It's vacation time, so no posts for a while. No time, and no energy. Too bad, because there is plenty of woo-woo and craziness to go around, despite the lazy time of the year.
Check this out: Pastor behind Koran burning looking for Tampa Bay location
Some neighbor to have, huh? All we need is for the Westboro Baptist Church to show up, and we are all set as far as nutcases go.
However, it is vacation time after all, time for relaxation and rest, so no more grim news.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Friday, June 21, 2013
Republican Denial of Reality?
I would like to make my point from a few days ago (can you be smart and a Republican at the same time) even stronger, so I present you with a few more interesting bits of information I stumbled upon on the Web.
1. An article from Slate, by Phil Plate: Why is Our Government Attacking Science?
2. Again, from Slate: Mandating Scientific Discovery Never Works, by Lawrence Krauss.
Both authors are great scientist (see Plait's "Death from the Skies!: The Science Behind the End of the World" and Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing"), and both of them understand how science works extremely well. On the other hand the Republicans in the government seem to only accept science that is convenient for them, either politically, or ideologically. And that, of course, will take us back to the times where science, "reason" and philosophy were in the service of the rulers. We still call those times "The Dark Ages", and for a very good reason.
1. An article from Slate, by Phil Plate: Why is Our Government Attacking Science?
2. Again, from Slate: Mandating Scientific Discovery Never Works, by Lawrence Krauss.
Both authors are great scientist (see Plait's "Death from the Skies!: The Science Behind the End of the World" and Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing"), and both of them understand how science works extremely well. On the other hand the Republicans in the government seem to only accept science that is convenient for them, either politically, or ideologically. And that, of course, will take us back to the times where science, "reason" and philosophy were in the service of the rulers. We still call those times "The Dark Ages", and for a very good reason.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Do You Believe In Magic?
You do, if you use homeopathy, acupuncture, chiropractic, Reiki, some kind of faith healing, and countless other alternative medicine modalities that have absolutely no roots in modern science, reality and critical thinking. Most of them are just ways of "wishing away" the problem, and while some might "work" as a placebo, the might have some dangers associated with their use, and, when used instead of real medical interventions, all of them can be deadly (see here, here, and here).
So, why do we do it? Because we want miracles? Because we don't know any better? Because science is complex and, sometimes, difficult to understand? Probably, all of the above.
It is good to know that we can count on a few brave authors, who do the research, dig out the details and present it in a nice fashion, digestible by the regular folks like us. Among them is Paul Offit, a medical doctor, a researcher, and a strong proponent of reality-based medicine, including vaccines. His previous books, "Autism False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine and the Search For a Cure", and "Deadly Choices" were both excellent descriptions of the vaccine "controversy", how it started, evolved from bad science to social movement, and how it threatens our health and the well-being (and lives) of our children. Knowing his great writing style and deep commitment to science and research, I was very excited to find out that his new book "Do You Believe in Magic?: The Sense and Nonsense of Alternative Medicine" is out. I should have more of my own thoughts about it in a few days (or weeks, it's summer after all), but in the meantime, here are two reviews available on line:
Book raises alarms about alternative medicine - from USA Today, by Liz Szabo
and
Vaccine advocate takes on the alternative medicine industry - NBC News
There is also more on the topic from Liz Szabo: Alternative therapies, supplements can cause side effects and How to guard against a quack
Go, read it all, and stop believing in magic. It's the 21st Century!
So, why do we do it? Because we want miracles? Because we don't know any better? Because science is complex and, sometimes, difficult to understand? Probably, all of the above.
It is good to know that we can count on a few brave authors, who do the research, dig out the details and present it in a nice fashion, digestible by the regular folks like us. Among them is Paul Offit, a medical doctor, a researcher, and a strong proponent of reality-based medicine, including vaccines. His previous books, "Autism False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine and the Search For a Cure", and "Deadly Choices" were both excellent descriptions of the vaccine "controversy", how it started, evolved from bad science to social movement, and how it threatens our health and the well-being (and lives) of our children. Knowing his great writing style and deep commitment to science and research, I was very excited to find out that his new book "Do You Believe in Magic?: The Sense and Nonsense of Alternative Medicine" is out. I should have more of my own thoughts about it in a few days (or weeks, it's summer after all), but in the meantime, here are two reviews available on line:
Book raises alarms about alternative medicine - from USA Today, by Liz Szabo
and
Vaccine advocate takes on the alternative medicine industry - NBC News
There is also more on the topic from Liz Szabo: Alternative therapies, supplements can cause side effects and How to guard against a quack
Go, read it all, and stop believing in magic. It's the 21st Century!
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Are "Smart" and "Republican" Mutually Exclusive Terms?
Following my fascination with cognitive dissonance and how it can obstruct one's clear view of reality and reason, I give you the real world example.
First, an article from the Tampa Bay Times, from a few years back (I remember reading it in real print):
Why scientists are seldom Republicans
First, an article from the Tampa Bay Times, from a few years back (I remember reading it in real print):
Why scientists are seldom Republicans
Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without scientists? Ask the Republican Party. It lives in such a world. Republicans have been so successful in driving out of their party anyone who endeavors in scientific inquiry that pretty soon there won't be anyone left who can distinguish a periodic table from a kitchen table.
This was a brilliant article and it's funny, how the Republicans finally noticed the same thing, after the last elections, and decided to stop being a "stupid party"... except I don't think they are actually trying at all.
Not only, the narrative from them did not change, but it seems it is getting worse. From climate change and creationism, to gun control and human rights, they are still deep in the 19th Century, and they seem to be more and more proud of it. Case in point:
Where do we go from here??? Only a complete negation of reality can follow... and it's a scary, scary vision.
Friday, June 7, 2013
On Cognitive Dissonance, or How We Reinforce Our Beliefs
We all go through life with a set of solid, well established beliefs. We acquire some of them from our parents, other ones in a process of our education, and some we seek out on our own, settling into something comfortable and familiar that drives our everyday lives.
This process of establishing one's identity is interesting, but what is even more captivating, from my point of view, is how we hold on to those beliefs throughout our lives. After all, we get most of them in our formative years, when we are young and easily influenced. However, we manage to hold on to many of them for the rest of our lives, even when they don't make sense, even when facts and everyday experiences tell us there are absolutely no reasons behind them.
This ranges from deeply "spiritual" beliefs, to those that might affect our health (e.g. alternative medicine vs. science-based medicine), to something as mundane as superstitions (knock on wood anyone?). I've been always fascinated with how this works... people, who are seemingly very rational, who pride themselves in conducting their daily lives based only on rational, methodical decisions, who spend better part of their education in science, can completely disregard reason and logical thinking when it comes to some beliefs, which seem to be completely immune from any criticism and skepticism. How many rational people would use oscillococcinum, or echinacea for cold, even though there is no clinical evidence that they work. Why do we ridicule homeopathy, but think that some other alternative medicine modality will help? Why do we laugh at beliefs from other parts of the world, but get offended when someone does the same to our own convictions?
Of course, in psychology, this is not a new question. A theory of cognitive dissonance has been around since 1957, and it states:
It is easy, in line with the theory of cognitive dissonance, to point mistakes in others, to see their foolishness and stupidity, but much harder to do the same to ourselves. As great physicist and Nobel Prize winner, Richard Feynman once said:
This process of establishing one's identity is interesting, but what is even more captivating, from my point of view, is how we hold on to those beliefs throughout our lives. After all, we get most of them in our formative years, when we are young and easily influenced. However, we manage to hold on to many of them for the rest of our lives, even when they don't make sense, even when facts and everyday experiences tell us there are absolutely no reasons behind them.
This ranges from deeply "spiritual" beliefs, to those that might affect our health (e.g. alternative medicine vs. science-based medicine), to something as mundane as superstitions (knock on wood anyone?). I've been always fascinated with how this works... people, who are seemingly very rational, who pride themselves in conducting their daily lives based only on rational, methodical decisions, who spend better part of their education in science, can completely disregard reason and logical thinking when it comes to some beliefs, which seem to be completely immune from any criticism and skepticism. How many rational people would use oscillococcinum, or echinacea for cold, even though there is no clinical evidence that they work. Why do we ridicule homeopathy, but think that some other alternative medicine modality will help? Why do we laugh at beliefs from other parts of the world, but get offended when someone does the same to our own convictions?
Of course, in psychology, this is not a new question. A theory of cognitive dissonance has been around since 1957, and it states:
The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.[1] It is the distressing mental state that people feel when they "find themselves doing things that don't fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold."[4] A key assumption is that people want their expectations to meet reality, creating a sense of equilibrium.[5] Likewise, another assumption is that a person will avoid situations or information sources that give rise to feelings of uneasiness, or dissonance.Even better source of popular information about this fascinating topic is a book by Caroll Tavris and Elliot Aronson: "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts".
It is easy, in line with the theory of cognitive dissonance, to point mistakes in others, to see their foolishness and stupidity, but much harder to do the same to ourselves. As great physicist and Nobel Prize winner, Richard Feynman once said:
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool."But the first step of not fooling yourself is the knowledge of the principles and psychological mechanisms of such processes. Questioning every belief, and every idea, seemingly set in stone, is the only way to weed out the nonsense and superstition.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Book Recommendation: Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood & the Prison of Belief
If you want to see how to create a new religion in less than one generation, pick up this book:
Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood & the Prison of Belief by Lawrence Wright
I live pretty close to Clearwater, passed by the Scientology base there many times, I have seen their tables with e-meters in the local malls, and years and years ago, when I was working around Times Square in NYC, I peeked into their center there as well. For many years, I assumed it was a harmless cult for people in search of some spiritual need, the ultimate meaning and purpose of life, something new and exciting in their lives. After all, isn't that what all religions give us? However, as I was learning more about this particular cult, I realized that its dangers exceed any other religions we are familiar with, due to its secrecy, extend of its influence on people, and pure lunacy of its beliefs.
Now, after reading Wright's excellent book, I have even more contempt for this crazy cult and its followers, especially those who seem to have "brains" to think for themselves, and just refuse to do so, because they are too invested (either psychologically, or financially) in something that is so blatantly crazy.
The book has basically three logical parts:
"Going Clear" is not only an excellent primer on Scientology itself, but it is also a great study on how a new religion can be created in a very short time, given a charismatic leader, a few lies here and there, and a group of people with enough problems in their own lives, that they would follow anyone and anything like sheep. Scientology, along with the Mormon church, is the second "major" religion created in the last 200 years, with enough historical records to study this strange human behavior and better understand human needs for community and belonging, and how those traits can be used and abused by others.
I guess, the only complaint I have about Lawrence Wright's book, is its very ending, in which the author actually seems to be giving Scientology a free pass, by comparing it to older, more mature religions and implying that since most of us need some kind of religious affiliation in our lives, Scientology could, and should become just one of many religions, that guide us through our short and miserable existence.
Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood & the Prison of Belief by Lawrence Wright
I live pretty close to Clearwater, passed by the Scientology base there many times, I have seen their tables with e-meters in the local malls, and years and years ago, when I was working around Times Square in NYC, I peeked into their center there as well. For many years, I assumed it was a harmless cult for people in search of some spiritual need, the ultimate meaning and purpose of life, something new and exciting in their lives. After all, isn't that what all religions give us? However, as I was learning more about this particular cult, I realized that its dangers exceed any other religions we are familiar with, due to its secrecy, extend of its influence on people, and pure lunacy of its beliefs.
Now, after reading Wright's excellent book, I have even more contempt for this crazy cult and its followers, especially those who seem to have "brains" to think for themselves, and just refuse to do so, because they are too invested (either psychologically, or financially) in something that is so blatantly crazy.
The book has basically three logical parts:
- L. Ron Hubbard's early years - his war "heroism", his science-fiction writing career and the beginnings of his methods of mind control.
- Hubbard's "public" years - the crazy voyages across the seas, the beginnings of the religion of Scientology, dealings with foreign governments, the first battles with the IRS, and finally his "disappearance" (real and metaphysical).
- Scientology under David Miscavige - the victory over the IRS, and the expansion of the church, especially into Hollywood.
"Going Clear" is not only an excellent primer on Scientology itself, but it is also a great study on how a new religion can be created in a very short time, given a charismatic leader, a few lies here and there, and a group of people with enough problems in their own lives, that they would follow anyone and anything like sheep. Scientology, along with the Mormon church, is the second "major" religion created in the last 200 years, with enough historical records to study this strange human behavior and better understand human needs for community and belonging, and how those traits can be used and abused by others.
I guess, the only complaint I have about Lawrence Wright's book, is its very ending, in which the author actually seems to be giving Scientology a free pass, by comparing it to older, more mature religions and implying that since most of us need some kind of religious affiliation in our lives, Scientology could, and should become just one of many religions, that guide us through our short and miserable existence.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Breakthrough In Physics: Florida Figures Out Time Travel!!!
Yes, that Nobel Prize winning feast has been accomplished in Marion County, in Central Florida, where they are bringing back beatings in elementary schools.
Gradebook reports:
Marion schools bring back paddling punishment
As the Ocala Star Banner reports as well:
Gradebook reports:
Marion schools bring back paddling punishment
As the Ocala Star Banner reports as well:
The board ruled that paddling can be used only if a parent gives a standing written OK once a year. In addition, the principal must obtain verbal permission at the time the punishment is handed down. Under the policy, corporal punishment can only be used at the elementary school level. It can only be used on a child once a semester.I would giggle reading it, if it weren't a bit scary. It also made me double-check the calendar to make sure we are in 2013. So, I guess, they did figure out how to go back in time after all. Not very shocking, since that area of Central Florida is very "conservative", if you know what I mean.
Friday, April 19, 2013
The Worst of Humanity
The worst of humanity comes out way too often. Columbine, 9/11, Aurora, Beslan, Sandy Hook, and now the Boston Marathon are just a few that come to mind when we think about evil acts that one human being can do to others. Some of those acts are unstoppable, as they come from the darkest corners of human psyche, some of them can be attributed to just plain craziness and mental instability and, as such, are even harder to predict and "control".
But should we give up and do nothing to protect ourselves, and our loved ones, just because it is almost impossible to predict the next act of terror, or the next deranged person who commits it? I don't think so. While removing all the danger is probably impossible, it is viable to limit access to the means of destruction and minimize the amount of damage that can be inflicted in our society, when a person, a group, or an entire country goes crazy (whether it is "real" crazy, or crazy for some ideology, is beyond this discussion). This is exactly why most of us agree that proliferation of nuclear weapons is not the best idea. We do not want a crazy regime (like Iran, for example) to loose their cool one day, and start nuking everyone around, even if it meant their own ultimate destruction. Totalitarian governments go nuts, and so do people, who can turn violent one day, without much warning.
In a western society that (most of the time) calls itself civilized and democratic, there is no need for individuals to posses means of killing others in large numbers. As individuals, we do not face threats greater that a single, evil or crazy person, and our means of defending ourselves should be adequate to such dangers. We also delegated personal protection duties to the society (in various forms: local, state, country, etc), as part of our contributions to this democratic and civilized society.
When individuals go crazy (again, call it crime, or madness, it is not relevant to this discussion, as it simply means taking that individual outside of bounds of our society), they should not have access to weapons that can kill scores of other people. Especially, weapons that are designed to do only one thing: kill many people quickly and efficiently. Evil people can always find a way, that's true, but we can make it as difficult as possible for those who just simply "flip". One way to make it difficult is to outlaw certain weapons (assault guns), make others difficult to obtain (especially for those who are already on the path to "crazy"), and control them all to some extent, so we have an idea where they are and how they are used.
Not doing that, and claiming that we are rational, intelligent beings, is immoral and just plain stupid. If we can take away the means of destruction and mayhem from evil and deranged individuals, but we refuse to do it for self-serving (money) reasons, we are showing the worst of humanity in all of us. The recent US debate about gun control (ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines, and the extension of background checks to all gun sales) made it more visible than anything else could. One after another, those common sense measures were scraped under pressure from powerful, money welding interests, without even voting for them, with the last one (overwhelmingly supported by the public) being defeated in a vote two days ago, by the following senators:
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lee (R-UT)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV) (voted "No" for procedural reasons)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Those senators went for the money, not the safety of us and our children. They decided that selling our peace of mind for their shady employment in Washington, is actually worth it. They showed us the worst of humanity, not because they did something illegal, but because they "rationally" and consciously chose to ignore morality and good of others. I don't expect much from my own Florida senator Marco Rubio, as he's been showing himself as nothing more than half-wit (the World is 6000 years old?) cynic (guns vs. immigration?), with no moral compass (please, don't bring his religion into it... it makes it even worse), but I was hoping that there are smarter and more decent people in the Senate. I was wrong...
As former representative Gabby Giffords said in her New York Times piece:
But should we give up and do nothing to protect ourselves, and our loved ones, just because it is almost impossible to predict the next act of terror, or the next deranged person who commits it? I don't think so. While removing all the danger is probably impossible, it is viable to limit access to the means of destruction and minimize the amount of damage that can be inflicted in our society, when a person, a group, or an entire country goes crazy (whether it is "real" crazy, or crazy for some ideology, is beyond this discussion). This is exactly why most of us agree that proliferation of nuclear weapons is not the best idea. We do not want a crazy regime (like Iran, for example) to loose their cool one day, and start nuking everyone around, even if it meant their own ultimate destruction. Totalitarian governments go nuts, and so do people, who can turn violent one day, without much warning.
In a western society that (most of the time) calls itself civilized and democratic, there is no need for individuals to posses means of killing others in large numbers. As individuals, we do not face threats greater that a single, evil or crazy person, and our means of defending ourselves should be adequate to such dangers. We also delegated personal protection duties to the society (in various forms: local, state, country, etc), as part of our contributions to this democratic and civilized society.
When individuals go crazy (again, call it crime, or madness, it is not relevant to this discussion, as it simply means taking that individual outside of bounds of our society), they should not have access to weapons that can kill scores of other people. Especially, weapons that are designed to do only one thing: kill many people quickly and efficiently. Evil people can always find a way, that's true, but we can make it as difficult as possible for those who just simply "flip". One way to make it difficult is to outlaw certain weapons (assault guns), make others difficult to obtain (especially for those who are already on the path to "crazy"), and control them all to some extent, so we have an idea where they are and how they are used.
Not doing that, and claiming that we are rational, intelligent beings, is immoral and just plain stupid. If we can take away the means of destruction and mayhem from evil and deranged individuals, but we refuse to do it for self-serving (money) reasons, we are showing the worst of humanity in all of us. The recent US debate about gun control (ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines, and the extension of background checks to all gun sales) made it more visible than anything else could. One after another, those common sense measures were scraped under pressure from powerful, money welding interests, without even voting for them, with the last one (overwhelmingly supported by the public) being defeated in a vote two days ago, by the following senators:
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lee (R-UT)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV) (voted "No" for procedural reasons)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Those senators went for the money, not the safety of us and our children. They decided that selling our peace of mind for their shady employment in Washington, is actually worth it. They showed us the worst of humanity, not because they did something illegal, but because they "rationally" and consciously chose to ignore morality and good of others. I don't expect much from my own Florida senator Marco Rubio, as he's been showing himself as nothing more than half-wit (the World is 6000 years old?) cynic (guns vs. immigration?), with no moral compass (please, don't bring his religion into it... it makes it even worse), but I was hoping that there are smarter and more decent people in the Senate. I was wrong...
As former representative Gabby Giffords said in her New York Times piece:
Mark my words: if we cannot make our communities safer with the Congress we have now, we will use every means available to make sure we have a different Congress, one that puts communities’ interests ahead of the gun lobby’s. To do nothing while others are in danger is not the American way.Great idea! Let's vote them out next time we have a chance. They don't deserve to be any one's representatives.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Relative Morality
My interest in moral dilemmas was "tickled" recently, when I had heard a religious person stating that "stealing a dollar from a rich person is not as bad as stealing it from a poor one". Now, my reaction to such a statement in any other setting would be to ask a few follow up questions, but in this case, what struck me the most is the fact that the statement came from someone, who would be the first one accusing others (especially non-religious) of moral relativism.
In my mind, if we do not have any additional information, the question is simple to answer: there is no difference, when you are stealing from poor, or rich. A theft is a theft and, since your actions cause harm (physical, or mental) to others, they are morally wrong. We can, of course, expand this problem, by introducing variables, like your own wealth, or your current situation (Les Miserables comes to mind), and such differences can considerably change the outcome.
In any case, the answer might never be as obvious as one would expect, but my surprise was not so much with the problem itself, but with the person who stated it and "solved" it using some pretty relativistic criteria.
To follow up, here are some interesting readings on various moral philosophies and dilemmas:
1. Moral Dilemma: Would You Kill One Person to Save Five?
2. Stealing from the Rich
3. On ethics, part I: Moral philosophy’s third way
4. On ethics, part II: Consequentialism
5. On ethics, part III: Deontology
6. Of trolleys and morality
In my mind, if we do not have any additional information, the question is simple to answer: there is no difference, when you are stealing from poor, or rich. A theft is a theft and, since your actions cause harm (physical, or mental) to others, they are morally wrong. We can, of course, expand this problem, by introducing variables, like your own wealth, or your current situation (Les Miserables comes to mind), and such differences can considerably change the outcome.
In any case, the answer might never be as obvious as one would expect, but my surprise was not so much with the problem itself, but with the person who stated it and "solved" it using some pretty relativistic criteria.
To follow up, here are some interesting readings on various moral philosophies and dilemmas:
1. Moral Dilemma: Would You Kill One Person to Save Five?
2. Stealing from the Rich
3. On ethics, part I: Moral philosophy’s third way
4. On ethics, part II: Consequentialism
5. On ethics, part III: Deontology
6. Of trolleys and morality
Monday, April 1, 2013
MLMs, Pyramids and A Hope of A Quick Buck
We have all been there... bombarded by hundreds of ads and commercials on how to make money fast, and, best of all, do it in the comfort of your own home. The salespeople make you feel guilty and stupid by showing off all the "successful" people who jumped in and made millions. MLMs, Multi Level Marketing schemes, or how I prefer calling them, scams, because after all those years, I still don't know anyone who actually made any significant amount of money out of them. That does not include those who set those scams up and profit from the people who fall prey to their marketing gimmicks and smooth talk.
I have seen Amway, coming and going in the early 1990s, then there was Herbalife, and numerous others, including some fancy "video e-mail/conferencing" in the mid 2000s, which seems to be making a comeback on Facebook in the recent months. For all of them, the idea is the same, but the math (and it's rather simple math) does not work, as you run out of potential customers very quickly.
However, there is always someone who's inventing new tricks to make money using old ideas.
As a good precaution, it's worth diving into this extensive article, published by The Verge, which explores the never ending variations on the good, old pyramid scheme:
Income At Home, Herbalife, and the $8 billion pyramid
It's also worth looking at some statistics on what is actually an average success rate for an MLM-type business:
The Likelihood of MLM Success
and, see the idea from a skeptical point of view:
MLM Watch
I have seen Amway, coming and going in the early 1990s, then there was Herbalife, and numerous others, including some fancy "video e-mail/conferencing" in the mid 2000s, which seems to be making a comeback on Facebook in the recent months. For all of them, the idea is the same, but the math (and it's rather simple math) does not work, as you run out of potential customers very quickly.
However, there is always someone who's inventing new tricks to make money using old ideas.
As a good precaution, it's worth diving into this extensive article, published by The Verge, which explores the never ending variations on the good, old pyramid scheme:
Income At Home, Herbalife, and the $8 billion pyramid
It's also worth looking at some statistics on what is actually an average success rate for an MLM-type business:
The Likelihood of MLM Success
and, see the idea from a skeptical point of view:
MLM Watch
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)