Home Blog Page 11

Ho Ho Holy Man? Why Santa technically doesn’t quite count as a god

0

As an atheist, skeptic, and researcher working broadly in the cognitive sciences of religion, Christmas brings up a lot of questions. Can I celebrate this holiday? Am I a hypocrite if I put some fairy lights up? How long can I get away with not checking my emails? How many mince pies is too many? Is a plate of cheese really a meal? Prosecco counts as a mixer, right?

But a more intriguing question, to people in my field at least, is this: why isn’t Santa Claus seen as a god? 

At first glance, it’s a silly question. He just isn’t! No one thinks of Santa as a god! Only kids believe in Santa! But viewed from the perspective of the cognitive science of religion, this is actually very interesting. Before I can convince you that this is genuinely an interesting question and not just a silly rhetorical quip, I need to introduce you to minimally counterintuitive concepts or ideas and what they have to do with theories seeking to explain religion.

When looking at religions across the world – even disparate religions with different roots, rules, gods, rituals, and traditions – we can see that they often have interesting things in common. It seems that religions the world over contain minimally counterintuitive concepts. These are objects or beings that behave in ways that fit within our expectations of what that thing or object is or can do, but violate our expectations in some way. Examples of this would be a tree that can talk, a chair that can walk, perhaps a statue that can cry, a rock that can sing, or a human that can walk through walls – you get the idea.

We remember these ideas very easily – even more than we remember something completely unsurprising, like a tree that is just a tree, a chair that is just a chair, or a statue that is just a statue, and so on. Interestingly, we also remember minimally counterintuitive ideas better than we remember maximally counterintuitive ideas, such as a rock that sings but only on Tuesdays if it’s raining, because if it’s sunny it grows legs and dances the tango, but only in January, and only if there’s been no snow since New Year’s Eve. That’s far too complicated and weird, there are just too many details. No one, or very few, will remember that.

Why are religions full of minimally counterintuitive ideas? The argument goes that the slight surprise or intrigue of minimally counterintuitive ideas makes them memorable, and so they work brilliantly as memes – units of information that stick in our brains and transmit easily with high fidelity to other brains, and that is key to religion. The problem with this argument is that there is a big difference between remembering information, and believing that information. This is what often gets referred to as the Mickey Mouse problem.

The Mickey Mouse problem 

If all we need in order to kickstart a religion is a minimally counterintuitive concept that a lot of people are able to imagine, remember, and tell other people about with relative ease, then why isn’t Mickey Mouse, the mouse that wears trousers and talks, not a god? The answer to this is that while minimally counterintuitive concepts may well be an important aspect of what makes a god a god, that’s not all that is needed. 

In the paper “Why Santa Clause is not a God” (the question I have shamelessly ripped off here), Justin Barrett lays out five key attributes of culturally successful god concepts. Let’s see how well Mickey Mouse measures against Barrett’s criteria.

Firstly, gods are counterintuitive. With his job, house, trousers, shoes, girlfriend, pet dog and impressive command of spoken language for a mouse, I’m pretty happy to say Mickey Mouse meets this criterion. Secondly, gods are intentional agents, that is they have minds therefore they have opinions, desires and goals and so can act with intent. Again Mickey Mouse does appear to have this. Gods also tend to have privileged access to useful information – I am not sure this is something that can be said of Mickey. He seems like a nice enough mouse fellow and perfectly happy, but I’m not sure he can really give me much in the way of life advice, never mind offer profound insight into the mysterious workings of the universe. So on this third key feature Mickey is, in my opinion, lacking. 

The fourth key feature Barrett outlines is that gods tend to be able to interact with our world. This is a tricky one. Mickey does interact with our world, within Disney theme parks at least, and, if he were a god, Mickey wouldn’t be the only geographically constrained god. That said, even within the confines of the magic kingdom, Mickey’s interaction with our world seems to be limited to dancing, waving and occasionally hugging people. These things are lovely, and can indeed feel magical, but they are not acts that can’t be performed by regular folk. Barrett argues that Mickey doesn’t meet this criterion, but hey, it’s nearly Christmas after all, so let’s be generous and give the Mouse the benefit of the doubt. 

Finally, gods tend to inspire rituals. This is a tricky one, because it really depends on how one defines ritual. Perhaps for some, visiting one of the Disney theme parks may take on ritualistic aspects, such as the donning of mouse ears, maybe even engaging in specific activities or going on the rides in a specific order. We’re getting into the realms of “you know it when you see it” as one often does when looking at religion, but I’d argue that on the whole, Mickey doesn’t seem to inspire ritual behaviour, certainly not large-scale, coordinated rituals occurring on key days or dates.

Back to Santa

So, Mickey Mouse doesn’t quite have all the key ingredients of a god, but what about Santa? He has even more hallmarks of a god than Mickey, doesn’t he? Santa is pretty magical. He somehow visits every (predominantly Christian) child in the whole world in the space of one night, using only a sleigh and some flying reindeer. That seems counterintuitive to me. He is apparently omniscient, as he knows when you are sleeping and knows when you’re awake – and not just you, but everyone in the world. That certainly seems like privileged knowledge no normal human would possess. He even knows if you’ve been bad or good, and indeed cares about your moral behaviour. It sounds to me like Santa is an intentional agent, with a human-like mind. 

Santa then deals out punishment or reward as he sees fit: coal or reindeer poop for the bad kids and this year’s must-have gifts for the good children (if their parents can afford them). So here is Santa interacting with our world! These are excellent ingredients for a god!

What about ritual – does Santa inspire ritual? Arguably. Children are encouraged to leave out treats for Santa, such as milk and cookies, sherry and mince pies, or whiskey and sausage rolls. Plus a carrot for the reindeer. Every year and always on the same date. It’s beginning to look a lot like ritual to me. Yet, despite all this, Santa just isn’t considered to be a god – as far as I am aware there are no Santaists knocking about, apart from the occasional dyslexic goth. So, why?

A 'Cookies for Santa' hand-decorated plate on a wooden table, with a glass of milk, a mince pie and a carrot sitting on it
Things to offer Santa and his reindeer. Photo by Petr Kratochvil, via publicdomainpictures.net

Barrett’s paper outlining the key features described above ultimately concludes that Santa somehow just doesn’t quite possess all the attributes that would transform him from a character in a folk tale and cute seasonal figure into a god of some description, even though he does come pretty close. The devil (or deity) is in the details.

Yes, Santa does apparently care about moral behavior, and is said to be willing to punish behaviour he considers “bad”, but Barrett questions how often Santa (well, parents) reinforce that belief by adjusting the gifts children get in accordance with their behaviour throughout the year. Barrett also argues that although there is some ritualistic behaviour performed and some sacrificial offerings left for Santa the evening before Santa’s expected to arrive and do his reverse burglary, it is only once a year and, perhaps, this is too infrequent to reinforce the belief that he is a god. 

To me, this explanation feels unsatisfying. Maybe to figure out why Santa isn’t a god, we need to look to a concept that does, or rather did, meet all the criteria of a successful god concept, but is no longer seen as a god. 

Ex-gods

Enter Zeus! Or, more specifically, the Zeus problem. In a paper by that name, researchers Joseph Henrich and Will Gervais reply to Barrett’s paper on Santa by pointing out that even agents which meet all the criteria of a god and have been popularly worshipped do not always retain their loyal following. This is pretty compelling evidence that it is not just the content of an idea that takes a being from fictional folk figure to divine deity.

Moreover, if it was the content of a story alone that dictated whether a supernatural entity was seen as an interesting character or an actual god to be worshipped and revered, then presumably every time we hear about a new being that meets all of the god criteria we would suddenly have a new idol in our personal pantheon – that clearly does not happen, so there must be something else at play here. The paper also points out that if the content of ideas alone makes the difference between belief and non-belief, then how do we explain why children who do believe in Santa stop believing as they get older, even though the content of the Santa story doesn’t change. 

In a further paper, Gervais et al argue that it comes down to how humans learn from each other. While the content of a story or idea may be key to what information is conveyed, it’s the cultural context in which the information is transmitted that makes the difference between something we remember and something we believe. Humans are shrewd cultural learners, and have ways to perform a sort of quality control on the information they receive. We pay attention to what the majority of those around us appear to believe and are likely to follow the crowd – this is conformist learning bias.

Santa’s CREDs

We engage in prestige-based learning, paying more attention to individuals who are older, appear to be more skilled, and are looked up to by other individuals in our culture. We are also sensitive to credibility-enhancing displays, or CREDs, which are acts that verify an individual’s stated belief – do they walk the walk after they talk the talk? Is the person who told you the berries are safe to eat actually eating those berries themselves? Is the person who says they believe in a god performing regular acts of devotion or rituals dedicated to their chosen deity? 

It is this last one, the presence or absence of CREDs, that may be the most powerful when it comes to matters of faith. In a study investigating decreases in religious belief, Lanman found that children raised by parents who believe in god are more likely to grow up to be non-believers if they do not witness their parents performing credibility-enhancing displays. We adopt the religion of our culture, if we are regularly exposed to regular credibility-enhancing displays performed by individuals we preferentially learn from.

As children grow up, they are exposed to fewer CREDs validating belief in Santa, as the adults around them start putting in a little less effort into their Santa rituals. In our current culture, we aren’t exposed to peers or prestigious others performing CREDs that would signal a strong and genuinely held belief that Zeus is the almighty god of all. So CREDs – or more accurately, a lack of CREDs – may be key to why Santa (or Zeus) is not considered to be a god; he just doesn’t get the CREDs.

So, Santa isn’t a god, and now you have one current explanation of why. But, if you want to keep the magic alive a little longer, engage in some CREDs, leave out some treats for Santa and his reindeer, and allow yourself to indulge, even for just a few days, in the culturally successful stories we share in midwinter. Merry Christmas.

Spotify Trapped? The algorithm is not what’s keeping you from new music

0

It’s the end of the year and, as is becoming tradition, everyone’s social media is being flooded with Spotify Wrapped. This year I discovered Sleep Token and am furious with myself for missing them at Bloodstock back in 2022 (I did see them this year in Manchester, but the ordeal that was getting to that gig is a story for another day!).

And in another tradition almost as old as the Spotify Wrapped share, we are seeing the opinion pieces pouring out of every newspaper and blog feed about how we are all “trapped by the algorithm!!” And they all seem to follow the same rough outline:

Spotify is collecting all of our data. It knows what music we like, when we like to listen to it, what our friends listen to… and that is scary! Back in the good old days, we all used to go into music stores and pick up any random album we saw and thought the artwork was interesting, then we’d discover that, actually, we do like New Wave Indie Jazz! I’d share music with all my diverse friends, no two of whom had ever listened to the same band, and who constantly introduced me to something new. It was a glorious time of musical revolution! Then the algorithm came along, and now I listen to the same bands I have been listening to for decades and never find anything new – and that is the fault of the app, not me.

You can perhaps guess what my opinion of these opinion pieces is going to be. Let’s take a look at some of the claims and break them down…

Back in Good Old Days I’d constantly be finding new and interesting music!

Yes, this is probably true. When people think about this, they are usually thinking back to their teen years. You were developing your own tastes, your own means to listen to music – be that a record player, stereo stack, cassette player, Walkman, or even a CD-Walkman! Personal music devices were a game-changer (and no doubt had their own panic surrounding them).

You also had, for the first time, your own disposable income, perhaps from your first job, or maybe you got paid by your parents to do chores around the house. You were learning what bands or artists tickled that bit in your brain that makes you want to sing or dance.

You were also learning which ones weren’t your thing. I am a metalhead at heart and grew up during the 00’s Nu-Metal era. KoRn were the first concert I went to without an adult, Slipknot and Disturbed were my preferred weapons of choice against my mum’s Tina Turner and Celine Dion. I wasn’t interested in listening to Nelly Furtado or The Killers, because their music didn’t instil any great joy in me, not like System Of A Down did. Which brings me to my next point.

My friends introduced me to new music, not The Algorithm!

Again, this might be true, but why should it be any different now? My friends still introduce me to new music, and we use Spotify to do it. I share songs on social media that I like. I have a WhatsApp group full of people I met at festivals and we all share all the time: “What’s your favourite act from this year?”, “Anyone into Ren?”, “Zeal & Ardour’s new album isn’t great…” If you aren’t having these conversations with your friends anymore, maybe you should do something about it?

As for the suggestion that all our friends listened to different music – no, they didn’t. Musical taste was one of the things that helped form the “in” group. You look at Mods and Rockers, or Scallies/Townies and Moshers; the music was a defining aspect of the scene, along with the fashion. The fashion was usually a visual signifier that you were part of the same crowd, and a conversation could always be started with “so what bands are you into?” knowing there will be some common ground.

Having an app that works based on similar knowledge, by grouping artists that often appear on other users’ playlists together, means I get to discover Hilltop Hoods because my enjoyment of Watsky merged via Bliss & Esso. The algorithm helped me find a new favourite group! None of my friends were into Australian Hip-Hop, but other Spotify users were, and so it connected me.

I used to go to record stores and buy anything to hear something new, and the hit-and-miss was great!

I struggle to believe that all these bloggers and columnists were wandering around record stores, completely ignoring the genre signs above the sections of music, and buying stuff at random. Some claim that, as music journalists, they were doing this to find new music – but that isn’t how it works. Generally, a band/artist/record label/producer would reach out to music magazines asking for a review, and a journalist would be tasked with reviewing it. The journalists are rarely going out to find any random band to review, and never without a preconceived idea of their intent. That would be madness.

If you want to find new music on the app, just type in what kind of thing you want to look for, and the algorithm will spit out what people into that scene usually like. I just tried this with “alt-jazz” and that is not my thing, but now I know that for sure.

Good reasons to criticise Spotify

Spotify collects a lot of data, this is true. It massively underpays artists for their art (a typical stream of a song pays £0.003, hardly a living wage for the majority of musicians). They pay millions of dollars every year to platform a misinformation and disinformation podcaster in Joe Rogan.

The company will skew results for the artists that sign exclusivity contracts and punish those that fail to do so – make this the focus of your complaints about the algorithm. I am not saying that Spotify is incorruptible or even a good company. But the complaints around the algorithm giving people what they like are weak at best. If you got older and settled into your music choices, then that was a decision you made.

You have access to the world’s biggest music store, and you can listen to it all, any time you like. Choosing to press play on Oasis for the 100th time this year isn’t the algorithm pushing them on you, it’s you listening to your music. Don’t pretend you’d actually be into vampire-mall-punk if only the app gave you the opportunity to try it – stop blaming the algorithm, and just embrace being a 90s indie kid.

Lemme Purr: the celebrity-backed wellness gummies trading on intimate insecurities

0

Much has been written about Gwyneth Paltrow, and her wellness brand, Goop. Much has been written in this magazine, in fact. Some of it has been written by me. But despite being the most visible of the celebrity wellness influencers, Gwyneth Paltrow is not alone – she’s joined by the likes of Elle McPherson (whose supplement powders, teas, tablets and elixirs, should perhaps have been as much of a red flag as her romantic relationship with Andrew Wakefield), Kate Moss’s (owner of Cosmoss, whose herbal teas claim to “protect against the stress, pollution and toxins our body is exposed to during the day”) and even beauty influencer Tati Westbrook, whose Halo brand offers supplements for hair, nails and skin. Even international treasure Gillian Anderson has dipped her toe into the wellness world.

If Paltrow was a trailblazer, hot on her heels was celebrity celebrity Kourtney Kardashian, founder of not one but two wellness brands. My initial introduction into Kourtney’s wellness empire was via her lifestyle platform Poosh, which has been roundly criticised for how closely it took inspiration from Goop.

POOSH is the MODERN GUIDE to LIVING YOUR BEST LIFE.

Our mission is to EDUCATE, MOTIVATE, CREATE, and CURATE a modern lifestyle, achievable by all.

I decided to launch Poosh because I felt that there was something missing in the healthy lifestyle space. Healthy living gets a bad rap; it’s as though if you care about what you put in — or on — your body, then you’re not sexy or cool. But this just isn’t true, and Poosh is here to prove just that.

I’m not alone in seeing the similarities to Goop – back in 2019, Elle magazine reported that Gwyneth Paltrow was aware of the comparisons, but had no issue with Kourtney or Poosh. In fact, the two have gone on to demonstrate their mutual appreciation by collaborating on the creation of a candle, called “This Smells Like My Pooshy” – a nod to Goop’s headline-baiting “This Smells Like My Vagina”.

However, Poosh is not Kourtney’s only venture into wellness – she is also the founder of a brand called Lemme. As the Lemme website explains:

I have tried so many different things and met with doctors, gurus, specialists, in pursuit of living my healthiest and most balanced life – from oversized supplements that are difficult to swallow to gummy vitamins that were ok on taste but not so good on ingredients, and I learned so much along the way! None of this made sense to me. Why can’t it be yummy and be good for you?

Lemme tell you, it can!

Meet Lemme – My new line of vitamin and botanical supplements I’ve created to become a divine part of your everyday life.

Lemme’s product range will be familiar to anyone who pays attention to supplement companies – with a product called Lemme Glow which is for skin, nails and hair, and Lemme Matcha for energy and metabolism, and Lemme Debloat for digestion, plus Lemme Chill, Lemme Sleep and Lemme Focus. But while many supplement brands sell (questionable) supplements for PMS or the menopause (and Lemme does have a “tincture” for PMS), Kourtney has gone one further, by going straight for the vagina.

Lemme Purr is the name of the company’s ‘vaginal health gummies’, which they claim are:

The purr-fect lemme: Clinically-studied SNZ-1969™ probiotics support vaginal health and freshness.* Supports healthy vaginal pH levels.* Supports vaginal odor.* Supports a healthy vaginal microflora.* Supports vaginal health.* Supports vaginal freshness.*

Note the asterisks, which follow every one of the claims, and which lead the eagle-eyed reader to a tiny statement at the bottom of the page (way below all the product info and the reviews) which reads

*These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Well, there’s that box ticked, I guess.

According to the site, Lemme Purr gummies contain:

  • SNZ 1969™ – “A clinically-tested probiotic (Bacillus coagulans), SNZ 1969™ is shown in clinical studies to support vaginal health, freshness and odor. This strain of probiotics is tested to survive the harsh, acidic stomach environment and make it to your digestive tract where they are most effective. Each serving contains 1 Billion CFUs of SNZ 1969 probiotics*”;
  • PINEAPPLE EXTRACT – “Lemme Purr has 100 mg of real Pineapple per serving”; and
  • VITAMIN C – “A powerful antioxidant and pro-collagen vitamin that is an essential nutrient to support immune system health, skin health and promote overall health and well-being.*”

Now, firstly and most importantly I want to make clear that we do not need to do anything to alter our vaginal freshness or odour. This is a social pressure put on people with vaginas about how the natural body smells and is complete and utter bullshit. The vagina is self-cleaning and needs no extra help. The vulva can be washed with a very gentle soap or soap free cleanser when you shower.

If you notice a change in your smell or your discharge you might have picked up a bacterial or yeast infection and should see a doctor (or self-treat if you’ve had them before and your doctor has advised you on self-treating). If you find you have skin problems, you can make sure you’re wearing cotton underwear, and wear jeans a little less frequently. But we don’t need special pills or supplements, or special soaps or wipes. In fact, wipes and soaps that might have chemicals not tested for the sensitive skin of the vulva can cause dry skin, increase the risk of minor tears and damage to the skin and increase the risk of infection.

A pile of blue jeans
Time to ditch them, at least for a while? Pile of Jeans by Marco Verch under Creative Commons 2.0

The vagina does have a microbiome – that is the set of healthy bacteria that live on the skin and help keep us in balance – and it is true that sometimes that microbiome can get out of whack. Sometimes, that’s because we’ve had a bacterial infection treated by antibiotics which have also killed the healthy bacteria.

There is some research into the use of probiotics for people who’ve had bacterial vaginosis treated with antibiotics, because a change in the microbiome can make it a little easier for a reinfection to take hold, but the evidence is in the early days and says nothing about prevention in people who haven’t already had an infection. According to the Cochrane Collaboration:

Despite the marketing and the benefits associated with probiotics, there is little scientific evidence supporting the use of probiotics. None of the reviews provided any high-quality evidence for prevention of illnesses through use of probiotics.

What’s more – the vagina mostly has a bacteria called lactobacilli. This is a completely different bacteria to the one in the Lemme Purr gummies. None contains the variety of lactobacillus that we find in a healthy vagina – instead, as the Guardian noted in a recent article, if these kinds of products contain any lactobacilli at all, it’s typically lactobacillus plantarum, lactobacillus rhamnosus or bifidobacterium animalis lactis. These are typically found in the gut, rather than the vagina – if they ever did manage to find their way into the vagina, there’s no evidence to say they’d be of any use there.

We have no good evidence these gummies help in any way, but it’s worth, as ever, considering if they cause any harm. I think the harm here is around the idea that you need to do something special to make your vagina appealing or keep it healthy. The vagina is pretty happy looking after itself, and the vulva just needs some gentle cleaning once in a while.

In fact, introducing special measures as often promoted by the wellness industry can actually cause harm to the vulva and vagina, by increasing the risk of skin damage, which increases the risk of infection. Or it can kill off the healthy bacteria that we know are good for keeping infections at bay in the first place. The gummies probably aren’t going to do that – but their existence feeds into the very idea that they are needed, and needlessly feeds into the insecurities so many women already have.

Author’s note: this article was originally written in September 2023. Since then, Lemme Purr has come under investigation by a class action litigation firm for allegedly deceptive marketing around their supplements.

From the archive: A former Scientologist explains what the cult is all about

0

This article originally appeared in The Skeptic, Volume 4, Issue 6, from 1990.

Scientology – then known as Dianetics – hit a world still partly in shock from World War II, in the columns of an early 1950 issue of the quite respectable US pulp magazine, Astounding Science Fiction. John W Campbell Jnr, its normally level-headed editor, went overboard for L Ron Hubbard’s ideas and proclaimed that the source of all human ills had been discovered, as well as processes for eliminating them.

Needless to say, California went wild with delight, and the prime source-book, Dianetics – the Modern Science of Mental Health, quickly sold its first 50,000 copies and went into reprints. Citizens worldwide began practising Dianetic ‘processes’ on relatives and friends, and at first it was looked on by outsiders and media alike as a relatively harmless occupation with (then) no religious overtones.

Briefly, Dianetics stated that you have two minds: a Reactive Mind, from the early days of evolution, which is an emergency survival system and which is what makes you unthinkingly duck when you observe an airborne rock heading your way; and an Analytical Mind, with which you read Skeptic magazine and even write articles for it, tot up your income tax and laugh at Blackadder. Further, when survival is threatened, the Reactive Mind can kick the slower Analytical Mind instantly out of circuit and take unthinkingly remedial action. It is also what makes you pull your parachute ripcord after baling unconscious out of your Spitfire; and because your Analytical Mind has been bypassed, is why you can’t remember doing it.

So far, so relatively sane. But Hubbard said that Dianetics also explains one of life’s great mysteries – that animals get on quite well without nervous breakdowns, PMT, psychopathic behaviour and even politicians, whereas we humans, by comparison, tend to be quite potty. The answer? The Reactive Mind (even in the womb, where it develops first) understands language just as soon as the Analytical Mind learns language, and as the Reactive Mind has an excellent memory (‘total recall’, says Hubbard), even anything the embryo hears, gets stored away and later understood.

(Extreme example: your Mum, when carrying you, bumps her tummy into a hard object, whereupon your embryo’s Reactive Mind perceives this as a threat and starts recording Mum’s loud remark: ‘Oh, I am a stupid bugger’. Ever afterwards, you carry a ‘time bomb’ within you, which if keyed-in with a similar bump in post-natal life, convinces you you’re an SB.)

This recording, which can be non-verbal as well, is called an engram – although Hubbard originally called them ‘Norns’, after mythical Norse mischief-makers. ‘Engram’ is in the dictionary, as ‘a permanent trace recorded on biological tissue’. Hubbard said we all have lots of them, and they explain mental illness, irrational behaviour, self-destructive urges and much else. Get rid of them, and you have a well-balanced, relaxed, enthusiastic, calm, intelligent, largely carefree personality. (Now you know why Hubbard was so popular.)

A suited Scientology auditor with glasses on sits at a table, back to the camera, adjusting a red e-meter. His subject sits across from him, holding the metallic 'cans' one in each hand, answering the auditor's questions
A demonstration of Scientology auditing showing position of participants and tools. By Robin Capper on Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0

You get rid of them by a form of ‘psychotherapy’ called Processing, in which the practitioner (the Auditor – meaning one who listens and figures out your answers) pinpoints your troublesome engrams and by going through them with you over and over, clears them out. You are thus a Pre-clear until you’ve got rid of them, whereupon you become a Clear: a whole and superbly functioning human being, in command of your environment and the people in it; or in Hubbard-language, functioning on all four Dynamics. (Meaning optimum behaviour towards Self, Family, Group or Nation, and All Humankind; Scientology later added another four, but these will do).

After about three years, Hubbard introduced the E-meter, which he claimed was a kind of emotion-detector which helped track down engrams by their emotional charge. When you’re closing in on an engram, the needle of the milliammeter drops and starts rising again as you come to grips with the engram’s hidden memories, until it’s erased. Put someone on an E-meter (they grasp metal cans in each hand) and mention death or even your mum, and the needle tends to nosedive (mums often restimulate painful engrams as a means of controlling you – ‘I’ll tell your father to get the strap!’).

Unfortunately, given that what they’re actually reacting to is electrodermal activity in the skin, E-meters also ‘respond’ to imaginary incidents. In 1953 – when, as a Scientologist, I thought I was hotly pursuing an engram – I suddenly had a vivid image of being on the flight-deck of a spaceship which was zig-zagging through jagged scenery on Betelguese IV or something, when we hit some of the scenery. ‘What the hell was that?’ asked my auditor, unscrewing the milliammeter glass and unbending its needle. I explained. ‘Oh’ he said calmly, and carried on engram-chasing.

Well, it seems that these imaginary incidents which register just as violently on E-meters as real ones, led Hubbard on to Scientology – we are actually all immortal ‘Thetans’, who arose from an eternal Consciousness which got bored, split into trillions of ‘souls’ and found it was still bored. So all these Thetan-souls began to play games with each other (hence our obsession with World Cups and things). But they found that, being omniscient, you already know how things will turn out. So you deliberately forget things. Then you forget you’ve forgotten. Then you forget even that it’s a game, and it gets quite grim. And lo and behold, even your Thetan gets engrams.

Phew. Anyway, Scientology processes claim to clear Thetans, too – and you become once more a super-being, able to zap planets and abolish universes, but of course much too nice to do so. But therapy can get so rough – unless you implicitly obey the Scientology ‘Org’ – that you might end up in a Dwindling Spiral and go paranoid… which, although I don’t wish to be rude, seems to be what happened to old L Ron himself, judging from how he ended up. I mean, as early as about 1960 he was saying that the planet Venus was actually a hospital for injured Thetans engaged in an interplanetary war. If he’d gone there he’d have found the temperature is 800°C. And that’s in the cool ward.

An image of the planetary surface of Venus, with Aphrodite Terra snaking across its centre brightly
Image of Venus by NASA/JPL, a single frame from a video released at the 29 October 1991 JPL news conference. Gaps filled with Pioneer Venus Orbiter data, false colour based on Venera 13 and 14 records. Via Wikimedia Commons

Back then, Hubbard invented the Church of Scientology, which was openly intended to be a defence from irate state governments; as in the USA, at any rate, you can’t ban a religion. But when it got to the stage of pre-clears singing hymns to Ron, it reminded me so much of the Temple Colombs (bimbos in diaphanous gowns) of the Rosicrucians, that I baled out.

All this is only a bare sketch of the formative years of Dianetics and Scientology, attempting to encompass what Hubbard filled half a dozen books and hundreds of tapes with. I have heard that it has not greatly changed since, although its practitioners seem to have developed a prime case of paranoia. But some things make sense, in Hubbard’s ideas. I admit I approve of Scientology’s standard end-of-session commands: ‘Think of a pleasant memory’ – then, when the E-meter needle is rising nicely: ‘Come up to present time’. Which doesn’t leave the pre-clear half-stuck in the time he fell into a Black Hole. Or cheated at poker in Wigan and was found out. On the other hand, just as I’ve never met anyone who went to Lourdes with one leg and came back with two, ditto with Scientology. Zapping whole universes seems to stop short at creating two new legs.

Does pill packet branding change the placebo response, or is this just another placebo myth?

0

Even among scientists and science communicators, it’s often claimed that the placebo effect is powerful, clinically useful, and demonstrates the incredible control of the mind over the body. I would argue that this is not fully supported by the literature, which shows a placebo effect that is at best unreliable, and perhaps indistinguishable from bias.

One stark illustration of this was a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2011, examining the placebo effect in asthma. This study has been discussed in some detail in The Skeptic before, but we can reiterate briefly.

Forty-six asthmatic patients were randomised to receive either a real inhaler, a fake inhaler, sham acupuncture, or no treatment. The real inhaler improved lung function by 20%; the other groups only showed around a 7% improvement. There was no placebo effect here, the fake interventions had the same effect as no treatment. The marginal improvements in those groups can be attributed to effects like regression to the mean.

However, when asked how much better they felt they were, patients told a different story. Recipients of both real and fake inhalers reported around a 50% improvement, despite the lung function tests showing there were no meaningful improvements for any of the sham groups. The discrepancy highlights the powerful role of bias: patients were reporting improvements they didn’t really have. Without the objective measurements for comparison, we might have mistakenly concluded that inhalers are a waste of time, since their sham counterparts are just as effective.


Another commonly cited benefit of the placebo effect is the effect of branding. One study used as a basis for claims like this was published in the British Medical Journal in 1981, under the title ‘Analgesic Effects of Branding in the Treatment of Headaches’, and authored by Branthwaite & Cooper.

Researchers recruited 835 women who reported using painkillers at least once a month and split them into four groups. The first group were given 50 aspirin in the packaging of a recognisable aspirin brand. The second group were given 50 aspirin in plain packaging labelled ‘analgesic tablets’. The third group were given 50 dummy pills, in the branded packaging. The final group were given 50 dummy pills labelled ‘analgesic tablets’.

Over a two-week period, the women were told to take two tablets from the box any time they have a headache. They should record how much better they felt after 30 minutes and then again after one hour. Scores were recorded on a six point scale: ‘worse’, ‘the same’, ‘a little better’, ‘a lot better’, ‘considerably better’, and ‘completely better.’

Branthwaite found that after one hour users of the unbranded dummy pills reported a mean pain relief of 1.78 while users of branded dummy pills reported a mean pain relief of 2.18. Unbranded aspirin scored 2.48 and branded aspirin scored 2.7. They conclude that branded tablets were significantly more effective than unbranded in relieving headaches, and that these effects were due to the increased confidence in obtaining relief from a well known brand.

Branded aspirin boxes on a shop shelf, "Aspirin regimen, BAYER, Buffered aspirin (NSAID) pain reliever. WOMEN'S Low Dose Aspirin with a Calcium Carbonate Buffer. 81mg. 60 coated caplets"
Bayer Aspirin Low Dose… for women! By Mike Mozart via Flickr, CC BY 2.0

I believe this conclusion to be overstated.

There are some methodological limitations in the study. Participants were recruited by going door-to-door, which means some participants may have known each other and been able to communicate about the study design. Branthwaite tries to control for this by requiring recruiters to skip ten houses after every successful sign-up, but the possibility remains.

The number of participants involved is good, but the duration of the study is relatively short. Moreover, when some women had not recorded any headaches over the two weeks, they were permitted to extend the trial for a further two weeks. The dummy pills were also not taste-matched to the real aspirin, so anyone familiar with the taste of aspirin, especially users of that brand, would be able to identify they were getting fakes.

The largest issue, however, is the conflation of an effect with a reported effect, a problem I understand to be common in the medical literature at large, not just in placebo effect research. While it may genuinely be the case that taking pills from a branded packet truly affords greater analgesia than an equivalent pill from an unbranded packet, it could equally be the case that taking a pill from a branding packet merely makes one more likely to report greater analgesia regardless of any true change in physiological pain.

The data in Branthwaite cannot tease these scenarios apart. Think back to the lung function tests: patients reported huge improvements in their lungs, apparently on the basis of bias alone, when actually there was no meaningful improvement. In Branthwaite, we have no objective measure to check against so we cannot be sure whether the reported differences between branded and unbranded pills reflect real pain relief.


It is fair to say that pain represents perhaps a unique case in placebo research, as there are completely fair and reasonable questions to be asked about whether a change in pain and a change in the perception of pain are meaningfully different. However, even the perception of pain is still different to reported pain. Patients could experience identical levels of perceived pain, and yet still report them differently because of the role of bias.

While this may seem like a trivial distinction, it has real-world implications. In 2016, Australian regulators fined Reckitt Benckiser, the makers of Neurofen, several million Australian dollars for selling identical painkillers branded and priced differently to target specific types of pain. Consumers were being charged a premium for products like Neurofen Tension Headache or Neurofen Period Pain, when the active ingredient and dosage were actually the same across variants.

Despite this, some advertising agencies continue to advocate for selling such products at inflated prices. They cite studies like Branthwaite to argue that Neurofen Period Pain would genuinely work better than regular Neurofen or generic ibuprofen for period pain, because of how it is branded. The placebo effect validates the claim, and so justifies the premium.

Many claims about the placebo effect assume that the placebo itself is responsible for the observed outcomes but, as these examples show, the effects we attribute to placebos are often a mix of statistical effects, patient bias, and other artefacts of the research process. For this reason, we should be both vigilant and cautious when evaluating the clinical relevance of placebo interventions.

Studying the promotion of health misinformation by the Bolsonaro government

This story was originally written in Portuguese, and published to the website of Revista Questão de Ciência. It appears here with permission.

Disinformation is, in the strictest sense of the word, the composition and dissemination of information that is knowingly false or misleading with the aim of influencing individuals, groups or public opinion in favour of strategic, political, ideological, economic or even personal interests. It is not new for people, companies, institutions and governments to deliberately lie, whether to protect themselves, attack, discredit or hinder opponents and enemies, promote their agendas or obtain some kind of gain or profit.

There is no shortage of historical examples. From the Allied operations that helped convince the Nazi leadership that the invasion of Europe would take place through the Calais region in World War II, to the oil industry’s struggle to first deny the harmful effects on public health of adding lead to fuels, and then global warming and climate change, to the tobacco industry and the link between smoking and cancer.

Until recently, disinformation initiatives were laborious and slow. But today, with the internet and social media, lies travel at the speed of light, reaching well-defined target audiences with surgical precision, or as weapons of mass destruction of truth, credibility or public trust in people, policies or institutions. It is no coincidence that in recent years we have seen the rise of several anti-science movements, from the seemingly harmless flat-earthers to the clearly dangerous anti-vaccine movement, as well as the advance of radical ideologies, notably the far right, and religious fundamentalism.

Two face masks, a white respirator and a blue surgical mask.
A 3M N95 mask and a basic surgical mask, which offers very limited protection against airborne viruses.

In an attempt to understand this phenomenon, however, a new science has also emerged. It is called “Agnotology”, the study of the production and promotion of ignorance, of how people, groups, communities or even entire societies can remain or are kept ignorant or oblivious to certain information and facts, and the interests that this serves.

This field already has its researchers in Brazil, such as Nayla Lopes, a PhD student in Political Science at the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG). As part of her thesis, Lopes seeks to establish a link between denialism in the Covid-19 pandemic and a deliberate promotion of ignorance in the government of former president Jair Bolsonaro.

“My goal is to study people’s denialist behaviour regarding the pandemic,” she says. “Before, I had the impression that there would be a limit to this behaviour, that ensuring the survival of oneself and those one cares about would outweigh this denialism. But what we saw was that this limit being repeatedly exceeded. People risked their own lives and the lives of those they cared about in the midst of one of the biggest health crises in history.”

Question of intention

According to Lopes, one of the biggest challenges of agnotology is to determine the intentionality of the spread of ignorance. Fortunately for her – and unfortunately for Brazil – the former president himself did not shy away from offering evidence of this in relation to the pandemic, with measurable impacts on the number of cases and deaths from Covid-19 in the country .

On more than one occasion, for example, Bolsonaro confessed that he was “the only head of state in the world” to have gone against the main recommendations of experts and health authorities to prevent the spread of the disease, such as social distancing. At the same time, there is no shortage of examples of the times he encouraged people to gather in crowds, some of them at the worst moments of the pandemic in Brazil, when the country was recording thousands of deaths per day. These were events in which he also made clear his opposition to the use of masks, another fundamental non-pharmacological measure to try to control the spread of the virus.

“By repeatedly saying that he was ‘the only head of state’ who was against these non-pharmacological measures and using this as a kind of ‘badge of honor’, Bolsonaro only gives more proof of his intention”, considers Lopes.

This also includes the discourse of minimising the health crisis, such as the many times the former president referred to Covid-19 as a “little flu” that could be easily cured by a non-existent “early treatment”.

“Who expects the president of a country to lie blatantly?” asks the researcher. “This type of minimisation by a person whom the public looks to for information and leadership fuels a tendency to calm down and become less alert at the individual level. Which, in the case of the pandemic, has made people even more vulnerable to the disease.”

The result was a direct, and tragic, impact on pandemic statistics in Brazil: “It is no coincidence that we observed, for example, that places with a higher proportion of Bolsonaro supporters also had a higher mortality rate from Covid-19 .”

A graph showing the five countries with the most recorded deaths from Covid-19. US is top at over 200k, followed by Brazil at approaching 150k, India just under 100k, Mexico around 75k and the UK around 45k. 2020 data.
In 2020, the US had the world’s highest death toll with about 205,000 fatalities followed by Brazil on 141,700 and India with 95,500 deaths. Via BBC News (29 September 2020)

Furthermore, the former president did not act alone. It was not uncommon for Bolsonaro, members of his government, or his supporters to enlist supposed experts to try to legitimise his denialist discourse, in a typical disinformation tactic and further evidence of intentionality.

“When people first started talking about agnotology, the studies were about the tobacco industry and its strategy of spreading uncertainty and doubts about the relationship between smoking and cancer, the ‘merchants of doubt’ (a reference to the title of the book by science historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway on the subject),” Lopes recalls. “And experts play an important role in constructing this discourse. The tobacco industry funded studies to sow doubts about the scientific consensus, and the oil industry followed suit with climate change, in a format that seeks to bring scientific legitimacy to the agnotological discourse. During the pandemic here in Brazil, for example, we had the so-called ‘Doctors for Life’, a group that gained notoriety by prescribing useless ‘Covid kits’ and defending nonexistent ‘early treatment’.”

Lopes explained for those studying agnotology, the process of promoting ignorance, disinformation is key. And it can come in many forms, not necessarily lies, such as the straw man fallacy or anecdotal evidence, causing confusion in the public’s mind.

“There is no need to lie to present a denialist framework of reality,” she emphasises. “During the pandemic, for example, Bolsonaro said he took hydroxychloroquine and got better from Covid-19. But he could very well have taken nothing and got better, too. It is not a lie that he got better, but it changes the focus of the issue. Personal experience is not necessarily a lie, but it is incompatible with the scientific method. It is all part of the tactic of sowing doubt, and thus science is discredited by agnotological agents.”

Documentary evidence

Another important aspect of the work, says Lopes, is the collection of documentary evidence of the deliberate promotion of ignorance by these agnotological agents. In the cases of the tobacco and oil industries, history has shown how they accumulated knowledge about the relationship between their products with cancer and climate change, respectively, and their actions in an attempt to cover up or confuse the issue. The Covid-19 pandemic, however, is a recent event, which initially makes it difficult to study with the benefit of time and distance.

Once again, however, the former president, members of his government and his supporters made the researcher’s work easier, leaving many traces of denialist actions. Lopes recalls that, while in the first wave of the pandemic it was still possible to have doubts about the best strategy to face the health crisis, from mid-2020 and the beginning of the second wave of Covid-19, it was already established that hydroxychloroquine did not work against the disease, and the search for a supposed “herd immunity” was not only illusory but dangerous, with the potential to cause thousands of deaths and the collapse of health systems.

“There are more than a thousand warning documents ignored by the Bolsonaro government ,” she says. “From the second wave onwards, it was already possible to distinguish what worked and what didn’t in preventing the disease. Even without a vaccine, it was already possible to alleviate the situation with non-pharmacological measures. The information was available. So much so that Boris Johnson in the United Kingdom, and even (Donald) Trump in the US, in a way corrected the course. Bolsonaro insists to this day that he was right, even in the face of the tragic numbers of the pandemic in Brazil.”

The Brazilian Senate’s pandemic parliamentary inquiry also helped to accumulate documentary evidence about the denialist actions of the federal government and its supporters during the health crisis. Among them, Lopes cites the attempt to change the hydroxychloroquine package insert, discussed in a meeting at the Planalto Palace, and the “Brazil cannot stop” campaign, also conceived and implemented by the presidential office via the Presidency’s Communications Secretariat (Secom).

“The idea of ​​all this was to mislead and confuse the public. There’s no way to say it wasn’t intentional”, he says.

Another example of this, the researcher adds, was the so-called Covid-19 “data blackout” promoted by the federal government. Back in June 2020, the Ministry of Health stopped releasing consolidated figures on the pandemic in the country, and then, forced by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) to provide the information again, manipulated the structure of the epidemiological reports to reinforce the government’s denialist discourse, such as with the decision to highlight the number of recoveries and minimise deaths. These decisions led Brazilian media outlets to join forces in a consortium to verify the information and ensure its credibility with the public.

“Information control is another aspect of this action. Not only the framing, but also the provision of basic information about the pandemic was neglected by the Bolsonaro government,” she says. “Even if people did not want to be guided by what political leaders said, they had difficulty informing themselves about the reality of the pandemic in the country so they could make their own decisions.”

Given this, Lopes believes he will have sufficient evidence to support the agnotological thesis of promoting ignorance in the Bolsonaro government that helped fuel the denialism of part of the Brazilian population in the face of Covid-19.

“Hydroxychloroquine, early treatment, herd immunity, people didn’t come up with these ideas alone,” she says. “Putting it all together, we have a very likely scenario of agnotological intentionality on the part of Bolsonaro, his government and supporters regarding the pandemic.”

Huge social media accounts glorify ancient architecture, while whitewashing the past

0

I’ve often walked down the street and wondered: why aren’t new buildings a bit nicer? To my personal taste at least, modern architecture feels rather drab.

Earlier this year, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter read my mind. I had a virtually blank, follow-free account on X for the purposes of following the UK election, and the algorithm wasn’t happy. What was I interested in? It tried references to TV shows I’d never watched, influencers that I’d never heard of, funny cat videos, even supposedly British humour, none of which secured my engagement. Eventually the algorithm hit on a series of accounts featuring laments on the architecture of days gone by, threads about great works of art, discussions about history and culture, and photos of buildings with structurally unnecessary but visually appealing flourishes.

Most of these accounts followed each other. It felt, briefly, like I’d discovered an active community of enthusiasts for aesthetically appealing architecture. Maybe there was something lovely on X after all. Then I noticed that many (though certainly not all) of these accounts featured varying degrees of enthusiasm for a lost time of imagined glory, traditional Catholicism, pseudoscience, right-wing politics, and Mel Gibson’s worst films…

One account that posts frequently about subjects likely to make a Skeptic reader wince is Culture Critic (1.5m followers). In amongst explorations of ancient Greek and medieval architecture and art by Bosch and Boticelli, one can find an essentially uncritical thread on the St Michael’s ley line – “The line reflects the epic final stroke of St. Michael’s sword that sent Satan to Hell” – and repeats of architectural myths about the golden ratio as it relates to the Parthenon and beyond.

Culture Critic doesn’t hide its enthusiasm for religion, so there is also understandable discussion of religious relics, including the ever-controversial Turin shroud, which in fairness has had two major studies this year reported in the news, one saying it could actually be 2,000 years old, the other that it definitely wasn’t created by imprints from a human body. Given the popular sympathetic coverage in mainstream media of the Turin shroud, I can’t really argue with this coverage.

A replica of the Turin Shroud in a Polish church, displayed under a Latin inscription "DISCIPULUS VIDIT SUDARIUM VIDIT ET CREDIDIT"
Shroud of Turin replica displayed in a Polish church. Photo by Krzysztof D. on Flickr. CC-BY-2.0

However, even in this area of interest, the account introduces errors that are sympathetic to the church. For example, the account has a long thread about the construction of cathedrals, which paints a picture of religiously inspired communities pulling together to achieve something extraordinary. One post says that “Most of the labor [to construct a cathedral] was ordinary townsfolk or local craftsmen, carving it all lovingly by hand.” This is not correct; the stonecutters who carried out some of the more advanced work were typically itinerant and went wherever there was paid work.

Culture Critic talks about community-wide enthusiasm for the creation of these multi-generational edifices, but we know that many local folk contributed unskilled or semi-skilled labour on the promise of forgiveness of sins – aka indulgences – and paid for the construction through enforced tithes. Church taxes, spiritual blackmail and workers going wherever the work was isn’t really “the general will of the people” as the account claims.

World Scholar (40k followers) also mixes curious historical errors with genuine archaeological wonders. One thread on ancient wonders suggests the Tower of Babel actually existed, and features a picture of the Colossus of Rhodes that is, perhaps, an order of magnitude too large compared to the actual statue.

Yet another account with curious historical errors is Thinking West (130k followers), which has threads that glory in Roman roads, Gothic architecture, and… feudalism! The account says that criticism of feudalism for limiting social mobility has “some merit, but is often overblown”, citing the following example:

William Marshall became the most prominent knight in England despite being born into a relatively obscure family. His martial feats made him a legend, and he went on to knight two kings and take custody over Henry III before the young king came of age.

The word relatively is doing some heavy lifting here. William Marshall’s father John was an Anglo-Norman nobleman who was Marshall of England under Henry I. John held lands in Somerset and Berkshire, property in Winchester, and two castles in Wiltshire, before William was even born. The average Hollywood nepo baby would be green with envy for such a warm connection. Thinking West goes on:

Serfs had it tougher, but by the late middle ages were granted increasing liberties, and a gradual shift from serfs to landowning peasants occurred. In England, a middle class emerged called “yeoman,” who were often minor landowners, guards, or subordinate officials.

This at least acknowledges that serfdom was bad, although “had it tougher” understates it. Serfs could not permanently leave their village, marry, or change their job without permission, and were often treated harshly without any avenue of redress. And pointing out that serfdom declined over time is not a defence or mitigation of feudalism. The end of serfdom was an important step towards the end of the feudal system more generally. The suggestion that feudalism’s negatives weren’t so bad because eventually one of the key negative aspects of feudalism declined isn’t a great defence of the feudal system.

While there’s an obvious danger in all this – users engaging with the delightful pictures and the interesting slices of history, and then being misinformed or drawn into certain ideologies along the way – there’s also an interesting overlap in the opposite direction.

For example, Culture Explorer (77k followers) mixes odes to Braveheart as the “most quintessentially masculine movie” and enthusiasm for the children to be educated towards the Classic Learning Test (whose exams “draw heavily from the Catholic intellectual tradition”) with stunning pictures of palaces, cathedrals and modern-classical sculpture. But the account also features a passionate thread about the most bike-friendly cities in Europe, to generally positive engagement from its followers.

And, to be absolutely clear, many of the accounts within this community are uninterested in politics, religion or pseudoscience. Mediterranean Aesthetics (278k followers) features very little other than lovely pictures of the Mediterranean. Cultural Tutor (1.7m followers) is as enthusiastic about classical music, art and history as some of the aforementioned accounts, but with the added bonus of sticking to the facts and evidence. I’m not an enthusiastic user of social media – obviously, otherwise I’d have active accounts! – but it seems to me there’s still value for Skeptics in engaging with X, for those who can face it.

As to my original question – why modern architecture seems to be dull and missing stylistic flourishes – there are lots of opinions available, from staying bland in order to satisfy the largest number of people and incidentally saving a few quid for the property developers, to a sense of powerlessness causing apathy on the part of the general public. Perhaps, in 2024, we get the architecture we deserve.

From the archive: The man who invented the flying saucer

0

This article originally appeared in The Skeptic, Volume 4, Issue 6, from 1990.

There seems little doubt that the late Ray Palmer was, if not the ‘father of flying saucers’, then at least the midwife who assisted at the birth of the most intransigent mystery of this, or any other century. The parameters he ably established when he first espoused the ufological cause by publishing I Did See The Flying Discs by Kenneth Arnold in the pages of the first issue of his brand new magazine Fate in 1948, still have considerable influence today – especially in America where the ‘Aliens from Space Syndrome’ has gained a new lease of life by the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act.

Throughout his life Palmer publicised the ufological cause, first in the pages of Fate, subsequently in another magazine he later founded – Flying Saucer. From the material he published, readers could be forgiven for thinking that Palmer thought the term flying saucer a euphemism for spaceship. In fact, so apparently uncompromising was he in his approach to the subject, it is said that he finally provoked an exasperated American establishment into openly accusing him of ‘inventing flying saucers to further sales of his magazines’. ‘What a load of Bolides!’ – you might say. But be careful you don’t speak too soon.

Although, with the advent of Kenneth Amold, and after his involvement with The Maury Island Hoax, Palmer took up the literary gauntlet on behalf of ET, it is noticeable in his later years that he returned to a theme, older and more occult, which had apparently lost him his job during his editorial youth. According to what he wrote in his article ‘Saucers from Earth?’ which appeared in this country in a Tandem Special, The Allende Letters, published in 1968, he was again speculating that the UFOs originated on Earth. He wrote: ‘While it is true that there are many interplanetary mysteries, linking them with UFOs demands a stretching of the evidence, and a great deal of extrapolation.’

He qualifies this by going on to point out: ‘Since almost all sightings are ‘in atmosphere’ our thinking must be limited to the atmosphere.’

Obviously Ray Palmer had gone full circle in his thinking and returned to the paradigm of his youth. Flying Saucers from Inner Earth. Oh! Dero, Dero, Dear! In support of his seeming about face he refers, in his article, to the Polar explorations of Admiral Richard E Byrd. Byrd, a pioneer aviator, had overflown the Poles in 1926 and 1929, and then again in 1947/48, as an integral part of the quite extensive expeditions he led into those areas. Rumours regarding what he discovered especially during the year 1947, had now apparently persuaded Palmer to promote a paradigm he had published way back in 1945, in a different context.

At that time Ray Palmer was an editorial star in the world of ‘pulp’ science fiction having succeeded Hugo Gemsback as editor of Amazing Stories, a respected if somewhat garishly illustrated, American science fiction magazine. It was during a stint as editor that there eventuated, apparently aided and abetted by Palmer, the ‘Shaver Mystery’ which was later called by Life magazine ‘The most celebrated mystery to rock the science fiction world.’

The mystery had its genesis in a series of stories published by Palmer in Amazing Stories, the first of which appeared in the March 1945 edition. In the end Palmer was relieved of the editorship for his part in the affair, as apparently no matter what it did for circulation, Messrs Ziff-Davis were not amused. Palmer went on to meet his fate, and it could be argued that, perhaps, in 1945 he was totally unaware of what he was letting himself, and the World, in for when he was instrumental in publishing ‘I Remember Lemuria’ by Richard S Shaver.

The theme of the original story was carried throughout a series that Palmer ran, sporadically, in the magazine over a four year period. Almost immediately there were rumbles in the concrete jungle and, by the time the series concluded, the magazine had been inundated by letters from readers insisting that they knew the content of the stories to be more fact than fiction. By 1951 the affair had reached such proportions as to attract the attentions of the publishers of Life magazine – which then promptly entered the fray by publishing the article from which the above quote was taken. The result was almost identical. Letters, in considerable quantities, came into the editorial offices of Life magazine from individuals who claimed to have had experiences that persuaded them that the Shaver stories had a firm basis in fact.

Even while the series was running in Amazing Stories, the rumour that Shaver had claimed his stories to be true – but had been persuaded by Palmer to ‘fictionalise’ them in order to facilitate publication in a mass circulation science fiction ‘pulp’ – was gaining currency. By the time the series had ended, and the Life article had appeared, things had come to the point where it was almost accepted that the rumours were true, and that the fictionalised version was only a pale shadow of the original. Apparently, at the time, Ray Palmer did not make any noticeable attempt to disabuse his readers of such nonsensical notions. So, based mainly in rumour, the ‘mystery’ grew apace.

Now what exactly was it about the Shaver stories that persuaded persons reading them that they were reading a thinly disguised factual account? On the face of it the stories were fairly typical of the popular science fiction of the day. They differed only insofar as the author had chosen to have his Bug Eyed Monsters emanate from the depths of the Earth, rather than from outer space, as was more usual in the genre of the times. The plot of the stories revolved around the abhorrent activities of an underground race of semi-robots, or androids, who had ‘degenerated’ into some kind of ‘superidiots’ since being abandoned, some 12,000 years ago, by their Lemurian creators when these fled the Earth to escape the effects of a Solar Cataclysm that was causing the Sun to bombard the Earth with deadly radiations.

A stereotypical alien-shaped silhouette walks toward the camera through a rectangular tunnel, backlit by a bright light at its opening
An ‘alien’ underground. Image by Paweł from Pixabay

The full title accorded these abysmal creatures in the stories was ‘Abandoned Detrimental Robot’ soon shortened to Abandondero, and finally to plain Dero, and only the Daleks have ever come close to them for sheer mindless malevolence. According to the stories these semi-sentient slaves of the Lemurians were left to fend for themselves when their masters fled into space to escape the radiation being poured out by the Sun. Thus betrayed they had no option but to go into the vast global complex of underground caves and facilities left empty by the fleeing Lemurians. But even there they were unable to fully escape the detrimental effects of the lethal Solar radiation. This resulted, over the centuries, in a kind of devolution that turned them into malicious midget-like idiots whose only occupation, and delight, was in the covert tormenting of the human race which had, in the interim, grown numerous on the planet’s surface.

It is, perhaps, one of the more tantalising implications of the stories that the human race is what is left of the Lemurians. Their social rejects who were unable to flee, or were deliberately left behind by their fellows. And this adequately explains the Deros’ detestation of humanity. Suffering from racial amnesia as a result of the cosmic trauma, we are unaware of the Deros’ deadly influences in our daily lives – implied Shaver. Further, he explained, that to aid them in their singularly satanic hobby of inflicting covert GBH on the human race, the Dero can call upon the almost magical technology bequeathed to them by the fleeing Lemurians. Preprogrammed in its various uses at the time they were created by the Lemurians as a race of slaves in perpetuity, they have had no difficulty in perverting its operational parameters to bring it to bear on an unsuspecting humanity.

All good stirring stuff – to be sure. But so what? The stories were presented as fiction – why take them for anything else? Perhaps the effect generated by the stories had more to do with the readers’ imaginations than that of the author? It has to be suspected that Richard S Shaver inadvertently put his literary finger on that part of the human psyche wherein lurks all the archetypal ‘entities’ who have bedevilled our race – probably from its beginnings. Either that or we must accept the proposition that the numerous correspondents were correct, and the Shaver stories did, in fact, contain recognisable elements of truth.

But can something so apparently outrageous be true? We had better hope not, as Shaver credits the Dero with being able to call upon all manner of mechanical marvels (mech for short) to assist them in their depredations, and clearly implies that although ‘degenerated’ in their terms their intelligence is still equal, if not superior, to its human equivalent. These two factors allow them to operate vehicles of tremendous power, which they use to tunnel under the Earth with all the ease of a Maserati on a motorway. Also they have at their command ‘mech’ that can cause accidents or nightmares with equal ease, and further ‘mech’ that allows them to abduct objects or persons of their choice instantaneously from any point on the surface. By judicious application of all this ‘mech’ they are able to surreptitiously provoke the human race into murder, mayhem and sudden death.

On the lighter side, perhaps, Shaver credits them with a ‘stim machine’ that is able to cause a permanent erection in the male, and the corresponding condition in the female. Apparently, according to Shaver, the Dero are not all that averse to using this particular ‘stim-mech’ on themselves, and then of assuaging the condition thus produced by availing themselves of human partners abducted by them from the surface by various means. All this when taken in conjunction with their ‘mech’ assisted ability to observe in minute detail all the activities engaged in by Mankind on the surface of the planet, must make them the corn pleat voyeurs. According to Shaver, such shenanigans are their sole source of entertainment and, in the stories he warns: ‘The Dero still exist in caves and all our troubles are caused by them.’

Even as a fictional idea it can be argued that Shaver’s Dero are not exactly original. That the author had merely substituted ‘Dero’ for ‘demon’ and added a few pseudo-technological trappings for garnish. Therefore the public response to them would seem to be out of all proportion to their content. Mystifyingly it appeared to rise out of a need on the part of his readers to let him know that they knew. Those who wrote in were not concerned to congratulate Richard S Shaver on his imaginative powers, or his literary expertise. They wrote solely to tell him that they believed him, and that, from personal experience, they knew that the Dero, or creatures fitting that description almost exactly, did exist, and acted in the way he described in his stories.

But the ‘Shaver Mystery’ only achieved occult immortality when it was subsequently realised that, in describing the ‘mech’, in which the Dero visited the surface, Richard S Shaver had anticipated the flying saucers. Not only that but it came to be gradually recognised that in much of what Shaver’s correspondents had said could be found elements recognisable in the much later testimony of UFO percipients. Especially in the scenarios described by abductees. In fact it is possible to maintain that the UFO Phenomenon in general might well be the Shaver Mystery Materialised, as it can be argued from the immense ufological documentation, that the flying Saucers and their presumed pilots have, in more ways than one, inherited all the attributes credited to the Dero by Shaver. The presumed technology that the UFO Phenomenon allegedly deploys, and the reported activities in which UFO related ‘entities’ allegedly engage, have an unmistakable Derolike quality. In the contactee and abductee literature, descriptions of Derolike ‘entities’ abound, and more than one abductee has returned with a tale of being ‘transported’ to a vast underground ‘UFO base’ allegedly under the surface of this planet.

So perhaps after all, Ray Palmer, in being instrumental in the publishing of the Shaver stories, and in their aftermath, inadvertently became… the man who invented the flying saucer.