Don't Be A Dick

[brianp]

Phil Plait recently gave a talk at the TAM8 meeting where he argued that directly attacking proponents of woo is not the best way to change hearts and minds:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/...ow-online.html

Al Stefanelli disagrees

http://alstefanelli.wordpress.com/20...-to-be-a-dick/

As does Richard Dawkins who argues that, while we probably won't change the mind of our opponent, we might well influence others. (Sorry I can't find the piece by Dawkins which I read yesterday).

What do you think?

[Harryprice]

You're unlikely to persuade anyone who feels you're attacking them. Third parties watching such a 'debate' may well take the side of the one they feel is being attacked. So, in my opinion (no evidence to present other than personal experience!), I think attacking someone, even when you have overwhelming evidence on your side, is likely to be counter productive.

I have managed to change people's attitudes to certain aspects of the paranormal down the years. How? By presenting the evidence and then answering all their questions with scientific evidence. It is important to understand what sort of things people report, not just assume it, so you need to read actual paranormal case reports. Then you will have detailed answers ready. You also need to know every detail of the science because 'believers' will always find 'special circumstances' that make their own experiences paranormal.

It also helps if you respect the people you're talking to. You may not agree with their beliefs but there are always reasons why people believe what they believe. It is usually down to personal experience. You are talking to someone who has had an unusual experience and interpreted it in their own way. It doesn't make them an idiot. We learn things through trial and error and particularly through personal experience. It is the way our brains work and not the fault of individuals. It is up to you to put those experiences into context rather than ridiculing the person who had them. Some people are even grateful when they realise getting orbs on photos of their nice new home doesn't mean it is haunted!

[smudge]

I don't think you can often change the minds of people with entrenched beliefs by debate or showing them evidence. If they don't want to listen or to see there is no way of getting them to do so.

Personal experience tells me that attacking the views (rather than the person of course) of the religious may be ineffective in changing their minds (though I do suspect seeds of doubt can be sown) it is often effective in altering the views of spectators, fence sitters and moderates. Worthwhile because of this.

I've always been of the opinion that many different strategies are useful.

Not had time to view the links yet. I will do when I get the time...

[chaggle]

I have never had any success trying to change anyone's 'beliefs' and I don't think it's worth it.

The word "attack" is interesting. I would not expect to get a result from an "attack". But even if you start off non-confrontationally, maybe just by asking a question that they find difficult to answer, as soon as they see that you do not agree with their point of view and are trying to show them a different view they see it as an "attack" even if that's not what you intend. From the point they perceive that they are being attacked they entrench and any further attempt at persuasion merely reinforces their belief.

The only reason for arguing with people and their beliefs is for fun.

[Matt]

Phil Plait recently gave a talk at the TAM8 meeting where he argued that directly attacking proponents of woo is not the best way to change hearts and minds:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/...ow-online.html

Al Stefanelli disagrees

http://alstefanelli.wordpress.com/20...-to-be-a-dick/

As does Richard Dawkins who argues that, while we probably won't change the mind of our opponent, we might well influence others. (Sorry I can't find the piece by Dawkins which I read yesterday).

What do you think?

I think Phil answers this best himself.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...t-1-the-video/

Some people are claiming I was saying we need to be milquetoasts. That’s ridiculous. I was very clear that anger has its place, that we need to be firm, and that we need to continue the fight.
Some were claiming they have a right to be dicks — I’m bemused by this, as of course you have that right. But that doesn’t mean it’s most effective, or that you should be one.
Others took issue with my initial question, asking how many people were "converted" to skepticism by having a skeptic yelling at them and insulting them. In fact, at least one person said that method does work and worked on them. That’s good for them, but given what we know about the way people argue and change their views on issues, the vast majority of people will become further entrenched when confronted in that way.
In other words, being a dick not only usually doesn’t work, it almost always works against the bigger goal of swaying the most people we can.
Perhaps I should have been more clear on what I mean by being a dick. I thought I had been clear, but a lot of people seem to think that I meant anyone who gets upset, or angry, or argues with emotion. I wouldn’t include satire in that category, or comedic work, or even necessarily using insults; tone and attitude count here. Think of it this way: when someone argues that way do you think to yourself, "What a dick"? I don’t; at least not necessarily. I think that way when the person belittles their opponent, uses obviously inflammatory language, or overly aggressively gets in their face.
Y’know. Being a dick.

[Pebble]

Demeaning others is hardly a very skeptical approach. I do think that sometimes the threshold for resorting to accusations of trolling etc can be quite low on this forum.

[smudge]

Perhaps I should have been more clear on what I mean by being a dick. I thought I had been clear, but a lot of people seem to think that I meant anyone who gets upset, or angry, or argues with emotion. I wouldn’t include satire in that category, or comedic work, or even necessarily using insults; tone and attitude count here. Think of it this way: when someone argues that way do you think to yourself, "What a dick"? I don’t; at least not necessarily. I think that way when the person belittles their opponent, uses obviously inflammatory language, or overly aggressively gets in their face.
Y’know. Being a dick.

The quote above is sound. I can't think of any skeptics who would not agree with it.

I think Phil is rather wanting it both ways.
On one hand he's (rightly) saying name calling and in your face aggression is counter productive. That is 'being a Dick'. No one wants to be (or promote being) that kind of Dick. On other hand he seems to want to muddy his message (then suggest he's been misinterpreted) and include polite, but forceful, challenges to nonsense as 'being a Dick'.
'Being a Dick' is not the same as being clear and forceful when one feels it appropriate.
I think he's intentionally confusing his own argument to cover his accommodationist viewpoint.
So, yes Phil. You should be more clear. Or consistent perhaps.

[jimwalsh]

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6637

"We tell many versions of the same story over and over, not just to entertain each other, but to refine our thinking, to convince those who can be convinced, and to point out the weakness in thinking apparent in others. We do this not to be “dicks” but because repeated assaults on reason require repeated defence."

speaking from a personal perspective being a woo pushing osteopath...

I feel that I am a natural skeptic in my view of both my profession and the world at large, I prefer to understand rather than believe and find myself agreeing with much of the "skeptic" position...

However there can be an unpleasant tone to some of the discourse which in my mind seems to alienate and divide creating a them and us mentality. however I do appreciate that there is a fairly broad spectrum of behaviour within the "community" insofar that there is one...

[Admin]

I thought it was a really good speech and he’s got the right idea. It’s more about communication than it is skepticism of course. If you have a message of persuasion (and that’s how I’d characterize the quest to change people’s attitudes) or if you’re trying to educate people (which is often another stated aim of skeptics) then how do you deliver your message effectively?

It’s good to see a leading skeptic thinking about this issue.

What skeptics groups need to consider is what they’re about in the first place:

• What is it we do?
• Why do we do it?
• Who are we doing it for?
• What are our objectives?
• How are we going to achieve them?
• How are we going to monitor progress?

And so on. The answers to these questions need to be in place before you even think about communicating messages etc.

I go on about adopting a ‘businesslike model’ in approach. I’m not sure whether anyone really knows what I mean but if you consider a business wanting to sell a product or service they will need to do market research. They will need to ascertain who wants the product, why they might want it, how to make it appealing, why they might buy it, how to deliver it effectively, etc. And once all of that is in place, then they can start trading.

If skeptics have a message and they want people to listen and take notice then they really need to market themselves in the same way. Whatever it is they want to achieve they need to start thinking in a customer-orientated way. i.e. deliver your message to a relevant audience in a way that appeals to them – because if you don’t, they’re not going to listen.

Too many skeptics take an egocentric approach and deal with issues from their own perspective and then expect people to listen to them and be persuaded by their arguments.

But the point of Phil Plait’s talk was the manner in which we deliver a message. He’s absolutely right. If we take a confrontational and antagonistic approach it won’t work. It’s a divisive approach and only serves to create group mentality (us versus them) so that the very people you’re trying to persuade become the ones who’ll resist you the strongest. Other people looking on will only see a battle and are unlikely to want to join in.

As I have been saying for the last few years, skeptics need to take a more businesslike approach and think about what it is they’re trying to achieve. If you have a target audience then you need to find out how they operate and tailor your message to suit them – not you.

Otherwise, it’s all a complete and utter waste of time.

[Harryprice]

If you have a target audience then you need to find out how they operate and tailor your message to suit them – not you.

In my experience, 'believers' want a way of making sense of the world that works all the time. It doesn't have to be magical but it does have to answer ALL their questions. They see too many 'holes' in science and so lose faith in it. If scientists were to address the specific causes of weird experiences, in detail, it might work. Instead, such things are seen as hallucinatory or the product of muddled thinking and so not worthy of study. The attraction of 'weird beliefs' is that they can answer ALL questions, which is comforting.

[Matt]

"He almost convinced me that insulting people was a bad idea and just entrenches your audience. But then he called me a dick and I got entrenched."

[smudge]

But the point of Phil Plait’s talk was the manner in which we deliver a message. He’s absolutely right. If we take a confrontational and antagonistic approach it won’t work. It’s a divisive approach and only serves to create group mentality (us versus them) so that the very people you’re trying to persuade become the ones who’ll resist you the strongest. Other people looking on will only see a battle and are unlikely to want to join in.

Phil's main message was common sense. Rather an easy point if all he is saying is 'name calling and shouting is not good argument'.
No one (as far as I am aware) is arguing that being aggressive or confrontational should be the main policy of the skeptical movement.


Regardless of what is considered 'best' policy, individuals will a times behave badly. We are all human. Tempers fray. At times, as Phil himself says, anger is sometimes a good motivational tool.
The idea we are ever going to politely 'persuade' the most entrenched creationist or snake oil salesman is deluded. Being polite will mean being shouted down or ignored while they promote lies and make money. At these extremes it IS a war. A war of ideas. The area we can perhaps persuade and influence is the moderates, the undecided, those that have not thought much about it, the fence sitters, the 'don't care really but it says this in the paper'...

I would have thought there are many different ways of influencing these groups rather than a one size fits all approach.

If skeptics have a message and they want people to listen and take notice then they really need to market themselves in the same way. Whatever it is they want to achieve they need to start thinking in a customer-orientated way. i.e. deliver your message to a relevant audience in a way that appeals to them – because if you don’t, they’re not going to listen

I'm a mite uncomfortable with this though I agree with much of what you say.
Sounds a bit New Labour. Ditch the principals in favor of popularity. I'm sure thats not at all what you mean but....Hmm.... Not sure about it.

[smudge]

"He almost convinced me that insulting people was a bad idea and just entrenches your audience. But then he called me a dick and I got entrenched."

[Admin]

The idea we are ever going to politely 'persuade' the most entrenched creationist or snake oil salesman is deluded.

The idea that you can shout them down is equally deluded. Assuming that you've chosen them as your target audience that is.

The area we can perhaps persuade and influence is the moderates, the undecided, those that have not thought much about it, the fence sitters, the 'don't care really but it says this in the paper'...

Well they may be a better target audience but I still don't think that confrontation or aggression is likely to appeal to them.

I would have thought there are many different ways of influencing these groups rather than a one size fits all approach.

No one's arguing for a one size fits all approach. What I'm saying is that perhaps a more 'horses for courses' approach would be a better idea. Whenever we find something we want to do something about we should consider it carefully (as in a professional manner) and try to come up with a response that at least stands a chance of having an effect.

I'm a mite uncomfortable with this though I agree with much of what you say.
Sounds a bit New Labour. Ditch the principals in favor of popularity. I'm sure thats not at all what you mean but....Hmm.... Not sure about it.

No that's not what I mean at all. Ditch the ineffective for the effective* is what I'm advocating.

Skeptics have been confrontational and preachy for years and it never does any good. Perhaps nothing ever will but my point is that if something has been tried and found not to work then ditch it. Skeptics are rather fond of evidence and as far as I can see the evidence shows that the approach of the last few decades has had little, if any, discernible effect.

But let's be clear. What I'm saying is that once a purpose or mission has been decided (what it is we aim to achieve etc.) then, and only then, should you start thinking about your method and style of communication.

We've got to start thinking about what it is we do and how we go about achieving it.



* potentially effective at least - we won't know if certain approaches work unless they're tried.

[smudge]

No one's arguing for a one size fits all approach. What I'm saying is that perhaps a more 'horses for courses' approach would be a better idea

But let's be clear. What I'm saying is that once a purpose or mission has been decided (what it is we aim to achieve etc.) then, and only then, should you start thinking about your method and style of communication.

We've got to start thinking about what is is we do and how we go about achieving it.
.

Agreed on all points.
With the proviso's;
Not everyone is able to express themselves as coherently as we might like.
Human failings are inevitable.