The Hiss of Piss on a Bonfire

One of the sad facts about growing older is that, more and more, I encounter people who seem to have serious issues with the manner in which people enjoy themselves, or how they do things which they enjoy doing.

I'm guilty of this myself, admittedly. I've never seen the appeal of night clubs, for example. If I wanted to spend the early hours of the morning in a converted warehouse with eye-wateringly poor lighting, inhaling the sweat of strangers while my ear drums are almost shattered by monotonous music played at volumes that could drown out a nuclear assault by a preening dickhead in shades, all while cradling a horrifically overpriced drink, then yeah, I'd probably go to a nightclub

But I have no problem with people who do go to nightclubs and have a good time. It's not for me, but I'm one non-nightclub-going person. But I've had several arguments with people who do go to nightclubs and insist that I should go too, as 'I'll enjoy it once I'm in there'. My patient explanation that I have been 'in there' several times and never even slightly enjoyed it seems irrelevant. I'm apparently wrong, they know what I like better than I do, and by not agreeing I'm being 'no fun'.

Football is the same. I can't see the appeal in watching 22 wealthy dickheads running around sporadically on a green rectangle, trying to place a sphere in a specific place without using their hands. For nearly 2 hours. But millions of people love it, so it's obviously enjoyable to many. Some of these people can be, admittedly, a bit overenthusiastic (read 'violent thugs' for that last bit if you like), but for the vast majority it's an enjoyable pastime.

But if I were to go into nightclubs, turn the lights on, unplug the amps and insist that everyone put some clothes on, I wouldn't be thanked for my efforts. Similarly, if I wandered onto a football pitch during a big game and told the assembled crowd to go home and do something more worthwhile like put up some shelves, I wouldn't be praised for this. I might be prised apart, but not praised.

As some of you probably know if you've read this before, I do stand-up comedy. I'm also co-organiser/host of Cardiff Skeptics in the Pub, and do a lot of talks for the skeptic community and beyond. These are things I do for my own enjoyment, and for the potential enjoyment of others. But apparently, these things I do voluntarily and for little or no reward beyond the actions themselves, I'm doing wrong.

Alom Shaha, lovely guy, excellent writer, gutsy bloke, wrote a piece in the Guardian about how Skeptics in the Pub is preaching to the choir. It was a while ago, but brought up again in my social circles again recently. What's the point, he argues, in talking to people about what they already know? Why don't we spend our time trying to get other communities and groups (e.g. children, ethnic minorities) interested, rather than catering to those who are already onside.

As well meant as the article is, this is just another example of this I've encountered, and it's getting to piss me off. It's a bugbear of mine. Here are the reasons why (and if you don't want to know, or care, then feel free to stop reading and do something more useful, like make a sandwich).

It's probably something to do with my comedy background. One of the ways I've noticed in which a comedian will try and exert dominance over another is to criticise their performance, and offer unsolicited advice on how to improve. The advice itself is invariably completely subjective and, often, utterly useless, but the group dynamics of these interactions are startlingly clear, as is the thought process involved, for all that it might be completely subconscious.

I've lost count of the number of inexperienced (or just plain shit) acts giving unasked for advice to more experienced and much better comedians (based on audience response, not just my subjective views). By giving advice and 'helpful' criticism, they are (unjustifiably) asserting their superiority over the better acts in order to reinforce their sense of self worth, but to the detriment of the better acts. The fact that this is presented under the guise of 'being helpful' means that social convention often lets them get away with it.

It's teeth-grindingly infuriating to see this happen as soon as a great but fragile ego'd comic (and there are loads of those, the criticisers can pretty much smell them) walks off stage after a storming performance, only to be rewarded with a volley of 'helpful' advice and criticisms. It happens to me more often than not, I think it's because I'm not particularly confident seeming or arrogant (says the guy on his own long winded blog, but please trust me on this). Also, I have a PhD in neuroscience. A lot of comics pride themselves on their superior wit and intellect, me telling them my qualifications (after they've asked, usually about half way thorough the night) tends to be very unsettling for them. Sometimes they even accuse me of being arrogant. The implication being that I've spent over a decade following a difficult, complex and financially unrewarding career purely to upset them. This makes ME arrogant. Logical.

I'm not saying Alom and the others who have expressed concern with the skeptic ethos are doing this, I'm just explaining why it pisses me off so much. I can only speak from my experience, but I don't really agree with much, or any, of the criticisms aimed at the skeptic 'movement', whatever the hell that is. It's true that there may be differences between SITP events in different towns and cities (it being a grassroots voluntary movement with no central coordination, this is inevitable), but seeing as the criticisms are pretty much always generalised to the whole, then I'll do the same with my response.

The main criticisms seem to be that there isn't enough inclusion of ethnic minorities, there should be more attempts to educate children and those who don't hear about skeptical stuff etc. And of course, we're just preaching to the converted, which is arrogant and pointless (like the Pope).

I can only speak for Cardiff, but we get a few ethnic minorities there. We don't actively try to get them along, but we certainly don't actively exclude them. This is because I (and most people I know) don't see any reason to differentiate between ethnic minorities and everyone else.

It may be true that they don't feel as if they'd be welcome at events like SITP, but (at the risk of sounding controversial) how is that our fault exactly? I promise that any publicity we do does not carry a 70's-style 'No Blacks - No Asians etc.' exclusion clause. On the other hand, nor do we include an 'ethnic minorities welcome!' notice. Why not? Because that would be incredibly patronising and, in my opinion, just as racist (albeit in a more well-intended way).

There is obviously much that could be done to encourage more ethnic minorities into these sorts of events. But how much of this should be done? I shy away from any attempt to actively try and change people's minds. And if I start thinking I have the right to decide what people from ethnic minorities should be doing, please don't vote for me when I inevitably ask you to do so.

Obviously there are many factors (social, cultural, religious, political etc.) that might prevent ethnic minorities from coming to an SITP night. Again, none of these are the fault of the rational community, and criticising them for not challenging or changing them seems unduly harsh. If there is a way in which I and my fellow organisers can encourage more ethnic community members to come to these events without being patronising, divisive or just outright racist, I'd love to hear it.

As for the active spreading of our viewpoint for people's benefits, that's the same goal of people who scream about Jesus in the High Street. These people aren't appreciated, nor are they widely respected. By and large, they're ignored, or mocked. They are by me, at least, so I certainly wouldn't want to become one of them.

I've also butted heads with many in the Science Communication business about this whole 'Think of the Children!!' attitude. I'm glad there is an ever-increasing number of people who choose to try and educate and communicate with the younger members of society. I've even done it myself several times, having spoken at quite a number of events aimed at school pupils of various ages.

But for many people involved in these activities, there seems to be some bizarre view that as soon as someone leaves the school system they become a lost cause. I prefer to try and communicate to adults, because looking like I do means it's always a bit weird when I offer children sweets. And also I like to communicate in high-brow sounding gibberish, which most children would struggle with. Most adults do too, but social etiquette prevents them from calling me on it, which would upset me and my fragile non-arrogant ego.

In seriousness, I think adults deserve as much attention as children when it comes to communicating scientific matters. Possibly more so, as they may have children of their own, so it could be a 2-for-1 deal.

And finally, there's the whole 'preaching to the choir' thing. I guessed I missed the memo, but I wasn't aware that having an interest in things scientific and rational meant you weren't allowed to socialise with like-minded people. A group of people getting together with other people who have similar interests, to hear about and discuss the things they're interested in? Such a thing is unheard of! And any people who do this sort of thing are clearly a collection of arrogant smug bastards of the highest order.

That's how I see SITP first and foremost; a social event where people with an interest in scientific things can go and have a chilled out evening with similar folk and hear about something interesting (usually something they DIDN'T already know, despite assertions to the contrary). Any lobbying/campaigning/outreach that comes from it is all well and good, but it's an 'event' first and foremost. This means; People choose to attend, the organisers don't choose who attends

That's what I think anyway, I could be completely wrong in this. It's my blog though, so only got my own views to go on.

It generally boils down to a lot of people saying 'You could do more to [insert preferred thing to do]'. But where does that end? I do comedy in comedy clubs. where people are there to see comedy. Is this arrogant? Should I just start wandering into Mosques and nursery schools and bellowing my material at anyone I find? If I don't, am I just arrogantly preaching to the choir?

We spent a lot on the catering for our wedding, why didn't I just get a black bag full of sausage rolls from Gregg's and give the rest to charity? (It was mostly because many of my in-laws are vegetarian, and Gregg's also don't take £50 notes).

I just find it ironic that anyone interested in science and rationality is seemingly doing something wrong if they have the audacity to enjoying themselves and not spend every waking moment trying to educate others. That would make us the obsessed emotionless robots we're stereotypically believed to be. And as someone with a rural Welsh background, I'm not a big fan of stereotypes.

Website: http://sciencedigestivewebnoise.moonfruit.com

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

Hollywood calling...

I did my talk at London Skeptics in the Pub last night. It went very well, according to reports. I'm not sure, but then I am my own worst critic. And the criticism I do of myself? That's crap as well. Awful. I'm the worst self-critic you'll ever come across.

Logically, this would mean I think I'm absolutely brilliant, but I don't. I'm not even capable of basic logic. What an arse!

But anyway, people seemed to like my blatherings enough to stay until the end, so that's a plus.

One thing that struck me though, about this and all my talks I've done so far, is a disparity between the publicity blurb and the talks themselves. Basically, my blurb reads thusly...

Join Dean as he discusses what he has learned and what his experience can offer after many years practicing a novel and rather extreme form of scientific engagement.

Dean Burnett is a recently qualified Doctor of Neuroscience. He is also a stand-up comedian. For the best part of a decade now, he has been using his comedic skills to promote his field of expertise to the general public, which has resulted in run ins and unfortunate incidents with the media, irate activists, Doctor Who fans, drunken hecklers and even Paramount Studios, Hollywood.

I know, classy right? Thing is though, this blurb was written hastily for my Oxford talk before I'd even put it together, so it was just a list of interesting things that have happened to me that I felt I could/should talk about. Most of them made it into the finished article, but not everything did. This often happens when you put together a story/narrative, or a set list for a gig; you have many ideas, but forcing them all in to avoid wasting them means the structure and flow of the whole thing can be severely compromised, which arguably wastes more of the material than just those parts that would have been lost in the editing process.

Who was it who said 'Brevity is the soul of wit'? Some twat, no doubt.

Anyway, one of the things that didn't make the final cut was the whole 'Paramount Studios, Hollywood' story. It's not really as relevant to the topic of the talk(s) as the rest, and it doesn't really have a way that it can be conveniently segued into the overall structure as an amusing aside.

However, it does sound like potentially the most interesting aspect of the randomly cobbled together list of things in the publicity blurb. It's the big closer, it mentions 'Hollywood', and we know what sort of emotions that name invokes. You hear it, and your instantly think "There's a magical place, we're on our way there, with toys in their millions all under one roof, it's called HOLLYWOOD!"

I think that's right.

Anyway, just in case there is anyone who analyses the contents of my talk and cross-references what I say with the blurb and discovers the inconsistencies (and when you talk to mostly scientists and skeptics, this is probably quite likely), here is what happened between me and Paramount Studios

(Also, it's a bit of a Christmassy story, so seems right for this time of year)

It's another tale in the ever-increasing collection of stories about when 'Dean was contacted randomly and out of the blue by someone from a high-up media group because he's a scientific comedian and asked to do something bizarre/weird/embarrassing'. Yup, it's one of them. Check out The Pod Delusion for more of these if you're interested. Or see a previous blogpost of mine. Or come and see me do a talk in the real world, if you can withstand the sheer force of mumbling and gibberish which is my speaking style.

Anyway, some years ago I was minding my own business, when I received a call. I may have been wearing just my pants at the time, or eating a massive bag of nachos and giving myself a sickly yellowish powdery tint to the face/hands. Or maybe I was cleaning the oven and was in a filthy old t-shirt, sweating and wearing rubber gloves. Maybe none of this happened, but it pleases me to think that, when I receive a call from Hollywood, I'd be in as unglamorous/undignified a situation as possible. But that's just me, I love disparity between fantasy and reality.

The call was from a Producer, seemingly a very nice man and I've had no reason to think any different of him since, asked if I was Dean Burnett. I was, so I said so. He called me, after all, so he must have got my details from somewhere. But were these people trustworthy?

Then he said he wanted to contact me because he looked up 'psychologist' and 'comedian' on Google, and I'm what he found. This happens surprisingly often. Arguably, 'Neuroscientist' and 'comedian' would be more likely to lead to me in a Google search, but who the hell is going to look that up? Why would they.

Anyway, he asked me if I would be willing to work with Paramount studios. I said I would (I may have been in my pants at the time, and I wasn't really prepared for being contacted by a major USA film production company, so was a little taken aback). He said that would be great. I agreed, oblivious of any details.

After a few minutes, he explained the project. Basically, what they wanted was a professional psychologist who was also funny to help write and create a short film.

This was fine.

This film would be about the psychology about sibling rivalries and interactions.

This was a little outside my area of expertise. Actually it was quite far out, but I was sure I could do enough research to convey something reasonably accurate. So his was fine.

This film would not be a main feature, but a short film to be used as a DVD extra.

This was to be expected. Nobody contacts a random bloke out of the blue and offers him the lead role in a summer blockbuster. This was fine.

The film would be used as an extra on the DVD release of the movie 'Fred Clause'

This was... odd.

He asked if I knew the film. I said I knew 'of' it. I tactfully avoided using the phrase 'blatant Christmas-season cash in featuring increasingly grating lead actor', I'm nice like that. He asked me if I was a fan of Vince Vaughn. Not wanting to lose the possibility of work because of my principles like the whore I am, I said I had been for some time (again, tactfully avoiding pointing out that 'some time' meant 'since you mentioned his name 4 seconds ago').

He told me that it was still all up in the air at the moment, and this was one of several possibilities that they were working on. I said that was fine, and to contact me when they knew more. Myself and the nice man swapped several more emails after that.

As anyone who reads this who also owns Fred Clause on DVD will know (and I assume there's very little overlap between those two groups), I'm not in it. Much to my total lack of surprise, they eventually decided that an in-depth yet amusing look at the genuine psychological factors underpinning male-sibling relationships wasn't really 'in-keeping with the target demographic' of the Fred Clause DVD. I had to concede that that was the case.

I've not seen the DVD myself, so not sure what they ended up using instead of me and my valuable expertise. Something 'in-keeping with the target demographic', no doubt. So I'm guessing it a 10 minute film which is just a series of primary colours. Possibly with fart noises dubbed over it.

I'm not bitter, why do you ask?

E-mail: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

Too rational for a Restaurant

You may have noticed a bit of a dearth of blog entries lately. If you have, this suggests that you have been checking regularly enough to notice a lack of regular updates. If this is the case, it implies to me that your life has even less going on in it than my own. In which case, kudos to you for not going stark-raving mad. Assuming you haven't. If you have, that's understandable. I probably would.

The reason for my lack of updating is that, during November, I swore I'd take a break from the online activities to concentrate on:

A) Things I'm being paid to do.

B) Finding more things that people will pay me to do.

I'm looking for regular work, essentially. I have several projects on the go that keep me active, but nothing concrete and reliable as of yet. So, as much as I enjoy my cynical waffling, skeptical networking, science satirising etc., I decided to put my virtual procrastination to one side and find some real work.

This provided some interesting results.

One of the things I've found when you apply for work in the scientific/academic fields is that they take quite a while to reply to you, if at all (this may be just me, admittedly). Once an application has been sent, I often find myself in some form of employment quantum superstate, in which I must keep applying for jobs because I don't have one, and must refrain from making too many applications as I might have an interview to worry about soon. If they don't bother telling you, being rejected instantly and being considered for interview feel exactly the same.

But one piece of advice I've been given is that if you're already working you're more likely to get a job than those who have been unemployed for a long period. This seems like a weird system to me, but I'm not in charge, so don't get to do anything about it. So, as a result, I've been applying for more 'mainstream' jobs in and around my local area.

So, I give you the story of why rational thinking meant that I'll never be a marketer

I recently applied for a role in a marketing company in the city centre. I saw the vacancies notice, sent off my CV, and thought no more of it. The ad read like some standard admin role, possibly with some events organising included (which I do definitely have experience in). I didn't have long to not think about it though, as I got a reply within 10 minutes. This struck me as odd, and it said something along the lines of 'can you come for a quick 10-15 minute interview next Monday?' The words 'cattle call' were at the forefront of my mind; this was obviously one of those occasions where they just invite everyone who included enough correctly spelled words on a CV which wasn't written in yellow crayon to turn up, and see if they're suitable face-to-face. Reading just takes time, doesn't it? And as for having to assess information...

I never enjoy this sort of thing, but I had Skeptics in the Pub that evening so needed to be in town anyway, so thought 'why not?'...

Why do I never attempt to answer the question 'why not?' I don't really know anything about marketing companies apart from what my Dad tells me and what I read in Dilbert.

Anyway, I went to the interview, suited and booted, with another copy of my CV as requested (I'd emailed it to them twice already, but I guess they were low on printer ribbons). After filling in a form with all my details which I had already emailed them (printer issues again, I guess) and waiting for about 30 minutes, I was ushered into an office, introduced to a guy who's name I instantly forgot (not deliberately, I'm bizarrely crap with names) and began the interview. It was basically a monologue about the company, how it's expanded 40,000% during the recession (not an exaggeration, that's what he said, which suggests that this company covers a decent fraction of the Earth's surface), how they were desperately looking for people to train up to management level within 6-10 months, as opposed to 3-5 years. It was lucky he had a copy of my CV, as he needed something to doodle rough diagrams on while he spoke, just in case I had trouble understanding what was being said. I'd have brought him a load of scrap paper if I'd known in advance that's what they wanted to do.

[by the way, it may seem like I'm being quite condescending towards the company and people involved, as if I'm some sort of superior being with my doctorate, mocking the intellectual proles who have to make a living in the commercial sector. I assure you that is not the case, my scorn is undeniably deserved, as will become clear]

He asked how I felt about the company and position they were offering. I felt 'OK', seeing as I was still unsure what they were on about. Asked how soon I could come back for a second interview/observation day, to 'see how the company operates and were you'd fit in', I told them the following week, already having prior commitments for the rest of that week. Apparently, this was too long, they were looking to hire people right away. I conceded this and apologised for wasting their time, and left.

When I got home, there was an email waiting for me, telling me that they had been very impressed with my interview and wanted to invite me to an observation day in 2 days time. This was followed by another email saying that they had rearranged the day to the following Monday in order to suit my schedule, but would be unable to change it again. Not bad for a 20 minute walk, I thought.

I was reluctant to go spend an entire day at this weird company, but as my wife said, "what have I got to lose?"

I really need to stop assuming questions like this are rhetorical.

The email explained that the day would be spent shadowing other members of the company as they go about a typical day, so I could learn the ropes, so to speak. I'd been assured that they didn't do cold-calling (something I could never do, I genuinely balk at the thought of it), they only deal with big corporations, and they operate at a number of levels. I assumed this day would be spent travelling round the various offices, seeing what's what and who goes where etc. I was advised to wear comfortable shoes as I'd be on my feet all day, which makes sense.

So, I arrived at the office again, in my suit and shoes. I had to fill in another form (I guess they lost the last one), and was eventually introduced to the manager on duty; Mitch.

Mitch was as Mitch sounds; every cliché of the slick marketing manager you could think of. Custom made suit, highlights, false tan, overbearing bonhomie, a tendency to speak very loudly in corporate jargon. Needless to say, I did not take an instant liking to him. My friend Dave puts it best, when he says you just known Mitch is the sort of guy who uses his own name as a verb. As in "You just got Mitch-slapped!" when he beats someone in a drinking game or pissing contest, or some other meaningless display of macho prowess. Mitch introduced me to the guy who would be showing me around all day, who wasn't objectionable enough to warrant naming here, so let's call him Phil. Mitch said the following.

MITCH: "Hi Dean mate, this is Phil, he'll be showing you around today. The good news is, we're looking to employ 3 people by the end of the day. The bad news is, we already have 15 guys out in the field, so you'll have to pull all the stops out if you want to impress me today"

Unfortunately, I didn't really feel the need to impress Mitch. I'd met him 30 seconds previous, and had already thought of about a dozen ways in which he could meet his untimely demise. Arguably, this is impressive, but I doubt he'd have seen it that way.

So, Phil leads me out of Mitch's office, out of the reception area, toward a nearby bus stop where we're picked up in a car by 3 other marketers, then driven out of Cardiff for a 40 minute journey, and dropped off somewhere. Where? No idea, somewhere I've never been at any rate. Apparently, this is the territory Phil has to cover. And I have to follow him.

Remember when they said they didn't do cold calling? They don't. They do cold-knocking. My observation day was basically following a guy as he went door to door, trying to get complete strangers (in their own homes) to sign up to a different internet provider. I won't say which provider, but it rhymes with 'balk balk' (appropriately enough).

This was unpleasant for many reasons. I hate bothering people, I hate invading the privacy of others, I loathe the whole pressure sales thing, I hate the thought of having to talk about the merits of a major corporation as if I genuinely believe them, I resent wandering around unknown housing estates in winter in the freezing cold for 6 hours (I found out what we were doing and how long we'd spend there once we arrived, of course, they didn't think I needed to know beforehand so didn't have a coat). These were all negatives about the situation as I saw it.

However, this came to a head when, faced with a disabled man in his own home who claimed he hadn't heard of 'Balk balk', Phil says 'you must have, they sponsor the X Factor". Disabled man said he didn't watch that sort of thing. Phil told him he should because 'it's really good'. He then turned to me and said 'isn't it!', expecting confirmation.

As someone who has handled corpses for a living, I can say with certainty that there are many things I'm willing to do for money. Lying to the face of an innocent disabled man in his own home on behalf of Simon Cowell is not one of them. Poor disabled man jumped on this clear break in the ranks and pointed out that I didn't like it, so it must be no good. Phil responded by saying it's worth watching for the early rounds, where they show all the 'mental people' who can't sing, and it's a big laugh.

I'm not a sales expert myself, but even overlooking the major ethical concerns of that view, is bragging about how you like to mock the possibly-handicapped really a good way to win over a disabled person? Disabled person felt the same, and we were eventually ordered to leave his property. Rightly so.

At this point, Phil must have realised that my heart really wasn't in this job which I didn't have and was deceived into doing. He must have assumed it was because I felt it was beneath me (a fair assessment, I feel it's beneath anyone with a conscience). He decides to explain to me why it was a necessary task, through the medium of what he called 'the restaurant story'. Here is the genuine conversation that ensued.

PHIL: You know why everyone has to start at the bottom level, don't you?

ME: I can guess...

PHIL: It's because of the restaurant story.

ME: The restaurant story?

PHIL: OK, so, I own a restaurant.

ME: Really? OK... well done.

PHIL: No, in the story. I own a restaurant.

ME: Ah.

PHIL: I own a restaurant. It's really successful, it makes a million pounds a month.

ME: Wow. You ever think about franchising that out?

PHIL: No, it's just one restaurant, it makes millions.

ME: ...OK Heston, go on.

PHIL: SO, I make so much money, I realise I don't need to work there any more, I decide to go on holiday and hire a manager to run it for me, which is you. I give you the job of manager, how much do you think I'm paying you?

ME: Well, a first time manager, but in a high profit business, I'd guess £30,000 to start off with?

PHIL: No, £100,000!

ME: ...well, if you insist. I must be a good negotiator, yeah?

PHIL: Anyway, I go away on holiday, it's your first day. First thing, one of the kitchen staff comes in and says they can't find the washing powder. What do you do?

ME: Well, look for it I suppose. It'll probably be under the sink, or maybe in one of the stock rooms. Is it delivered in the middle of the day? I mean if it's first thing, we can't have got many dishes yet.

PHIL: ... no. See, thing is, you don't know. You haven't worked in the kitchens, so you don't know where things are.

ME: Well... if I'm managing the place I'd probably have a good look around before I start, I can't just turn up and wing it.

PHIL: Yeah, but, you don't know. And then people are coming in asking you where the washing powder is and the dishes are piling up. There's nothing you could do.

ME: Well, if I'm on £100,000 I'd send someone out to buy some. They could get two lots, I won't mind, I can afford it.

PHIL: No, you can't do that.

ME: Why not?

PHIL: Because you don't do that.

ME: Um...

PHIL: So then later on, a waiter comes in and says a customer has a complaint. What do you do?

ME: Depends, what's the complaint?

PHIL: No, it's just a complaint, it's not about anything.

ME: How can you have a complaint that isn't about something? I don't think you can logically have a generic complaint. Every complaint is about something.

PHIL: Well, this one isn't, what do you do?

ME: I have no idea, this isn't a logical problem.

PHIL: Thing is see, you can't do this job because you haven't done the job where you have to deal with complaints.

ME: Isn't that the manager's job?

PHIL: Yeah.

ME: But I am the manager, aren't I?

PHIL: Yeah.

ME: So I need to be the manager before I can be the manager?

PHIL: Exactly.

ME: Uh...

PHIL: So I come back from holiday and find you've not done the job properly. You've lost me £70,000, you're not experienced enough to be a manager.

ME: Well, I would have tried to tell you that in the interview...

PHIL: So anyway, I fire you, but you say you really need a job, so I agree to put you to work in the kitchens, and then you can work your way back up properly.

ME: So... I've gone from £100,000 manager to minimum wage pot washer in the space of a day?

PHIL: Yeah, because you didn't start at the bottom.

ME: But I have worked as kitchen staff before.

PHIL: Yeah, but not in this restaurant.

ME: So, everyone who's a manager in this restaurant used to wash dishes when they started.

PHIL: Exactly.

ME: So... how did it first start? You can't have a million pound restaurant staffed with just dishwashers.

PHIL: No, well, obviously I didn't start in the kitchens when I set it up.

ME: But you know where the washing powder is?

PHIL: Obviously, I'm the manager.

ME: ...

At this point, I decided that was enough for me, and said I wouldn't want to take the job even if it was offered to me. Phil, meaning well I think, offered to take me through the career path I could take. Turns out, if I did get the job, I would be able earn up to £150 a month! Until I hit my sales quota, at which point my monthly wage would increase by over 150%! Wooo! At one point he even used the dreaded C-word (commission)

Rather than wait until 9pm for the prearranged pick-up (prearranged without my involvement, of course), I decided to make my own way home. After walking randomly for 10 minutes, I remembered that I didn't have any idea where I was in relation to my home. So I had to take several busses, ask direction many times and make my way to the nearest train station, all while wandering in the freezing cold in my stylish but thin suit.

As I was sat on the train coming back, contemplating the wreckage of my potential career, realising that my tendency to apply rational thought and logic was not only off-putting to many people but actually made me less employable overall, and with no hint of opportunities in sight, that's when I finally came to a sudden realisation.

You don't use washing powder to wash dishes, you use washing up liquid! Who the hell uses washing powder to clean pots? This guy insists that he runs a million pound restaurant and he can tell the difference between powder and liquid? Maybe he is Heston Blumenthal?

"Here's the soup of the day, would you like a slice?"

Tit

email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

Skeptics in the Pub (terms and conditions)

Tomorrow, after much planning and faffing about, the for the first time ever a Skeptics in the Pub event will take place in Wales. Lets hope this is the first of many, so fingers crossed the druids don't get wind of it and barricade the venue with massive stone circles.

Check the link for details, times, prices etc. However, as skeptics in the pub is such a well known institution which preaches inclusiveness and outreach, we have to take precautions regarding the legality of any claims made or events hosted, and to ensure nobody is unfairly excluded in the process.

So, should you feel you wish to attend this or any other SITP event, please read the following and click 'I agree...' at the end.

SKEPTICS IN THE PUB (terms and conditions)

1. Skeptics in the Pub’ (SITP) operate an ‘everyone is welcome’ policy. However, in the event of ‘everyone’ turning up (current estimates would mean 6,000,000,000+ individuals) then people will be granted entry on an individual basis until the hosting venue reaches capacity, and entry will then be determined on a one-in/one-out system. As the majority of venues range in capacity from 40-300, the majority of events last less than 2 hours and a queue formed by every living human being in existence would potentially require a long-haul flight to get to the end of, attendance at the event in such a circumstance is not guaranteed.

2. As SITP is a not for profit organisation which possesses no specific premises, provisions for disabled access is dictated by the venue which hosts the event you wish to attend. SITP cannot guarantee any special access provisions for disabled individuals desiring to attend. Should a disabled individual wish to attend an inaccessible event, contacting the organisers in advance may enable them to rig up some sort of pulley system in order to hoist you into an upper storey window, or rubber-band powered stair lift/elevator. However, given the meagre resources of SITP organisers (coupled with the alcohol consumption common at SITP events), anyone wishing to use such temporary facilities acknowledges that doing so may actually increase/cause permanent disability.

3. SITP acknowledges that some views and opinions expressed at events may be unpalatable or offensive to others. However, as SITP employs no dedicated security staff, individuals in seen to be carrying the following items may be denied entry; Firearms of any description; bladed weapons over 5cm in length (2cm for pre-sharpened house-keys); any tools which have a primary function that could be described as agricultural, medical or for the preparing of meat; poisonous/toxic gasses/liquids and the facility to distribute them liberally into an open space; dangerous biological agents. Burning torches or custom made explosives are dependent on the specific fire-safety restrictions of individual venues. It is recommended that individuals do not bring a weapon of any description, with the exception of a working phaser or Lightsabre, possession of which will guarantee free entry providing all other present get to have a go.

4. SITP accepts no responsibility for anyone expressing dissatisfaction with a talk/presentation on the grounds that they have accidentally crossed from a parallel dimension in which the rational and scientific people control society and genuinely try to suppress rebellious pseudoscience groups which actually have evidence for their claims so have started a ‘sceptic/skeptic’ movement, and as such the SITP talk they attend seems like propaganda. Should this individual be willing to provide a detailed and interesting account of life in their dimension, their entry fee will be refunded and they will be bought a packet of crisps.

5. SITP aims to educate and encourage learning about alternative viewpoints with evidence to support them. As a result, SITP encourages people to remember the talks they witness. In order to encourage memory formation, it is recommended that those attending SITP events bring the following items; 1 x fresh and tender kiss; 1 x stolen night of bliss; 1 x girl; 1 x boy; n x grief (required amount varies between individuals); n x joy (required amount varies between individuals). Given the typical demographic of SITP events and the availability of alcohol, these items may all be obtainable at the event itself. However, this is not guaranteed.

6. The price of entry to an SITP event is determined by the organisers/location/cost of speaker of each specific event. In some cases the entry fee may be in the form of a voluntary donation, whereas others may be mandatory. In the case of a mandatory entry fee, this may be reduced/waived for the following;

a. Individuals attending via the astral plane

b. Individuals who are titular heads of major religions who turn up accompanied by the prophet/messiah they profess to worship

c. Individuals who exist below/above the macroscopic scale

d. Individuals who turn up in possession of working science-fiction objects (see point 3)

e. Individuals who are able/willing to provide a replacement talk for the scheduled speaker, should the scheduled speaker cancel last minute for a highly improbable reason (e.g. filled their car’s fuel tank with water after accidentally using a homeopathic garage)

f. Individuals who are famous enough in the scientific/skeptic community to ensure increased attendance via use of their name in future publicity in an effective but hideously cynical name-dropping exercise (should attendance increase exponentially, see point 1)

g. Individuals injured in the use of hastily constructed disables access mechanisms (see point 2)

7. In order to avoid accusations of cliqueness, elitism or exclusionary policies at STIP events, those attending may be asked to join in with exercises such as sing-alongs, anecdote exchanges, rap-battles, games of Twister™, extreme battle-chess, ‘hungry hungry hippos’™ or, if required, more intense forms of ‘interaction’ involving copious amounts of oil and the removal of most/all clothing. Individuals are not compelled to join in with these ice-breaking exercises, but forfeit all rights to accusations of non-inclusivity if they decline.

8. SITP respectfully asks that any individual with the intention of screaming and raving hysterically at the speaker(s) for an event do so during the Q&A section where it is expected.

I confirm that I have read the above terms and conditions and find them utterly ridiculous so shall ignore them and attend any SITP event with the intention of enjoying myself, experiencing something interesting and meeting some cool people/make some new friends [ ]

Email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

The Worlds Longest Science Joke

OK, let's see how long I can string this out for...

A horse walks into a bar. The barman says "Why the long face?"

"Evolutionary selective pressures" says the horse.

"I beg your pardon?" says the barman, surprised.

"The evolution of the horse occurred in such a manner that a large elongated head was an advantage over members of it's species which lacked this feature" replies the horse, wisely.

"Oh" says the barman, bemused. "Do you always talk about yourself in the third person? Or is the term 'the horse' something like 'the royal we' that humans use?"

"Pardon?" Says the horse. Or, more accurately, the man standing behind the horse.

"Oh" says the barman again, relieved this time "It was you talking the whole time" he says to the man.

"Indeed. I'm a zoologist, and this is my horse" replies the zoologist man.

"That makes more sense" says the barman, "I didn't think horses could talk"

"Yet you were ready to concede you may be wrong based on the evidence of your own perceptions, well done. Are you a scientist at all?" asks the zoologist.

"No" replies the barman "but I grew up in the city, I've never actually seen a horse in real life, so I'd have to admit it's possible they could talk, but this ability is something which nobody has brought to my attention yet".

"Interesting theory" says the Zoologist "Plausible given your own experiences, but it's unlikely that the ability of a non-human animal to process and deliver coherent speech, an incredible discovery, would be something that people would not speak about to the extent where you would almost certainly be aware of it, living as we do in an industrialised nation with many means of communication available"

"Perhaps" acknowledges the barman "but you're assuming a position of the speech capabilities of horses being a new discovery, whereas it's possible that, given humankind's long association with horses and beasts of burden, it's a well known fact, to the point where it is assumed to be common knowledge, such as the ability of penguins to swim. An unusual behaviour for birds, but if I were to point it out to a stranger I would be laughed at."

"Good point, well made" replies the Zoologist.

"Well, you work in a pub long enough, you hear a lot of discussions with wild suppositions and twisted logic", the barman confesses.

"I can imagine" says the zoologist.

There is a big pause, during which no bears appear, as is the norm.

"Did you want a drink?" Asks the barman, eventually.

"Yes. A lager please" The barman pours the zoologist his pint and he sits down.

At this point, an Englishman, Irishman and Scotsman enter the bar.

"Hello, we're 3 friends" says the Englishman.

"Not from childhood though, as we are from differing geographical locations" says the Irishman.

"We're all scientists, so met later in life via conferences" says the Scotsman.

"That's... nice" replies the barman, vaguely alarmed. "Why did you feel the need to tell me that?" He asks.

"Given the situation, it's highly likely that we shall end up in a limited discussion with you at some point during the evening, but as we have never encountered you before it would be unlikely that you knew anything about us, so we decided it would be best to provide background information about us in order to aid understanding." says the Scotsman.

"Fine!" says the barman, confused but soldiering on. He turns to the Englishman.

"What would you like?" he asks.

"I would like to be awarded a grant for my research with no end point to it, for my current theories to be proven correct and to be published without question or incident, and for my rather curvaceous female lab assistant to stop wearing such low-cut tops as it's creating a very distracting working environment" he replies.

"I meant what would you want to drink!" shouts the barman, becoming frustrated.

"I had no way of knowing that was the case, so I thought it best to use a literal interpretation of your question" replies the Englishman.

"What else could I possibly mean?! This is a pub" replies the barman angrily.

"I know, but I am not from this area so the opportunity sampling of public houses I have is geographically limited, so I could not guarantee that publicans in this area would have the same intent when asking that question as they do in my home town. Now that you have informed me that it is, I shall adjust me finding accordingly."

"...you a sociologist" asks the barman?

"Yes" replies the Englishman. "How did you know?"

"Lucky guess" sighs the barman.

"Actually, given the response you made contained much information regarding social convention and the possible consequences of incorrect supposition, it was highly likely that you were qualified in some sociological capacity" said the Scotsman to the Englishman "As for drinks, I believe he will have a lager, as on previous occasions when we have engaged in mutual socialising that is what he has ordered, possibly switching to some vodka-mixer combination later in the evening. Although our total mutual socialising occasions are limited, thus giving my analysis low statistical power, I have no further information on which to base my decision".

"And you'd be a... statistician?" asks the barman, tentatively.

"Your hypothesis has a less than 5% chance of a type 2 error. I will also have a lager"

The barman begins pouring their drinks. While doing so, he warily turns to the Irishman.

"And what would you like?" He asks. "To DRINK!" he hurriedly adds, glancing at the psychologist.

"Pint of Guinness" says the Irishman.

"Really? Simple as that?" asks the barman, suspiciously.

"Yes. I'm a lab technician. This being a joke though, I thought I'd make being Irish my most comically exaggerated feature" replies the clichéd Irishman.

They take their drinks and sit next to the Zoologist, whom it become clear they are acquainted with.

"You guys take a hell of a long time and preamble to make a single point" observes the barman.

"Like we said, we're scientists" replies the statistician.

Two Jews then walk into the bar. At this point, the horse defecates loudly onto the floor of the bar. The two Jews, disgusted, leaves. However, as it is currently Saturday daytime (Shabbat) and they were planning to enter a drinking establishment, it is unlikely they were committed or orthodox Jews, so their reason for their disgust was unlikely to be religious and more basic human revulsion.

"And get that horse out of here!" Shouts the barman, "No horses in my pub!"

"That statement contradicts all available evidence" says the Statistician.

"Indeed, both the presence of the horse and the lack of any public notices forbidding horses on the premises undermine your statement" says the Sociologist.

"But Horses aren't allowed in pubs! Everyone knows that" insists the barman.

"It's never been explicitly stated" says the zoologist.

"Indeed, all of us here entered the premises to discover a horse so assumed this was a common occurrence here. But when it does something that you disagree with, you try to impose arbitrary rules on the situation to fit your own specific world view. You're not a Christian, are you?" asks the the Sociologist.

"To be sure, to be sure" says the clichéd Irishman, drawing a shamrock in the foam on his Guiness.

"Either it goes or you do!" shouts the barman.

The Zoologist, sighing, gets up and leads the horse out of the bar.

While he is outdoors, two more men enter the pub.

"Hello! We're scientists" says the statistician.

"Oh good. Me too!" says one of the men. "I'm a chiropractor"

"That's not a Science" the statistician points out.

"I'LL SUE YOU!" Screams the chiropractor, and runs out of the pub, weeping and calling his lawyer.

The second man glares at the assembled scientists threateningly, and goes to the bar.

"Typical scientists, spending their ill-earned big pharma kickbacks for suppressing the natural therapies of nature" he says tot he barman.

The barman, completely unaware of what the man means, nods politely.

"I'm not like them. I'm a homeopath".

Unwilling to lose more custom, the barman nods again.

"I'd like an espresso, a coke and 10 pints of water please" the homeopath says.

"What do you want with that" asks the sociologist, who has overheard

"Because, despite what you fascists keep saying, diluting things makes them stronger" hisses the homeopath.

"Yeah, we get that, why the caffeine?" asks the technician, who has grown bored of being an Irish stereotype.

"Because like treats like! You treat the symptoms with things that cause them, obviously! And I'm trying to cure being sober!" barks the homeopath.

"Oh, I get it" replies the technician.

"Of course, sobriety isn't caused by caffeine, that's what causes insomnia and low level hyperactivity" says the statistician.

"Yeah, sobriety is the normal state of being for a human body. To cure that, you should dilute some water and take that." says the technician.

"Good luck with that" says the barman, now resigned to the situation.

"Of course, you could take into account the effects of drunkenness and try and treat the things that work against it?" says the statistician. "Drink makes me hungry, so you could maybe treat the symptoms of lack of hunger? Try diluting a kebab!"

"Yeah, and dilute some viagra as well!" says the sociologist. The technician, barman and statistician turn to stare at him.

"What?" says the sociologist. "Doesn't everyone get that?"

"You'd know" says the technician.

"Well, statistically speaking..." says the statistician.

"STOP RUINING MY NIGHT WITH YOUR LOGIC AND REASON" Screams the homeopath, typically. He then retreats to the corner of the room, and in order to exact a disproportionate revenge, spends the rest of the evening trying to suffocate the scientists by attempting to dilute a lack of oxygen.

At this point, the Zoologist returns to the bar. With the Horse.

"Oi!" shouts the barman. "I told you we don't allow horses in here"

"You did" says the zoologist. "I'm just repeating the experiment in order to verify the findings".

The horse then defecates again.

The barman just slumps to the floor, and vows to go on holiday the next time the QED conference is in town.

email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

A Beginner's Guide to Skeptical Dickery

Regular readers of this blog will know that I’ve become known on the internet due to my science-based letters and other comedy articles. When I say ‘known on the internet’, it’s the equivalent of someone saying they’re ‘known on TV’ because they once did a guest spot on a 3am call-in show on Challenge TV, or one of those other pointless channels where the nameless presenter tries to remain jovial but ends up looking psychotically desperate while talking to strangers drunk enough to think calling a premium rate line is a good idea but too drunk to work out a simple word jumble like ‘MASTE OF WONEY’. But still, it’s more than I expected. So, thanks for that.

Anyway, as a result of my blogging and satirical approach to science, it appears that I’m now part of the skeptic community (and it’s sKeptic for a specific reason apparently, but damned if I can remember what it is right now). I wasn’t invited to join, nor did I apply, it just sort of happened as a result of my attempts to make science interesting/amusing.

For all the use of the phrase ‘skeptic community’, there is no discernable central organisation or committee that regulates skeptic activities; you just sort of get acknowledged as a part of it and that’s it. This is by far the best possible system. If there were a central organisation you had to apply to, imagine the paperwork you’d have to fill in to prove your identity to a bunch of superskeptics? You’d probably have to submit a video of your actual birth along with DNA samples of all your family members before they’d even agree to send you the forms.

Either that, or maybe there’d be some ancient entry ritual involving the slaughter of a goat or virgin (presumably just to prove that such an act has no superstitious or unnatural consequences other than a lot of screaming, a terrible mess and a high likelihood of imprisonment).

But lately, it’s been pointed out several times that a lot of skeptics are dicks. Either that, or they come across as dicks, which to a casual observer is the same thing. As skeptics spend a great deal of effort trying to encourage others to join in or at least see things differently (i.e. more rationally), this isn’t a useful trait.

This has caused a lot of discussion and heated debate as to who exactly is being a dick and why. One side usually accuses another of being dicks because of their ‘incorrect’ actions when engaging others, and these in turn accuse their accusers of being dicks because they’re ‘clearly’ the ones in the ‘wrong’. And on and on, like a bunch of dicks.

Oh, the irony. Also, my preferred term of 'skeprick' hasn't been picked up.

The whole thing is quite confusing; especially for someone like me who is relatively new to the skeptics (I’ve still not got my membership card). So, in order to make some sense of this for myself and other potential newbies, here is a list of the type of skeptical dicks I’ve noticed, coupled with what I’ve learned about the skeptic community to make some sense of the ‘why’ of it. And as an experienced stand-up, I have a lot of experience dealing with dicks (metaphorically) so have suggested some strategies for dealing with these people should you be on the receiving end of their dick-ness (again, metaphorically).

(DISCLAIMERS: This list is based entirely on my own observations and conclusions, no examples are cited because I’m trying not to be a dick to people myself and, conversely, much of it can be applied to me).

· THE EVIDENCE JUNKIE: A lot of things are just accepted as fact. E.g. If I let go of my coffee mug, it’ll fall and probably scald my leg, and lo there shall be heard much foul-mouthed cursing throughout the land. I don’t need evidence to know that’s the case. For anything less certain, skeptics are very big on evidence, which is as it should be, but none more so than the evidence junkie. When debating a contentious issue, a typical skeptic will demand evidence for the opposing argument. If this is presented, they should then adjust their position. However, an evidence junkie will want evidence that the evidence is real. Present this evidence, and they’ll question the validity of this follow up evidence, and on and on. For an evidence junkie, sufficient evidence is like the speed of light; something that can be approached with massive effort, but never actually reached. These skeptics are the ones that most closely resemble opponents of skeptics, and are always in danger of switching sides, becoming moon-landing deniers or antivaxxers

o BEST DEFENCE: If possible, respond with the same strategy. Demand evidence for every claim they make, even if blatantly true. They may realise they’re being unreasonable. If you’re especially lucky, you might cause them to question their own existence, at which point they’ll leave you alone in order to escape the Matrix, or something.

· THE “YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG!” SKEPTIC: There is no manual on how to ‘do’ scepticism. Certain skeptics feel that their way is correct, and that other people’s methods are wrong (usually with regards to effectively engaging non-skeptic). When they feel the need to tell everyone else why they’re wrong and what they should be doing, that’s when they become a YDIW skeptic. They mean well, and may have many logical points, but they tend not to suggest but instruct others in the ‘correct’ approach despite being unable to confirm that their way is ‘correct’. And people don’t like that. Imagine an art class where an unknown fellow student keeps tearing up your paintings or squashing your wet clay sculptures because ‘they don’t look right to me’. Whatever their rationale, the unshakable impression they can generate in their victims is ‘and WHO THE F**K ARE YOU, exactly?’ Civilised debate with someone is difficult if they make you want to kick them in the nuts as soon as they open their patronising mouth.

o BEST DEFENCE: A passive approach is recommended as a YDIW skeptic usually means no harm. For someone who feels they are experts in effective engaging, pointing that their approach is infuriating may cause enough of a logical contradiction for them to revise their strategy. Or they might call you a prick, which further undermines their argument.

· THE IMPERIAL CONQUEROR: Upbringing and background varies considerably from person to person, and is possibly the most significant factor in deciding how a person behaves and what they believe. For an ‘imperial conqueror’ skeptic, none of this is an excuse. Like an imperial conqueror, they feel they have free reign to belittle and insult those from ‘inferior’ communities, and feels duty bound to bring skeptical civilisation to the savages. Backed up with their cast iron logic and evidence, an IC will wade into any debate or discussion and ridicule those with a less-than-rational viewpoint, no matter what the reason for their position. An IC is the sort of person you could imagine visiting a tribe of Native Americans and spending the whole time mocking them for not inventing iPods.

o BEST DEFENCE: Can be quite aggressive. Avoid if possible. If it’s an option, single out a physical flaw or failing (e.g. being overweight) that they could do something about but haven’t. Accept no excuses for this ‘oversight’ as, by their own arguments, they should know better

· THE ‘PRESENT COMPANY EXCEPTED’ SKEPTIC: Despite the rumours, some skeptics do have friends. You can sometimes spot these anomalies as they are equally enthusiastic as other skeptics about debunking ridiculous beliefs or pseudoscientific theories, except if they have a close friend who shares those beliefs, in which case they’re off limits to criticism. And not just to themselves, but often anyone else who probably doesn't have the same friends and sees no reason to make allowances. Accommodating the views of others is fine and diplomatic, as is not wanting to upset close friends, but with a PCE skeptic you do get the impression that they’d verbally tear you a new one if you mentioned you supported homeopathy, but would argue in favour of the merits of genocide if Idi Amin came to their house for dinner once and complemented their wallpaper.

o BEST DEFENCE: Claim to have friends who are committed sex-offenders or drug dealers, and that you see nothing wrong with their actions. If you manage to get them to face their double standards, the subsequent cognitive dissonance may cause their brains to reboot.

· THE 'GOAD AND WITHDRAW' SKEPTIC: People who have beliefs that aren't supported by science tend, to compensate, to get very angry when they're challenged. As such, skeptics have an instinctive distrust of people who argue from an emotional base rather than a logical one; citing an emotional element in your argument is akin to a Godwin's law of scepticism. Skeptics also like to win arguments. A GAW skeptic will get their debate-winning fix by deliberately making statements that have some supporting evidence but are clearly shocking or controversial to many people. They will then appear to be shocked and alarmed at the emotional response, retaining the moral high-ground by claiming to be simply trying to generate debate. Anyone with a logical argument delivered in an emotional manner is disqualified.

o BEST DEFENCE: Defence is only required if you're the one being goaded, in which case just reply rationally and calmly. If this isn't an option, simply overplay the emotional aspect; threaten to turn up at their house and bludgeon them to death in their sleep. You will be scorned for your childish overreaction. Then turn up at their house with a lump hammer. Upon seeing you, future goading should cease.

· THE 'WEIRD PRIORITY' SKEPTIC: Vaguely similar to the Goad and Withdraw, the WP skeptic will engage in debate but dismiss their opponents argument for reasons which have little or no bearing on the debate itself. E.g. incorrect grammar, the use of slang, a known relationship with a religious person etc. A current prominent example is the attacking of Jenny McCarthy's support of the anti-vaccination movement. Many skeptics claim that she has no possible credibility as she used to pose nude. Under this logic, any woman who performs in a strip club to pay their tuition fees (quite common, I'm told) is just wasting their time, as if you've exposed yourself to strangers for money you are incapable of having an informed view on anything. In truth, McCarthy being a dangerously deluded idiot is unlikely to have anything to do with her physical features being more familiar than most people's.

o BEST DEFENCE: Should a WP skeptic point out a ridiculous flaw which invalidates your argument, do everything possible to emphasise this flaw. Abandon grammar all together, adopt an incredibly dense cultural patois (preferably not your own), just strip off there and then. This should enrage/confuse/arouse them to the point that their own arguments become incomprehensible.

· THE ‘RELENTLESS KILLJOY' SKEPTIC: Science has yet to really accurately define and quantify 'fun', ergo some skeptics seem to feel that it doesn't (or shouldn't) exist. Harmless non-scientific or irrational activities that people enjoy are unacceptable and not to be tolerated, and any objection by people who enjoy these activities is irrelevant as joy can't be calculated on the metric system. You could easily imagine an RK skeptic turning up at Disneyworld and ripping the heads off the Mickey Mouse costumes worn by the entertainers, before angrily remonstrating with them and the crowd about how it's physiologically impossible for a mouse to have evolved into a bipedal humanoid. RK skeptics don't get on with PCE skeptics, partly because they see no exceptions for the application of ruthless rationality, partly because they don't see the point of friends.

o BEST DEFENCE: The RK is relentless. Your best bet is, when you see them approaching, fling a well known fictional novel (e.g. Harry Potter) off to one side, then make a run for it after they pounce on it and start crossing out all the bits which science does not agree with.

· THE 'ACOLYTE' SKEPTIC: Some people get involved with the skeptics because they want to be cool. As ridiculous as this sounds, being different is sometimes the same as cool, and most people aren't skeptics. As they're clearly influenced by the opinions and views of others, these people tend to latch to the most well known skeptic community figureheads and agree with anything they say, and react aggressively to anyone who dares criticise them. This completely misses the point of skepticism, but then again that's not why they're involved

o BEST DEFENCE: If on the receiving end of a monologue/rant about how great their hero is, casually slip in a mention of something you heard/saw about that person which is completely incongruous with their image (e.g. "Have you seen that video of Richard Dawkin's mud-wrestling with a sheep?"). They'll either think you have a superior knowledge of their idol's work, or make their excuses and immediately go to check your claims. Either way, rant over.

· THE 'SQUIRREL' SKEPTIC: The squirrel skeptic is not a dick, just inadvertently irritating. When someone finds out about the skeptic community, it can be very liberating to realise there are many others who share your interests and views. Sometimes though, these newcomers can be a little overzealous in their enthusiasm, scampering around the internet finding examples of pseudoscience and irrationality or blogs/articles they've written and sharing them with anyone who listens, like a squirrel gathering nuts with a rodent-like exuberance. However, they run the risk of repeating very familiar points, digging up old arguments or presenting you with things that you'd rather not have to encounter, like a cat dragging dead birds into your house. The squirrels are also the closest the skeptics have to cheerleaders, eager to defend skepticism as and when challenged, with an enthusiasm that can seem quite over the top.

o BEST DEFENCE: The Squirrels mean no harm and will most-likely settle down into a typical grumpy skeptic curmudgeon. Should they suddenly wade in to a polite debate you're having and risk upsetting the whole thing, just throw a stick or ball; they'll be compelled to chase it.

· THE 'ARISTOCRAT' SKEPTIC: Whereas many skeptics feel the need to engage with non-skeptics in some way, some seem to have a very specific view of the kind of 'non-skeptic' that should be engaged. Usually, people who aren't university educated, aren't scientists, have an arts/humanities qualification, have had or do have any connection with pseudoscience or irrational beliefs in any form, have read the wrong sorts of books, have read the right sort of books but have the wrong views about them, and so on. Being interested and keen to know more is not nearly enough, you have to meet their personal entry criteria. People who don't aren't referred to by Aristocrats as 'proles', 'muggles' or 'scum', but you can easily imagine them wanting to use those terms. Anyone who doesn't 'meet the grade' but dares to ask a question can either expect a hideously patronising indulgence (think house guest confronted by host's toddler showing off the contents of their potty) or utter disdain (think an expert film critic being told by someone that their favourite film is 'Dude, Where's my car?').

o BEST DEFENCE: If confronted by an Aristocrat, ask many random questions that can have no logical answer, such as "If ghosts did exist, how much would they weigh?" "When will science finally get round to producing the jetpack?" or "Would people pay more attention in talks/lectures if the speakers were forced to do them in the style of movie stars from the '80's?" They may attempt to answer the question, which will end up with them looking stupid, or they won't be able to answer, at which point you can indulgently accept their limitations, infuriating them.

· THE 'INSECURE JOKER' SKEPTIC: Probably a newcomer to the skeptic community, this one finds himself overwhelmed by the genuine intellectual curiosity most people involved demonstrate, and in order to compensate for his failings in this area becomes flippant and satirical where important issues are concerned. Highly qualified, but this is not evident in his output. Uses humour in all his dealings as a clear attempt to compensate for lack of knowledge. Makes wide and sweeping generalisations about diverse groups for the sake of a joke, but then pursues it too far and it gets boring and monotonous. Probably keeps a blog which varies wildly from relentless self-depreciation to breathtaking arrogance, such as adopting the mantle of the entirety of Science. Tries to be funny and incisive but probably ends up pissing a lot of people off, but carries on regardless.

o BEST DEFENCE: Defence is unnecessary, the 'insecure joker' knows how pointless he is already.

So there you go. In truth, every skeptic everywhere occasionally wanders into some of these categories to a certain extent, most likely without being aware of it. Because skeptics, like scientists, pseudoscientists and religious people the world over, are people; messy, confusing, complex, changeable people.

There are plenty of dicks in the skeptic community, I've even advocated being a dick myself, but (based entirely on my own experiences) they're the exception, rather than the norm. If people wish to generalise based on the few, that's their prerogative, but if you want to see truly breathtaking levels of self-aggrandising dickery, just take a look at any of the groups who oppose the skeptics.

Now, if we've spent enough time giving the dicks a spanking (a 3rd 'metaphorically' for luck), let's get back to work.

Dean

e-mail: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy