{"id":144,"date":"2014-07-20T18:30:12","date_gmt":"2014-07-20T22:30:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/ts\/?p=144"},"modified":"2014-07-20T21:52:43","modified_gmt":"2014-07-21T01:52:43","slug":"having-my-doubts-a-tam-2014-diary-sunday","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/ts\/2014\/07\/20\/having-my-doubts-a-tam-2014-diary-sunday\/","title":{"rendered":"Having My Doubts: A TAM 2014 Diary (Sunday)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Yes, it’s been a week since I recapped TAM 2014 Saturday, but I’ve been busy. And the glow has faded some, so now this should bring back fond memories of experiencing or reading about the conference. Right?<\/p>\n

For every previous TAM I\u2019ve been to, I never made it down to the ballroom in time for the Sunday morning papers. I made the effort this year to catch my friend Jacques Rousseau<\/a>\u2019s \u201cThe Responsible Believer.\u201d It was excellent, but I won\u2019t seek to summarize it here. He did talk about something I want to explore in more detail later: \u201cRapoport\u2019s Rules.\u201d It\u2019s a way to debate a believer without being smug or dismissive; this is a lesson I need to learn.<\/span><\/p>\n

Another line that jumped out at me is \u201cSkepticism is not a conclusion, but a method for reaching conclusions.\u201d<\/p>\n

The next paper was Stuart J. Robbins\u2019 debunking of the \u201cFace On Mars.\u201d As I Tweeted at the time, unless Brian De Palma<\/a> was in the audience, this doesn\u2019t seem necessary anymore.<\/p>\n

The regular panels began with a talk by Steve Cuno<\/a>, an advertising man, about advertising and its (limited) ability to control people\u2019s minds. He mentioned the famous subliminal advertising experiment at a cinema in the 1950s, which everyone has heard about, but nobody ever hears was a complete failure. Sales of popcorn and Coke did not go up after moviegoers saw the subliminal messages urging them to go to the concession stand.<\/p>\n

Advertisers themselves have perpetuated the mystique about advertising\u2019s persuasiveness. The book by David Ogilvy of Ogilvy & Mather, \u201cOgilvy On Advertising<\/a>,\u201d is a prime example.<\/p>\n

Ads reflect societal attitudes much more than they create them. If \u201cRubenesque\u201d models were the Western standard of beauty, Cuno said, they\u2019re the models we\u2019d see in ads.<\/p>\n

Incidentally, I was bitterly disappointed that Steve wasn’t wearing a crisp gray suit, smoking a Lucky Strike, and holding a highball in his hand.<\/p>\n

The Sunday keynote address was \u201cScience and Justice: Free Will & Moral Responsibility In A Secular Society\u201d by Michael Shermer.<\/p>\n

Shermer\u2019s talks are usually optimistic. This one was more dark than usual, and explored the nature of good and evil. He mentioned a man whose pedophilia was found to have been caused by a brain tumor. After surgery to remove the tumor, he lost all desire to prey on children.<\/p>\n

Another case he brought up was Charles Whitman, the man who climbed the University of Texas clock tower in the 1960s and killed several people, including himself, with a rifle. He knew he was mentally unwell and was hearing voices; he even told a therapist what he was planning, but didn\u2019t get help and no authorities were alerted. He left behind a note asking that his body be autopsied to find out what was wrong with him, and anomalies were found in his brain.
\nShermer lightened things some by discussing the famous \u201cmarshmallow experiment\u201d and showing us a video of several children enduring it.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s the video:<\/p>\n