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

TAM London Blog: No. 8 - Kirby your activism

(2.30 pm, 16^th October, TAM venue, Edgeware Road, London )

Hello again. Another massive break between blog reports about TAM London speakers where there was no actual break between the talks themselves. I feel like I'm introducing an element of discontinuity where there was none. In a way, this makes me like a very very low-key Time Lord. Interestingly, I live within a few minutes walk of a number of Doctor Who locations, and the official Doctor Who exhibition is in the cinema/restaurant complex down the road. You should go there some time, it's actually much smaller than it looks from the outside. It's a bit like and anti-TARDIS, in a way.

Anyway, back to the talks.

We were first treated to a quick talk by Karen James, who told us all about the ongoing Beagle project. It's a very inspirational project, which you can read all about in the links I just put down. Basically, it's a project to rebuild the famous Beagle, the ship that carried Charles Darwin across the world, and re-make the original journey, during which he invented evolution. I've always loved the way that, before Darwin, the world was only 6000 years old and everything that existed had always been that way and dinosaur bones were put there as a joke by a deity who, despite having infinite knowledge, infinite space and infinite power with which to put these things to good use, clearly has a low boredom threshold so amuses himself by burying the remains of monsters for the sole purpose of confusing some of his more curious apes.

Flippancy aside, it's a wonderful project and quite inspiring when you think about it. There was talk about an incident where an astronaut on the International Space Station voluntarily got involved and ended up speaking to a group of Brazilian School children. That's either an incredible account of the inspirational actions that people do in order to promote and further the wonder of Science, or the absolute mother of all wrong numbers. Either way is cool for me.

It's a great scheme, and I do think it's worth the time and effort that's being put into it. Although Karen did say that they were needing a £100,000 donation to complete all their aims. I genuinely expected the hat to be passed around at this point. It's a ridiculous sum to ask people to cough up at a moments notice, but then I was persistently surprised by how many people were able/willing to put up the £200+ entry fee for the conference. It was amazing that so many people were at the meeting, to be honest. Maybe that's why it's called that?

(Just a note, I also tweeted during the talk that I was surprised that the Beagle was docking in Pembrokeshire, seeing as they don't have evolution there. This was of course a stupid joke, as we all know that Pembrokeshire has lots of evolution; the place is riddled with Neanderthals)

The next talk was by Paula Kirby. This was one of the best talks, as far as I'm concerned, because it was simultaneously baffling, amusing and terrifying. It was essentially a run-down of the actions, aims and views of the UK Christian Party. They are, in the loosest sense of the word, a political party that wants to, um, further the values of Christianity in UK society. I say 'um' because, as someone raised in a nominally Christian environment, I don't recognise any of them. They include:

- Opposition to all forms of equality apart from those that favour devout Christians, which sort of undermines the whole concept of 'equality' when you think about it.

- Abolition of CCTV cameras and other forms of social control measures, and replacing them with bands of roving street Pastors (an idea which I actually quite like, as I'd want to see what happens when they have to 'control' a clash of Cardiff and Millwall football fans. Do the spiritually enlightening qualities of the Bible prevent it from causing damage when forcefully inserted into various orifices?)

- A complete crack down on teachers in general as they are somehow linked to the sexual corruption of children.

- Free speech for Christians only. And only 'proper' ones. None of these liberal types, they may as well be sodomising minors while smearing chocolate Koran's over their oiled torsos as far as the Christian party are concerned.

- The promotion of Christian love and compassion via the use of oppression and death (e.g. they support the death penalty and nuclear weapons, which makes sense when you consider that without the death penalty Christianity wouldn't exist, and a mushroom cloud does look slightly like a cross).

I don't really recognise this aspect of Christianity. Presumably it's based on the gospel according to Saint Psychopath. it seems that the Christian party has no chance of being elected, but the fact that they exist at all and seem to be entitled to respect and consideration is still a worrying fact. There was also some discussion of why the majority of Christians don't oppose or resist these despotic bastards, and why Christianity gets an easier ride of it in UK society than other religions. It was very interesting and thought provoking, to the point where I don't want to sully it by making crap jokes about it. Kudos Kirby, an exemplary talk from an interesting person.

The final part of this section, before lunch, was the panel discussion. This was delivered by the holy trinity of the skeptical society (inappropriate religious overtones very much intended), Dr Evan Harris, David Allen Green (a.k.a. Jack of Kent) and Dr Simon Singh. All the brief introductory talks they did were very good, but unfortunately I didn't see much of the discussion as I had to run outside and re-charge my iron-age Nokia to continue my twitter stream. It's a shame really, I doubt anyone was actually reading them but seeing as I had a press pass I felt duty bound to continue it. It was quite enjoyable, like the on-line equivalent of a tramp shouting in the street at cars; pointless but strangely cathartic.

I did learn several interesting things though. Dr Evan Harris really doesn't like singing, like he did at the Science is Vital rally (I was there, remember?), but this may have effectively combated the Science cuts. It's like a WMD, only to be used when absolutely necessary. David Allen Green showed us that, although lawyers are widely disliked and regarded as untrustworthy, if they have a Birmingham accent this completely offsets the clichés and makes them likable again.

Simon Singh is possibly one of the most respected and popular people in the scientific community. And rightly so. I'm biased of course, as he actually wanted to speak to me r.e. my Science is Vital talk and to offer me help with my scientific promotions. He also announced the launch of the Nightingale Collaboration, an organisation designed to help coordinate and streamline sceptical activism activities. Read about it, it's well good.

I was outside for this bit though, so missed most of it. Bet it was fun though. Then there was a coffee break. I've been to many conferences all across the country, and there appears to be one rule which unties them all; the coffee is always shit. It does the job though, and if you have to make enough coffee for nearly a thousand people in a very short space of time, quality is bound to suffer.

Unless this was a subtle reminder of how nonsensical homeopathic claims are? Seems a bit unnecessary though, seeing as how everyone there had forked out £200+ to be there. You wouldn't do that if you were still 'undecided', surely? But then maybe that's just me.

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

TAM London Blog: No. 7 - Some Scary S**t

(1.40 pm, 16^th October, TAM venue, Edgeware Road, London )

As has been mentioned previously, I was at TAM London because the organiser and all round wonderful human being Tracy King decided to take my sarcastic request for a press pass at face value and granted me one. She said I'd caught her in a good mood. I worry that this good mood was one of the extreme chemically-facilitated judgement-impairing sort, but I kept my mouth shut about that.

But as a member of the 'press', I was given several perks, outside of the fact that I get allowed in without paying. But I didn't take advantage of these perks, I was already feeling massively guilty about wasting everyone's time as it was. I sincerely doubt anyone's even reading this right now.

But as a member of the 'press', we had reserved seats in the front. I ignored these, I feel you need to be in amongst the people to get a real impression of how things are going at an event like this. But then I'm not a proper press person, so I would say that wouldn't I?

The press were also granted the opportunity to go to a press conference with James Randi himself at 1pm. I went and had lunch instead. I'd missed the earlier opportunity to eat as I was talking with Simon Singh, who is well important and brilliant and actively suggested we meet up so that's nice. It meant I didn't get to eat, and I was hungry. People seemed shocked that I'd consider passing up the opportunity to meet the great man himself, but I was ravenous. And besides 'are you a gnome?', what would I ask him?

Anyway, that happened. Back to the people saying stuff.

First talk after lunch wasn't a talk per-se, but a bit of a chat between Richard Wiseman and Andy Nyman. Say those two names together, it sounds like some sort of mystery-solving duo. This isn't too far from the truth really. The problem with this talk for me was the fact that I wasn't really familiar with Andy Nyman's work. The name was ringing a bell, so to speak, but when someone is introduced and treated like a big star then this is a bit confusing when you're as clueless as I was.

Turns out Nyman is sort of like the Buzz Aldrin to Derren Brown's Neil Armstrong, being his writing partner in his various big screen outings. He's also responsible, with Jeremy Dyson, for creating the show Ghost Stories, which is brilliant and terrifying by all accounts.

Then it was pointed out where I knew him from; he was the evil producer Patrick in Charlie Brooker's Big Brother based zombie horror Dead Set. You'd think this would help me appreciate the conversation and anecdotes, but in fact it made it worse. If you haven't seen Dead Set (it's very good if you like that sort of thing), at one point Nyman's character defecates explosively into a bin. That's not an image that's easy to forget, and it kept coming back to me throughout the interview.

"So, how did you first come up with the idea for Ghost Stories?" "Well, I he shit in a bin he shit in a bin he shit in a bin he shit in a bin he shit in a bin and then Dyson suggested that he shit in a bin he shit in a bin he shit in a bin he shit in a bin it turns out Liverpool is full of Catholics he shit in a bin he shit in a bin he shit in a bin he shit in a bin he shit in a bin and thank you all for coming".

Andy Nyman, clearly a very talented, intelligent and charismatic man. Who once shit in a bin.

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

TAM London Blog: No. 6 – The Alpha and Ow-Mega

(11.00 AM, 16^th October, TAM venue, Edgeware Road, London )

The reason this post is different from the last one is a result of hassle with timings, resources, low battery power, hectic schedule and the incompetence of the author in looking after his stuff, e.g. notes, so this is all based on memory and old tweets. So that's nice.

I reality though, there was literally no break between the Dawkins talk and the ones I describe here. Unless you count Prof. Wiseman's MCing duties, which were excellent as always. I've already mentioned that though, so won't go over that again.

The next talk was from Cory Doctorow. Coroy Doctorow is, as far as I can make out, not a real doctor. But he has 'Doctor' in his name, which is quite cool. Doctor Ow made me think he would be some sort of super villain in a superhero cartoon aimed at the under 5's. This may in fact be the case, but he wasn't there in that capacity, that much is certain.

I hadn't really heard much about Doctorow before the talk, so didn't know what he would be speaking about and in what capacity. One thing I do know is that he has terrible timing. I say this because as soon as he was introduced, that was the moment my bladder decided it was no longer happy about having to act as a receptacle for my waste fluids, so I had to run out and use the toilet. Ergo, I missed the part where he explained who he was and what he would be talking about.

It turned out to be Copyright law in the end. And very interesting it was too, particularly the original story about how Hollywood was originally founded by people who had essentially nicked Thomas Edison's camera technology and used it outside his stranglehold. I was pleased by this, I don't really like Edison for ripping off Nikolai Tesla, the genius physicist who has a cooler name and a mighty moustache.

Doctorow essentially informed us all about the pros, cons and potential impacts of the various different copyright and information controlling plans with regards to new technology. A highlight was the observation of the way that everyone who uses a new technology to share creative works gets called a pirate by those who did the exact same thing previously. Whether or not Eye-patches or parrots were included was not addressed. I like to think they were

Up next was Adam Rutherford, he of the broody byline picture (check the link, it's impressive, or creepy, one of the two). The celebrated Guardian columnist told us all about his experiences with the Alpha Course. When I heard the title, I assumed it was some evening class that taught you how to be more dominant and assertive in your business dealings, some 'release you alpha male' shite. Something that turns you into a vacuous irritating dickhead, in other words. Turns out it's some ongoing course/campaign which intends to subtly convert people to conservative Christianity. Something that turns you into a vacuous irritating dickhead, in other words.

Dickheadedness seemed to a theme for the Alpha course from the off, with a lot of their promotional material being based on the trashing of actual impressive things the world has to offer. There's also the massively weasely manner in which they try to oppress homosexuals without actually saying they're doing that. They clearly want to have their cake and eat it. Don't know why they're bothering, it would probably just turn to messiah flesh in their mouths anyway, and that can't be nice. I've seen pictures of Jesus, he looks quite stringy.

It does have a very culty vibe to it, but then you could say that about a lot of things to do with promoting religion. The most amusing part was when he informed us that the Alpha course uses two texts to underpin much of it's teachings. These are the Chronicles of Narnia and Lord of the Rings. Much hilarity and surprise greeted this revelation. Apparently, people were surprised by the possibility that a Christian group would base much of its ideals on long-winded largely fictional books, which I felt was a little naive.

But, as per, the talk was excellent, but even if it wasn't I would have given it top marks for inclusion of the phrase 'solipsistic wanker'! I challenged everyone to say it at least once a day from now on.

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

TAM London Blog: No. 4 – And so it begins…

(8.10 AM, 16^th October, TAM venue, Edgeware Road, London )

I got up very early. 6.15am. This was so I could make it to the TAM venue by 7.30, as advised by the guy I spoke to yesterday who told me that this was advisable in order to beat the massive queues. So I was annoyed by the fact that, due to the tube system, I got there at 8.10 am. Wasn’t an issue though , seeing as the supposedly-insane queues turned out to be merely slightly-baffled queues. I just headed straight to the press desk and was given my pass. Actually, I was very nearly given Tim Minchin’s pass by mistake. I very nearly grabbed it and ran, to see if I could pass myself off as him, claiming that I look smaller/blonder/more musical/funnier/less bald/more Australian on camera. But it was not to be.

I turned around and, out of the thousand+ attendees to the event, was confronted by Rhys Morgan. And of course his parents, Mr and Mrs Rhys Morgan. Was good to see him there, but was slightly concerned that he would be disappointed when he discovered that, unlike in the Welsh Skeptic community, nobody there would really know what he had been up to, or even recognise him. It’s a hard lesson to discover that the community you aspire to be part of has no regard for you at all, but one we all have to learn.

While ascending to the 3^rd floor (‘where the coffee is’) I was confronted by Tahnee (@Ramblor on twitter) with the words ‘aren’t you the Welsh bloke?’ I said I was A Welsh Bloke, pretty sure it’s not just me who fits that description, but that was enough. We were friends now, so had someone to sit with in amongst this massive crowd of unknowns.

It’s a strangely British habit that dictated our actions next. On the way to the 3^rd floor, we noticed a big queue on the 1^st floor, so promptly joined it. We didn’t know what it was for, and it clearly wasn’t even moving, but we just unconsciously joined it. Why?

Turns out it was actually the queue to get into the main room, which wasn’t open yet. So we went and got coffee rather than spend the best part of an hour in a motionless queue of people who are basically just staring at a door.

But eventually we were allowed into the vast conference room, and the talks kicked off. Which means they started, there was no actual kicking (that I noticed).

Email: humourology(at)live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

TAM London Blog: No. 3 – Discoordination

(0.44 AM, 16^th October, High Barnet)

Am currently in the spare room of my in-law’s house in High Barnet. It’s nice here, even though they have recently acquired two cats which are very keen to go outside but are not yet fully vaccinated so aren’t allowed to do so. Cats, it turns out, get a bit stir crazy in such circumstances and express themselves by running around a lot and making odd noises, with occasional forays into rooms where people are sleeping.

This is by the by. I went to the TAM London venue earlier, to register and avoid the insane cues that usually occur on the Saturday morning. I, however, am here due to a variety of insane circumstances which led to me being awarded a press pass. Press passes, however, were not being issued on the Friday evening. Hence, I made my way to the venue for no real reason.

It wasn’t total loss, as while walking in I passed a large group of people waiting by the entrance to the hotel. They were smartly dressed and flanked by hotel staff (couriers, bell boys etc.). Clearly, they were waiting for someone important. It obviously wasn’t me, but I waved and nodded at them anyway, just in case I was more popular in London than I was aware of.

I’m not, as it happens. But no matter, it was worth it just to see their confused expressions.

It’s a big venue, the Hilton where TAM is happening. I got lost a few times, but was saved each time by using the ‘follow the bunch of people who are clearly the sort of people who would go to an event like TAM’ startegy. Got me there in the end.

I could have coordinated with other TAM attendees and met up with them, but instead I wandered across town to meet my old mate Nick Phillips, of Horse and Louis fame. While heading towards an acceptable watering hole, we passed someone who recognised us and said they were a big fan of mine. That’s two people who’ve said that now.

I think that’s all of them.

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

Twitter: @garwboy

TAM London Blog: No. 2 - Busman’s holiday

(6:18pm, 15^th October, Victoria Station)

I’m sat in a coffee shop in London, on my own, working on my laptop. I have become everything I hate. I’m sorely tempted to paint a big glowing apple on it, just to blend in.

My mood has not been helped by the fact that I’ve just spent close to 4 hours on an obscenely cramped bus in order to get to London. Again. This is the 3^rd time I’ve made this journey in 6 days. Firstly, I had to come on Saturday last to talk at the Science is Vital rally. That day was a 2-way trip on the glorious Megabus. Then on Monday my wife, who has been preparing for her trip to India for nearly a month, calls me from London at 10.30 at night to say she’s forgotten her Visa, and her flight was 12pm the next day. Cue some urgent last-minute driving that night, and the next morning. And now I’ve just made the jaunt via National Express.

Weirdly, the Megabus was better. The National Express coach was full, which made it a bit more uncomfortable, but the seats offered as much space as a budget coffin (trust me, I speak from experience) and the mandatory seatbelts threatened to cut off circulation to various parts of my torso. And of course it was Friday afternoon, so there was a bonus 40 minutes added to the journey, at no extra charge. Classy.

And of course, once we arrived at the bus depot, we had an extra 5 mins to wait. Some guy had decided the best place to offload his bags would be RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD AT THE ENTRANCE TO A BUSY BUS DEPOT. Maybe there was a really good reason for it, admittedly. Plus it was fair enough that he moved his many many bags one at a time as he was talking on the phone at the time. You’re right, he shouldn’t have had to put his phone away for 2 minutes, it would be unfair for him to inconvenienced like that. I mean there only 60+ exhausted people on a coach waiting for him to move. It can’t have been anything important, the guy was clearly an idiot! What information could he have had that required urgent relaying? Dick.

Anyway, am in London now, about to go and register at TAM London. I give it 50/50 odds that they’ve even heard of me, so this may be a very short series of blogs indeed.

Apologies in advance to anyone I know in either the real or online world whom I meet this evening, there’s a good chance I’ll come across as a lot more hostile than I actually am.

I’m very sorry, I don’t travel well. I travel repeatedly even less well.

E-mail: 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

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