A Conversation with Kyle Polich

I have a love-hate relationship with conspiracy theories. I find it endlessly fascinating to explore the non-reality-based evidence used to support the nuanced, well-thought-out, but misdirected reasoning of the conspiratorial proponents … oh, who am I kidding? It is a full hate-hate relationship. But I have to admit that some conspiracy theories are clearly worse than others regarding their impact on individual believers as well as on society as a whole. There is definitely a wide spectrum. The kind that dupes people into avoiding vaccinations and other safe and effective health interventions are clearly among the worst. The one claiming Paul McCartney died, in the mid-1960s, and was replaced by a doppelganger is one of the less harmful types I can think of. (Except perhaps to the real Paul and the McCartney family, of course.) Somewhere in between these extremes are the claims of “Missing 411.”

So, what is Missing 411 all about? In short, the premise is that a huge number of people have gone missing in U.S. national parks and elsewhere, and these cases involve unusual, mysterious, and inexplicable circumstances. Interestingly, the criteria for being included in the list of Missing 411 “victims” includes some people who disappeared—but were later found, either dead or alive. This conspiracy theory is the invention of a single individual: Bigfoot proponent and author, and former police officer, David Paulides, who has published at least ten books and made three documentaries covering this topic over the past decade.

Missing 411 does not have a separate Wikipedia article, but it takes up a significant share of the author’s Wikipedia bio page and, along with his Bigfoot “contributions,” is the primary reason Paulides is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article in the first place. This is not to disparage Paulides; the bar for “Wikipedia notability” is quite high for a living person—at least for anyone outside vocations such as entertainment or sports. Just ask CSI’s chief investigator Kenny Biddle about this; his extensive, fact filled, perfectly constructed Wikipedia bio was written by the Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia team but deleted by the consensus of other Wikipedia editors—not just once, but twice. (On second thought, don’t remind Kenny about this!)

So why am I bringing up the Wikipedia coverage of Paulides and his conspiracy theory here? As readers of my column may know, I am a long-time member of the Guerrilla Skeptics team, and so all things Wikipedia interest me. I also happen to personally know Kyle Polich, the only data scientist (to my knowledge) who has evaluated and published about the Missing 411 claims. It turns out that his Missing 411 analysis is the only material provided by a data scientist that has been included on Paulides’s Wikipedia page. So, I could think of no one better than Polich to interview for my column to get to the bottom of this conspiracy theory.

Also, unknown to Polich prior to this interview, for many years he has been the lone personal target of Paulides fans’ rants against impartial editors in their behind-the-scenes Wikipedia arguments. One example from the David Paulides Talk page on July 17, 2022: “… why do you stand with low-life, phony sleuths [like Polich] and favor debunker rags like Skeptical Inquirer.” So, I thought it would be interesting to apprise him of some of those criticisms and get his hot take.

Because Polich has degrees in computer science and experience with AI, how could I miss the opportunity to also have a short discussion about the capabilities of the newly ubiquitous Chat GPT? In one of my tests of this software tool, it produced a list of articles it claimed I wrote for Skeptical Inquirer. All had very plausible, reasonable skeptical titles, but the problem is that none of those articles were mine. Perhaps it goofed and someone else with the same name had authored the set? I Googled the article names and determined that none existed at all! So, will I eventually write these articles? Does Chat GPT have precognition, or does it just make stuff up that sounds very convincing?

Please enjoy my conversation with the Data Skeptic Kyle Polich, in which we discuss all of this!

Видео A Conversation with Kyle Polich канала Center for Inquiry