As I noted in my last post, the study I’ll be discussing was grossly misreported, starting with its press release. Since the study itself appears to be behind a pay wall for most people, I’ll describe as much detail as I can in a blog post as I discuss the study’s validity and findings of the study, published in the Journal of Social Psychological and Personality Science and titled “My Brother’s Keeper? Compassion Predicts Generosity More Among Less Religious Individuals”.

But for those who are not at all interested in the research methods or a breakdown of why I rate the quality of the study the way I do, I will give you the the bottom line so you can skip the rest or only read the sections that interest you (I’ve used headings to make it easier).

Summary

I think that the findings will hold up to replication, despite some issues I have with the way they did a few things. Overall, the research quality is quite high.

The groups they compared did not include atheists, agnostics, believers, non-believers, highly religious, or any other label that you can throw at it. In the studies they used raw religiosity scores and made some comparisons of “higher” and “lower” using values from the distribution. In a sense, the compared those who scored in the lower half of the sample to those who scored in the upper half.

They found:

• Differences in prosocial behavior cannot be dismissed as due to political affiliation, socio-economic status, or other factors often held up as responsible.
• Religiosity is correlated with trait compassion; the more religious, the more compassionate.
• Trait compassion is related to prosocial behavior in general. This relationship is stronger in the less religious than in the more religious. This does not mean that the less religious are more compassionate (see number 1) or that the less religious are more prosocial. It just means that compassion is a bigger factor in prosocial behavior in the less religious.
• The findings of the first study can be interpreted one way that isn’t discussed in the paper: when the relationship between compassion and religiosity is accounted for, the more religious are not more prosocial than the less religious.
• The findings in the second study, which involved inducing feelings of compassion, were similar for generosity, except that the more religious were more prosocial even after accounting for compassion.
• The findings of the second study also included a different pattern when the prosocial behavior was giving to charity. Compassion induced more giving, but the effect was weak and did not differ much across religiosity. Religiosity had a significant affect on charity. This can be explained by the guidelines provided by many churches for how much of one’s salary one should give.
• In the third study, in which state compassion (how compassionate the individual felt at that time) was measured and the prosocial behavior measure involved real-world cash, religiosity was not related to either compassion or prosocial behavior.
• In the third study, state compassion was positively correlated with prosocial behavior, but the effect was greater in the less religious than in the more religious.

What the findings as a whole say to me, and what I believe the press report tried, but failed, to express, at least with convincing support: We do not need religion to be prosocial. We need compassion.

This is great news for secularists.

However, it doesn’t say anything negative about religion or the religious, nor does it provide anything that should make atheists feel superior. It just shows that one can be good without God; that motivations can come from other sources.

Now on to the details…

NOTE: to keep this as short as possible, I’ve included a lot of links to terms and demonstrations. Where I describe problems in more detail I still water-down quite a bit. I will do my best to make it understandable without rambling on and on, but keep in mind that it takes many years to learn enough about research design and statistics to understand why some of these are problematic. Furthermore, not all researchers will agree on the consequences of some of these problems. I am still learning this stuff myself (probably always will be learning).

The Study (description)

The article reports three studies, each related to the relationship between compassion and prosocial behavior in less-religious individuals. I have created graphs using the information in the paper, but in some cases I did not have exact numbers, so while the relationships are visually accurate, there are only values where I could use exact numbers.

Theoretical Foundation

The introduction discusses research which documents that religiosity is associated with prosocial behavior. Specifically, religious people give more and volunteer more than nonreligious people, over and above what they give to and do for religious organizations. The researchers note that the nonreligious do give; when we compare groups, we do so using averages. However, it may be that the motivations for prosocial behavior vary in a way that interacts with religiosity. In other words, the more religious among us may be motivated to prosocial behavior by one set of factors and the less motivated by another.

The researchers hypothesized that compassion is a more influential factor in prosocial behavior for the less religious than for the more religious among us.

Study 1

The first study examined the relationships among religiosity and traits of compassion and prosocial tendencies. What this basically means is that situational factors were not involved; traits are a matter of personality or attitude. For example, “trait anxiety” refers to how anxious a person is in general, while “state anxiety” refers to how anxious that same individual feels in a given situation.

This study involved analyzing data from a 2004 “survey”. I put that term in quotes because it usually refers to a set of questions that do not measure more than what is apparent at face value. Established measures of latent variables (variables which cannot be measured directly such as feelings and attitudes) are usually called an “inventory” or “scale” and we refer to them loosely as “measures”. In this case, the survey involved such measures and I want to make that clear.

The sample was comprised of 1337 participants and covariates (variables other than those of interest which could explain differences among the groups) of gender, political orientation, and education were included in the analysis. The variables of interest were religiosity, compassion, and prosocial behavior. Religious identity (identification with a specific religion or no religion) was also considered.

Results

Correlations

• Covariates had little impact on the results.
• Trait compassion was positively correlated with religiosity* and prosocial behavior. On average, the more compassionate the individual, the more religious they were and the more the more prosocial they were.
• The relationship between religiosity and prosocial behavior was marginally significant (statistically).

Hypothesis Test (See Figure 1)

Figure 1: Study 1 results. "Higher" and "lower" are defined here as 1 SD from the mean.

• A regression analysis revealed an interaction of religiosity and compassion on prosocial behavior. What this means: The effect of compassion on prosocial behavior differed among levels of religiosity.
• More specifically, the level of trait compassion affected prosocial behavior less as religiosity increased.
• There was also a main effect of compassion, but that was apparent in the correlational analysis.
• There was no main effect of religiosity on prosocial behavior. This is interesting, because they found a marginally significant correlation, but it does not mean the there are no difference in prosocial behavior. I would interpret these findings, when put together, as suggestive of little or no difference between the more religious and the less religious in prosocial behavior over and above the differences accounted for by compassion.

The authors discuss the findings a little differently, though, focusing on the differences in the way that compassion affected prosocial behavior (the interaction in the first hypothesis test result) and ignoring the way that the effect of religiosity disappeared when compassion was entered into the equation. It seems more interesting to me to treat compassion as the moderator. It also makes more sense in the end.

Study 2

This study was experimental in that the researchers manipulated state compassion. In other words, they induced feelings of compassion in half of the participants and compared the amount of prosocial behavior those participants engaged in to the amount of such behavior in a control condition.

The sample included 101 participants and the study was conducted online, so the age range was exceptional (from 18 to 68 years). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions and each watched a short video under the guise that there would be a test of memory afterward.  The videos were established manipulations of feelings of compassion and neutral emotion (i.e., other researchers tested their effectiveness). Following the video, participants completed two tasks which are well-established measures of prosocial behavior commonly used in such research.

Results

• Again, covariates had little impact on the results.

Hypothesis Tests (See Figure 2)

Figure 3: Results of Study 3. Values are relative.

There were two tests since the participants completed to different prosocial tasks, one involving generosity and the other involving charity.

For the generosity task:

• This time there were a main effects of both religiosity and compassion on prosocial behavior. The more religious, the more prosocial. Those who watched the compassion-inducing video were the more prosocial on average than those who watched the neutral video.
• The interaction appeared again in the manner as in Study 1.

For the charity task:

• There were main effects of both religiosity and compassion on prosocial behavior.
• There was no interaction.

This is where they screw up, in my opinion.

The pattern of the moderation was in the predicted direction but failed to reach statistical significance.

This is not an acceptable statement unless the findings are marginal. This was not. The p-value was .408. This is not even close to meaningful. Still, they went ahead with the analysis of the interaction and reported an effect of compassion on charity for the less religious participants and no effect for the more religious.  The problem is that post-hoc analysis like this assumes that a significant interaction was observed. Their tests inflated alpha (the probability of a Type I Error) and can only mislead. They stated that they had found “partial support” for their hypothesis, but they did not in this case.

The relationships in the generosity task are very clear when we look at a Figure 2. The interaction is the interesting finding. Compassion had little effect on the more religious, but a very large effect on the less religious, who gave practically nothing when compassion was not induced. There is no analysis to tell us if the less religious surpassed the religious by a statistically significant amount when compassion was induced, but they were clearly out done by the more religious when not made to feel compassion.

The charity task showed no such interaction and the authors did not include a graph of this effect that I could recreate, nor did they provide the information to make one.

Study 3

For this study, the sample of 120 completed a state compassion inventory (a measure of their feelings of general compassion at the moment) and a series of “economic tasks designed to measure their generosity, trust, trustworthiness, and motivation to reward others’ generosity.” What differed in this study, however, was that the ‘points’ they earned in these tasks could be exchanged for cash at the end of the study. Participants did not know how much cash, but they knew that the more points they earned, the more cash they would receive.

Results

Hypothesis Tests (See Figure 3)

The findings of this study were very different from the other two.

• State compassion was not related to religiosity.
• Religiosity was not related to prosocial behavior.
• There was an interaction of religiosity and compassion on prosocial behavior. The amount of compassion felt had more of an effect on the behavior the less religious than it did on the more religious.

The graph of these findings, a reproduction of their graph since they did not provide information to create one that would make more sense (to me anyway), is a bit misleading. The values are z-scores, so they are relative to one another and not actual values. What is interesting, though is how little the prosocial score varied in the more religious group and how that line barely dips below the mean value (represented by 0).

There is also a problem with the press release in that it makes the claim that the high state compassion/less religious group out-performed the others. There is no statistical analysis comparing the groups in that way, so this is a misstatement. We do not know if less religious individuals are more generous than more religious when motivated to act prosocially. We just know that they are more generous when motivated by compassion than when compassion is low.

The Study Overall

As I noted, my opinion of the studies as a whole is relatively high, but I do have some major criticisms. Some of the language makes me cringe (e.g., results are the product of statistical tests, so “We tested our results”…), but I have seen more and more of this as scientific reports in general have grown sloppier.  Study design and method is much more important, as is the quality of the reporting beyond language.

The authors also throw around the term “robust”, claiming in the first study that the relationship between compassion and prosocial behavior is “particularly robust” for less religious individuals. That term refers to findings which are “sturdy” and will stand up when some supports are removed – effects which appear to hold up in different situations. Since this was one analysis of one data set, that term just doesn’t work. It does not fit in any of their uses of it.

In fact, they err in Study 2 by saying that the effect was “attenuated” for the more religious. That term is relative; attenuated compared to what? The effect was not “robust” in one condition and “attenuated” in another; they can only be compared to each other. The effect was greater in the less religious than the more religious.

Missing Information

There are a number of bits of information which are considered to be, at minimum, required for a good research report. A general rule of thumb for methods and results sections is to include enough (without being redundant) information to allow other researchers to replicate (in a strict sense) the study and to confirm that the statistical findings are properly interpreted.

I am not sure that this article meets that criterion. The methods are pretty well fleshed out and the paper is full of statistics, but some descriptive statistics are missing that I would have liked to have seen (e.g., means reported overall for measures, but not by group) and there was not enough of the right information to recreate them.

Grouping the Data and Errors of Generalization

One overall criticism which warrants discussion is in the grouping of data. There are some problems with this and they are related. The sensitivity of the religiosity measure is one problem that, by itself, is not a big target for criticism. Combined with the second problem of grouping participants, though, it becomes more serious.

The practice of comparing groups of people based on a variable which is distributed on a spectrum is a common one. The question the researcher wants to answer is important in deciding whether to group and, in this case, I do not disagree with that choice, but I question how they grouped and how it was communicated. If the data are clustered (the distribution is multi-modal), grouping is simplified, but if the data are distributed more loosely, it can be tricky and dangerous.

First, the researcher loses information, therefore they lose sensitivity and usually lose power. The sensitivity problem is relevant in the first study, but mostly because it makes the findings difficult to interpret.

Second, if the way that the grouping is communicated is not consistent and clear, it is likely to be misinterpreted, compounding any existing problems with the method. I discussed this problem in my last post. Most of the reports referred to the groups compared as “highly religious” verses “atheists and agnostics” or something like that. However, where are all of the people in the middle (i.e., most likely the bulk of the sample)?  Within each group there was variation in religiosity and comparisons are made using averages. Generalizing only works when the samples are representative of the population of interest and this applies in either direction of the generalization (i.e., specific to mixed or mixed to specific).

Third, researchers must decide where to draw the lines between high and low (and anything in between). Since the majority of variables in psychology are normal distributed (therefore symmetrical), the lines are usually drawn using rankings of sample values and the most common way to split a sample in half is to put all values above the median into “higher” and those below into “lower” (called a “median split”). However, ease is not a good reason to use this technique.   Here is an interesting demonstration of the dangers of dichotomizing normally-distributed variables.

But… religiosity is not usually distributed normally; it’s usually skewed. Skew means that it’s not symmetrical, so a median-split would make even less sense.

In this case, it seems that the authors tried to have the best of both worlds by treating religiosity as a continuous variable, but doing post-hoc analysis on it, discussing it, and graphing it as if it were dichotomous, choosing values which were one standard deviation from the mean in both directions as the central tendencies of each group. The biggest problem with this is the assumption of normality. If the variable is not normally-distributed (and I suspect that it is not), this grouping is a bit tough to swallow.

When this problem is mixed with a limited range as it is in the first study (the religiosity scale only had four points), it’s a problem. The four possible values were 1 = no religion, 2 = not very strong (religious identity), 3 = somewhat strong, and 4 = strong. Since the mean was 2.99, the bulk of the sample were fairly religious. one standard deviation (1.03) below the mean is not exactly in non-believerland and one above is off the scale (literally). It is just very difficult to see where “higher” leaves off and “lower” takes over.

Although the range is adequate in the other two studies, the problem of discussing groups which do not actually exist and have fuzzy definitions remains. In my opinion that is one of the reasons it was so misreported.

But, overall, the research is of a relatively high quality and interesting. I would like to see more variation in the prosocial tasks, given that the outcome of the charity task was so different from the tasks of generosity.

It seems that the less religious are at least as generous as the more religious, but their reasons for acting prosocially differ. I would like to see the day when, as a group, we are generous and prosocial consistently, without the need to be provoked and without needing to feel an emotional connection to the receiver.

Saslow, L., Willer, R., Feinberg, M., Piff, P., Clark, K., Keltner, D., & Saturn, S. (2012). My Brother’s Keeper? Compassion Predicts Generosity More Among Less Religious Individuals Social Psychological and Personality Science DOI: 10.1177/1948550612444137

Related posts:

1. Science and Spin Are Very Bad Bedfellows
2. There is No Debate Over Evolution
3. Is that a fallacy in your pocket or can you cite some sources? A response to Women and Feminism at TAM8

A press release by UC Berkeley about a study that was recently published on the relationships among religiosity, compassion, and prosocial behavior has been making the rounds over the last couple of days, waved by proud atheists as evidence of superiority and bashed by the more skeptical as bad science (even though most haven’t appeared to have read the study). The latter has been exacerbated by the fact that the majority of reports include very big mistakes.

I’m going to analyze the study, but I will post that separately since it is likely to be long and I also want to discuss the incredible mess of BS this has become. In that post I will also discuss the reasons some of the errors that seem minor here are actually quite serious.

I blame the press release. Unfortunately, as the culture of higher education becomes more consumer-oriented, strapped-for-cash universities must market themselves strategically, and scientists are forced to compete for funding, the integrity of science is diminished. I don’t know if the study’s authors were involved, but my guess is that the press release’s author is mostly responsible for spinning the findings, omitting important parts of the findings, and cherry-picking statements by the scientists to make it appear that their speculative explanations for those findings are solid conclusions. I think that spin, along with the fact that the findings involve an interaction (a notoriously difficult concept to grasp due to its non-linear nature), confused science writers, many of whom are not in the practice of reading studies and many of whom added their own spin to the mix.

The study, published in the Journal of Social Psychological and Personality Science, is titled “My Brother’s Keeper? Compassion Predicts Generosity More Among Less Religious Individuals”.  The first error of the press release was made in its title: “Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers” by incorrectly describing the subjects of the study. It also errs in a few minor ways (e.g., describing the study as “three experiments” when one only one was experimental, one was analysis of existing data, and one was quasi experimental), but the biggest problems are practically criminal in the science world. The author correctly (with the exception of the description of the subjects) reported that the relationship between compassion and prosocial behavior was stronger among less religious participants than more religious participants, but omitted the findings which clearly showed that the more religious participants were, in general, more compassionate and generous overall.

When sloppy reporting took over, the result was an utter mess.

On the one hand, the authors claim in their introduction to be interested in what motivates less religious people to act prosocially, so perhaps the spin was the plan all along. However, if they were not interested in religiosity as a variable – if they were not interested in comparing the more religious to the less religious, then they should not have limited their study to the population of interest.

Something I found interesting is that the third paragraph of the press release makes a statement which should have sent red flags up because there was no follow-up that made sense. It started with:

The results challenge a widespread assumption that acts of generosity and charity are largely driven by feelings of empathy and compassion, researchers said.

And yet the rest of the piece focused on the fact that empathy and compassion DID drive generosity and charity in less religious participants, even if it repeatedly incorrectly referred to those participants as “non-believers”. If the author had included the findings that more religious participants were more generous, this would have made sense.

The author errs again with this circular definition of “compassion”, conflating the dictionary definitions of “compassion” and “prosocial behavior” with an effect:

Compassion is defined in the study as an emotion felt when people see the suffering of others which then motivates them to help, often at a personal risk or cost.

Compassion cannot be defined in a study as an emotion felt by someone. That’s a variable we can’t measure directly. In a study, we use operational definitions. In this case, compassion was defined differently in each of the three studies within the article.

The author continues the spin with statements such as (bold mine):

When they looked into how much compassion motivated participants to be charitable in such ways as giving money or food to a homeless person, non-believers and those who rated low in religiosity came out ahead: “These findings indicate that although compassion is associated with pro-sociality among both less religious and more religious individuals, this relationship is particularly robust for less religious individuals,” the study found.

What the bold suggests is that participants who fell into the “low religiosity” category were more prosocial and/or more compassionate. That’s not what the finding means. What was greater was simply the relationship between compassion and prosocial behavior. Because the “high religiosity” participants were more compassionate, they were also more prosocial overall (marginal significance – see discussion below).

Finally, this statement is grossly misleading:

Those who scored low on the religiosity scale, and high on momentary compassion, were more inclined to share their winnings with strangers than other participants in the study.

What participants do in a study is really not interesting. What their behavior tells us about how people behave in the world is. Because there was no statistical analysis comparing the “low-religiosity/high-momentary compassion” group to the other groups, this finding does not allow us to infer anything about the population of interest. You and I could complete a game of Scrabble with a final score of 102 to 103 (respectively), but I would not brag to my friends that I am the better Scrabble player.

Most reports of the study either posted the press release as-is or quoted large chunks of it. Headlines ranged from the simple and correct, if misleading, “Compassion may motivate faithful less” to the still incorrect, but closer “Confirmed: Atheists more motivated by compassion in charitable giving than believers are” to the blatantly incorrect statement suggested by, “Are Religious People Less Compassionate?”

Almost none of the reports describe the samples correctly. The samples were broken into two groups based on measured religiosity, a common practice in social psychology. Thus, there was a range of values and those who scored in the top half were considered “more religious” and the bottom half ”less religious”. The “less religious” group cannot be described as “athiests”, ”agnostics”, ”non-believers”, or even “people low in religiosity”. The “more religious” group cannot be described as “highly religious”, either.

One site that I usually find more accurate contained a much more serious error than an incorrect sample description. It reported a finding not found in the press release that is actually the opposite of what was reported in the study:

Two other experiments also confirmed that more religious participants seemed to be less generous.

They should have stuck to quotes of the press release.

The worst by far, though was on a site called “PsychCentral“. The first paragraph reads:

A provocative new study from the University of California, Berkeley suggests highly religious individuals are less likely to help a stranger than less religious people.

Um. No. That’s not what the study suggests. At all.

and this a few paragraphs down:

Experts say the results challenge a widespread assumption that acts of generosity and charity are largely driven by feelings of empathy and compassion.

Why they added “experts say” to this is a mystery because it’s basically a lie, but this statement is particularly baffling when you consider that the progression of statements: 1) nonreligious are more generous 2) nonreligious are more motivated by compassion to be generous 3) results challenge the assumption that generosity is driven by compassion. On what planet does that make sense?

I’d lament that people don’t actually read, but the worst part is that someone actually wrote this. Sure, it’s mostly quotes and they made stuff up, but they changed some words and moved things around, so they had to pay attention to something.

A friend shared one decent report; it did not seem that the author read the journal article, but at least he read one report (on livescience.com) that is almost a duplication of the press release and put some thought into it. He noted that the findings reported an interaction – that generosity was more related to compassion among the less religious than it was among the more religious – and questioned who was more generous overall. If the press released had not omitted those findings, he would have had an answer, or at least a theoretically-likely hypothesis. Still, he did a little bit of research on his own and noted some well-known findings that the religious tend to give more to secular charities than atheists.

Finally, the press release included a few statements by the authors which were highly speculative. It is standard for authors to discuss possible explanations for their findings, but they are often presented to the public as conclusions the authors reached. In this case as in many others, reports of the study often imply that these things are findings when the study did not examine them at all. For example, the last paragraph of the press release is:

“Overall, this research suggests that although less religious people tend to be less trusted in the U.S., when feeling compassionate, they may actually be more inclined to help their fellow citizens than more religious people,” Willer said.

The rawstory.com report ended the same way, except they changed the last word to “concluded”. This statement serves as a hypothesis for another study, but it is not a finding of the study and cannot provide a conclusion.

I have heard a lot of explanations of what motivates more religious people, but most have been based on personal beliefs or experiences – duty to God, moral obligation, sense of community, etc.  This question may have been answered and looking to other studies might yield something, but this study does not address it – it did not set out to address that question.

A full analysis of the journal article will follow in a separate post later today.

UPDATE: Analysis can be found here.
ANOTHER UPDATE: The award for the most botched report now goes to MSN for this doosey.

Related posts:

1. Are Atheists More Compassionate or Prosocial Than Highly Religious People?

Matt engages the audience. Photo by Dean Baird (minor retouching and cropping by me)

Matt recapped the most important concepts from his piece last year and presented more of his fun and interesting demonstrations. I used to think that cognitive psychologists had all of the fun because we study the interesting ways that our brains and minds fool us and can blow those minds by showing them. However, after some thought I realized that the physics teachers I know have the coolest, scariest, ickiest, and most surprising demonstrations. They deal with the physical world and there are almost as many bizarre things in the physical world as there are in the mind.

No, I do not remember what I was saying when I made this face. Photo by Dean Baird (minor retouching and cropping by me)

I was a bit nervous about this workshop because some of the material I presented is very different from my usual “Oew” and “Ah” and “aHA!” stuff. In addition, its connection to promoting skepticism is distant, at least on the surface. The title of my presentation was Deep Thoughts: Facilitating Critical Thinking at All Ages. In teaching critical thinking, the age of the student is extremely important in determining methods and focus. For adults, the biggest roadblock to critical thinking is overconfidence. This is just a nice way of saying “arrogance” or “closed-mindedness”. The irony is that we humans are so overconfident that we think the term applies to other people and not ourselves.

For young children, there are few roadblocks. What we should focus on is guiding cognitive development in a way that minimizes overconfidence. In my opinion, the best way to do this is to encourage the practice of consideration and deep thinking. This, I suggest, is accomplished through discussion of philosophical questions.

I have yet to read a review of the workshop. However, the immediate feedback I received was very positive and I heard my words flowing from the mouths of others all weekend, including on the stage. It is entirely possible that others have been thinking about the same issues, but I choose to take it as evidence that my ideas were discussed and found worthy of some consideration.

A Short TAM9 Review

Unfortunately, I was still tweaking my workshop presentation and was unable to attend the other workshops. I caught only some of the activism workshop – the one I needed the most – but luckily there is a wonderful manual available which was produced by Desiree Schell and Maria Walters. Last year’s reception, which kicks off the official meeting on Thursday night, featured music and live interviews. This seemed to defeat the ‘meet and greet’ purpose of most attendees. The reception this year returned to the usual format of conversation, but there were so many people that it was difficult to find anyone. Friday morning JREF president D.J. Grothe announced the final headcount. Attendees, organizers, and presenters at TAM9 From Outer Space totaled 1652, approximately 300 more people than last year, which was 200 more than the year before.

In general, the long list of speakers booked for this year included the most inspiring scientists and science communicators in the skeptical community. The original keynote speaker, Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, is a personal hero of mine. His talk repeated much of what he covered in his very long and satisfying TAM6 talk, but I never tire of the material or his presentation style. Unfortunately, the other keynote speech, delivered by Richard Dawkins, was as boring (to me, anyway) as Tyson’s was entertaining. I have never found Dawkins to be a dynamic speaker, but this was particularly snore-worthy. He chose to spend much of his time describing his soon-to-be-released children’s book rather than discussing anything of note. Likewise, I find PZ Myers’ style a little bit dull, but I usually enjoy his talks simply because he chooses to talk about some of the most interesting topics. This year is no exception. His was one of the few talks that I missed, but I am looking forward to his discussion of alien anatomy when the JREF posts video of his talk (they committed to making all of the content available online).

Every other talk (not including the Sunday Paper Session, which varied in quality) was fantastic.

Some of the highlights for me:

• Carol Tavris delivered a speech about reducing cognitive dissonance by first considering the target’s vantage point (i.e., empathy). This was probably the best speech I have ever heard, and I have heard a LOT of speeches and talks.


Dylan Keenberg, Sabrina Gibson, and me Photo by Daniel Loxton (minor touch-ups and adjustments by me)

• Dylan Keenberg, a former student and collaborator of mine, delivered a wonderful Sunday talk describing one method for talking to others (Rogerian argumentation) which is highly likely to reduce both cognitive dissonance and misunderstandings. The most important aspect of this method is, once again, empathy. In order to more than simply fake empathy, though, one must be open to the possibility that one’s current understanding is wrong. My informal polling of TAM9 speakers and other community leaders tells me that I am justified in feeling extremely proud.
  
  

  Dylan Keenberg and Daniel Loxton Photo by Sabrina Gibson (minor touch-ups and cropping by me)

  Daniel Loxton’s discussion of these two talks (Tavris’s and Keenberg’s) as well as the two which specifically addressed activism (one by JREF Communications Sadie Crabtree and the other by union organizer and radio host Desiree Schell) is much more thoughtful, thorough, and interesting than what I could write at the moment.

• Daniel also wrote about the panel to discuss diversity. In a nutshell, the discussion was quite a mess for the first half, but the more they discussed the more each clarified, and in some cases, changed their views until they settled on a middle ground that I think all could embrace. Essentially, they agreed that applying skepticism to a more diverse set of problems/questions/domains would result in a more diverse community without compromising the integrity of skepticism as a movement. Political, moral, and social ideology are ‘outside the scope’ of skepticism because they remove objectivity. In addition, untestable claims (e.g., “Does God exist?”) are off-limits because they cannot be addressed scientifically.

  I am always thrilled to hear D.J. speak about such things from a stage because he tends to be clear, firm, and directly on-message. Last year, for example, he made a point of asking nearly every speaker to clearly define the scope of their organization and each answered with some form of “scientific skepticism”. This year, he elaborated on this by noting that he strives for a diversity of religious views.

  However, I did not leave TAM9 with the optimism that Daniel Loxton left with. One reason for this was that D.J. made those statements while discussing “Diversity in Skepticism” with Debbie Goddard, Greta Christina, Jamila Bey, and Hemant Mehta. Debbie Goddard is the campus outreach director for CFI, a secular organization with a branch devoted to skepticism (CSI). The panel’s moderator, Desiree Schell, is firmly rooted in the skeptical community as the host of Skeptically Speaking and an occasional blogger on Skeptic North. The other three panelists are closely identified with atheism and, in my opinion, have contributed little, if anything, to skepticism itself. I kept wondering who this “we” was in the discussion (e.g., “We could offer…”).

  The conflation of atheism and skepticism is a very serious problem with dire consequences. The most important of these is the degradation of the integrity of skepticism itself. The scientific method only works when scientists are open to interpreting any result objectively – to consider all evidence with an open mind and to hold all conclusions tentatively. The conclusion that there is no God cannot be arrived at empirically, so it cannot be “the result of properly-applied skepticism” as some claim. I am very worried about this trend to conflate these two for several reasons, including the manner in which the majority of atheists talk to and about the faithful.

• Bill Nye’s talk was condensed from the longer talk he gave at the Skeptic Society’s Science Symposium last month. In his position as the executive director of The Planetary Society he is concerned with science education and the consequences of failing in this area. For this reason, he is another hero to me.
• The panel discussion of the future of space exploration was almost as lively as the diversity panel would be two days later. Most notably, Neil deGrasse Tyson’s verbal sparring with Lawrence Krauss left Bill Nye and moderator Phil Plait with little room to get a word in. However, Pamela Gay managed to do so by literally shushing Tyson – three times! For that, if not for the plea during her solo talk for all in the audience to be activists for education, made her another hero. Phil’s talk last year still rings in my years, so the odd man out on that panel – Lawrence Krauss – was the only one on the stage that I would not walk a few miles, breaking a path in the snow, to hear speak.
• Speaking of heroes, there were two announcements at TAM9 which deserve to be noted. One was that The Richard Dawkins Foundation has committed to fund child care at meetings and conferences like TAM. The other involves everyone’s hero, Genie Scott. At the end of a talk in which she described the parallels between evolution denial and AGW denial (described and discussed in a great post by Donald Prothero), she announced that the NCSE is beginning an initiative to fight climate change denial in public education.
• Finally, two Jennifers, Jennifer Michael Hecht and Jennifer Ouellette, merged poetry and popular culture with skepticism and science, respectively, in the most uplifting and inspiring ways. Hecht condensed a normally hour-long history of doubt into half an hour by speaking quickly, but this only enhanced the talk. Jennifer held a cultural mirror up to science and space exploration, showing clips and images from A Trip to the Moon to Doctor Who and beyond. These were as, if not more, intellectually fulfilling as the talks given by the psychologists (okay, I’m biased) and neurologists (Elizabeth Loftus, Richard Wiseman, Susana Martinez-Conde, and Stephen Macknik all spoke). Wiseman even introduced me to a new favorite ‘suggested lyrics’ video, so I think that I will leave you with that.

Related posts:

1. Reaching Out and Geeking Out
2. The Amazing Meeting 8: Skepticism 2.1 (reboot)
3. There is No Debate Over Evolution

I was hoping to kick-start this blog with a highly critical review (AKA, rant) about the BS spouted by two members of a panel at the World Atheist Convention. The four-person panel all made reasoning errors, the severity of which ranged from ‘not even notable or worthy of criticism’ (Rebecca Watson) all the way to ‘so ironic, hypocritical, and irrational that I can see why atheists are so hated’ (AronRa). I may still get to this at some point, but I have been sidetracked by something else and I am highly motivated to write about it instead.

So here I am, about to do something that may shock a few people who have read my criticisms of her in the past. I am about to stand beside Rebecca Watson.

While reading James Croft’s review of the CFI Student Leadership Conference, mostly to find out how the agenda, which focused on activism (especially the featured talk by Desiree Schell) was received, I got to this:

The skeptical twitterverse has been buzzing with criticism of Watson’s talk due to her singling out a specific member of the movement by name and critiquing them in her talk.

Well, that got my attention. A talk about sexism (Watson’s topic was the Republican War on Women) in which she names names? Curiosity took over and I popped over to Twitter for a look. The first thing that caught my eye was this post by an attendee. I watched the video in which Rebecca describes her experience at the WAC after the same panel I was planning to write about. Essentially, after a day in which she publicly discussed her experiences with sexism and after making it clear that she was tired and wanted to go bed, she had (from her post on the matter):

…an unpleasant encounter I had with a fellow atheist that I thought might serve as a good example of what men in our community should strive to avoid – basically, in an elevator in Dublin at 4AM I was invited back to the hotel room of a man I had never spoken to before and who was present to hear me say that I was exhausted and wanted to go to bed.

In other words, he just didn’t get it.

I initially skipped the reply from a blogger in order to get an understanding of what any of this had to do with naming names at the CFI Conference. Then I got the gist: It seems that Rebecca quoted (and named) this blogger at the beginning of her talk, knowing that the blogger was in the audience. A blogger who’d criticized her. On a public blog.

The rest of the post recounted the discussion among some of the conference attendees that followed the talk. I found most of it somewhat disturbing, but I have to say that there was a part that made me laugh out loud (bold mine):

The primary response to the incident seemed to be that there was a power imbalance, and it was inappropriate for Rebecca to use her power as a nationally-known skeptic and as an official CFI-endorsed speaker at the conference to attack a student at said conference. Moreover, having been publicly called out by Rebecca Watson, Stef McGraw’s reputation as a skeptical student leader is now ruined forevarz.

The discussion of “power imbalance” carried over in a rebuttal by McGraw.

So there are multiple issues here, but I think they are related and I hope to make that relationship clear here. The questions are:

1. Was the story a case of sexualizing? Is Watson whining and/or demonizing men?
2. Why the disagreements? Don’t we recognize sexism when we see it?
3. Was Watson wrong to identify McGraw in her talk?
4. Was there an “imbalance of power” comparable, as was suggested by many, to sexual harassment in the workplace?
5. Is Watson an hypocrite?

Regarding the issue that sparked it all, I will spare you an analysis of what makes the incident a case of sexualizing (and creepy). Rebecca did a fine job of that in a post herself (which I quoted above). I am more interested in the incredible shallowness of the discussion, the lack of empathy demonstrated by McGraw and those who ‘sided’ with her on the issue, and the way the whole thing completely occluded any discussion of Rebecca’s talk, which is a talk I actually want to see and hear about.

I was amazed that a young woman could hear the story and not find it creepy. Perhaps it takes years of experiencing sexism for yourself before you can recognize and understand it. However, empathy doesn’t require that kind of understanding and I find the lack of empathy among the students who commented on this disturbing.

Watson blamed Stef’s reaction on ignorance and I won’t disagree, but a lack of perspective is more than just a failure to read the feminist literature. The difference between ‘getting it’ and not, I think, is in how deeply one is willing to think about the issues as well as and how much one is willing to be educated. Most importantly, how willing they are to listen to the views of those with more knowledge and experience than they have themselves. It is not dissimilar to the problem of expertise and, unfortunately, I see this as a symptom of a cultural shift away from both respect for others and the willingness to work for knowledge.

Mostly I think that shallow thinking and disrespect for wisdom stems from the narcissistic idea that one knows enough already. I realize this sounds like the typical crotchety “kids today!” attitude and maybe it is, but I am not alone in my thinking on it. I have seen so much of this in my classroom that it is now easy to for me to spot. Many simply do not think beyond the surface features of concepts, especially if doing so means that they might need to change their view.

The surface features of feminism that seem to get the most attention today are sexual freedom and equal voice. Both of these issues are complex and, when people oversimplify them in the name of feminism, the ‘solutions’ can exacerbate the problem. Sexism, the thing that feminism fights against, is not simple either.

On Sexual Freedom

If I were an anthropologist studying our culture today, I might get the idea that “sexual freedom” is about incorporating sex into every aspect of life or that it is the freedom to express one’s self sexually without regard to other people’s feelings. It’s not. Sexual freedom means YOU get to choose what happens to your body. You get to choose when and with whom to have sex. That’s all it means. In order to have that kind of freedom, we have to take responsibility. Culturally, it must be as okay to say “no” as it is to say “yes”. This cannot happen if women are primarily viewed as sexual objects when they do not choose to be.

With all freedom comes responsibility. In the Watson vs. elevator guy example, there were responsibilities on both sides. Watson’s responsibility was to refrain from expressing an interest in sex if she didn’t want it. She did more than that. She clearly expressed a desire to do something else: to sleep. Alone. The man in the elevator had a responsibility to consider the situation and put a little bit of thought into how she might feel about being propositioned at that time in that setting.

On a side note, calling women “prudes” because they do not choose to have sex with multiple partners, do not like it when men stare at their boobs (instead of listening), or do not enjoy a constant barrage of dick jokes, is the opposite of sexual freedom. Think of it as freedom of religion, which includes freedom from religion.

On Sexism and Equal Voice

Sexism is a deeply-rooted cultural phenomenon that is perpetuated, in part, by personal interactions involving struggles for power. Sexism is the set of subtle thought processes that keep women from equal access to resources for the same effort. It is not about simple numbers. It is not, for example, the high ratios if male to female speakers at conferences. It is the set of thought processes that, in part, leads to those high ratios and the thought processes that those high ratios perpetuate. What needs to change are the thought processes.

Getting more women involved is not a cure-all, especially if the women who are included are not qualified to contribute (which only serves to exacerbate the problem as it appears that’s what women have to offer; that’s what makes tokenism bad). And nobody who is qualified wants to be asked to speak simply because they have the right genitalia. This is what some people mean when they say that ratios are a “non-issue”. It’s not that they don’t matter. It’s the fact that the problem is not the ratios. The problem is the culture that keeps them high.

On Watson’s Public Flogging

Regarding the ‘naming of names’, I don’t know if I would have added the quotes to my talk, knowing that the blogger was in the audience, but how doing so is wrong escapes me. One comment was that Watson was “using the first part of her talk as a soapbox”, which tells me that either they haven’t seen her talk before or they haven’t been paying attention. Most of her talks begin with personal stories. Some are very long and most are irrelevant “small talk”, but some are soapbox-like. I don’t know if it is an intentional strategy for her, but it has the effect of bringing most of the audience closer, which makes them more receptive to the message. Speaking style is one of Rebecca’s strengths. As for the “soap box”, I wonder if they realize that what we ALL do is stand on a soap box and preach. Few of us actually take actions to affect policy change.

Other criticisms included calling into question Watson’s “atheist credentials”. I didn’t realize atheists needed credentials, nor is it relevant. Yes, I have criticized her openly (on more than one occasion, actually) in the past for speaking outside her knowledge base. I do not think she has done so in this case, but that does not matter because it is just not relevant.

One commenter actually claimed that, “…Dawkins or Christina [Greta, I assume?] would never insult someone who was in the audience at a peer conference.” Um. Really? Indeed, they would if it were warranted. At The Amaz!ng Meeting last year, Massimo Pigliucci’s talk was built around criticizing two very prominent skeptics, Michael Shermer, and James Randi (whose organization hosted the meeting; Shermer’s co-sponsored it) for a lack of hubris! In a university setting, academic talks are criticized on the spot by colleagues, in front of other colleagues. Open discussion, including criticism, is how shared knowledge is built.

The bulk of the criticism of Watson’s ‘calling out’ seems to be about power. Power to do what? Some have compared it to sexual harassment, which is a bit ridiculous and, again, shallow thinking.

McGraw and others claimed that Watson’s position and ‘celebrity’ in skeptic circles put McGraw at a disadvantage. That may be true, but I fail to see the relevance of this, either. This is not about power at all. There are no decisions to be made, positions to fill, salaries to pay, or awards to be given. It’s a disagreement, not an exchange. In cases of sexual harassment and discrimination, power is used to control people or coerce sexual favors in exchange for access to resources. To use some stereotypical examples, get the job, you need to sleep with the casting director. To get a raise, you’re expected to look the other way when your boss ogles you or slaps your ass. If you have sex with the teacher, they’ll give you an A. THAT is about power.

And McGraw’s reputation has “ruined” by Watson? Rebecca doesn’t have that kind of power. Nobody does. First, people do not start with “a good reputation” that can then only be reduced. Nobody is entitled to such a thing. A reputation is something you earn. Nobody can harm your reputation unless they lie. If they are telling the truth, then it is you who have harmed it.

Finally, some discussion of whether Watson is a hypocrite was pushed around. I have to say that, although it clearly doesn’t change my view of the elevator man’s actions or Rebecca’s in naming McGraw in her talk, it is clear that her actions and messages today are a world apart from what they were just a few years ago – or even more recently. However, I am encouraged by this recent edit to a 2006 post:

EDIT, June 26, 2011: Someone just sent me a link to this and asked me what I think about what I wrote more than five years ago. Well, I think I was wrong to make a joke that sexualized two women. I made a lot of off-color jokes back then, and to be fair I probably still do — but the difference now is that I’ve had five years to grow and change and learn about ideas like feminism and the patriarchy, and I’ve figured out that my actions and words will never be separate from those concepts.

And I am equally encouraged that she wrote this instead of trying to bury or hide from the past.

I have heard, third hand, that Rebecca’s talk, which was about a dangerous threat we face today, was excellent. I will have to wait for the video to be posted to judge for myself. In the meantime, I am hugely disappointed that some of the students were so wrapped up in the drama and threatened by the idea that we still have work to do to in promoting equality (work that doesn’t involve raising our own self-esteems) seem to have missed it along with its point.

Related posts:

1. Is that a fallacy in your pocket or can you cite some sources? A response to Women and Feminism at TAM8

Just to give you some hints, though, the topics I will be discussing include education, parenting, women, sex, math/statistics, psychology, shopping, and reality (NOT). Sounds like fun, no?

This year will be extra special because I will have the opportunity to meet Will Phillips and shake his hand. If that name does not ring a bell, I will let Heidi Anderson tell you who he is.

In 2009, Will Phillips, showed more courage at age 10 than many adults do their whole lives. After being raised to believe in the inherent worth of each person by his parents, Laura and Jay Phillips, in the small town of West Fork, Arkansas, Will put his values into practice when he refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance until gays could marry; or in his words, until “there truly is liberty and justice for all!”

In my opinion, Will is the kind of child who deserves to be recognized for his creativity and compassion, and he has been. What’s more, he’s fun and geeky, which is apparent in this speech he gave at the GLAAD Media Awards:

You can recognize Will, too, and give him an 11th birthday party he will never forget.

Heidi has set up a fund to raise the money to send Will to Dragon*Con and plans are in process to make sure he has a great time while he is there. The goal is still $700 away, but every dollar gets her closer. If you can spare a few, please consider chipping in by clicking the link on this page or this one, [EDIT: or click on the picture of Will above]. If you cannot, please share the link(s) on Facebook or Twitter so that others have the opportunity to help.

I strongly believe that rewarding these kinds of efforts is the key to our future.

No related posts.

In my mini-review of The Amazing Meeting 8 I mentioned that there were two very dark spots in an otherwise amazing (sometimes the word just fits) weekend.

I was not ready to discuss these in detail, but when I stumbled over this blog post by Blag Hag Jen McCreight, I felt that at least one should be discussed and I would like to do so through the filter of one of the best talks of the weekend, given by Massimo Pigliucci.

McCreight addresses the question of sexism, saying:

The one annoying thing I saw was the perpetuation of the Sexy vs. Smart binary in talks.

I saw none of this in talks. She gives two examples: Michael Shermer’s talk included a Los Angeles County Fair commercial from a series which has been shown for several years now.

This series is meant to portray a stereotype of geography, not the attractiveness (or the gender; they could have easily used the dumb surfer boy image) of the actors. I can understand this getting past much of the audience. Those of us who live in southern California and have seen the entire series likely take it for granted.

That said, the video seemed to have little to do with the rest of his talk and seemed a bit too “look at these dumb people”; I cringed myself when I saw it. So this is probably worthy of discussion, but I do not think it is a strong example of associating appearance with intelligence.

McCreight also accuses SkepDoc Harriet Hall of sexism:

Whenever she mentioned Jenny McCarthy in her talk as an example of someone saying something stupid (which Jenny McCarthy certainly does often), she would include a picture of her bending over in a bikini or some other scantily clad outfit. Why was this effective? Why not use a photo of Jenny McCarthy in a suit?

Why is it sexist for Harriet Hall to show Jenny McCarthy, a former model and Playboy bunny, in a swimsuit rather than something more modest? If McCarthy were, say, a cashier by trade, the image of her in a cashier’s smock would have been just as appropriate, no?

The purpose of the images was to show that frightened parents will favor the message of someone entirely unqualified to give medical advice over their MD. McCarthy is qualified to have her picture taken and did so “scantily clad” for years.

McCreight also repeated something central to her own talk (which I am not ready to review in its entirety):

The stereotype goes that women can sexy/attractive/beautiful and stupid/ditsy/unscientific, or they can be smart/witty/scientific and frumpy/plain/ugly. This myth annoys the hell out of me, especially because it’s so common.

This is where I put on my “Massimo” glasses and discuss expertise.

Media stereotypes are not “myths”. In fact, they do not necessarily reflect what individuals in society actually believe. These definitions are important, especially when one’s argument relies on them. When you make statements about one thing (media portrayals), but you are really talking about something else (behaviors and attitudes), you need to prepared to cite sources which clearly show that these are interchangeable; the distinction matters.

The truth is that attractive persons are more likely to be associated with an occupation that is held in high regard, including scientist, than less attractive persons. That’s the halo effect. It is very well-established in the psychological literature and not limited to men or even human beings.

Some of the points Jen made are valid criticisms, but the valid criticisms are overshadowed by vague, uninformed statements. Many of the points rely on whether her general claims of “this is what people think” are accurate. She does not cite sources which show that she knows “what people think”, nor is her background in psychology or a related field, which might provide some evidence of expertise in this area.

“I’ve seen it” is not evidence, something a young scientist in training (and many older, experienced ones) must constantly remind themselves in order to overcome our brain’s desire to think that it is.

McCreight defended TAM organizers by repeating a statement made many times by Jeff Wagg about speakers at TAM7:

Last year, 8 women were invited to speak at TAM. 2 said yes. 1 of those women had to cancel.

I have never heard Jeff compare this with the number of men who were invited and how many of those accepted or canceled. Without that comparison, this information tells us nothing.

Frankly, however, I care much more about the quality of the speakers than their gender, but given the number of high-quality speakers available who are women and the ratio seen at other events, the lopsidedness at TAM in past years was a bit disturbing. I thought they did a great job all around this year and didn’t need to be defended.

I thought the sex workshop was on Sunday…

Regarding the “Feminism & Skepticism Workshop”, although I am not the person she quoted, I was sitting directly behind McCreight and walked out when “Angry Vagina Craft Time” was announced.

My take? There are three criteria which should have been met for a topic or activity to be included in this workshop:

1. It is a feminism issue.
2. It is a skepticism issue.
3. The discussion is well-researched and well reasoned.

Although there were definitely some good points, much of what was discussed prior to “Angry Vagina Craft Time” failed to meet one or more of these criteria, especially #3.

Asking people to make vaginas (term used loosely) out of felt and googlie eyes did not make me uncomfortable, but infantilizing women’s genitalia and calling it “light humor” made me a bit angry – yes, I had an angry vagina. And an angry jaw. It could have made many women very uncomfortable, yet it served no purpose that I could see short of a “fuck you” to those who have criticized the workshop’s organizers in the past for such things.

I left because I had seen enough.

Overall, in regard to sexism at TAM8, I thought this year was a huge improvement over last. I attribute this largely to a different mix of attendees. I really wish that friends who were turned off by the culture last year could have experienced it. Perhaps they would see the community differently.

To sum up my experiences and in answer to McCreight’s questions: There were exactly two times during the weekend when I was offended. That workshop was one of them. Ironic, isn’t it?

Related posts:

1. Reaching Out and Geeking Out
2. This Stuff is Not Easy!
3. There is No Debate Over Evolution

I am still recovering, catching up, and formulating thoughts on The Amazing Meeting 8. In the meantime, I thought I would give you a summation and a few personal highlights.

Before I do that, here is a link to the materials promised in the Skepticism in the Classroom workshop Thursday. Apparently, there has been some trouble getting to this page, but the link should do it for you.

Summary

Wow.

Someone hit the “reset” button on the community’s culture.

There were a few – very few – dark spots in it for me, but these were grossly overshadowed by positives. I will discuss the details in posts to follow. It is actually difficult to pull out “highlights” from the program, because it was so packed with good work, so I will probably take some time and break it up into several posts.

In the meantime, I do not want much more time to go by without making a strong statement about a few highly influential (to me) talks which the speakers must have known would hit a nerve with some.

Obviously, none of these people wrote their talks for my benefit, but it seems appropriate to thank them. I did so from the stage, but given that I was terribly nervous and trying to focus on the talk I was about to give, I do not know if my gratitude came across. So, here it is again.

Thank you Phil Plait, for your much-needed, humble, all-encompassing call for thinking about our goal and the impact of our words before we say/write them. Although other talks explained the sources and influences of hubris, Phil’s was a heartfelt call for reflection which brought tears (good ones) to many eyes in the audience. I spoke to several people who admitted to fleeting thoughts that they had prompted this speech somehow and I could not help feeling this way myself. That is testimony to the timeliness of it. This talk set the entire tone for the conference and I know it was not an easy one to give (it was not an easy one to hear, either), so if you appreciated it as much as I did, send him a note of thanks. Bravo.

Thank you to Massimo Pigliucci, for defining “Skeptic” and discussing the need to think about what, exactly, we are each qualified to say publicly and whether we frame opinions as opinions, not facts. He often steps out on a limb, apparently without looking down, but this was so timely and appropriate that it stood out. There were a few wet eyes during his talk as well.

Thank you to The Amazing Randi for acknowledging the vision and contributions of Paul Kurtz. In doing so, Randi endorsed a tempered approach to dealing with our challenges.

Thank you to D.J. Grothe. Over the course of the weekend, he managed to negotiate from nearly every founder or highly-influential speaker a definition of “Skepticism” and/or a clear goal for the interviewee’s organization. I cannot help but be reminded of his talk at NECSS, which should serve as a primer for anyone interested in this movement. Randi, for example, limited the mission of the JREF to issues surrounding testable claims, something I strongly believe should be adhered to by skeptic organizations. I believe that organizations should remain focused and that critical thinking is the key to change (not promoting conclusions).

The Best Part of TAM8…

…was sharing the experience with my son. Connor is 12 years old, the minimum age for The Amazing Meeting, and has become more interested in this work over the past year. It was my hope that TAM8 would give him something to look forward to; it was. I hoped it would inspire him; it did (a little too much, actually). I hoped it would give him a passion and a mission; it did.

At one point I found him with The Amazing Randi, who gave him a demonstration in conjuring. If anyone has video of this, please contact me. I did not even get a good picture myself, unfortunately.

photo by D.J. Grothe

It seems this started when Connor walked right up to him and said, “Mr. Randi, I would like to give a talk at TAM next year.”

Of course, Connor received a lesson from me later on the importance of not getting ahead of himself. I also discussed the faux pas of going over D.J. Grothe’s head and the fact that being a kid may get him more attention than the average TAM-goer, but it does not give him special license to grab the megaphone.

However, I must note that I am secretly thrilled that he is so committed.

Other Personal Highlights

• …knowing that Richard Dawkins attended the “Skepticism in the Classroom” workshop that I did with Daniel Loxton and Matt Lowry (moderated by Michael Blanford) mid-day Thursday AND the “Skepticism and Sexuality” workshop that Heidi Anderson and others gave on Sunday afternoon. I find speakers so much more sincere when I know that they are interested in what others in their field are doing and saying.
• …hearing Connor, completely on his own, finagle the last question to Dawkins and Randi during the reception Thursday night. He asked a great one for those new to this movement, too. [Just a note: I think it was a mistake to plan a "show" during a social hour. We were asked to shut up so that the show could be heard. That said, it wasn't a bad show, just not a great way to do it (live and learn, JREF/CSI/Skeptics Society).]


Matt and Dylan in the registration line

• …watching Woo Fighter, Dylan Keenberg, take pages and pages of notes, soaking in the culture and inspiration of the meeting. Matthew Newton, who found funding at the last minute, was also able to attend and despite missing a little bit of the World Cup, thoroughly enjoyed the talks. I think they both understand now why I set TAM attendance as a goal for new members.
• …getting a new Skeptics Society shirt – one that will not be relegated to the “nightshirt” stack. Very cool design and cut!



• …watching friends eat their first musk sticks. This Australian “treat” found its way around the meeting, mostly by being carried by the charming Richard Saunders. I will note that these were the less popular of the treats Kylie Sturgess sent for the crowd at the Skepticality Speaking Beyond BS podcast recording. I often wonder if the market for these things is entirely as traveling Australians’ hospitality gifts. To me, they are shocking examples of Australians’ need to rebel food-wise. Most people say they taste like shaving cream, but I’d say perfume. Yuk.
• …the satisfying and fun conversation Thursday night, both during and after the podcast recording, which itself was a thrill. So much awesomeness in one room should have caused world peace to break out.
  



• …watching, and taking part in, that moment of recognition when one realizes that they are face to face with a friend they have only talked to online thus far. This was especially entertaining in the bar on Wednesday night, before anyone had name tags.
• …good times sharing frustrations, victories, and strategies with good people. You all know who you are…
• …seeing my friend Ani Aharonian’s face when she realized that Genie Scott was there.
• …hearing two people who might otherwise be called “crackpots” treated with respect and open minds by real, rational, reasonable Skeptics.
• …introducing my son to people I call friends and watching him collect signatures in books he has read or hopes to read soon.
• …being mistaken for Naomi Baker after the Grassroots Workshop. What a compliment! Next year, we will have to start a doppelganger gallery: Cheryl Hebert/Desiree Schell, Dylan Keenberg/Penn Jillette, me/Naomi Baker – who else?
• …looking into the audience when the mostly-filled room was so quiet during my Sunday talk that I had no idea if they were listening intently or bored silly and seeing Donald Prothero‘s big smile.
• …seeing Daniel Loxton, who has taken some heat in the community lately for saying how great it would be if we at least tried to be nice to each other, smile like he just opened the BEST BIRTHDAY PRESENTS EVAH!
• …coming down off the stage on Sunday and being immediately flanked by K.O. Myers, who could not wait to tell me his brilliant idea. It reminded me that I have the most amazing friends on the planet.
• …getting say, “I told you so” to a number of people for different reasons. Because I am always right. This is a supernatural gift. I shall apply for the challenge next year.

Related posts:

1. The Amaz!ng Meeting [TAM9]: Some Notes

The favored laboratory of anti-vaccine practitioners and the “autism biomed” movement, a commercial laboratory known as Doctor’s Data is suing Steve Barrett, the man who maintains the excellent resource Quackwatch, for criticism Dr. Barrett leveled against it, criticism that Doctor’s Data richly deserved (in my opinion, of course).

Fighting these battles is extremely expensive and no legal defense funds exist for grassroots activists. Please blog about this to raise awareness and donate what you can to Quackwatch to help Dr. Barrett defend his right (and our rights) to tell the truth.

No related posts.

Here are some of my personal highlights:

Thursday, July 8th

Friday & Saturday, July 9th & 10th

Sunday, July 11th

Woo Fighters is still collecting donations to send four worthy students to TAM8. As of this writing, I have secured the registration for one student. Three more are waiting patiently, hoping that enough people donate small amounts, they will add up. Please help if you can.

Related posts:

1. Is that a fallacy in your pocket or can you cite some sources? A response to Women and Feminism at TAM8
2. This Stuff is Not Easy!

It’s the middle of conference season. This year I have not increased the number of conferences I am attending, but I have stepped up my involvement a bit. As I do every year, I attended the Annual Convention of the Western Psychological Association and, although I had a terrible trip, my students were great, the research we presented was interesting, and I saw some amazing wildlife.

Coming up soon is The Amaz!ng Meeting 8 (TAM8), the annual gathering hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation – this year the Skeptics Society and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) will co-sponsor. I usually like to relax and watch the talks at TAM, but this year I’ve volunteered to help out with the Teacher’s Workshop on Thursday as part of my “duties” on a general advisory panel for JREF. To cap off the trip, I will be giving a talk during the Sunday morning session titled Skepticism as a Gateway to Science Literacy.

Since last fall I have been hoping to bring some students to TAM8 in hopes that they will discover how important, fulfilling, and fun activism can be. This meeting is the largest of its kind and very enriching for a skeptic new to the cause. It is a fantastic place to network and bond with like-minded people. However, we got a late start getting Woo Fighters off the ground and fund raising has been difficult. Students rarely have the funds to attend multiple conferences and they must attend academic ones as part of their education. So, we are asking for your help. Every little bit counts. Some very dedicated people have been extremely generous, and I am hoping that the greater community will show us that you understand the need to promote the efforts of young, qualified scientists to become tomorrow’s science communicators by donating $5 (more is welcome and needed, of course, but the gesture is significant itself) to helping these students get there this year. I think that if we can get them off the ground, they can take it from here.

Read the post, or just click on the button at the bottom of this post to help out.

Finally, I will be participating in Skeptrack at Dragon*Con again this year. The tentative schedule looks like a winner with panels on Shopping Skeptically, Skeptical Sex, and the usual science stuff. I am particularly looking forward to participating as a student in Ben Radford’s workshop on investigating paranormal phenomena.

I hope to see some of you at TAM8 or Dragon*Con this year. Please say hi if you see me!

Related posts:

1. Is that a fallacy in your pocket or can you cite some sources? A response to Women and Feminism at TAM8
2. Reaching Out and Geeking Out
3. Embrace Your Skepticality by Speaking Beyond… Or Something Like That