X-Message-Number: 30468
References: <>
From: Kennita Watson <>
Subject: Fwd: The Damned: Beyond the reach of today's Cryonics Movemen...
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:35:43 -0800

David Stodolsky () wrote:

> Abstract
>
> There is a substantial group of people who can't be reached by the
> current methods of promoting cryonics. This reveals a defect in the
> strategies being used. The group in question comprises about a fifth
> of the population and the results may apply to a majority of
> Americans.

That even "a majority of Americans" "would feel
more favorably toward the idea of cryonics under
no circumstances" doesn't account for the fact
that only about 0.0003% of Americans are signed up.
I think that some of the objections to cryonics
are based on misconceptions (too costly) and
pessimism (won't work), which might also be
based on misconceptions, and that most people
haven't heard enough about cryonics to address
those misconceptions.  Thus outreach.

> Furthermore, it seems clear that a different marketing
> approach alone will not be adequate to reach this group. The only
> option is packaging cryonics with other benefits.

For those who would consider cryonics "under no
circumstances", I think even this wouldn't work.
For others it might, and I think that outreach
might help there, in that insurance companies etc.
are more likely to offer a benefit if at least
some of their customers clamor for it and it can
be used as a market differentiator.  But they
have to hear about it as an option first.

If don't know how funeral directors make most of
their money -- even a nice funeral costs about
$10,000, compared to at least $28,000 for
cryonics (plus a nice amount for the FD).
Maybe if some cryonics organization worked with
a funeral director to offer a cryonics package
as an option, complete with memorial service,
etc., that would be a way in.  I bet it would
satisfy some people's magical leanings if some
hair were put in an urn (either burnt or unburnt)
to be taken home or buried.  Scoff at magical
thinking if you like, but don't we want to save
the lives of the magical thinkers, too?  That
certainly seems to be what David is saying.

> The response closest to taking action was:
> "I believe that Cryonics is an exciting idea and intend on looking
> into it further."

One of my outreach goals is to assist people
who agree with that in taking the next step,
by providing URLs, subscription forms,
membership forms, etc.

I left off the "under no circumstances"
question, since I don't want to cement the
attitude by reiterating it, and the "looking
further" question tells me what I want to know.
>
> A stepwise multiple regression generated the following predictors of
> the action-oriented response (in decreasing magnitude of influence):
>
> under no circumstances *
> young again *
> will not work *
> mouse revived *
> too selfish *
> too costly
> thousand signups
> love life
> too weird (p<.1)
>
> These 9 items allow us to predict slightly better (RSquare Adj = .54)
> then a prediction equation including all 26 items. Thus, the
> unincluded items seem to be contributing more noise than signal, when
> we consider that the contributions of the above responses are already
> included. In any case, we can, at least, get the same results with
> only the above 9 items.

I added in the "mouse revived" and "thousand
signups" to my survey since they added more
signal than noise -- the others (excepting
"under no circumstances") were already there.
>
> With this reduced set of items, the first accounts for almost three
> times as much variation as the remaining ones. The RSquare Adjusted
> for this item, predicting the action item, is .37, thus it alone can
> account for more than half of the effect in the prediction. This
> suggests that removing it would allow a clearer picture of the
> remaining effects.
>
> Also, the question doesn't seem to conform to the proper pattern for a
> disposition question. This sentence doesn't indicate something that
> would change the person's attitude, such as in the sentence, "I would
> feel more favorably toward the idea of cryonics if it were cheaper."
> The justification for this section was, "Finally, a series of
> statements were presented which required participants to consider
> different conditions under which they might become favorably disposed
> toward the idea of cryonics. The purpose was to identify variables
> which may or may not be helpful in motivating individuals to give
> favorable consideration to being cryonically preserved." Therefore,
> this item is inappropriate for this section.

Oh good -- statistical reasons to do what I
wanted to do anyway! :-)
>
>
> In the uncleaned data set, 86 persons indicated agreement with the
> statement:
>   "I would feel more favorably toward the idea of cryonics under no
> circumstances."
> This is about 17 % of the entire data set of 517.
>
> Since this group would not change their opinion even if a person were
> revived (the ultimate success of cryonics), it appears that they are
> beyond reach, given current approaches....
>
> ... In any case, the problem of getting additional information to
> those not interested in cryonics seems insurmountable.

I'm not interested in skydiving, so the problem of
getting additional information about it to me is
likely insurmountable as well.  There are nearly
infinite things to know about, and nowhere near
enough time to know them all -- when you're on a
ship with people to rescue, reach for the people
near the ship who are reaching back, not the ones
a quarter-mile away with their backs to you.

> Only a massive
> campaign, that would present information to the entire population
> seems to have any hope. These people will not actively seek
> information about cryonics, no matter what news they get of advances
> in suspension technology. Thus, the focus of current cryonics research
> exclusively on improving suspension technology cannot be justified by
> the hope that such improvements will lead to additional signups. At
> least, not from this group.

Let's get information to the people who are open to
the idea of cryonics, and not worry about those who
are not open (the aphorism "You can't squeeze blood
from a turnip." comes to mind).  When more like 3%
than 0.0003% are signed up, and pretty much everyone
without blinders on knows the basics about cryonics,
some of those minds may open.
>
> The group discussed here seems to be embedded in a worldview that
> excludes cryonic suspension as something to even be considered....
>
> These results may explain why the marketing of cryonics to the general
> public has been so ineffective.

I don't see this -- most of the "general public"
doesn't belong to the "group discussed here".

> The group most resistant to even
> considering cryonic suspension agreed with the statement:
>   "Being frozen is no guarantee that I will be revived someday, but I
> know my chances are zero if I am buried or cremated." (However, they
> agreed less than the remainder of the respondent population.)

Incidentally, this question allows equivocation on
the meaning of "revived".  Some may consider
resurrection "revival", or at least resist including
it in "my chances are zero".
>
> Considering that most Americans believe in a life after death, the
> characteristics of the above group could explain the relative lack of
> marketing success:
>
> 73 percent of respondents agree strongly or somewhat with the
> statement "I believe in life after death."
>
> http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070807/28801_Survey:_How_50% 
> 2B_Americans_View_Afterlife.htm
>
> Americans were more certain of a hereafter than anyone else (55%)
>
> http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/bishop_19_3.html

That would explain a drop from 3% to 0.3%, but not to 0.0003%.
There is clearly work to be done with the people who *don't*
believe in life after death, before we get too upset about not
reaching the ones who *do*.

Live long and prosper,
Kennita

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30468