A little while back I read the following by Chris Mooney, a post about what he considered to be a good example of science communication. My friend Michael McRae responded with his own post – Encouraging Scientists To Speak For Science.
I’m intrigued by these kinds of discussions, as over the past year I have met more and more people who are working on the effectiveness of communication, enough to encourage me to consider formal study. There’s the Token Skeptic podcast interviews I’ve done – such as the discussion between a skeptic and a science communicator, there’s been the ‘Placebo Protest’ interview with Desiree Schell too, along with interviews I’ve conducted with Hungry Beast’s Daniel Keogh and President of the Australian Science Communicators, Dr Jesse Shore and even Dr Pamela Gay about science and faith.
I guess everyone ends up talking about it in one way or another – even the Digital Cuttlefish has weighed in: “The Digital Cuttlefish: Don’t Be Dick. Or Stan”!
Michael McRae’s new blog ‘Tribal Scientist‘ is regularly updated with essays and after helping him edit his forthcoming book, I think that Michael’s efforts to get his ideas out online has been getting him some well-deserved attention for his skills!
Yesterday, Daniel Loxton posted a blog entry about “The War Over ‘Nice’” – within the comments, Michael wrote his own summation and he’s kindly given me permission to repost it here:
Being a dick: Yes, it’s subjective and ‘I know it when I see it’. One person’s dick is another’s freedom fighter. So, to move past pedantry, we’ll give a simple, objective definition. Being a dick means communicating in a fashion that attempts to motivate another through emotions intended to make them feel negative about their position. Obviously there will always be situations where any form of criticism will be viewed as dickish, whether through inappropriate framing, context or just bad timing. Sometimes any form of contrary opinions will make some people feel bad and seem ‘dickish’. Ce la vie. There is always a risk of that. However, while that might not be helped, intentional emotional manipulation can be. Simply put, wanting to change minds – whether theirs or a bystander’s – by making somebody feel bad is for communication purposes ‘being a dick’.
Rationalists sing the praises of using logic and reason to make decisions, and lament how society often fails in this regard. What is astonishing are those who then feel a remedy to this deficit is to then use emotional manipulation to change minds, believing it will promote good thinking.
Rather than promote good thinking, it’s promoting a conclusion they feel all should share and using emotions to drive it home. It’s no different to how religion works – forgo the process of forming a conclusion in order to provide one already made. People like PZ seem to take immense pride in this form of communication, and his comment above serves as good evidence of this. Entertaining, sure, but in the end there’s no evidence that it’s done anything more than make atheists feel smug about themselves.
Research into aggressive communication shows it does seem to have a positive effect if you already share the same values as those dishing out the ridicule. It reduces the desire to discuss, removes black sheep from the social group and consolidates the group’s values. Hence it seems to do a great job to those on the inside. And if this is the purpose of the outreach, then no argument. Pat yourself on the back and have a beer as a reward. As such, it can be used successfully to bully people in a position of authority or influence to act in accordance with your beliefs.
Yet when it comes to the outreach and promotion of critical thinking, aggressive language is not only ineffective, it is inhibitory and polarises the existing values to make people only less inclined to want to examine their position. Hence by being a dick, it makes it harder for others to communicate the values you so dearly wish the rest of society would hold.
The quick-fire response of the likes of PZ and Dawkins is to claim they’re not trying to reach those who hold ridiculous beliefs, but those on the sidelines. And they have plenty of anecdotal evidence to say this works. Of course. Unfortunately the research doesn’t really back them up on this. While there are always going to be the outliers, most people view arguments presented in this fashion as lacking in substance. So the few handshakes they get is overshadowed by the invisible numbers of those who shake their head and walk away. Sounds a little like how alternative medicine works.
Now, it’s possible there are some loopholes here, as there is little research specific to grassroots skepticism, in this specific regard. I find it unlikely that we could have special pleading for skeptical outreach, as I don’t see it having novel variables, but I’d be ecstatic if there was a field of research to engage in. There isn’t. Instead there are anecdotes, post-hoc generalisations and a lot of wishful thinking.
Once again, thanks to Loxton for in the very least realising that communication deserves research to support its claims like any other field. The fact there is discussion is promising that maybe skeptics will do more than just hope they’re being effective, but will put their research money where their mouth is.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Thank you for saying this.
I am new to skepticism, just discovered it among the blog sites recently. My first thought, “At last, people who think like me!” As I read and listened more, I wasn’t so sure. The agressive attitudes and put downs made and make me hesitant to post or participate. Also there is the, “…and what is your Phd in?”, elitist attitude. The sexism is something I don’t like get into except to say at least some male skeptics are trying to clean this up. Unfortunately, the worst example of sexism I’ve seen came from a women.
I view myself as a skeptic and would like to think there is a place for me in the movement. That still remains to be seen. I will follow the Tribal Scientist for a time and see how thing develope.
@Celia Jane: There is a place for you in the movement, don’t worry. It takes all kinds. When I first found this here skepticism thang, I had one of my first run-ins with a rude, arrogant twit. He attacked me for admitting that I had previously believed in Astrology, even though I had made it clear that I no longer believed in it. He made me feel unwelcome and ashamed of speaking up. Fortunately, other people on that message board jumped to my defense. Shortly after that, I attended a talk by none other than Phil Plait himself, who, when I spoke to him after the talk, embraced me and made me feel welcome. He told me to come to TAM and assured me that while some (very vocal) people on message boards were jerks, most skeptics he met in person were very nice people. When I went to TAM, I found out he was right. After all, I met the Tribal Scientist there, and now he’s my husband! If you’re going to follow his blog, follow mine too! Also, if you haven’t already, check out SheThought.com, they’re a very inclusive bunch of bloggers and they’re definitely on the nicer end of the spectrum.
You must log in to post a comment.