Raising our game the rationale to embrace skepticamp by Reed Esau, October 2008 Prologue In his 2007 essay “Where do we go from here?”1 Daniel Loxton asked skeptics to return to our roots and hinted at a role for the ama- teur skeptic in his closing remarks: “Thereʼs burden enough to go around. Even our heroes need stu- dents, helpers—even, one day, heirs. Newbie enthusiasm is no kind of substitute for knowledge, experience and expertise, but itʼs something of value in its own right. If skepticism is a Sisyphean task, then we will always need more people who are enthusiastic about rolling rocks.” Loxton hits the mark in recognizing that enthusiasm stands to play an essential role in the future of organized skepticism. We are entering an exciting new era where emerging social tech- nologies and new methods of outreach hint at an abundance of newbie enthusiasm the likes of which we have never seen. How- ever, we risk squandering this windfall if we cannot provide good opportunities to engage and build upon that enthusiasm. One approach to meet this challenge focuses on distributing knowledge within our community, particularly at the local level at informal events organized by ourselves where everyone can par- ticipate. We call it ʻskepticampʼ though strangely it requires no camping. The decline of the formal group Until recently, starting a local skeptic group was both difficult and risky. Typically organizers would form a non-profit corporation, elect officers, enlist volunteers, publish a newsletter, and set about acquiring dues-paying members. The model worked well so long as the leadership remained sufficiently effective and energetic in its activ- ism to retain and attract new members. That organizers accomplished so much with this model is to be admired. However, in all 1 Loxtonʼs essay can be found at http://www.skeptic.com/downloads/WhereDoWeGoFromHere.pdf Page 1 of 17 but a handful of cases it didnʼt prove to be sustainable. Organizer burnout, an aging membership and other problems led to a general decline in influence and participation.2 The cost of failure was high, leaving some areas with little or no organized skeptic pres- ence for years. And then something changed The cost of group creation plummeted. Recent adoption of social technologies like Meetup and Facebook have enabled new groups to form quickly at little or no cost. These new services ease the task of manag- ing the group by providing tools for organizers to interact with members, such as hosting RSVP lists for events. In addition, new members tend to join up with little or no promotional effort, driven to the group by search engines and the recommendations of social net- works. These new groups share few charac- teristics with their predecessors. They generally fail more often and more quickly, but the cost of failure is comparatively negligible. New groups with different organizers and priorities can rise from their ashes.3 This proves to be an accelerator, allowing Rocky Mountain Paranormal presenting at the inaugural for experimentation with new models skepticamp in Denver, Colorado in August 2007 (photo by at a rapid pace measured in months Rich Orman) rather than years or decades. These groups can be general in scope or highly specific. They can be geared towards longevity or towards a single event. They can limit who participates or keep it open to all. Their only reason for existence is to meet a need that can attract members. The first successful model to emerge is the ʻsocial skeptics group.ʼ On Meetup alone 2 Local groups (esp. campus groups) supported by the Center For Inquiry (CFI) have seen success in recent years. Though skepticism is advanced through CFIʼs affiliate organization, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) and its magazine The Skeptical Inquirer, skepticism is only one component of CFIʼs much broader mission that also includes secular humanism, the critical examination of religion and the secularization of Islamic society. 3 In the Denver/Boulder area, two skeptic groups on Meetup came and went before the present one took hold. Page 2 of 17 there is now an active presence of such groups in 40 cities in North America.4 With its modest goal of building community the social group canʼt readily be compared to the traditional skeptic group with its focus on activism. However, the ease at which a meet-up can be formed offers greater geographical reach and can eventually serve as a step towards bigger things later on. Like their forebears these new social groups have their own unique challenges. The disillusioned newbie Itʼs not pretty. Though we draw in enthusiastic new members with the help of these so- cial technologies, those new members arenʼt sticking around. Meetup bleeds members For the meet-ups, roughly half (40-60%) of those who join will become inactive within a few months. In one sense this isnʼt surprising. Most non-skeptic groups at Meetup suffer a rate of attrition that is similar or even worse. We may fault the fickle nature of the Meetup user base. But we can just as well fault ourselves in failing to under- stand and master this new medium. We may appreciate losing the dead weight of ʻpoor-qualityʼ members. But for Attendees of Colorado Skepticamp 2008 in Castle every 9/11 conspiracy theorist who drops Rock (photo by Rich Orman) out, we lose others who could have be- come great contributors. In any case we are failing to capture the imagination of those who make the effort to join. Worse yet, the constant infusion of new members tends to mask the attrition, mak- ing the problem seem less severe.5 The exact cause of such attrition isnʼt always clear, though it appears that the expecta- tions of newcomers arenʼt being met. Performing exit interviews can help us understand 4 See appendix for some detailed numbers about skeptics on Meetup. A similar network of groups, but even less structured is Drinking Skeptically (http://drinkingskeptically.org) which is geared towards a pre- dictable schedule for their meetings. Another network, Skeptics In The Pub (http://www.skeptic.org.uk/pub), has a focus on speakers for events. 5 Therein lies a great opportunity: a mother lode of growth is at hand for those groups that learn how to staunch the bleeding. Page 3 of 17 what factors may be at work. We can also look to see how other groups diagnose and treat such problems. How churches maintain their numbers Simple arithmetic demands that any group whose attrition outpaces its recruitment will eventually cease to exist. You must replenish your losses to merely survive. Weʼve seen this in some of our traditional skeptic groups. When the influx of new members fell off, the group aged and numbers dwindled. Churches also face this problem, particularly in rural areas when the young migrate to the cities. The threat is taken seriously by nearly every congregation where church organizers employ time-tested practices as well as recent innovations to keep the pews filled every Sunday morning. While a handful of the practices employed are specific to religious organizations, most are secular in nature and broadly applicable, such as one practice that will be the focus of this essay: Crystal Yates-White presenting on To provide a path for the individual to grow through the Fund for Thought at a March meaningful opportunities for involvement. 2008 event in Colorado (photo by Rich Orman) Stated so simply, it may seem a cliché or a platitude. But within that carefully-worded sentence lies a chal- lenge: those who can figure out ways to offer such opportunities in large numbers stand to change what it means to be a skeptic. Before we can understand those future opportunities for involvement, we must first look to see how we presently contribute and the problems therein. Page 4 of 17 How skeptics contribute There is no such thing as an ʻaverageʼ skeptic. We are all over the map in how we pitch in. The level of contribution among skeptics varies considerably with the likes of Michael Shermer at the top end of the scale and the freshly-minted newbie at the bottom. To dig into the details of this imbalance reveals an intriguing opportunity. The skeptical blogger If you blog on skeptic-related topics, chances are the volume of your stronger material falls far short of that of the most prolific of skeptic bloggers such as Phil Plait of Bad As- tronomy6 fame. Phil is a professional writer, a scientist and a well-connected skeptic who has the talent, time and inclination to sift through volumes of email and information each day to publish at a brisk pace. Remove any of those support- ing pillars, such as time or inclination, and Philʼs output drops sharply. A similar pattern holds as we scale up to in- clude the entire community of skeptics. How we contribute According to social researchers, for any given population of interacting individuals the level of contribution varies considerably with a small group within the population contribut- ing a disproportionate amount of the effort.7 It should be no surprise that in our own community there are a few dozen individuals, many of them full-time skeptics, producing much of the value through writing, podcast- ing, activism, investigations and speaking. But what about the rest of us—more than 95% of skeptics—who are producing the re- 6 Though Philʼs blog is now hosted at Discover Magazineʼs site, you can still reach it through http://badastronomy.com. Cropped photo via http://flickr.com/photos/badastronomy/2781702559/ 7 The Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto first observed this pattern while studying income distributions in the early 1900s.