Don't Be A Dick

[smudge]

Here they are:]

Thanks Brian! Will read later when I have time....

As I said, it depends on the circumstances. Scathing satire may well be appropriate on the internet. It's probably better to tone it down with more emphasis on humour if you're addressing a live audience. But if you're dealing with individuals face-to-face then aggression is just likely to make them defensive and turn off - a lighter touch is needed.

I agree.
But anger and passion are tools like any other. They can be used well or not so well.

Why do skeptics so often try to pretend they are related to Spock?! They are not! We all have emotions. This does not mean we have to let them get the better of us, or pretend we don't have them!
As I have said, many approaches are needed. But a major hurdle is getting noticed.

They have the advantage that when you are a liar or loony you can say what people want to hear, which is often a lot more palatable than the truth. We on the other hand have to tell the truth.

Yes, I know. You may have seen (and ignored!) my anti advertising rants?! We do not have to lie (just because others do) in order to use some of those effective tactics for getting people interested.

Just because we are at a disadvantages does not mean it is best to give up and navel gaze instead. If what we talk about matters at all then it matters that we say it loud and clear.

I am a nerd and very cool, everyone at the "Peckham, Camberwell and Brixton historical re-enactment society" (PCBHRES) say so.

[Pebble]

They have the advantage that when you are a liar or loony you can say what people want to hear, which is often a lot more palatable than the truth. We on the other hand have to tell the truth.

Advertising is about understanding the essence of the message you need to get across and understanding the nature of communication with those who are not interested in your message.
Truth per se is not the problem, we have few truths, mainly well supported, poorly supported or unsupported ideas. The problem is not being reductionist - if one confined what one was prepared to say to those 'facts' that are well supported, one would have little to say.

The real problem I suspect is that those who are committed to checking their facts (similar to accountants) don't get on terribly well with the imaginative selfpublicist types (like advertisers). Whereas the religious nutters we are competing with are entirely at home in this enviornment.

[Admin]

I dislike Phil's 'dick' term, it is vague.

Well I've had a look around to see what people have been saying about this issue and the vast majority of comments are about who's a dick or what is meant by dick etc. In other words, they've latched onto one aspect of Plait's speech, dichotomised it and then are arguing over who's a dick and who's not. In doing all of this they're missing the whole point of the talk: the issue of effective communication.

Ironically, including the term "don't be a dick" can be seen as very poor communication as it's distracted everyone from the main point!

But anyone else stumbling across a skeptic site will be bored. Explaining in more detail is NOT going to help! Nor is doing it very very politely!

But no one's advocating that we explain things in more detail. That's actually one of the criticisms I have of skeptics - they have the idea that people hold irrational beliefs because they don't understand what it is they believe and so all we have to do is explain things and they will change their minds. That doesn't happen.

The first thing we need is to be NOTICED!

That's a lot more debatable than you might think.

There's the issue of source when people assess arguments. One aspect of whether someone takes an argument seriously is 'source authenticity' and another is 'source likeability'. In other words, the perceived credibility etc. of the source of information can have a big impact on whether the information is taken seriously.

e.g. a headline such as "artificial sweeteners may cause cancer" might well grab your attention, but when you see it's in the Daily Mail you might just not take it quite so seriously.

What do you think the public perception of skeptics and skepticism actually is?

What effect do you think going around insulting, mocking and ridiculing people will have on the public's perception of skepticism?

Then there's concepts such as 'education by stealth'. i.e. methods of communication or persuasion that work without people realising they are being informed or persuaded.

We are being shouted down by liars and loonies. Why? Because they shout louder, are more concise, and manage to sell themselves as more 'cool'.
We are putting people to sleep when we should be smashing them in the teeth!

If you want to talk about selling, think advertising. Short. Punchy. Dynamic. Irreverent. Funny. Bloody rude! In short; be a dick!

Nerds are asking the question 'how do we attract more people to skepticism?' They are coming up with the (wrong!) answer; "we need to explain in more detail, we need to be more nerdy, we need to be more polite'. NO! We need the oposite. We need to be more dynamic, we need to be more aggressive, we need to shout louder, we need to be funnier, we need to be much less nerdy!

I'm seeing a lot of assumptions and assertions there but no reasoning for your conclusion.

What we actually need is to apply skepticism to the issue of communication: apply the very method we advocate!

If we assume that we have some aims in mind, which will suggest a target audience, and we are considering the best method of communication then we really should be looking for evidence. Which communication methods work and under which contexts do they work?

So we should apply the same methods of inquiry that we expect people to apply to things like alternative medicine etc., to ourselves. Go with the evidence and don't rely on intuition or personal experience.

The good news is that there has been a good deal of research done in this area. The bad news is that there's no easy answer to any of this.

[smudge]

I've replied once at length and was kicked off the forum before able to post. The third time that's happened. Very annoying.

I will try again briefly.

In other words, they've latched onto one aspect of Plait's speech, dichotomised it and then are arguing over who's a dick and who's not. In doing all of this they're missing the whole point of the talk: the issue of effective communication.

Or it was a poor choice of words by Phil.

Ironically, including the term "don't be a dick" can be seen as very poor communication as it's distracted everyone from the main point!

I thought I said that!

But no one's advocating that we explain things in more detail. That's actually one of the criticisms I have of skeptics - they have the idea that people hold irrational beliefs because they don't understand what it is they believe and so all we have to do is explain things and they will change their minds. That doesn't happen.

I'm confused...
No ones saying it so I'm wrong, but you must agree with me if you use the same criticism...?

What do you think the public perception of skeptics and skepticism actually is?

I don't think most people have a clue. We are invisible.

What effect do you think going around insulting, mocking and ridiculing people will have on the public's perception of skepticism?

Who is suggesting that as best policy? I thought I'd been clear on that.
In some circumstances humor is useful. In some circumstances I'm happy to see certain people mocked. In some circumstances perhaps humor can draw people in and explain ideas better than argument or evidence? Perhaps some people are more able to take in ideas through humor than statistics?

I'm seeing a lot of assumptions and assertions there but no reasoning for your conclusion.

My only suggestion is that different approaches suit different people. And different approaches are effective in reaching different people. Yes, anecdote and experience only. Happy to be corrected!
I'm suggesting that the advertising industry are successful in promoting products, ideas, brands. They use varying tactics. But these tactics are invariably more punchy than most skeptic fare. It seems sensible that we might learn from this.

What we actually need is to apply skepticism to the issue of communication: apply the very method we advocate!

If we assume that we have some aims in mind, which will suggest a target audience, and we are considering the best method of communication then we really should be looking for evidence. Which communication methods work and under which contexts do they work?

So we should apply the same methods of inquiry that we expect people to apply to things like alternative medicine etc., to ourselves. Go with the evidence and don't rely on intuition or personal experience.

The good news is that there has been a good deal of research done in this area. The bad news is that there's no easy answer to any of this.

Fine. Sounds great.
Problem being that if the evidence shows that the 'best communication methods' are forming a popular beat combo and singing about critical thinking, not all skeptic groups or individuals have the skills or desire to do this well. If the evidence shows it is effective to paint statistics on prominent buildings, not everyone may wish to risk arrest.
Skeptics are a mixed bunch of individuals. I'm sure all would find such communication evidence very interesting and useful. But we all have differing skills, interests, abilities and limitations. And this diversity will increase IF the skeptic 'movement' (if thats what it is) grows.

[rainbows.]

I found it very uncomfortable to be on this forum in the beginning...

until I realised you made a lot of sense

[Jules]

Hi rainbows,

I'm interested in what brought you here in the first place?

[Jules]

The good news is that there has been a good deal of research done in this area. The bad news is that there's no easy answer to any of this.

John, where can we find the results of this research?

[Admin]

Skeptics are a mixed bunch of individuals. I'm sure all would find such communication evidence very interesting and useful. But we all have differing skills, interests, abilities and limitations. And this diversity will increase IF the skeptic 'movement' (if thats what it is) grows.

Skepticism isn't a movement. Nor is it organised. Or even a community as far as I can tell!

I don't want to get into an argument over details as all I'm arguing for is that we re-frame our approach to issues. There are many different ideas within skepticism and many different ideas about how to go about it (if indeed you think action is necessary - skepticism and activism are actually different things).

It's the businesslike model I keep going on about. We need to clearly define what it is we want to do (which may be different with each project) and then choose an evidence-based and appropriate method for achieving it. The appropriate tool if you like.

e.g. If your goal is to have homeopathy banned from use or sale then you will need to think about how this is achievable, where to target your efforts, which methods will be suitable etc.

If your goal is to dissuade people from using homeopathy (because banning things doesn't square well with your liberal outlook, say) then obviously your target audience is going to be different and different methods of persuasion will be needed.

It's really all about simply being a lot more savvy about how we go about things. That's all I'm advocating. The application of clarity of thought and purpose and some evidence-based (attempted at least) solutions.

[Admin]

I found it very uncomfortable to be on this forum in the beginning...

That's only because you're an enormous great megaWoo.

until I realised you made a lot of sense

Now there is an extraordinary claim!

[Admin]

John, where can we find the results of this research?

The PsychInfo database.

I've collected dozens of papers on various topics including many on things like persuasion etc. that are of relevance here.

The problem is that research findings show things we really don't want to see! e.g. confronting a 'believer' with a really strong argument that shows that their belief is false will usually strengthen their belief. It's counter-intuitive but that's how people work.

Findings such as this have really important implications for how we deliver our message should persuasion or attitude change be a specified goal. If we put a lot of effort into targeting a group and challenging their beliefs with evidence-based arguments, it will either have no effect or even strengthen their position.

There's all sorts of stuff like this that complicates matters too.

I've still yet to read a lot of the papers I've got but I'll soon be in a position to do so. You never know, once I've learned more, things might be even worse that I first thought!

[smudge]

It's really all about simply being a lot more savvy about how we go about things. That's all I'm advocating. The application of clarity of thought and purpose and some evidence-based (attempted at least) solutions.

Understood John.
I'm with you on the whole!

[smudge]

Here they are:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....#comment-40191

It is Dawkins's comment on someone else's blog about the "Don't be a Dick" speech. The blog post itself and the other comments are worth reading too:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....e-we-phalluses

Thanks Brian.
Well worth a read.

[rainbows.]

That's only because you're an enormous great megaWoo.

You should meet my friends

[rainbows.]

Hi rainbows,

I'm interested in what brought you here in the first place?

An ex-member of this forum told me about this place.
This was my first introduction to Skepticism and I didn't like it for a variety of reasons.

It was from this forum that I invited Gary Mannion to my forum - I felt sorry for him.
I couldn't see the ''real'' intention because too many skeptics went about it the wrong way.
Some skeptics started a new tactic of explaining without the insults and that's when I -and others - started to listen to what you had to say.

I appreciate it's a two - way road and I've been caught in the middle many a time.

I try hard not to antagonize. I am quite capable of holding non-aggressive conversations with skeptics. I know where I stand with you, and why...

And despite some of your weird beliefs, I do like you Most of you anyway

[bindeweede]

And despite some of your weird beliefs, I do like you Most of you anyway

Dear rainbows, I was going to ask you to give some examples of the "weird beliefs" of skeptics, but I changed my mind.

But I have changed it back again! Over to you....... in a caring way, of course.