I don’t know if this could really be called “new”, but it’s a form of anti-intellectualism that usually goes unnoticed. I find it particularly frustrating because I so often see it often among people who claim to respect knowledge, education, and expertise. It is an ironic lack of respect for that same knowledge, education, and expertise.

The Psychology of Vaccine Denial

I’m sure you’re wondering what I’m talking about here, so I will get to the point. Rebecca Watson wrote a short piece, published in Skeptical Inquirer Online, that seems to question the potential effectiveness of a bill currently in the works in California which would eliminate non-medical exemptions for vaccination requirements to attend public school. I say “seems to” because it’s actually unclear.

My main criticism of the piece itself is not that much of what she says is blatantly wrong, but that the piece doesn’t go anywhere and the research cited doesn’t support the weak, barely identifiable thesis at all. It is disjointed and doesn’t flow well. The transition from the topic of education to that of the bill is a huge leap. Her conclusion makes little sense given the rest of the piece. It’s only a few paragraphs (very short for SI), but in those few paragraphs she manages to treat some important research shallowly and selectively, missing the valuable knowledge that a nuanced look at the findings would provide. I won’t make that mistake here.

She cites two articles, the first mention is this:

Researchers Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler have spent the past few years conducting studies that seem specifically designed to depress science communicators. Last year, they published a paper in which they showed that correcting myths about the MMR vaccination actually decreased a parent’s intention to vaccinate.

What’s missing is that this was only true among those “with the least favorable vaccine attitudes”.

Even showing participants images of sick children was counterproductive, increasing their belief that vaccines are connected with autism.

Yes, but the “even” part is very misleading. Emotional pleas such as describing disease risks and showing images of or telling stories about children with diseases all increased this belief, but education refuting a link successfully reduced that same belief. 

From the article:

“Autism correction” is most effective in reducing agreement with the autism misperception. Strong agreement declines from a predicted probability of 8.9% to 5.1% (and likewise for other response options). By contrast, the predicted probability of strong agreement increases to 12.6% for “Disease images.” Similarly, the predicted probability of believing serious side effects from MMR are very likely increased from 7.7% among control subjects to 13.8% in the “Disease narrative” condition.

This combination of results tells us a lot about what is happening when people are confronted with different strategies, yet nothing Watson wrote went beyond the few bits she selected from the abstract.

For the second citation, Watson writes:

Last month, they conducted a similar test using the common belief that the flu vaccine causes the flu. The results were the same: correcting the misconception only decreased the subjects’ self-reported intention to get vaccinated.

But this is what the article’s abstract actually says:

Corrective information adapted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website significantly reduced belief in the myth that the flu vaccine can give you the flu as well as concerns about its safety. However, the correction also significantly reduced intent to vaccinate among respondents with high levels of concern about vaccine side effects – a response that was not observed among those with low levels of concern.

After reading the article, I can tell you that the education measures worked across the board–in every concern level, educating people about the vaccine significantly reduced belief in the myth. However, those with the most concern about side effects dug in when it came to intent to vaccinate–not everybody, those with the most concern. (BTW, they didn’t conduct the test “last month”.)

These are finer points, but they are far from trivial. The details are what tell us what’s going on. I would not expect someone without an education in psychology to recognize the implications, although Abbie Smith, who reviewed the first study in a blog post last year, managed quite a bit of insight (which she wrote about with care, describing the findings in detail and not speculating beyond the what happened in the study).

And this is where the anti-intellectualism is most apparent in Rebecca’s piece:

At this point, we can only guess as to the reason why this happens.

No, Rebecca, at this point, you can only guess. So, if you don’t know why it happens, then nobody does?

To anyone who has studied decision making, reason, attention, or just about any area of social psychology for a few years, this statement is absurd. The pattern of results found in these two studies is exactly what I would have predicted. We have decades of research telling us why this happens.

Some brief explanations are provided right there in the articles’ discussion sections. The authors mention loss framing, danger priming, and other effects.

For a much more in-depth look, I will ask you to read Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson. The nutshell is that people do all sorts of mental gymnastics to reduce something we call cognitive dissonance–a tension between contradictory attitudes or an attitude and a behavior–in ways that allow us to avoid changing the behavior or strongly-held attitude.

In this case, when those holding strong anti-vaccine attitudes accept that their expressed reasons (e.g., autism) for those attitudes are invalid, they simply find another reason to maintain the attitude (e.g., side effects).

People are invested in the choice not to vaccinate, not the reason for the choice.

This would be especially true for those who have acted on that choice. The alternative is to accept that they have put their children at risk for no reason.

So, although Watson is not incorrect in reporting that some approaches backfired, she failed to see or report the nuances in these findings that tell us why and what we might do about it. And there’s more that I would not expect a layperson to recognize.

These studies only measured attitudes immediately following education–education that worked in dispelling myths about those vaccines. What I would like to see is follow up research examining attitudes months or years afterward. What happens, for example, when people are educated, then given time to change their attitudes without threat to their egos and identities? I predict that a large portion of them will change their minds. Much of the resistance is probably rooted in ego threat. Giving people time and space may allow them to save face while changing the attitude to reduce the cognitive dissonance associated with the conflicting ideas.

Furthermore, in these laboratory studies, parents are asked to report their attitudes prior to the exposure to materials. This is a form of declaration, committing people to a viewpoint that they then feel compelled to defend. That’s not what happens in real world situations.

So her next paragraph…

Do people hold their anti-vaccination beliefs so deeply that correcting a misconception only encourages them to spend time digging around for another reason to hate vaccines? If so, then the answer may be to address the underlying reasons for the belief instead of the scientific facts.

How are these two sentences connected? That people find other reasons to maintain a behavior or attitude is not evidence that there is some hidden reason. And expressed reasons are precisely what what are addressed in the studies she cited. She’s come full-circle with nothing at all to show for it.

Cognitive dissonance and the unconscious strategies people use to reduce it are human nature. We cannot “address” human nature so easily. We can educate people about human nature and how it does not always lead us to the best decisions to meet our goals (and by “we”, I mean people who have studied human nature, such as social scientists with years of training and knowledge), but of course that’s a much broader goal. Increasing vaccination rates is a public safety issue that must be addressed with more urgency and specificity.

Finally, all of this came down to this one guess of hers:

For instance, perhaps the belief is rooted in a fear of government control over individual choices.

Um, seriously? This came out of nowhere as if she just didn’t have an ending to her story, or perhaps couldn’t come up with a good segue to get to the one thing that she meant to talk about: the California bill that may eliminate personal belief exemptions for unvaccinated kids to attend public schools. Rebecca’s logic is that if fear of vaccine harm is actually rooted in fear of government control, then the bill might make matters worse.

This is a huge leap. For one thing, she cites no research showing that fear of government control has anything to do with the average vaccine denier’s choices. Even if it did, the very research she cited shows that removing all government involvement in vaccination would not change intent to vaccinate (those with the most concern would simply find another thing to worry about). But more importantly, she begs the question:

But will the law (which already exists in West Virginia and Mississippi) only encourage the anti-government anti-vaccine activists to band together and renew their efforts to fight for their freedom to harm innocent kids?

Well, now, why not take a few minutes and do a little research to find out how laws affect vaccine rates?

According to Pew,  “states with the strictest immunization laws tend to have the highest immunization rates” (they have a nice graph sorted by vaccination rates and Mississippi is at the top).

Not surprising. People tend to follow the law, and if they want to send their kids to public schools, they must vaccinate. But does this change attitudes? I think a lot of people would say that they don’t care, as long as it changes the behavior, but I think we can all agree that changing the attitude would be best.

And stricter immunization laws will change attitudes and beliefs about vaccines. How do I know this? Simple: cognitive dissonance.

One early finding in studies of cognitive dissonance theory is that it is often easier for people to change an attitude than it is to change a behavior. We have seen numerous examples of this, not only on laboratory studies, but in real-world behaviors such as smoking and exercise habits. Once invested in a behavior, the attitude follows as a matter of reducing the tension because we are invested in the behavior, not the reason for the behavior.

In this case, the biggest thing currently in the way of attitude change is the personal belief exception. Remove that, and behaviors must change. Once behaviors change, attitudes will follow, especially with education, which will pave the way for attitude change by giving parents a way to engage in the behavior (of sending their child to public school) without dissonance. This is especially true when the parent has not declared their attitude prior to education, as they do in a laboratory study.

What the research cited suggests, when included in the context of decades of psychological research about the relationships among attitudes, behaviors, and values, is that a combination of stricter laws and education correcting myths about vaccines is not only highly likely to increase vaccination rates, it will also decrease perceptions of risk of harm from vaccines.  Giving people facts does indeed work. It works to educate people about facts. If you want them to change their attitudes, however, you need to dig a little bit deeper.

To head off what will surely be a the first thing Watson’s supporters will point out: what’s the difference we came to the same conclusion? Her argument is “I think we should try X because nothing else seems to work” and mine is that X is what the science suggests. Only one of these is a valid argument. The ends do not justify the means.

The New Anti-Intellectualism

The implication that just anyone can write about this stuff with authority is the kind of anti-intellectualism I’m referring to in the title.

And before you assume that I am saying that skeptics have nothing to say, think again. Pseudoscience and fraud, the core of skepticism, are not science. Skepticism is a field in and of itself, very distinct from science. It includes scientific thinking and it benefits, as every field does, from the products of science, but it is not science.

This piece is poorly researched, weak, and reads like a book report that someone started, put away, then suddenly realized it was due and wrote the rest while the other kids were watching a film in class. A big part of that is the fact that Watson simply does not know the field, something she has demonstrated repeatedly. Yet, knowing her track record in this area, CFI decided to commission and publish this. The poor quality of the piece is a side effect of overconfidence coupled with a lack of expertise, but it further points to a huge drop in standards by SI Online. Not that SI hasn’t published some misses in the past, but this sad little piece is just one of many lesser-quality articles recently appearing there, including one in which the author describes party/county fair psychics as harmless fun.

So, am I saying journalists and other non-scientists (e.g., skeptics) should never write about science? No, I am not.

It is fine for non-experts to write on topics when they do so with great care. I cannot stress this enough.

A non-expert can do a great job when they do a proper amount of research by talking with experts (rather than spending a few minutes Googling and picking sentences out of abstracts that one believes supports one’s already-formed opinion), when they discuss experiments and studies accurately without omitting important details, when they properly credit the sources of ideas and opinions, when they follow what they find rather than start with a conclusion and attempt to support it, and when they refrain from stating their personal opinions as authoritative. Watson rarely appears to do any of those things when she writes about science. She simply writes and speaks with an air of confidence and that seems to be enough to make some people think that she is clever and knowledgeable.

Good science journalism allows the researchers’ voices to be heard, not the author’s. Think about that.

I have written before about the dangers and hypocrisy of speaking and writing on topics which require expertise one does not have (here, here, and here, for example–two of which are also about Rebecca Watson). It’s actually a topic that has received a lot of coverage, from Massimo Pigliucci’s talk at TAM8 to articles by Daniel Loxton (yes, I’ve linked to them both before and for good reason). I expect to see this kind of thing all over the blogosphere, but to see it on the Skeptical Inquirer’s site is disheartening, especially on the heels of other pieces that fall far below their old standards.

As I stated in this post more than three years ago, we (skeptics in general) criticize Jenny McCarthy and Bill Maher because they don’t have the expertise to make the statements they make. We criticize “the Food Babe” and many, many others for the same reasons. We tell people not to take medical advice from a Playboy Bunny and a talk show host, yet we (skeptics again) give a microphone to a blogger to talk about the psychology of vaccine denial simply because she calls herself “Skepchick”? How is this justified?

Now, I am perfectly aware that many people don’t believe that psychology is a science or that expertise in the field is actually a thing. I deal with that kind of anti-intellectualism every day. But I am still stunned when I see such blatant disregard for it among people and organizations who wave the flag of “listen to the experts” when it suits their purposes. CFI, you should be ashamed.

First, if you have not read Part I, please read it now. The most important part of that post is:

…I suggest is this: Skepticism, as a movement, is not hindered so much by the conflation of atheism and skepticism, the ridicule of believers, or attempts to promote values-based ideology as it is hindered by the blatant ignorance, arrogance, and irrationality displayed when those acts are committed.

In a field dedicated to reducing ignorance and irrationality, a field in which arrogance is toxic, I find this kind of behavior offensive. It is time that we reclaim Skepticism and restore its credibility and integrity.

And

When I can’t tell the ‘good guys’ from the ‘bad guys’, there are no good guys.

At the World Atheist Convention, there was a panel called Communicating Atheism. Video from this panel was posted to YouTube. The comments were almost as disturbing as the video, with Rebecca Watson on the receiving end of all manner of misogyny (and my definition of this is much narrower than hers) and the others being cheered on without thought to the contradictions in their statements. The most interesting part about this is that the most rational person on the panel, and the one to receive the least support from internet commenters, was the one most closely associated with skeptical movement, Rebecca Watson. Next was Richard Dawkins, who is also associated with Skepticism*, although less so than he is with atheism. The least rational were the other two panel members – people I had never heard of until I saw this video. All made reasoning errors of some kind.

The panel was about communicating atheism, however, Rebecca chose not to talk about that. Instead she talked about sexism in the atheist movement. It would not be until later that I would discover just how badly this needed to be discussed. I will remind you at this point that I am usually somewhat critical of Rebecca and that this is the very appearance which sparked elevatorgate. Since I have already chimed in on that, it should be no surprise that I have little negative to say here and I will just leave it at that.

The last person to talk (but more rational than the other two) was Richard Dawkins. He made a statement that I appreciate: he specifically stated that he does not advocate ridiculing believers, but rather ridiculing beliefs. I am not generally against ridiculing beliefs myself, however I believe that goals and context are vital in determining if such ridicule is appropriate. But then he really stepped in it. Dawkins is a highly intelligent and relatively rational person, yet he used weasel words. What exactly is this consciousness-raising that he keeps talking about? He did not define it, but suggested that it was akin to enlightenment. These weasel words were the cornerstone of his statement. Flimsy, Dawkins. Really flimsy.

What’s more, Dawkins began his statement with this:

Last year at the TAM conference, Phil Plait got a lot of applause for a talk about how to communicate atheism… uh, and he began by taking a vote of people who used to be religious and were now atheists and he got a great show of hands and then he said, ‘How many of you changed your mind as a result of being called an idiotic retard?'”

That’s not at all how I remember it.

So, let’s see what Phil really said. After all, the video is freely available on the internet and there is even a partial transcript which includes that opening:

Let me ask you a question: how many of you here today used to believe in something — used to, past tense — whether it was flying saucers, psychic powers, religion, anything like that? You can raise your hand if you want to. [lots of hands go up] Not everyone is born a skeptic. A lot of you raised your hand. I’d even say most of you, from what I can tell.

Now let me ask you a second question: how many of you no longer believe in those things, and you became a skeptic, because somebody got in your face, screaming, and called you an idiot, brain-damaged, and a retard? [Very few hands go up]

Perhaps the conflation of atheism with skepticism was deliberate, or perhaps he just remembered it that way, but does Dawkins really care so little for his own work that he couldn’t be bothered to spend five minutes preparing? Really?

AronRa is YouTube famous. That’s all I know about him. He told the story of how he came to be an evangelist for evolution and atheism. Most of what he discussed was anecdotal and he stated that he does not believe that we can be certain of anything – a fundamental scientific principle. However, his ‘bottom line’ contradicted all of his statements about truth and science (bold mine):

“You can’t reach these people. Religion has this basis of… the purpose of it is to make believe – now where I come from we call that ‘pretend’ – but that is the goal. You can’t question the conviction…”

This is simply not true. ‘Fantasy’ is not the goal or purpose of religion, even if that is what the beliefs boil down to in the end. Many religions even encourage questioning and testing one’s faith. A great many people have been “reached” through education. Think about how many current activists were once people of faith. Michael Shermer studied Christian theology before changing his major and eventually gave up religion, but not without a few years of education and many hours of discussion. Perhaps AronRa isn’t reaching anyone because his approach does not consider the audience’s current point of view. If you want to educate people, you need to understand where they are coming from.

“To me, honestly matters. Only accurate information has practical application. And accountability matter. If you’re going to teach something, make sure that you’re going to teach something that is correct. “

I could not agree more with this statement, but…

“Faith itself is inherently dishonest because faith is an unwarranted assumption that is inserted [sic] with unreasonable conviction. It would be unwise to hold an absolute conviction even when there is evidence, but we’re talking about something that it is asserted with no reason at all other than some subjective thing. “

Who says that all, or even most, believers ‘hold an absolute conviction’ or even that their beliefs are ‘unwarranted’? Who says that they have ‘no reason at all’ to believe? Do believers all agree that their evidence is subjective? Is subjective experience worthless? Does it equate to “no reason at all”? Absurd.

Then he finishes with this:

“Some of us have a need to believe and others have the desire to understand. Those who have a desire to understand will improve their perspective and will find the faults and will correct them. Those who have the need to believe will not correct anything and will remain just as wrong as they started out, at least.”

AronRa doesn’t know why people believe. Belief is not that simple.

Most people think that their beliefs are rational and that the beliefs of other people are emotional or otherwise irrational. This is a good example of the self-serving bias, which is probably second only to the confirmation bias in driving human behaviors today. For example, when Michael Shermer asked readers with religious beliefs why they believe in God, the most popular answers were related to rational arguments and the complexity of the universe. However, when he asked those same preople why others believed, the most popular answer was because it is comforting; belief is consoling and gives meaning and purpose to life. In other words, “I believe because I am rational. You believe because you need to.”

AronRa makes assumptions about why people believe because he does not understand why other people cannot see the world as he does. He discounts their reasons for believing. He discounts the evidence that they believe they have seen with their own eyes or heard with their own ears. It doesn’t matter if their evidence is refutable because they do not believe that their claims have been refuted; usually, it is not the evidence that is the problem, but one’s interpretation of it.

Essentially, AronRa’s claim that these people have no reason to believe is arrogant and disrespectful. What’s more is that he makes this claim with no evidence to support it, which is ironic. He placed people into two categories: those who need to believe and those who want to understand, a false dichotomy if I’ve ever heard one. People are much much, much more complicated than this. AronRa’s assertion also assumes that everyone has the capacity to understand. AronRa believes – assumes – that he is rational, yet in the midst of his criticism of others is an irrational argument to promote his beliefs about the difference between atheists and theists, a belief grounded in a little bit of casual observation and whole lot of assumption. How is this different from religion?

Then the most offensive and irrational panelist spoke. Tom Melchiorre’s website sports the tag line, “Making a World of Difference With a Positive Voice for Atheism”. Positive. Right.

Mr. Melchiorre talks about “…not just communicating atheism, but advancing atheism.” So, he is not just interested in secularism. He is not just interested in the right not to practice a religion. But he is also clearly not talking about education, so how does a lack of belief in something advance? As for the “positive” part, when discussing a model for activism, he mentions a motto of the LGBT movement, “We’re here. We’re queer. Get used to it.” But he says,

“I have a version that’s ‘We’re here, you go to your hell, you crazy religious bastards. Get used to it.'”

This, of course, receives a round of laughter and applause. Melchiorre then justifies his meanness and intolerance by giving a history lesson. I wondered, though, if Melchiorre was also from Texas (AronRa’s home), because his version of history was definitely a little bit tilted:

“Malcolm X was a very dark black and he wore very dark clothes and he spoke ominously. He scared the shit out of white people…they did violence – verses Martin Luther King, who was strictly passivist…In reality, Martin Luther King in his movement as a pacifist would not have gotten as far as fast had Malcolm X not provided an extreme opposite and pretty much forced the white population in power to say, ‘Okay, we don’t want to deal with this violent black civil rights person, so who do we deal with? Oh, here’s this nice sweet guy over here, Martin Luther King, Jr., very pacifist.’ But who’s to say the two of them were not talking behind the scenes?”

At this point, Richard Dawkins did a double-take. That last sentence is very enlightening; Melchiorre is just making stuff up. That is fantasy.

“We need to have a second movement of atheism along side the hardcore – the hard atheists, the new atheists, and that’s pretty much what I’m calling the soft atheists, or the pacifist atheists. So that when the religious get a little upset and want to do something about our demands, but are afraid to talk to us angry, hardcore, confrontational, hostile, evil atheists, they don’t have to. They can go next door and talk to the softer, gentler, you know, pretty atheists who don’t shout at them.”

Melchiorre never mentioned The Overton Window, but some of the language he uses (such as “demands”) is reminiscent of other discussions about the application of this theory in other realms and discussions on the blogosphere last year about the relative contributions of MLK and X in the movement.  His description above fits with suggestions of The Overton Window quite well and even sounds a little like something out of Glenn Beck’s novel The Overton Window. No, I didn’t read it, but I have read some of one blogger’s review of it:

This, perhaps (though I am open to suggestions otherwise) is the most ridiculous moment of the chapter:

Just like Dr. King, we aim to eliminate evil, not those who perpetrate it. To speak of violence in any form is to play right into the hands of those who oppose us. They’ve already invested countless hours into portraying us as violent, hateful racists, and they are just waiting for the chance to further that story line. Don’t give it to them. Instead of Bill Ayers, give them Benjamin Franklin. Instead of Malcolm X, give them Rosa Parks. Instead of bin Laden, give them Gandhi.

The Overton Window is well known in the field of activism (Desiree Schell talked about it in her talk at TAM9) and I have been told that ‘new atheists’ sometimes evoke it, although I have not read much of this myself (I do not tend to follow their conversations). However, there is no scientific support for this theory.

The Overton Window simply describes any set of cultural norms. It also attempts to explain how those norms can be changed. Unfortunately, I did not find it in any of the academic literature in political science or sociology. The Overton Window is a pop-political science (bordering on pseudoscientific) concept based on a technique for persuasion called “door in the face”, which is found in abundance in the psychological literature. The door in the face technique starts with a much larger request than one hopes will be accepted. For example, if you were a charity asking for money and hoping for $50 from each household, you might ask for $500 to start. Once this request is refused and you ask for $50, the new request seems reasonable in comparison. You are much more likely to receive something from the target than if you simply asked for $50 outright.

The idea of The Overton Window theory is that starting with outrageous demands such as “abolish public schools!” will move the window of acceptable demands enough to receive support for what you really want (e.g., school vouchers).

There are probably some kernels of truth to this theory and the tactics it dictates may work in some specific situations, but lasting change is unlikely. Humans are very good at anchoring and adjusting. In other words, we use points for comparison. However, psychological effects involve the behavior of individuals on average and in a limited set of situations. Groups of people are not individuals and do not behave like individuals. Political affiliation, religion, and other attitudes are often much, much more complicated than such a simple theory could predict. There are many more factors involved in what makes culture. For example, who says that anyone has to listen to either the person with the extreme view or the moderate? And, as Desiree Shell mentioned, even the theory says that people need to be able to tell the difference between these two and they need to care about that difference.

There is an abundance of literature which suggests that the stronger or harder the sell, the less likely an individual will respond by changing their view. They are much more likely to become more polarized in the other direction. Skeptics demonstrate this all the time. So do atheists. What are believers to think when they meet activists who approach believers with belligerence, insults, and arrogance? It is more likely to mistrust any atheist than they are to compare the behavior to that of other atheists they meet.  My prediction, or rather an analogy of what I predict, is found in the comic I commissioned from my son(click to enlarge), dubbed The Overkill Window.

Even if he was not thinking of The Overton Window, Melchiorre’s example of Malcolm and Martin is a story, nothing more. There is no evidence to support the history he described. In fact, it is not the most parsimonious explanation for the success of the civil rights movement. During the 1950s and 60s baby boomers were hitting puberty and early adolescence. What happens during adolescence? Kids rebel. Against everything. The Korean War, the impending Vietnam War, the momentum of civil rights prior to this time, the fact that the black community in the United States grew much more quickly than the white community, and many other factors overshadow the inner conflicts in the movement itself.

Melchiorre’s suggestion that Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were collaborating is completely irrational. He said this with absolutely no evidence whatsoever and even provided the counter-evidence that they met only once. But he saved the most offensive stuff for the end (bold mine):

“They can go next door and talk to the softer, gentler, you know, pretty atheists who don’t shout at them. Now, those are not humanists. Those are not freethinkers. Those are not rationalists. All of whom pretty much share our view, they just go by a different name. But if we want to communicate and advance atheism, we have to deal with the religious as one group. Atheists as one group. We can’t have the religious going to the humanists, because that means we’re still marginalized as atheists. To advance atheism, we have to be atheists as a group.”

Um. Who are not humanists? Is “You go to your hell, you crazy religious bastards” what humanists say?  Who are not rational? Is it those who evoke unproven theories and squeeze and mold them to meet one’s needs?  Who again? And how could Malcolm and Martin be both different and one group?

What I would really like to see happen: atheist activists take their ball and go play in their own yard. I have nothing against those who work in both fields and know the difference. I know many. Most I would consider secular activists rather than atheists. But people like AronRa and Tom Melchiorre make the job of Skeptics much more difficult when they, or those like them, claim to be fighting the same fight as Skeptics. Although I did not sense that AronRa or Melchiorre were familiar with Skepticism, Richard Dawkins and Rebecca Watson suggested that Skepticism and Atheism are interchangeable (and they are not alone, not by a long shot).

In Part III, I will talk about offensive ignorance, arrogance, and the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

*”Big-S Skepticism” refers to the work of the skepticism movement in promoting the practice of skepticism.

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.