to let folks make up their minds on those topics for themselves.
Nope. All I'd say is that the other side of the coin is very different - the evidence that it will make relations worse is only coming from those who say it will (a self-fulfilling prophesy), while the evidence for evolution is all over the place. The two are not comparable, and it seems unhelpful to link them.

I still don't buy umami--fish and cheese share no common flavors that I can discern. That puts tasting umami firmly in the category of ESP for me.
But L-glutamate amino acids most certainly exist. If you haven't had cheese that reminds you of fish, you must be eating some very mild cheeses. Proper aged cheeses can indeed (to my nose and palate) have a 'fishy' quality. Good Parma Ham and decent salmon would appear to me to be the link between them.

As for the other points you raise: I'm sure they would be fertile ground for further discussion, but, alas, my desperation does not extend so far.
:lol: desperation for what?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 763
Joined: 18 Jun 2008, 5:49 am

Post 05 Jan 2011, 7:46 am

Minister X wrote:According to various polls, pundits, and posters, Americans are almost pathologically prone to believe in various forms of idiocy, such as UFOs, astrology, angels and devils, ghosts, ESP, and creationism. As with fertilizer, a lot of the responsibility for the spread of BS can be laid on those who make some money by spreading it. Wanting to find some way to compare the commercial viability of spreading BS versus the commercial viability of resisting or opposing the spread of BS, it occurred to me that Amazon's publishing of detailed bestseller stats might be useful.


I'm afraid not only Americans are prone to believe in all kinds of bullshit. Creationism might be a more or less a specific American phenomenon, but we have all kind of New Age garbage or other stupid stuff people believe in. It's a human condition not an American one.



Minister X wrote:Needless to say, idiots don't read a lot of books, so that part of Amazon is of no real use.


Not my experience. Idiots do read books, they just lack the ability to think critically about what they read or who the author is or what the intended message of the book is. Or they read only books that will support their preconceived notions.
Same goes for blogs. People go to those that are somewhat of an echochamber for their own opinions.