Dr. Gleb Tsipursky is the Co-Founder of the Pro-Truth Pledge and the Co-Founder of Intentional Insights. He is the CEO of Disaster Avoidance Experts, Inc, the bestselling author of The Truth-Seeker’s Handbook: A Science-Based Guide and the author of more than 400 articles and 350 guest interviews. Here we talk about his life and views.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What was family background – geography, culture, and religion or lack thereof?
Dr. Gleb Tsipursky: I was born in Moldova, which is a small country in Eastern Europe. It is well-known as one of the least happy places in the world. So, I am really happy my parents moved to the United States when I was 10. I grew up in New York City.
My parents were different religions. My mother was a Christian. My father was Jewish. Neither were super religious. Moldova was part of the Soviet Union/Soviet Bloc at the time. It was conquered by the Soviet Union in WWII and liberated in 1991.
It wasn’t a religious place. It wasn’t friendly to religions. I did not grow up religious. I grew up in New York City, a cultural hub of everything. I went to New York University for my undergrad.
Then I got a graduate degree at a couple of places and graduated with a Ph.D. in Behavioural Sciences from UNC-Chapel Hill. I got a job at Ohio State as a professor. Recently, I left the position because of discrimination over my mental illness and pushback against activism with the Pro-Truth Pledge (PTP).
My expertise is in decision-making: how people make decisions, why they make decisions, and how their decisions bad/wrong. Often, their decisions because of poor information: garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) is the famous computer term.
Tsipursky: It is a big problem. That’s when I became passionate about figuring out why people believe foolish things and make bad decisions based on foolish things. About 4 years ago, I founded the organization Intentional Insights.
It’s a non-profit, which I co-founded with my wife who you already interviewed. In my ample spare time, I do speaking for corporations in decision-making, how to prevent bad decisions. I did not want these ideas to be limited to college students or high paying corporate clients.
That’s why I co-founded Intentional Insights with her. About 2-ish years ago, when the primary election was starting in the US, Brexit was happening at the same time. We of the organization’s leadership saw the worst decisions were happening in politics.
That’s where the most garbage was going in. We put most of our resources to fighting this information in the political spectrum with the PTP. So, that’s my origins [Laughing].
Jacobsen: One follow-up question on that: if I may ask, and no need to oblige an answer…
Tsipursky: …if I don’t want to answer, then I won’t [Laughing]…
Jacobsen: …[Laughing] Okay, good, what was the mental illness? What was the form of discrimination?
Tsipursky: The mental illness is anxiety and anxiety adjustment disorder. It is the technical diagnosis that I have. The difficulty is that when I feel pressure and stress. I, often, experience a great deal of fatigue.
My body shuts down. I find it very difficult to function. I feel really overwhelmed. I have a lot of physical symptoms, e.g., my head gets tired, major headache, chest tightness, and other stresses. The worst is the physical fatigue.
That is how my anxiety is embodied. The discrimination is that when I asked for a leave of absence, which I was supposed to be granted quickly for medical reasons. My supervisor pushed back hard against me taking a leave of absence for mental illness.
Then on the next opportunity, he tried to fire me. He said my teaching went from excellent to terrible. The year before, I had a teaching rating, by him, of 4 out of 4. 2 is acceptable. 3 is above expectations. 4 is way above expectations.
The next year, he gave me a 0. It is terrible and way below expectations. He tried to fire me on that basis. He wasn’t able to. Because it was really blatant. He was overruled by his superiors. Then over time, he placed black marks in my record; until, he could fire me.
It was 3 months ago [ed. As of the middle of September 2018].
Jacobsen: What are some common mistakes made by people in even the simplest decisions of life?
Tsipursky: Sure. A common mistake that I tend to talk to people about. When you’re offered either a chance of straight out $45 or 50% chance of winning $100, what would you take, Scott, for example?
Jacobsen: I would take it. I don’t know. I would take the $45.
Tsipursky: There you go. Most people take the $45. But, of course, 50% of $100 is equivalent of $50. Most people fall into the situation throughout their whole lives they make this series of decisions, which results in the loss of 10% of their income, for example.
Let’s say, somebody’s making $35,000 per year. That means they are losing $3,500 per year through bad decisions of the sort you just made.
Each time, we think about this sort of topic. This is a clear, simple example, where people make poor decisions all the time. Another example is relationships. People spend way too much time in a relationship, which is problematic, challenging, and abusive.
It is called sunken costs. People spend lots of money and time, resources, emotions, and so on, and stay in the relationship much longer than they should. It is another example of where people make bad decisions.
Another example is the halo effect. When you like on characteristic of somebody, you tend to like all of their characteristics. Let’s say someone comes from the same area of the country as you, you have a similar accent and culture.
You will tend to like the person more and hire them for a job, regardless of how well they can do the job. It is the basis of racism, sexism, LGBTQ discrimination, and so on. It is all based on our evolutionary background.
Some of these things are based on tribalism. We lived in small tribes. We like people perceived as belonging to our tribe. It is a problem. The $45 vs. $100, in the tribal and savannah environment, we could not save resources for the future.
It was wiser, from a survival perspective, to avoid losing the $45 than to take chances at winning larger amounts of money. Now, in our current environment, we can preserve resources for the future.
But we don’t think and feel that would intuitively lead us to the right decision. This is the thing discussed at Intentional Insights. It helps people make better decisions in their careers, professional lives, and so on.
We can talk about the PTP later. All the areas of life where we make decisions, which is pretty much the decisions made every day in our lives.
Jacobsen: With respect to some of our evolutionary baggage, these are typically bugs and not features. They amount to the built-in hardware of the central nervous system.
When I think about some of the research around neuroplasticity, how effective are these interventions if done earlier in life when neuroplasticity is a bigger factor in the life course of a brain?
Tsipursky: In terms of neuroplasticity, we have research the brain continues to develop throughout life. Neuroplasticity when younger is not as important as we originally thought.
Tsipursky: Yes, recent research shows people later in life, they can still make a significant change later in life because brain cells continue to develop. They are certainly most effective when you’re younger.
This is a field of research called Rationality. There are two aspects of research. One is intelligence, i.e., ability to solve problems. It is hard to change. It is incredibly hard to change our baseline level of intelligence. Rationality is our ability to overcome our intuitive, inherent, emotional tendencies, which cause us to go in the wrong directions.
We can do this by using our willpower. We can use our knowledge and use our willpower. If you have ever made a decision to go on a diet, and if you choose to not eat sugar, in our evolutionary environment, why are we driven to eat sugar?
Because our evolutionary environment, in the savannah, it was important to get as much sugar as possible to survive. In our current environment, you can get Twinkies [Laughing] anywhere. If you feel yourself resisting the second cookie or the second piece of chocolate cake, that’s when you feel the more advanced aspects of the mind, which is feeling the willpower.
It is using willpower and cognition to resist the gut reactions and intuitions.
Jacobsen: Does the phrase willpower amount to a folk psychological placeholder for executive function?
Tsipursky: No, “willpower” is a specific term. There is an executive function. It is your thinking. Your willpower is the ability to implement something going against intuitions. If you look at research by J. Baumeister and others, they use the term “willpower” in research settings.
It is a resource. It is mental energy. We can drain the mental energy. For example, if you have a situation where you had a stressful job interview, you will be much less likely to resist the second piece of chocolate cake.
Because your mental energy, which we call willpower, is drained by that time. You can have an intellectual determination to resist the second piece of chocolate cake. But you will find it much harder if you are drained or low energy or low spoons [Laughing] – in the folk saying.
That one is a placeholder. This is compared to if you are fresh at the start of the day and nothing problematic has happened.
Jacobsen: How much is intelligence heritable?
Tsipursky: Intelligence is very heritable: Intelligence versus Rationality.
Jacobsen: An adult versus a child’s level of heritability.
Tsipursky: I am not sure what you’re asking, child versus adult levels of heritability. Are you talking about nurture versus nature?
Jacobsen: Yes, how do the ranges shift from childhood to adulthood? Because you’re dealing with a more fixed organism – it would seem – as an adult than as a child.
Tsipursky: I don’t have the statistics on intelligence at the top of my mind. It is certainly the case when children change their intelligence. Children’s intelligence can be changed at a much greater rate than the intelligence of adults, a greater percentage.
Whereas rationality, what I am talking about, e.g., emotions, intuitions, choosing not to go with your gut, can be something children and adults change relatively easily, as an adult, you can decide to go on a diet and effectively [Laughing] change your behaviour.
You can choose not to fall for sunken costs, where you throw good money or good emotional resources into a bad relationship. Or you can choose to make the riskier but wiser choice of $100 versus $45. That is a learnable skill-set.
Jacobsen: Right. Something also comes to mind. When you’re using the term intelligence, there will be at least three floating definitions around that for people. I don’t know, precisely, what one is at the moment most established or substantiated.
I am thinking of Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory, Tripartite Intelligence of Sternberg, as well as General Intelligence or IQ.
Tsipursky: Here, I am talking about what people generally consider General Intelligence. The ability to solve problems, to address issues and solve problems, using your thought processes, basically. It is a very nacho definition of intelligence. Some people are quicker and more able to solver problems than others.
Jacobsen: Instead of giving someone the WAIS-IV and give them the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices, no matter the country, it would be a consistent cross-cultural measure of what you mean by general intelligence, IQ.
Tsipursky: I don’t know enough about the cross-cultural aspects of the matrices. But I anticipate that you’re probably right. But I don’t have enough expertise to know. Generally, an easy thing is to give people a puzzle to solve in any culture, as long as they don’t have a basic familiarity with the puzzle form their cultural setting.
Some people will solve it quicker. Others will take longer. So, that’s an example of what I mean by intelligence. It is hard to change. Rationality is relatively easy to change. It is, in many ways, more influential on the ability to succeed in life than intelligence.
Jacobsen: That leads to some questions. People want to know, “How can I become smart?” Of course, the first part they want to know, “How can I do it easily?” Also, begrudgingly, “If I have to, how can I increase it the hard way in the small amount that I can as an adult?”
Tsipursky: The most important thing you can do as an adult is examined your decision-making processes. We are taught in school to math, geography, and history. Those are noble and important topics. We are taught how to make decisions and how to avoid the common errors that lead us into disastrous relationships. That leads us into losing a great deal of our movies.
Let’s think about all the people who bought their houses in 2007, thinking the housing prices would keep going up [Laughing]. That is a disastrous decision. We know people with high levels of intelligence make disastrous decisions.
For example, there are studies that show people with a higher level of intelligence are, very often, more fixed in their opinions than people of lower intelligence. Why is that? They can rationalize their opinions more.
Tsipursky: This is even if those opinions are not correct. Intelligence can be dangerous in some specific contexts. That is why having rationality, having the ability to figure out why you’re making the decisions that you’re making – how can you best fit your decisions best with what reality is like and what your goals are.
That is a protective, quick way of increasing – what people would generally refer to as – smartness. Your ability to figure out how to achieve your goals using your cognition, using your thinking, if we use that definition.
I would recommend people do something. On Wikipedia, it has a good section of cognitive biases. It is the decision-making problems made by human beings. Folks can look at that. I wrote called The Truth-Seeker’s Handbook: A Science-Based Guide.
It is available on Amazon. It talks about, basically, the kinds of decision-making errors of human beings and how this can affect us. It is another resource. In general, Keith Stanovich has a good test on rationality. What is your current rationality type? How to improve it?
There are a number of resources. People can check them online in book format.
Jacobsen: Now, for the PTP, I interviewed Agnes. She is one of the co-founders. As well, you are one of the co-founders. Why is it more important from that point in 2016 forward to have this pledge come out?
Tsipursky: Our society has an information ecosystem that is simply broken. People are getting more and more of their information online. So, the recent poll shows over 67% of adults are getting information on social media.
Many of them are getting lots of information on social media. We know from studies that people who get their information on social media. They believe about 80% of news that is accurate that they hear. They also believe about 75% of the information that is false that they hear.
There is a difference in the rates of false news versus real news. They believe it is only 70%. The difference here is who has a bigger megaphone. It is not whether the news is true or not. We know false news spreads up to 10x as far and fast on Twitter as real news.
We know the top 20 false news stories for the 2016 US election and the 3 months before the election had 8 million engagements on Facebook – comments, like, and shares. Top real news stories only had 7 mill engagements.
This is an incredibly scary world we live in Our democracy is going down the tubes because people are believing falsehoods. Very many people are believing lots and lots and falsehoods. Because they are believing falsehoods, they are making terrible decisions.
Democracy is based on the premises that citizens, ordinary people, can figure out what is the best thing for them to vote on in an election. If they believe falsehoods, they can’t make the decision in any reasonable shape or form.
It is terrible for the future of our country, of our countries, of the globe. This is a problem going around in all countries that are democracies right now, not simply the UK or the US, or Canada. It is happening around the world.
Look what is happening in India where lynch mobs have been killing dozens of people because they believe misinformation about child kidnapping, it has a huge, huge impact on our lives. It has a huge impact on our political systems, on our public discourse.
Our democracies are dying because of the situation of misinformation. That’s why an important thing we could do right now in the current world we’re living in is fighting misinformation in social media, which is where people are getting most of their information.
Jacobsen: Outside of social media, what are some other sources of simply bad information, of which much of the people believe?
Tsipursky: A lot of bad information people are getting is from digital media. Unfortunately, journalism is also very broken right now. Not because traditional journalists are doing something bad, but because anyone can set up a website online and call himself or herself a journalist.
Therefore, the people right now, the mass public, do not know what critical journalism is like, how journalism functions. They are seeing more and more false stories from people claiming to be journalists.
Therefore, journalism is suffering a slow death. That is what is happening to the future of journalism. People are seeing bad information in online formats, which they think are credible. When people on online websites, there was a study by Stanford University on savvy high school students.
It showed when they go on the online sites – I think it was Slate, about 80% of them cannot differentiate between an article written by Slate versus paid advertised content put on a website by Slate. These are high school students.
These are savvy people. There was a recent Ipsos poll. It showed most Canadians believe they can find what is fake or misinformation. So, it was something like 60% of people believe they can spot it. That is not the case.
Most people, according to another Ipsos poll showed, cannot spot fake news or misinformation. There were six pieces of fake news. Less than half of the people could spot the fake pieces. More than half of the people had less than 50% of the results correct based on the poll.
We see the very clear evidence. People are getting fooled left and right on online settings. Online settings are dangerous. It is more credible with traditional, mainstream media. The online venues of mainstream media are fine.
If you have the local newspaper in the town, and if you read the online version of that, it is fine. If you have the cable or radio, or something like that, which is credible and been around for a while, it is likely to be fine.
Because journalists who are working there are still holding to the professional ethical standards. Those are the venues that have more credibility versus new online venues that anybody can set themselves up as a journalist.
Jacobsen: Now, I want to touch on evidence and science, and simply naturalism as an undergirding philosophy for all of that. For instance, we do have people in denial of history. Others in denial of essentially scientific truisms in accordance with the authoritative experts via the consensus of the field.
People who spend their lives in it. I am speaking of climate change denial, Holocaust denial, Young Earth Creationism, the anti-vaccination hysterias with the idea that vaccinations cause autism, anti-GMO-ism, and so on.
These ones have direct impacts on the potential life trajectories of youth who may have gone into successful careers in science. Also, it harms the public, where we can find even children, for instance, in the case of vaccines dying because of bad information.
Tsipursky: Yes, it is terrible.
Jacobsen: The work you do through the two organizations that you co-founded is crucial. Same with similar organizations like the Center for Inquiry.
That work to help the public in terms of getting proper information out, determining what is credible information and not, and getting more established and credible scientific perspectives out to the public, especially the young.
Because the earlier the information is imbibed and critical thinking is taken on as a heuristic for understanding the world, the better over the longer term the decisions they can make and outcomes they can statistically have in life as well.
It is literally, in some cases, a matter of life and death, or just simply, as you noted, potential $3,500 lost every year in earnings. What are some effective means by which to combat non-scientific views and anti-evidence-based thinking?
Tsipursky: So, this is a very important question. One of the really important things that we talk about. Let me talk about Intentional Insights first and PTP is, of course, part of it. We who are science-minded and try to think critically and rationally communicate badly to people who are not science-minded and who are not thinking critically and rationally. Why is that?
Because we tend to lead with data. We tend to lead with facts. We tend to lead with statistics. We don’t lead with what changes people’s minds, which is emotions. Emotion, research shows, motivate people who aren’t analytic, who think and behave in certain ways.
If we come with facts and statistics, then say, “You’re wrong, here’s why.” They will pose a defensive posture and dismiss what we say. If you bring this to someone who is analytical and a critical thinker, they will say, “Oh, I’m wrong. That’s interesting. Tell me why. Let’s debate about this. Let’s get this going.”
Whereas, people who are not analytically minded will feel attacked by these things. The way to approach it; it is not to use facts and statistics right away, but using curiosity. It is figuring out, “Where did you get this information? What makes you believe that way? What causes you to be a climate change denier?” Not phrasing it that way, of course.
Tsipursky: “What closes you to non-belief of the evidence?” Then having an exploratory conversation, your goal is not to flood the person with information and statistics but to explore how their information think process works and to show them more effective ways of thinking.
The underlying thing is not the specific subject. Someone who is an anti-vaxxer will often be a climate change denialist and a young earth creationist, and so on. The way is to change it. It is to change the thinking style of the person.
Helping them to understand more effectively, it is not as sexy as getting someone to not be a climate change denialist, but it is much more effective in the long-term to help that person understand what is credible evidence, where do you get your information, and so on, using curiosity.
That is the first part. How do we communicate with these people? Second, the PTP is the essence of critical thinking and media literacy. If we look at these behaviours, anyone who is checking this out can go to protruthpledge.org.
They can see the behaviours, what they’re like. The 12 behaviours that compose the PTP:
- Verify: fact-check information to confirm it is true before accepting and sharing it
- Balance: share the whole truth, even if some aspects do not support my opinion
- Cite: share my sources so that others can verify my information
- Clarify: distinguish between my opinion and the facts
- Acknowledge: acknowledge when others share true information, even when we disagree otherwise
- Reevaluate: reevaluate if my information is challenged, retract it if I cannot verify it
- Defend: defend others when they come under attack for sharing true information, even when we disagree otherwise
- Align: align my opinions and my actions with true information
- Fix: ask people to retract information that reliable sources have disproved even if they are my allies
- Educate: compassionately inform those around me to stop using unreliable sources even if these sources support my opinion
- Defer: recognize the opinions of experts as more likely to be accurate when the facts are disputed
- Celebrate: celebrate those who retract incorrect statements and update their beliefs toward the truth [Ed. This is from https://www.protruthpledge.org/.]
Now, a really effective tactic that people who are science-minded, who are analytical, have found is going to the website, taking the pledge themselves, and encouraging those in their lives who are not so analytical and science-minded to take the pledge as well.
Then they can talk about why these are helpful behaviours to follow, to not lose $3,500 [Laughing] every year and to not make these really bad decisions in relationships, health, and in their politics.
Using these network effects, the psychology of network effects, where you model the behaviour that you think other should show in a way that would benefit them if they show this behaviour.
Jacobsen: Does this relate to the work of Alberta Bandura with Social Cognitive Theory, with the Bobo Doll experiment?
Tsipursky: Tell me about the experiment, I am not sure I am familiar with it.
Jacobsen: If I remember right, he has a child, A. A sits in a room. The experimenter rolls in a television and plays a video. It is either an adult or a child. I forget which in the video with the adult or child beating up the doll in one condition, however much you can.
Then they roll the television out, like the ones we used to get as kids. The experimenter brings in that doll that was shown in the video. I believe the child there has a higher probability to do whatever was done in the video to the doll. It is the conveyance of violence.
Tsipursky: Yes, it is called the framing effects. Where you’re creating a framing from a previous recent context, you’re more likely to behave in a certain way. That is an aspect of what we’re talking about. More influential experiment in what is called network effects.
Where if you engage in pro-social behaviours or generally beneficial behaviours, others, around you, will as well. For example, if you quit smoking, there is a 67% chance of likelihood, according to research, that your spouse will quit smoking.
Jacobsen: That is high.
Tsipursky: There is something like a ~30% chance your close friend will quit smoking. That is the network effects, which I’m talking about. That is a powerful way to impact the social network. The same thing in terms of donations.
You will see websites: if you donate, your friends are 10% more likely to donate. It is network effects.
Jacobsen: So, it is the messaging and the modelling as the two big ones. When you went from Moldova to New York City to go to NYU for your undergraduate, did that worldly set cultures in one place expand your perspective and provide a means by which to view the parochial upbringing everyone has and give you a distance perspective on it?
In a way, it could facilitate critical thought about the peculiarities about one’s upbringing. Does being exposed to a lot of different kinds of people from different types of backgrounds with different kinds of belief help with critical thought?
Tsipursky: Yes, it certainly helps with critical thought. The observing of the diversity of perspectives. Many people who grow up in a single culture, a single cultural setting, don’t understand that there are other cultural settings that are valid. That is legitimate.
They feel very confused by observing those settings. I have often observed that with my students in college. People who come from a background where they never had exposure to people who are different than them, who live in a small town and then they go to college.
They see many other people who are very different but who are good people and who have morals that are fine. That don’t steal from them and beat them up because they don’t belong to the same religion or the same part of the country or something like that.
Or they don’t have the same skin colour. People become more tolerant of diversity and more introspective and understanding that different people, even if they’re different, does not mean that they are worse.
Jacobsen: The phrase is “anti-scientific.” But I suspect many people if given the proper tools they would agree with the scientific method. Maybe, it is non-scientific ideas. People with non-scientific ideas such as the ones mentioned before.
Those tend to come from conservative. For instance, Climate change becomes a liberal hoax. I believe according to Conservapedia. Evolution becomes some liberal college conspiracy.
The literal reading of the Book of Genesis in the Bible or counting the genealogies as Bishop James Ussher did, becomes the basis from which to state, “This is the age of the Earth.” It was a Thursday in the afternoon in 4,004BCE or something like this.
Somewhat with anti-vax things too. On the progressive-liberal side, there are anti-vaccine views or “anti-vaxxer” views as they’re called. There’s anti-GMOism based on select pickings of studies.
What are some other false beliefs that liberal-progressive types have akin to the ones traditionalist-conservative types have?
Tsipursky: The anti-vaxxers and the anti-GMOs are major ones. Another one is that George Bush was behind September 11th attack.
Tsipursky: So, there was a state conspiracy. These are the things that you tend to find.
The bigger principle is something that goes against their tribe. There is a certain sub-component of people on the Left who are very much woo-woo, spiritual, Mother Earth, Gaia. That’s where the anti-GMO and anti-vaxxer ideas come from.
Another related idea would be things like all-natural foods are better than “artificial” foods. There’s nothing inherently good about hemlock [Laughing].
Jacobsen: [Laughing] we can always ask Socrates.
Tsipursky: Yes, exactly.
Jacobsen: The joke there being: Socrates only asked questions.
Tsipursky: Yes, that is going to be another mythological thing. Another is organic things are better than non-organic foods.
Jacobsen: Not true.
Tsipursky: There are some organic foods that will be better. Most of them are going to be not better. For example, some foods, like strawberries, tend to absorb a lot of chemicals through their skin.
If you’re buying strawberries, you might consider buying organic things. Things like apples. You can wash it off. They are not going to absorb chemicals through their skin. It is better for your money to get regular apples.
Whereas, some people say, “You should only eat organic food.” There’s going to be a lot of those things with spiritual Mother Gaia woo-woo in liberal circles that will be quite harmful. You will also have a lot of problems where people do not pay attention to research on economics.
Things like minimum wage. Whereas, a lot of liberals tend to think all efforts to raise a minimum wage will be good for people. Whereas, in certain settings, the raising of the minimum wage will result in substantial job loss for people on the lower income scale.
So, it is actually going to be worse for them.
Tsipursky: So, you have to think about where are the diminishing returns on the raising of the minimum wage.
Jacobsen: One example that comes to mind. Or, at least, an example – for which I am having source amnesia – is raising the minimum wage for a cashier or clerk at McDonald’s in a province in Canada or a territory in Canada, or a state in the United States.
Then these cashiers, the business says, “Let’s get rid of them and replace them with machines to do their jobs because they’re cheaper and run 24/7.”
Tsipursky: Yes, at some point, it becomes more financially profitable for McDonald’s to replace cashiers with machines. At a certain point, it becomes, in the not too distant future, cheaper for truck companies to replace truck drivers with self-driving robots.
All of these are things that we need to think about when we are making economic policy that sounds like it is more economically just, or sounds more economically just, but will hurt the people we are trying help.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Tsipursky.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the Founder of In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal and In-Sight Publishing. He authored/co-authored some e-books, free or low-cost. If you want to contact Scott: Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.com.
Do not forget to look into our associates: Godless Mom, Nice Mangoes, Sandwalk, Brainstorm Podcast, Left at the Valley, Life, the Universe & Everything Else, The Reality Check, Bad Science Watch, British Columbia Humanist Association, Dying With Dignity Canada, Canadian Secular Alliance, and Centre for Inquiry Canada.
Image Credit: Dr. Gleb Tsipursky.