Calgary Skeptic’s Society Blog

Good Luck Charms are Everywhere!

I’m a third year student at the University of Calgary. A few weeks ago I had my last exam of the semester, and as I was waiting outside the exam room for it to start, I overheard a conversation between two first-year girls. One of them had been late to an exam the day before, and was obviously very upset about it – she said she didn’t think she did very well because she was so frazzled at being late, and so worried that she wouldn’t have enough time that she just rushed through all the questions.

Her reason for being late? She’d left her good luck charm at home. She was explaining to her friend that she has this lucky pencil case, and every time she takes it to an exam, she gets at least 75%. She told a story about one time in high school where she forgot the pencil case, and her mom couldn’t bring it to her in time for her test. And she failed the test.

Last year I was talking to a guy in one of my business classes who said he had an interview that afternoon. I wished him luck, and he said he he’d be okay because he was wearing his lucky hat. He was very confident about getting the job because he’d always been successful when wearing that hat.

You don’t see a lot of rabbit feet and horseshoes anymore, the classic images of good luck. People have gotten more creative. They assign the burden of being a good luck charm to a myriad of items – pencil cases and hats are just two of them.

In my first year at orientation, we did a short tour of all the good luck charms on campus, including several statues and pieces of art. There’s a railing in the Engineering building which we were told if you touch it before an exam, you’ll do well. There’s a statue called the Zipper in the sciences building that spins (it’s actually a pretty neat piece of art). If you spin it in a clockwise direction before an exam, the story goes, you’ll get the mark you were hoping for. And in the social sciences building (the tallest building on campus), someone has taken the time to write out a story throughout the staircase – one line on every step. It’s said that if you walk up the whole staircase and read the story line by line, you’ll be very successful after graduation. And then there’s the photo in the Kinesiology building of a man who graduated in 1974 with a perfect 4.0 GPA – students often rub his picture for good luck before exams or presentations. The glass in front of the photo has to be replaced frequently because it gets worn down from all the good luck being sucked out of it. (As it turns out, Bob Boston the good luck charm really only graduated with 3.2 at the highest – see the article in the Gauntlet for an interview with him from last year.)

The Nature of Good Luck

Good luck charms are an odd belief. How did the believers find their good luck charm? How do they know it’s lucky? Why is the object different for everyone? It seems very strange to me that you can arbitrarily choose any item, call it your good luck charm, and have complete confidence that it will get you through the tricky moments in your life. Why don’t people take charge of their lives, take responsibility for their failures, and even more importantly, take pride in their successes without crediting it to a photo or a statue or a railing or a hat or a pencil case? A belief in good luck charms is like the secular version of the belief that God will turn your life around (see Brandon’s post about “The Life Negation of Certain Religious Views”).

The Fallacy of Good Luck Charms

The main explanation for a belief in the effectiveness of good luck charms is confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is often what’s behind people’s beliefs in psychics’ abilities as well. According to Wikipedia, “confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs”. It’s basically a subconsciously biased view of a phenomenon. People with good luck charms notice that when they have a certain hat or shirt with them, they do well, and when they don’t they do poorly, but they forget all the times they had the good luck charm and did poorly, or didn’t have it and did well.

Conclusion

A belief in good luck charms detracts from your successes. It gives all the credit for your hard work and effort, and the payout that comes with it, to an object that in reality did nothing at all. Perhaps, like the girl in my exam, having a certain object with you during a test or presentation comforts you, and therefore you’re more likely to do well. When you forget that object, like at the girl’s high school test, you feel less confident, and therefore do poorly. In my opinion, good luck is simply a matter of whether or not you feel confident independent of anything else.

Other Types of Luck

Last year I read Richard Wiseman’s The Luck Factor, a self-help book on how to make yourself luckier. Wiseman spent several months interviewing thousands of people on their thoughts on luck, splitting them into two groups – the lucky and the unlucky. Being a scientist and a skeptic himself, Dr. Wiseman didn’t prescribe the same sort of paranormal beliefs to luck – he didn’t think luck had anything to do with fate or some great powerful cosmic body. He based it on calculations – how many competitions have you won? How happy are you in life? How lucky have you been in the job market, or the stock market? How often do you find coins on the street? And so on.

He determined that it’s all a matter of opportunity – the lucky people tend to enter more contests than the unlucky ones, and as a result they tend to win more. Lucky people spend more time actively looking for coins on the street, or actively networking with people in order to build connections which could pay off later in life.

I’m on Wiseman’s side – luck isn’t about carrying around charms or following little rituals. It’s about the opportunities you give yourself. If you give yourself the opportunity to do well on a test, you’ll do well – rubbing a thirty-year-old photo won’t help one bit.

The Shroud of Turin is one of the oldest hoaxes ever. It’s a fun skeptical topic, if not a very interesting one, since it’s pretty easily debunked. Basically, the Shroud of Turin is “a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man. A man that millions believe to be Jesus.” If you listen to the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast, you may remember Evan’s riddle about the shroud from episode #77

I have something that was said to have existed in the first century
That was first written about in the eighth century
That was actually produced in the 14th century
That was almost destroyed in the 16th century
And proven to be a hoax in the 20th century
What do I have?

Anyways, the reason I write about this topic that’s already been quite thoroughly debunked is that I was recently thinking about those paranormal or pseudoscientific topics that don’t seem, at first glance, to have a large detrimental effect on true believers. I’m sure most of you have encountered, when debating these issues with believers, the phrase “but who cares if I believe? It’s not like it costs money, or harms anyone, or threatens anyone’s safety.” This often comes up when talking about aliens and UFOs, ghosts, cryptozoology, and the Shroud of Turin, among other things. Since I’ve already written posts on three of these, I thought I’d cover the Shroud.

The shroud of Turin is a hoax. It’s one of the oldest hoaxes in the world, yes, but it is merely a prank. Dozens of “genuine” shrouds have been reported, and each and every one was proven as a hoax. Several were simply painted with acrylic paint, and some were made in the 1300s (using carbon dating, scientists determined the cloth was “too young to be Jesus’ burial cloth”). A few showed images that didn’t even resemble a man, or that didn’t even have blood on them (don’t ask me why they were thought to be the authentic shroud in the first place – blood is sort of the primary characteristic of this artifact.)

So the Shroud of Turin is a fake, much like the UFO videos and ghost photos of today – each and every one has an explanation that doesn’t include the paranormal, or Jesus. But who cares if people believe one of these is really and truly Jesus’ burial shroud? And for that matter, who cares if people believe those photos of orbs and dust specks are really depicting ghosts? Or that those cloud formations are alien spacecraft? What’s the harm?

The harm is that being out of touch with reality is not healthy. Believing things which have clearly and convincingly been proven false is faulty thinking, which leads to poor decisions and life choices. Sure, you may not currently be spending thousands on expensive equipment to detect ghosts, or to travel around the world looking for strange animals, or to attend conferences about the Shroud of Turin, but continuing to invest your time and efforts in false beliefs could certainly lead to this. In addition, likely you’re not silent about your beliefs - the more people you convince of these falsehoods, the more people you’re harming.

I’m currently reading “Stiff” by Mary Roach, a very interesting (if a little disturbing) book on cadavers and the many forms of research done on them. She includes a chapter on cadaver research for the purpose of religion, which primarily is just to determine what patterns blood would make on a cloth wrapped around a man being crucified. In other words, to prove or disprove the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. Surprisingly (to me at least) there have been several scientists who have tested for the physiological effects on a body being crucified. One such man, Dr. Pierre Barbet, believed he was in possession of the authentic shroud, and attempted to prove it by comparing blood stains of crucified cadavers with the blood stains on his bit of linen. This was the 1930s, when medicine and surgery weren’t nearly as precise as they are now.

Basically, Dr. Barbet nailed cadavers to crosses in order to see the blood pattern on a piece of cloth behind the body, and then compare it to his shroud. When he ran out of cadavers, he used fresh amputated limbs from his own surgery, trying to see the scars in a hand that’s had a nail driven through it. He ended up with several arms over the course of a few months – it’s been speculated that even minor hand or arm injuries in his surgery in this period resulted in an amputation, just so he could have more arms to nail up. Dr. Barbet was obsessed – he wrote hundreds of pages on the process of being crucified, comparing arm angles and blood patterns to the bloody imprint on the shroud. Not surprisingly considering how religious the good doctor was, he came to the conclusion that the shroud was authentic. (Almost all of his findings have since been disproven - see Roach’s book or just google it.)

Barbet was mad. Reading passages of his book will convince anyone of that - he was clearly obsessed with proving the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. From this obsession to his suspiciously steady supply of amputated arms, it’s obvious that Barbet had invested way too much, including his sanity, in proving this hoax true. This is a clear example of the harms of believing in such “harmless claims”.

Losing touch with reality is not healthy. Obsession with proving your claims right is not healthy. This leads to poor quality of life, which has a very detrimental effect on both the true believer and those around him. Even if the claim doesn’t seem harmful, with a closer look you can find evidence of the negative effects on a person’s life. This is why it is so important for science and skepticism to be promoted tirelessly.

For more information on the harm in believing in pseudoscience and the paranormal, see the What’s the Harm website.

It’s that time of year again, the ‘holiday’ season. A time of coming together for families, neighbors and friends, for talk around the fireplace and over a cup of cheer (in our house really massive amounts of red wine). All in all, this is my favorite time of year.

The holiday season is also known for something else, the inevitable debates between those wishing to preserve the separation of church and state and various religious groups. It started early this year with a students group at the University of Alberta (UofA) seeking to have references to God removed from the graduation oath. I never did learn how that turned out but I’ll wager the reference to God is still there. In response, religious groups will speak about how short-sighted and mean spirited secularists are, pushing their belief system down everyone else’s throat. Somewhat ironic of course, as by insisting graduating students repeat a god-laden oath, it is quite literally the religious who are pushing things into people’s throats.

Nevertheless the debates and resulting fireworks are entertaining. I used to think that the secularists were a little over the top with their protests. After all, who cares if the City of Calgary presents a Christmas display, or students take an oath proclaiming allegiance to god. Preserving the separation of church and state has bigger fish to fry than worrying about who is stuffing shoeboxes for the poor in far off lands. It would be fair to say there is considerable debate among skeptics and humanists on this point. Whether we do ourselves more harm than good by protesting such things and whether we should keep focused on the big picture concerns.

I don’t think this way anymore. Perhaps I have just been around too long, but all those little things seem to add up to big things. As with evolution, where small incremental changes over time give rise to entirely new species, the small violations of the separation of church and state can provide the foundation for much larger transgressions. As it turns out, the devil really is in the details.

Let’s return to the UofA. The debate was initiated by the University of Alberta’s Atheists and Agnostics (A &A) society. They wanted the reference to God taken out of the Chancellors’ standard convocation address in which graduates are told to go out and use their degrees to work for the glory of God. Before I go any further, let me say that as a graduate of the UofA, I have must have committed myself to this but I truly don’t remember. However, in all honesty, I can’t say anything I have done with my life or with my degree, has been for the glory of God or anyone else. They can’t recall my degree, can they?

Anyway, Andrew Chan, of Christians in Action Bible Study is quoted as saying “From my standpoint, the line has historical value because the U of A was founded on Christian beliefs,” and later, “Taking that out would take out a part of the university’s history.” From the small to the big. From swearing to God, to the promotion of the idea that the University of Alberta is some form of Christian organization (as it is founded on Christian beliefs). There is a big difference of course, between being founded by Christians and being founded on Christian beliefs. After all, the separation of church and state was (largely) created by Christians too. Does this make it part of Christian beliefs and if so, then aren’t the religious arguing against their own faith?

I would point out to Mr. Chan, as well as whoever governs the University of Alberta these days, that, the University of Alberta was founded by white people, that is on white people’s beliefs. As such, everyone should swear that they will use their degrees for the glory of Caucasians. Anything less is a denial of the UofA’s history. Yes, I am Caucasian and yes, when this change in policy comes through, I am most definitely going to be in attendance. It has been a long time since I have heard thousands swear to glorify me.

In the meantime, the City of Calgary will again promote the Judeo Christian nature of the holiday season, as will schools and other public institutions, and they will do so at the exclusion of other beliefs. They will excuse their actions on the basis that the majority of Calgarians are Christians, so no harm done. This is basically the same logic as that offered by Mr. Chan and it deserves the same response. The majority of Calgarians are also of white Anglo-Saxon heritage. Should we have a an official day for white people? (We could call it White Christmas, as in, I am dreaming of a white Christmas. That way our new holiday will already have its own song). We will need a symbol of course. I am ready to take suggestions by my vote is for the snow man. Strikes me as perfect. We could even get the mayor to stick the symbolic carrot in the nose and proclaim it officially White Christmas Day in recognition of Calgary as a White city (in much the same way some religious groups like to promote the idea that we are a Christian nation).

It was Thomas Jefferson who first used the metaphor of building a wall between church and state (ironically to the religous who strongly favored the idea). It is a wall we shouldn’t permit to be torn down, even slowly, brick by brick.

“Give God a chance and He will make something of your life.” I encountered this astonishing proposition on a church sign while driving home from work. It strikes me at once how destructive an idea it is—destructive of the self, of one’s self worth, of personal autonomy, of one’s confidence in one’s life and one’s ability to make something of it. A translation and exposition of this life-negating sentence might go like this:

It is impossible for you to make anything out of your life without God, and without God your life is worthless because nothing can be made of it. If you do not accept God, your life will never amount to anything. In sum, no person can ever make anything of their lives of their own accord, out of their own will and hard work.

How completely absurd, how utterly life-destroying. This kind of attitude crushes the individual human person; shatters and stomps on any notion of a person’s overcoming life’s obstacles and forging a good life for themselves through hard work, determination, and virtue. No, instead what is needed is complete submission to a higher power that will make your life good for you. You needn’t do anything but bow down to Him, and he will bestow you with a good life because you haven’t the necessary constitution to give one to yourself.

The more I think about this the more irate I become. This self-negating, life-negating attitude is perhaps what I dislike the most about certain religious beliefs, and many self-help programs based on religious principles (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous). We should be encouraging people to take responsibility for their own lives, telling them that they have the power within them to fulfill their potential and create a good life for themselves. Because we do, all of us. Life is extraordinarily complex and difficult, and at times it can be a daunting task just to get out of bed in the morning to face it. But we have the potential within us to overcome the obstacles placed in our way, and to remove those that we place there ourselves. We have the potential to improve our habits and patterns of thought in order that we may lead happier, healthier lives. And all this stems from a personal autonomy which nothing save serious injury or death can take from us—the power to decide what one wishes to do with one’s life, what kind of person one wants to be, and the power to carry out the actions that can get us there, get us to where we want to go and who we want to be.

Sentiments like those expressed in the church sign are the negation of these life-affirming, positive human truths. Perhaps in that anti-human proposition we find the seeds of what makes some religions so powerful: convince someone they aren’t worth anything, that only an outside force can ever help them amount to anything, and they will keep coming back. They will keep coming back because so long as they seek the solution outside themselves, they will never attain it.

Those of us who do not embrace those life-denying words, whether we are a believer or not (for not all believers embrace them) know better. And we will never cease in our quest to convince others of this—but we will do so not through dogmatism and force, but through reasoned and respectful discourse. Our commitment to human potential will not die until we ourselves lie in the earth.

This is a follow-up post to my article on UFOs from last week.

It’s probable that somewhere in the universe, among the millions of millions of stars and millions of billions of planets, there is life. However, it is irrational to believe this species is visiting us. I personally believe that it’s not necessarily likely that any other species would have evolved to possess the same ability for reason, the same intelligence levels of humans. So why do people believe the aliens are coming?

Pop culture has a lot to do with it – we tend to find that peoples’ descriptions of aliens “evolve” as the trends change. Even the descriptions of the UFO changes – the term “flying saucer” was first used in describing the movement of a UFO, not the shape or appearance. However, this was taken out of context and now most common images of alien spacecraft are disc-shaped.

Let’s move on, though, to alien abductions. Here are the most common explanations for tales of alien abduction…

Sleep Paralysis

“Sleep paralysis is a condition in which someone, most often lying in a supine position, about to drop off to sleep, or just upon waking from sleep realizes that s/he is unable to move, or speak, or cry out. This may last a few seconds or several moments, occasionally longer.” Sleep paralysis is often accompanied by a sense of dread, vivid dreams, or the feeling of a presence in the room – all ingredients for a good abduction story. I don’t mean to imply that all victims of sleep paralysis are simply making up their abduction stories; rather, they assume their dreams are real events, due to the vivid nature and real feelings of terror associated with them. They share these dreams as though they are actual experiences, when in fact they are simply one stop short of hallucinations.

Dreams

The reasoning behind this one is similar to that of sleep paralysis – people confuse dreams with reality. Often they don’t realize they’ve fallen asleep, and when they awaken they realize 2 hours have passed, and the only memory they have is that of their dreams. They begin to believe that their dream was real.

The most famous example of this is the Betty and Barney Hill case. The Hills were driving down the highway in 1961 when they stopped to observe strange lights. 2 weeks later, Betty began having nightmares, very vivid ones, in which she was taken from her bed onto an alien ship, and had medical procedures performed on her. As a result of this, both Betty and her husband Barney underwent hypnosis – both gave nearly identical accounts of abduction.

However, the Hills didn’t undergo hypnosis until 1963 – 2 years after their original experience. In that time, Betty talked about nothing else other than her abduction, telling Barney over and over what had happened to her. Studies of memory show that people begin to form memories of things that didn’t actually happen to them, based on repetitive accounts of it – therefore, we can conclude that Betty basically brainwashed her husband into believing her account. While I don’t believe this was done maliciously and on purpose by Betty, it does explain how the two of them could give the same account of an event that didn’t happen. By examining all the facts in this story, it becomes clear that the “incident” was merely the result of an active imagination. (See the Skeptoid article for more information on the Hills).

Making it all up

There are, of course, some cases where people simply tell stories. They make up an account of alien abduction (often based on other stories they hear) for a variety of reasons. Most often, they’re seeking attention.

Hoaxes

Again, as with UFO sightings, hoaxes don’t prove anything for either side – all it proves is that it’s possible to modify a photo or throw an oddly-shaped object in the air and snap a picture of it. For that reason, I won’t go into hoaxes of alien abductions….

The Bottom Line

Of course, it’s impossible to prove a negative – we can’t prove that aliens haven’t been visiting Earth and whisking people from the safety of their homes to insert probes and perform medical procedures. All we can do is examine the evidence of claims, and in the case of UFOs and alien abductions, no solid proof exists to prove this phenomenon. Until that day comes, alien visitation is an urban myth.

The exercise of critical thought is not a tyrant commanding from on high,‘Thou shalt not believe!’ and robbing life of all joy and beauty. Rather, it is the steersman of the Ship of Mind, guiding the vessel through the treacherous waters of the Sea of Ideas, so that it does not sink, or run aground. — Author Unknown