X-Message-Number: 30477
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: The Damned: Beyond the reach of today's Cryonics Movemen....
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:15:18 +0100
References: <>

On 14 Feb 2008, at 06:35, Kennita Watson wrote:

> 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.

The fact that most are not exposed to solid information about cryonics  
is the first problem. Then, the current marketing strategy probably  
repels most people. Next, the funding requirement eliminates a vast  
majority of people. Next is the troublesome procedures involving vast  
amounts of paperwork. Then you have to pay a membership fee regularly.  
No doubt there are other 'bumps' on the road. Finally, funerary  
arrangement typically occur within an organization context: No doubt  
the current organizational context of most persons is unsupportive or  
hostile. This last dynamic is almost completely absent from the  
survey. So, it should not be any surprise that prediction is  
relatively poor (RSquare < .5).

>
> 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.

That deals only with the first step. However, the analysis thus far  
suggests that there is active information avoidance to support  
worldview defense. So, "won't work" doesn't have much to do with  
factual info. Recall that revival of a human will likely not motivate  
the vast majority.

Keep in mind that cost is a limiting factor for most people and even  
those who could afford it can say, "The cost of having my body frozen  
is far too expensive for me." if they can think of a better use of the  
money. The Badger results don't clearly indicate that there is  
widespread misconception about this.


>
>
>> 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.

Since the 'sale' would be based upon something else, I don't see why  
not. Suspension would be included in the health and safety "fringe  
benefits".

>
>
> 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.

This is probably not the right time to try to influence people. Given  
that CI already has some cooperation here, they might have some  
insight. Cases without prior arrangement tend to get inferior  
suspensions.


> 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 object would be to eliminate this factor. Biostasis would just be  
the accepted way to do things in the subculture.

>
>
>
> I left off the "under no circumstances"
> question,

Since this is the dominant variable, your survey will not be worth  
much without it.


> since I don't want to cement the
> attitude by reiterating it, and the "looking
> further" question tells me what I want to know.

But it eliminates the possibility of developing and effective  
marketing strategy, based upon the survey results.


>
>>
>> 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.

The more recent logistic analysis should be used:

young again *
will not work *
too costly
too selfish *
love life
under no circumstances *

And maybe:

no revival *
too costly
too young

Finally, these might be useful in addition:

too weird *
optimistic future *

On theoretical grounds, you should also include these relational items:

I look forward to a time when we won't have to suffer the loss of our  
friends and family because of aging and disease.

I would not want to wake up in a future time without my family or  
friends around.

I would feel more favorably toward the idea of cryonics if someone in  
my family were signing up.


And, of course:

I believe that Cryonics is an exciting idea and intend on looking into  
it further.



>
>>
>> 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! :-)

We can only eliminate this dominating effect from the analysis if the  
question is included.
>
>
>>
>> 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".

In the later analysis it is clear that only atheists will seek  
information. In addition, agnostics will be more willing to absorb  
information placed before them. The mentioned dynamic appears to  
strongly influence the remainder, at minimum.


>
>
>> 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".

It seems unlikely in this context and since the results were so strong  
with the question, it is likely clear enough.


dss

David Stodolsky    Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30477