Keep thinking critically with the SheThought.com feed. Thanks for visiting!
The accessiblity for writing in public and self-publishing is amazing. I feel very fortunate to enjoy a few venues in which to do this. I have a passion for factual reality, and I want to spread the good news. I do love the opportunity to put my ideas out there for critical thinkers to pick over. I love learning and refining my perspective, and I love lively discussion in the comments here.
In real life I encounter far more diversity of rationality. It’s much harder to communicate. Culture, or psychology, or ideology, or misinformation often gets in my way. Which is both fascinating and incredibly frustrating. I’m also terrible at masking my emotions. “What the hell is wrong with you?” is easy to read between the lines on my face.
How can I convince someone of the fact of climate change when he earnestly believes that a skiff of snow anywhere on the planet is evidence that the climate is fine? How do successful science communicators bring reason to bear in public and private discourse?
Writer Greg Correll has a fascinating article about graphically representing information. He advocates all kinds of visual shenanigans to enrich written content.
On the 7 November episode of the Point of Inquiry podcast, host Chris Mooney interviewed Bill Nye (The Science Guy). It was a great discussion about how to communicate with people who are either scientifically illiterate or who for other reasons deny factual reality. One compelling example Money and Nye covered was climate change.
Mooney asked Nye to advise scientists who want to do a better job communicating to the public, especially in hostile media venues where interviews devolve into shouting. Nye responded with three points: keep the answers short; listen to the first question; remember that it’s a process and chip away at it.
One problem in the public discourse is that scientists tend to over-qualify their responses, and that leads the general public to infer scientific ambiguity.
Mooney, “I think I’ve seen research showing that the IPCC climate change language that they use, which is meant to convey a high degree of certainty, they say ‘very likely’ at this point. [...] When an average person hears it, they think that it’s less certain…”
Nye, “Oh, man! Absolutely! And the other example is they asked a guy [...] ‘Is this uh, atom-smasher in CERN, the um, Large Hadron Collider, is it going to cause, can it cause a black hole…in Switzerland, that will consume the earth in a matter of hours?’ And he said, ‘That’s very unlikely.’ And by that he meant, whatever the expression is, twenty sigma to the left of anything that would go wrong. But because he didn’t say, ‘Absolutely not!’ in parentheses, ‘you nutcase, you dingbat,’ uh, people just exactly as you said, seized on it. [...]
You have to talk to people. ‘No! No black hole! Not gonna happen! Uh, in order to get a black hole, you need, now I’m not an expert, but roughly the mass of six suns. Six of our stars. We don’t have that, so chill.’”
Another amazingly effective science communicator, Neil Degrasse Tyson, was a guest on the Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe November 19th podcast. The interview begins around thirty six minutes into the episode. Podcast co-host Jay Novella calls Tyson a rock star and asks,
“Now I’m the lowly musician that just bought a guitar, and I want to know how to become a rock star. Is it really a huge portion luck, is there a secret that you stumbled on, is there an avenue that we could practice?”
Tyson spends a great deal of time talking about noticing when, why, and where people are interested. He studies people. He tries to figure out what engages people. He watches his audience for pupil dilation and adjusts his presentations to keep them interested. This requires him to arrive over-prepared and loose on his feet with pop culture references and humor to keep his audience involved.
Tyson and SGU host Steve Novella go on to discuss the importance of incorporating multiple sensory modalities into communication and creating graphical and visual references for people that adds information to the content.
Tyson, “My body is drawing a picture, when it can, of the content that I’m delivering. [...] Students learn more deeply the more senses you can excite in the effort of teaching them. [...] I think we should use all available ways to inform the senses that people have brought.”
Steve Novella, “The research backs that up, too. What you learned is backed up by a lot of research that shows, yeah, there’s lots of ways to affect the retention and people’s attention. [...] Every sensory modality you add adds to people’s perception and retention of the information you’re trying to get across.”
Which reminded me of Smell-O-Vision. If I had Smell-O-Vision, you would be inhaling the aroma of reason right now. This smells like very dark fair trade coffee that has been lovingly brewed in a coffee press.
Tyson has been on The Daily Show with John Stewart a number of times and said he did a great deal of research prior to his first interview. He studied the rhythm of the show and calculated the average time before John Stewart interrupted. Tyson tailored his response to the first question (as Nye advocated) to match that (brief) time frame, thus facilitating Stewart’s joke on a complete thought rather than on a fragment. He parsed his information to match the venue. Here’s a clip from 2007. I noticed both the rhythm and the way Tyson used his hands to illustrate his points.
Both Nye and Tyson spend significant time advocating for scientific literacy, and I completely agree. In this age of slick pundits shouting sciencey-sounding opposite-truths, it’s difficult for people to tell fact from fiction. I think it’s up to all critical thinkers to marginalize willful ignorance and celebrate reason. If someone makes a testable claim and a large percentage of smart people doubt it, look it up for yourself. Find the primary sources and watch for conflicts of interest and other red flags. Especially if the claim resonates strongly with your own biases.
The average claim for a supernatural or psychic power or ability usually follows the same typical pattern. A good example is when someone claims they can “dowse for water” (one of the more common and also easily tested psychic claims). Ideally, test is set up with the very confident claimant agreeing to all the conditions of the test. The confidence of the claimant begins to falter as the test proves more “difficult” than they had imagined. Rarely does the confidence falter in their ability, instead the confidence that this test is a “fair” test is what falters. At the end excuses abound about why they failed to dowse correctly. The excuses never seem to include “Maybe dowsing doesn’t work.”
But, what happens when a claimant does deliver on a claim? One would imagine that a successful result for a claim of an unscientific nature would result in great riches and admiration for the claimant. In San Diego in the early 20th century however, this was not the case.
Rainmakers are almost a thing of the past. But at one time rainmakers were far more common. Belief that human action can cause rain to fall is part of many cultures, though often tied in with a religious practice or ritual. Belief that gun fire could result in rainfall was suggested during the Napoleonic Wars. There was also belief that the gun and cannon fire during the Civil War would often cause rain. China still has rainmakers that use shells, but with a little more science attached.
Charles Hatfield was a rainmaker, with his younger brother Paul. He believed he had developed a scientific way to encourage nature to release rain. His method, which was kept highly secret, involved building a large tower and chemicals. In 1904 Hatfield felt this method was successful in bringing rain to a drought stricken Los Angeles. Hatfield traveled around the country, claiming success after success with his method. However, one of Hatfield s contemporaries said of him that he could “Talk more and say less than any man I know”. Those familiar with psychics, dowsers and tarot card readers know full well what that means.
In 1915 Hatfield sent a letter to the San Diego city council offering to help fill the Morena Reservoir. San Diego was a booming town, and the reservoir not filling as high as it should be was a problem between 1912-1914. The letter is as follows:
I will fill the Morena Reservoir to overflowing between now and next December 20th, 1916, for the sum of ten thousand dollars, in default of which I ask no compensation; or I will deliver at the Morena Reservoir thirty inches of rain free of charge, you to pay me $500 per inch from the thirtieth to the fiftieth inch–all above fifty inches to be free, on or before the 1st of June, 1916. Or I will forty inches (sic) during the next twelve months, free of charge, provided you pay me $1000 per inch for all between forty and fifty inches, all. above fifty inches free.
While the city council was not unanimous, a feeling of “what’s the harm” prevailed. (For more “What’s the harm” irony visit the terrific website What’s the Harm?). Soon Hatfield was setting up his mysterious tower at the Morena Reservoir. By January 14th rain started to fall. By July 16 torrential rain fell. In fact, it wasn’t just raining at the reservoir, it was raining all over the San Diego area. Flooding lead to the San Diego river overflowing and a train bridge getting washed out. An irate resident who had been flooded out said “Let’s pay Hatfield $100,000 to quit!” Still Hatfield kept on with his rainmaking, as he felt he had to provide all the rain he had promised to the Morena Reservoir. By Jan.20 more bridges had been washed away, a train had been stranded in flooding and the new race track in Tijuana had to shut down. In one area over 100 families had been left homeless. The worst was yet to come with the failure of the Lower Otay Dam on Jan. 27. Over 13 billion gallons of water was released resulting in much destruction of property and an unknown number of deaths (estimated at under 20). Failure of this dam resulted in $3,500,000 worth of lawsuits against the city.
Hatfield, isolated at the reservoir, expected to be treated as a hero for his part in what seemed a very successful rainmaking result. He soon learned differently as many people blamed him for the damages. Hatfield took to carrying a gun for protection. On Feb. 5 he tried to collect his fee of $10,000 from the city. This was declined. He was even told if he was willing to pay for the damages caused by the flooding, they would pay him his $10,000. Hatfield, ever the slick talker, pointed out that the loss of bridges and buildings would result in the need to hire workers to rebuild the structures. In other words, the flood damage was going to be good for the economy. The city council didn’t buy it. Hatfield offered later to settle for $1800, but was again turned down. He filed a lawsuit with the city, which finally quietly died from lack of activity in 1938.
The question remains, did Hatfield cause the flooding? He himself claimed he did not, that he only caused whatever rain happened at the reservoir. Nature and God he said made the rest. Certainly he had no way to prove the rain in one area was from a different cause then all the other rain falling. The city was afraid that if they did pay Hatfield, then they would be admitting that their hiring Hatfield caused the rain. This would leave the city open to countless lawsuits. Only by distancing themselves from Hatfield, could the city claim the flood and damages were an “act of God,” for which they had no liability.
Hatfield went on to more rainmaking jobs, across the West Coast and even in South America. His scrapbook tells of success after success, though a failed rainmaker probably does not scrapbook failures. With the odds that it’s going to rain sometime, rainmakers can have a success rate of almost 100% anywhere. Government involvement in rainmaking woo continues to this day though, with Gov. Rick Perry’s call for prayer for rain. The prayers for rain were unsuccessful. I like to imagine if Hatfield were still around Gov. Perry might have hired him.
Imagine that you had to work harder to say “hello” to a group of friends. Imagine that you couldn’t show them a set of pictures of your child growing up or show the world your graduation video with that amazing song that perfectly dates it because that’s what was popular at the time.
Imagine no Google, no Wikipedia, no facebook and no twitter.
Then remember. Remember how the Egyptian protests were organized and viewed through twitter. Remember how campaign information, right now, is being shared through facebook and how we’re seeing the world moving and flowing right before our very eyes on various news outlets. Remember how you have access to a great, instant education just by spending a few moments online. What would it be like if it were all gone?
How would you feel without activists like myself, or bigger ones like the skepchicks, like Brian Dunning, Ben Radford, James Randi or even Neil DeGrasse Tyson right at your fingertips? That also means no wikileaks and, in contrast, even Fox News websites would be at risk (hey, in the interest of full disclosure, I felt the need to point that out).
Imagine that your internet was almost empty.
That’s what today is about. Protests against SOPA and PIPA are abundant, today, and part of your internet is empty to show you; to remind you of what it might be like if they were in effect. Please consider this carefully and take a look at the following links in the next few hours:
They gathered a wealth of information from the American National Election Studies data to explain the current polarized disarray of American political discourse. In particular, they sourced a four-question inventory to sort respondents along a continuum from authoritarian to non-authoritarian. The questions have to do with how people view authority and control in parent/child relationships.
Hetherington and Weiler don’t provide a convenient one-line definition of the term authoritarianism because the concept is complex, and they wanted to avoid just the sort of negative bias that I read into it. My understanding, based on the book as well as a bit of Googling, is that authoritarianism appears to be a type of cognitive deficit style.
“The thing that makes authoritarians distinctive is their reliance on established authorities [...] we suspect that those who score high in authoritarianism have (I) a greater need for order and, conversely less tolerance for confusion or ambiguity, and (2) a propensity to rely on established authorities to provide that order. [...]
Specifically, those scoring high in authoritarianism will probably tend to rely more on emotion and instinct than those scoring low because they (I) have, on average, fewer cognitive tools and (2) feel more threat from the often ambiguous nature of the complicated world around them.” (p.34)
The most difficult thing about reading the book was maintaining my objectivity. It was very easy to read strong confirmation of my own biases into many aspects of the discussion. Of course I scored myself. I’m not good at dichotomous survey questions. After I mentally qualified my answers, “Yes, but….” I estimate my personal score is around -2. Beyond non-authoritarian. Anti-authoritarian.
My impression from the book and my own anthropological observation is that most authoritarians tend to be republican, white, Christian, heterosexual traditionalists. They want things to be the way they have always been. They tend to favor forceful, aggressive political candidates. The world is black and white for authoritarians, and they don’t let a little thing like objective reality get in the way of their opinions. These are the “shoot first, ask questions later” people.
Although authoritarians are generally less rational and more reactive than non-authoritarians, it turns out that even non-authoritarians commit serious errors in cognition when they feel threatened.
While authoritarians tend to feel threatened all the time from the diversity and complexity around them, non-authoritarians tend to remain calm most of the time. Non-authoritarians briefly trended toward the authoritarian side of the spectrum immediately following 9/11. President George W. Bush’s approval rating was around 90% shortly after the attacks. Fear erodes cognition for all of us, but the non-authoritarians return to deliberative calm when the threat recedes.
The republican political elite is masterful at reminding its base to be afraid, very afraid. The more authoritarian candidates are currently arousing the passions of their base with seriously scary issues like these:
At the extremes of the authoritarian spectrum, it really is impossible for authoritarians and non-authoritarians to imagine what the hell is wrong with people on other side. Which is both fascinating and incredibly depressing.
I contacted Jonathan Weiler via email with some questions. Both he and Marc Hetherington were very generous with their time. The discussion follows:
Me: After hearing your recent interview on the Point of Inquiry podcast, I read your fascinating book.
I find the authoritarian paradigm as you and Hetherington describe it incredibly compelling, but I have a few follow-up questions.
1. The issue of climate change seemed to be missing from the discussion. Why?
Jonathan: I agree about climate change. A telling moment during the 2008 campaign – I thought – was Palin’s “drill, baby, drill” line, which seemed to represent a pivot from a conservationist approach to such issues (and one which, historically, many conservatives were sympathetic to) to an issue framed by the need for cognitive simplification.
Marc notes as well as that climate change is, assuredly, part of a bigger suite of issues that involve the rejection of science.
Me: 2. How do those of us on the non-authoritarian end of the spectrum rebrand ourselves as having the greater amount of courage because we don’t freak out in crises?
Jonathan: number 2 is a great question and I am not sure of the answer, but I will say that Ron Paul has framed his opposition to overseas adventures in terms of strength, not weakness.
Marc notes that non-authoritarians probably do freak out during a crisis – that’s what humans do. A difference is that non-authoritarians disposition don’t seem to be freaking out all the time. After 9/11, almost everyone was in a high state of anxiety. That state receded for some, but not for others.
Me: 3. Chapter 6 contains this passage: “Republicans seem to benefit by raising the specter of threat, especially as it relates to terrorism. In making this observation, we do not mean to suggest that this is a cynical strategy…” I recall a carpet bombing of terrorism-based political hay in the months and years following 9/11. My bias is showing, but it sure seemed to me like a cynical strategy at the time.
Jonathan: The cynicism statement was us being careful academics. Your bias is well-founded. To my comments about cynicism,
Marc adds that there was likely some real fear among GOP leaders. If you’ve read Ron Suskind’s “The One Percent Solution,” you get a sense of this. It’s probably not an either/or proposition, even if the motivation was *mostly* cynical.
Me: 4. I’ve read Nyhan and Reifler’s research into the backfire effect.
[The backfire effect occurs when people are so emotionally invested in an opinion that factual counter-evidence causes them to double-down on their misinformed stance. For example, there are some people who continue to believe there were WMDs in Iraq to justify their support of the war. All evidence to the contrary simply reinforces their anti-factual position.]
Are you familiar with this? If so, is there a relationship between high-ranking authoritarians and the backfire effect?
Jonathan: I am guessing you’d be right about the backfire event. It’s certainly consistent with what studies, in general, show about how they process information and make it conform to their worldview, though Chris Mooney has noted that progressives are not above doing this themselves (that’s not necessarily the same as non-authoritarians, but surely there’s some of that among non-authoritarians).
Me: 5. Speaking to the powerful impact of symbolism on people who rank high on the authoritarian index, I’m fascinated by how authoritarian issues play out in everyday situations. I have heard reports of people whose self-reported basis for their political opinions would place them very high on the authoritarian index. These individuals are viscerally fearful of ethnic cuisine. It’s racist, of course, but beyond that it’s a fascinatingly powerful aversion. It’s as if they fear consuming the food of people they fear will turn them into Other. (Other being non-white, non-Christian, college educated, New York Times reading, non-heterosexual, etc.) Have you encountered similar everyday glimpses into the impact of authoritarianism?
Jonathan: Marc has actually looked at some data on the relationship between ethnic food preferences and authoritarianism and, as you might expect, there is much less desire for experimentation/trying new things among high authoritarians.
Me: 6. Where can we follow your analysis of the shenanigans leading into the presidential election?
Jonathan: I write for a few sources – I am a regular political columnist for the Independent Weekly of North Carolina – my columns come out on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month. I write pretty regularly for Huffington Post. Finally, I have started doing regular podcasts with my close friend, Marty Beller, who is the drummer for They Might be Giants. The podcast is called The drummer and the professor. It’s not just about politics, but that is a focus, and the most recent one was from Iowa, where I was covering the caucuses.
The book was genuinely fascinating, and I love the idea that there is at least one reasonable explanation for the appalling dysfunction in contemporary American politics. I highly recommend it as a primer for tracking the debates surrounding the upcoming presidential election.
An earlier version originally published at Open Salon and DTMS
There is a strange conflict in the scientific community that revolves around some bizarre understanding of types of science and, seemingly, the scientific ego. Many people categorize some subjects of study as “hard science” and some as “soft science.” We’re talking No True Scotsman seems to have sneezed on
Today I had the unusual experience of meeting up with 2 old friends I hadn’t seen in about a year. I was struck by the common bond these 2 friends had with their interaction with me. I recently posted a link to this article.
“If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.”
–Benjamin Franklin
I was recently and publicly called a “fat hater” on Facebook by someone I know. It was in response to an article I wrote for Discovery News about a rhyming children’s book
Today, October 8, 2011, and tomorrow, I am attending Geek Girl Con, in Seattle. I will be live blogging the event all weekend. Myself and two friends kicked of the weekend with a visit to the AFK tavern, but I will write about that later. At this moment, I am sitting in JBL theatre watching
Although I am a godless liberal, I am not generally opposed to religion. I understand that religion has the potential to do a lot of good for many people. I realize that shared mythologies can be powerful contributors to cohesive societies. That said, what I am strongly opposed to is the harm that arises from
Recent Comments