X-Message-Number: 31423
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: Stodolsky, conservatism etc. 
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:58:27 +0100
References: <>

On 28 Feb 2009, at 11:00, CryoNet wrote:

> Religiosity is obviously NOT an important factor in resistance to  
> cryonics,

This is straight from the reanalysis of the Badger data posted here  
some time back. If there is nothing wrong with that analysis, then  
religiosity is the most important factor. If there is something wrong  
with it, present your evidence.


>
> except in the sense that any heavy commitment to something "higher"  
> tends to
> override reason and self interest. Since EVERY group or label has  
> only a tiny
> percentage of people seriously interested in cryonics, those labels  
> cannot be
> very important.

Doesn't follow logically.


>
> Stodolsky also wrote:
>> "The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change  and
>> justification of inequality...." (Psychological  Bulletin
>> 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339). Resistance to change is harmful to  the
>> growth of cryonics. Inequality reduces potential signups by  placing
>> cryonics economically beyond the reach of more people. We  also know
>> that conservatives tend to be religious. These factors  suggest that
>> political conservatism tends to inhibit the growth of  cryonics.
>
> To begin with, aside from the comical suggestion that quoting from  
> a  journal
> should carry weight,

Journals are the most reliable source of information known. In this  
case, it is a leading journal, the article is authored by acknowledged  
leaders in the field, and the article is meta-analysis of 88 other  
studies.



>
> Again:
>
>> Inequality reduces potential signups by  placing
>> cryonics economically beyond the reach of more  people.
>
> For the umpteenth time, it is CLEAR that money is a very minor   
> factor in the
> slow growth of cryonics.

Tell that to the billion people who's income is less than a dollar a  
day.



> There are millions of millionaires in the  U.S.,
> with only a small fraction of 1 % of them in cryonics.

I predicted the current enrollments accurately based upon my  
reanalysis and the number of millionaires in the US:
Message-Number: 30693
> Subject: Re: atheist millionaires
> Given that our data was not from a random sample, that the most  
> correct analysis has yet to be performed, and that there were  
> several errors in the experimental procedures, the fact that we are  
> within an order of magnitude of the current membership number is a  
> strong indication that we are on the right track. The fact that we  
> actually were within 10% of the correct number is nothing short of  
> remarkable.


Finally, the absurd:

> Stodolsky's main thesis seems to be that
> cryonicists should promote anti-religiosity

Review the advice I gave to David Pizer on this List, that he should  
*not* file law suits against religious organizations.



There is a difference between claims based upon data and those based  
upon opinion, even educated opinion. Dismissing scientific sources is  
foolish. I am not going to respond to any post like this in the  
future, since I would merely be repeating myself.

For too long, the cryonics community has pursued reversible suspension  
as the key to public acceptance. The reanalysis of the Badger data  
shows that this will have little if any effect. Progress will come  
through facing social and political realities, not dogmatic pursuit of  
a strategy which has proven futile.




dss


David Stodolsky
                     Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=31423