I talked about the “exorcism” hub-bub with Pope Frank and wondered what the church thinks of their go-to exorcism guy, Gabriele Amorth.

Tim gave us a great skepti-quiz; we all failed. But the sound effects were AWESOME.

It was fun! Check it out.

It still contains some big words but try it out on your kids and see how they respond to it. I’m going to try an experiment myself.

The video is from the site Stated Clearly which includes other videos like it on related topics. Check it out.

Good week for crossovers. My post on Slenderman (Slender Man?) did well with the paranormal crowd. I’ll be working with some experts to develop another piece on this relating to pop culture. Looking forward to doing that.

I was able to connect with the local Bigfoot investigation group after a rumor broke that a Bigfoot was shot near Altoona. Turned out to be a bust. As is typical. The Bigfoot community is especially awash with hoaxes to the point that you can not take anything serious. I wrote about this for Huffington Post. That post got many positive comments and was passed on via social media. I was happy to see that. It’s really important to pass on things you like so they reach the maximum audience. Nothing is as depressing as doing a lot of work and having it go no where.

Therefore, I’m thinking about book projects…

Also announced this week, I’m travelling to Los Angeles at the end of the month to give a workshop presentation called “I Doubt That: The Media Guide to Skepticism” at the JREF headquarters in Hollywood. I can’t wait to meet up with my left coast friends. The video will eventually be posted on line but I really want people to come and hang out with me.

On this week’s Virtual Skeptics, we had guest Ben Radford who revealed his hatred for the Zimbabwean president and we had some general good times, as usual. Check it out. I guarantee you will learn something entire new about history, culture, robots and science.

I was listening to It’s A Thing, the conveniently-sized podcast by two of my favorite Tech reporters – Tom Merritt and Molly Wood. It’s a trend-spotting show. Tom’s thing was ‘Slender Man’ which he heard about from some kid. Slender Man is a “thing” indeed.

(The) Slender Man was born from a photo editing contest on the Something Awful web forums in 2009 when “Victor Surge” submitted for evaluation two images of groups of children with a tall, thin, creepy faceless dude in a black suit. For effect, the submitter added a story to go along with it establishing that the figure brings death and bad luck.

Something’s not right about that thing in the back left

Along with his stretchy, tentacle-like arms and hairless pate, whatever more you need to know about Slender Man can be found here at Know Your Meme, at the Slender Man Wiki, and on this adorable video.

No creation of this sort is pure, but likely draws from mythology and folklore with motifs that are shared across the world. But the curious thing I heard about Slendy is that he may LITERALLY be created by the mind. That is, his popularity in the public consciousness is so great that he has become a thoughtform, a tulpa, that he was imagined into existence and now he is REAL.

The Reddit tulpa page is where you can talk about your own self-created imaginary friend. It’s a little loopy there. Remember, your new friend has a mind of its own and feeds off your energy.

Nope, I don’t really believe this fantastic stuff but the tales grow taller on down the line. Is it a case of an evolving creature that draws life blood from our minds? Sort of. He’s a meme (Dawkins, 1976, yes THAT Dawkins, invented the word ‘meme’), he does change to suit the environment. Thanks to existing mostly on the web, where he has replicated and been passed on, Slender Man has traveled all over the world.

You know that old saying “seeing is believing”? Well, in this case, believing is seeing. If kids believe in monsters, they see them all the time. Since Slender Man is now a popular guy due to the non-copyrighted idea that was worked into art, online games, and all kind of media, he is believed. And he is “seen”, supposedly.

Tulpas have been used to explain many different monsters and strange creatures that people say they have seen but SHOULD NOT have seen according to natural laws. They don’t behave according to the rules of this earth. According to the Slender Wiki, Slender Man has different characteristics depending upon whom you ask so it’s hard to maintain the collective thoughtform “energy” as a single unified thing. That’s also a bonus of no copyright.

An alternative explanation for Slender Man is as the manifestation of quantum theory or probability itself. He is a collection of particles that acts as one particle – he teleports instantaneously, he is never seen standing in a fixed position until you observe him as the quantum state collapses to that certain location, and… you’re dead.

Transdimensional? Nifty. He’s a modern monster.

The Slender Man legend expands into all media with his main money-making job these days is appearing in ARGs or alternate reality games where his mythos will surely grow, like his spindly, noodly appendages. He’s sort of a cross between a faceless horror, a man in black, and an alien.

Some would say Slendy’s social “cousin”, Trender Man, is more gregarious. He is frequently seen out shopping and trying on trendy clothes. He’s a bit of a showoff, but he makes you buy things, not die.

Trenderman and friends

My least favorite of the Slender family is Spendorman. He’s just annoyingly happy.

Ooooh. Scary.

So, the Slender family… now you know. Be afraid.

[W]hat fringe subject do you think is worth serious investigation? Obviously, it isn’t Bigfoot.

It’s a good question to answer considering that this person sees me as a “skeptic” (in the way they perceive “skeptic”) and apparently sees me as at least a bit dismissive of Bigfoot research. Perhaps this person only sees my opinion in dribs and drabs across the internet and has picked up that I don’t particularly like the field of Bigfootery these days. I’m not sure who could – it’s full of unprofessional, money-grabbing, sham research. Hoaxing is rampant and the “evidence” presented daily on certain websites is worthless.

Yes, I’m negative on Bigfoot research. No doubt. But there are two items that need to be clarified. Since Twitter is a poor media for such discussion and I could not point to something I’d written already or an interview I did that wasn’t really long and too much to hand out and say “read this”, I’m writing it here.

First thing: All fringe subjects are worth of investigation. Observations deserve explanation.

(I’m not sure what the writer meant by “serious investigation” because my goal is always to find out the best answer. I assume that the opposite of serious investigation is sham inquiry and I really don’t like that. Think Ghost Hunters and Finding Bigfoot as sham inquiry because they are TV shows masquerading as research.)

I’ve been interested in ghosts, cryptozoology and anomalous natural phenomena since I can remember. It’s fascinating stuff and should be taken seriously. People see things. They have experiences that profoundly affect them and they want to know what happened. They may interpret it one way but there may be other explanations. The questions that need to be asked are “What, if anything, happened here?” and then “What is the best possible explanation?”

The reason why I dislike the current mode of popular amateur research is that they are presuming that the experience was exactly as the witness described and then directly seek out Bigfoot/paranormal activity. Wrong. That’s feeding your beliefs, not looking for the best answer. The current, popular mode of “serious research” has procedure and goals that are off-base. With some adjustments it could be much better but it may not be as exciting. I’m not sure the investigators are willing to change.

Second: It can’t be helped that some people will think I’m hostile to Bigfootery. We won’t agree on some basic stuff. But the truth is, I know several people who seriously care about the subject and are passionate about the quest. They clearly want to do the best job they can. I respect them and encourage them for that. I enjoy talking to them about how they might make their process more scientific and sound. Several seem to be open to that. Even though we disagree on some points, we are still friendly. THAT is worthwhile. That is serious research – when you can take constructive criticism and get better at what you do.

That’s why I’m writing this post. I’m open to constructive criticism. People have said I can be dismissive and I want to make sure that they know I don’t always mean to be personally dismissive but I am also passionate about the subject with my own particular views.

If you are interested in the version of skepticism that I subscribe to (and everyone should have these skills for daily life), check out the Media Guide to Skepticism.

Also, this is a piece I wrote about how paranormal proponents want skeptics to leave them alone. And why we won’t.

The Huffington Post piece on hoaxes last week seemed to get good circulation, especially among paranormal folks JUUUUST a bit fed up with empty promises and lousy endings. I’m working on a followup on hoaxing these days.

I also got some promotions for my last post, on paranormal politics. That was sort of a brain dump. Got me thinking. Hope it helped others. I was so glad to see people like America’s Most Haunted (radio show) promote it. That was gratifying.

Kitty’s new piece triggered me to set up this facebook page

Your Friendly Neighborhood Skeptic

and, so far, it’s ALSO getting a good response, filling up with nice people who just want to talk about paranormal stuff and explore. Come on over, post some positive links.

On this week’s Virtual Skeptics, I talked about the Sylvia Browne circus. Check it out below. Meanwhile, the piece on Doubtful News on Sylvia’s Epic Fail did very well in hits. I am overjoyed to see her getting some well-deserved negative attention. And, I was also very pleased to talk to Winston Ross from The Daily Beast yesterday: What Psychic Sylvia Brown Didn’t See – The Daily Beast.

Meanwhile this week, I official started my own business, and my wikipedia page was on Did You Know from page for a while. Very cool stuff.

I think that’s enough for this week.

PZ who?

That serves as an introduction to an introduction…

I started reading Jeremy Northcote’s The Paranormal and the Politics of Truth: A Sociological Account. It’s already marked up from when I referred to it for my thesis project but it was time I read it through. Odd that sometimes you pick up a book years later and it resonates with you in a completely different way from the first encounter with it, thanks to life experience and current events.

So, I digested the introduction and I found some zinger ideas that I wanted to write down and contemplate anyway so I might as well share them and see how everyone feels about it (in consideration of my propensity to be collaborative).

The following are notes and ideas taken from the Introduction, pages 1-11.

We now have “micro-public spheres” or areas where we can gather and talk about certain topics of interest. Every participant in these spheres (or fields, such as the paranormal or skepticism or whatever), thinks they are cooperatively searching for the truth. Those darn “Others”, the detractors with their biases and agendas, hinder progress in society.

The author sees “intransigencies” on (both/all) sides that are not the result of power/authority struggles or inability to understand what the other person is saying, but about this demonization of the “Other”. (I think in part it certainly does have it’s fame, control and power aspects, but not for the average interested person.) The Others are a threat to the preferred order of things. For example, we can go back to the Skeptic straw-man idea – a wall exists between reason and unreason. The irrational and gullible believer will bring about the downfall of society and send us back into the Dark Ages. (If anyone pays attention, they will recognize that I don’t subscribe to that idea and I do not resemble the Skeptic straw-man though some love to suggest that is so, you’re mistaken.) The UFO believers are adamant that if we do not subscribe to their ideas, global catastrophe will result. Christians (or other religious spheres) fear that the forces of darkness will overtake us and plunge society into despair. Not only do the spheres demonize the “Other” who do not subscribe to their order of things, but they will act against those within the sphere that stray from ideals. (Sound familiar? Atheists? Skeptics? Feminists?)

With this setup, ideological differences are reinforced rather than overcome.

Whether you choose to believe it or not, paranormal beliefs are part of our larger society. Are paranormal beliefs deviant? They are portrayed that way but many people accept them so they aren’t that unusual.

The patterns of interaction of paranormal participants are not specific to paranormal matters. They are human interactions we see in many places. There is an appeal and a power to be had in the cultural and social fabric of a host society – whether that be paranormal or skeptical – there is a sense that “I found my people” where people share principles and social practices.

The author talks about discourse and the discursive. This is the metanarrative and I can’t say that I grasp this concept fully. This is described as the assumptions or truth claims that underlie a person’s understanding of reality, society and self. (What is the difference between that and a “worldview”?) The paranormal discourse, for example, lends itself to a certain interpretation of events. But this is self-referential appeal to facts, which are discursive themselves.

A certain discourse defines how someone might interpret an event as paranormal while others would view it as religious or rational. Where is objective reality in all this? Is it all shifting sand or is there some solid ground somewhere? I want to count on the fact that there is some objective truth.

Why does the author consider the paranormal as having to do with “politics”? Well, politics is simply a mode of contestation and negotiation in social settings. It is a sociological process of truth construction. The paranormal debate is political because it challenges the boundaries between legitimate and illegitimate knowledge in modern society.

Can there be consensus building in such a situation? Considering the entrenched beliefs of paranormalists and nonparanormalists? Hmm. Now I’m wondering. Is this possible? I’ve been approached by some to consider giving this “bridge building” a try but maybe our assumptions are too far apart. If we reject some of each other’s basic premises, can we find common ground and move forward? (Note atheists, feminists, skeptics, again… it all applies).

Progress can only be made when participants are able to see past their preconceptions of one another and overcome feelings of “the Other” as a threat.

I keep thinking about this. Are the participants, the stakeholders, in a process (secularism, feminism, anomalistic phenomena) READY to give up preconceptions, wipe the slate clean and try again?

Man, this IS politics. Congress currently can’t do this. I see a great many parties that have a very long aisle to reach across. I don’t know if progress can be made. But I’d like to try and see. I’ve contacted a scientific paranormal research group and volunteered my services. The response… was promising. Stay tuned.

But, I do have my own Wikipedia page now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_A._Hill

Thank you to Susan Gerbic and Nathan Miller. Guerrilla Skepticism

[Heh - apparently this caused some problems... (disambiguation)]

All my stuff is here.

From The Amazing Meeting, Las Vegas, 2012

I heard the author of Monsters in America (Poole, 2011) interviewed on Monster Talk and knew I had to get the book. It was not like any monster book or any history book I have read before. Monsters are complicated. This book expresses that. It’s not so simply to just trace the roots of the folklore, the monsters are ever changing in response to how we need to use them. The research that went into this book is outstanding and deserves to be in every monster-lovers library (cryptozoology or horror fan). It’s not the easiest read because of the density of information but because I love this stuff, I had no trouble plowing through it quickly. I learned a lot of new stuff. While I won’t always agree exactly with the interpretations, this is a great mind-opening array of ideas that helped me understand American pop culture a bit more deeply.

The Loch Ness Monster (Dinsdale, 1961) is considered a classic in cryptozoological literature. Written as a personal account of research by Tim Dinsdale, mine was an old rebound library copy, not a revised edition. I thought I knew what Tim had found, but I was sort of wrong. This book was both interesting and very disappointing. It was the story of someone swept up in a belief. Too swept up. He was an engineer and had an engineer’s way of thinking about things – everything is literal and has a cause. Tim uncritically took eyewitness stories at face value, extracting facts that may not have been factual and computing things from these “facts”. He was so careful. But you can be careful sorting nonsense and you will get neatly arranged nonsense. This book is still worth a read for cryptozoologists but as a caution against what not to do – Do not jump with both feet into a dream, a fantasy, a thought that you will be the one to uncover the truth. This is an amateur monster hunter making amateur mistakes. First, he believes. Then, he seeks confirming evidence. Finally, he does not give up his belief. We are left with his account, which is valuable and a film which we aren’t clear what it is. It really did not help us get any closer to the monster. But, I’m also saying this from a perspective 40 years later.

About 2 months ago I found a spider bite on the back of my hand, I don’t know how I got it. It itched a bit and the flesh necropsied. Neat! I still have a little scar. I fell bad for the little bugger who bit me. She had no chance to get anything out of it. So it was time to pick up The Private Life of Spiders (Hillyard, 2008). This is a coffee table book that you should read cover to cover. I loved it. It’s full of fascinating photographs of the animals. Long ago, I recall it was recommended but I can’t remember where I read that, but I didn’t forget it. I located it through some discount outlet and finally got around to reading it, usually a few pages before bed. Close ups of spiders before bed is not going to float everyone’s boat. In fact, it can seem downright nightmarish. But this book is an excellent tool for cognitive behavioral therapy. Don’t like spiders? Get this book and discover how fascinating they are. You will stop and examine every eight-legged beastie you find and feel much more kindly inclined to them. I learned so much. I was a fan of spiders before (though I did not like when they were in the bathroom) and am even more amazed now. This is a wonderful book every animal lover must own.

When I write at the various places I write – paranormal or skeptics sites, or for the general public – I’m very conscious of my audience. What do they already know and what is their viewpoint of the world? I have to tailor my talks too – for background, experience, age, etc. But that’s hard to get completely right because you never know if some expert or some complete newbie is in the audience and your words or actions fall short, sail overhead or explode with unintended casualties.

I got blasted by a speaker who assumed that everyone in the audience was sympathetic to her view. She assumed we all knew her background and, perhaps because we had chosen to be there, were supporters.

Never assume.

There are critics everywhere.

When you put yourself out in the public eye such as being a speaker at a conference, talking on any media, on the internet, or publicly on Facebook or Twitter, you should not be surprised that something won’t sit well with someone. For opinionated people who like to share, this happens every month. Maybe every week or every day.

As many skeptics have pointed out, disagreement with your views does not mean I don’t like you as a person, or that I’m your enemy, or that I’m a bad person, or that I’m deliberately out to get you. It’s not character assassination to express disagreement or to point out an error. I am not out to be nasty, just to express my view.

You can catch me expressing my views about the latest UFO incidents around Europe and the U.S. on this week’s Virtual Skeptics. It was a fun episode where we had robot dinosaurs, talked about cannibalism, Creationism and some skeptical goodness. See embedded video below.

In the lighter moments with friends or people we think are our friends, we may let our guard down and say something too personal. We may be completely misinterpreted. Happens ALL THE TIME on the Internet. Be charitable. Try to work it out.

I realize I have apologized to people who didn’t deserve it. But I did it to try and smooth things over. When attempts to make nice were greeted by escalation of hostilities, this was a sign that the other person is insecure and is not willing to be fair, just out to maintain the upper hand. Time to disengage. I will not blame myself for that. I tried.

There are a few who still owe me an apology for crap they pulled over the past year after I previously supported them. I doubt I’ll get the apology because they haven’t seemed to learn that back and forth disagreements may happen but forward is a much better direction in which to travel through life.