X-Message-Number: 32679
Subject: Re: Question for Mr. Stodolsky
From: David Stodolsky <>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 20:22:52 +0200
References: <>

On 26 Jun 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:

> Mr. Stodolsky:

Formal address would have to be 'Dr.', since I have earned the PhD degree.


> 
> After reading your posts for the past several months, I have to ask
> the following:
> 
> For someone who professes a sophisticated knowledge of social science
> and who thinks he can communicate the cryonics idea to the public more
> effectively than we've managed so far, why do you have such a hard
> time convincing other cryonicists of your special competence in this
> area?


I have not said I can communicate the cryonics idea more effectively.  I have 
stated that the cryonics idea alone will not sell and therefore has to be 
packaged in a more attractive vehicle. 


I responded to this competence question earlier with extensive documentation. No
one questioned my expertise in social science.


> 
> In other words, your inability to sell your expertise to us seems to
> conflict with your claim that you could sell cryonics to others
> currently not disposed towards the idea.


Almost everyone on this List is already committed to the current marketing 
strategy. Unfortunately, as I have posted recently, the current strategy ignores
the most basic principles of marketing. And immediately after posting this List
of ineffective strategies, the individual on this List with the best access to 
funding, provided us with a comment that confirmed his approach did indeed 
violate every one of these principles. 


We can explain this inability to learn from the ideological positions of the 
participants. Most of the persons involved with Alcor are strongly 
individualistic. This motivated some of them to invest heavily in the 'Cryocare'
fiasco, the only 'social' innovation in cryonics previously attempted. My 
proposal is based upon group dynamics, an ideological blind spot for extreme 
individualists. 


Most persons supporting CI appear to accept the view of R. Ettinger, that social
science/marketing is 'obvious' and nothing to improve the current strategy can 
be done. The fact that billions are spent on marketing every year, based upon 
advanced social science methods, appears to be ignored.


Finally, the majority of persons on the List are supporters of cryonics, so 
their personal interest is toward improvements in suspension technology, not 
improvements in marketing. This is compounded by a refusal to recognize 
socio-political risk as a real threat to their own existence. 


So, we face ideological and economic barriers to acceptance of a new approach to
marketing or even correcting the obviously incompetent and wasteful practices 
currently present. These barriers to progress are much the same as those faced 
in 'selling cryonics' to the public at large.


On the positive side, many of the proposals that I have made do get a positive 
response from people on this List. Unfortunately, serious social science 
research is expensive, so that support alone is not particularly useful. 
Finally, the Movement is not yet large enough to have an industry association or
accrediting agency that could see beyond the day-to-day needs of cryonics 
organizations. The only organization in this type of role, The Venturist 
Society, seems to be 'missing in action'. This is probably related to the fact 
that its members must be signed-up persons.


So, your question is not particularly well directed, since it is not obvious 
that there is any lack of support from this List or that my competence is in 
question. The relevant question is why parts of the Movement persist in ignoring
the most basic principles of political science, marketing, human resource 
management, and equipment procurement. 


dss



David Stodolsky
  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32679