Don't Be A Dick

[Tony Williams]

It's a difficult issue, and I agree with John that there is no one optimum approach - it depends on the circumstances. However, in any circumstances yelling abuse is likely to be counter-productive.

I have no experience of face-to-face arguments with believers (in woo or religion) but suspect that asking questions which cause people to face up to problems in their beliefs might work, provided it is done politely and not sneeringly. Similarly, gentle and good-humoured satire might work (although this might be better at a distance - i.e. to a larger audience - than one-to-one). A constant drip-feed of occasional questions and comments seems likely to be more effective than a "big bang" argument, as it gives people more time to get used to a different idea and is probably less likely to stimulate resistance.

However, the nature of most such beliefs is that they are not based on evidence or logic, so believers are always likely to be unimpressed by any evidence or logic presented to them - it's like speaking a different language. Our principal target audience must surely be the undecided or those who have simply never thought about the issues.

As an aside, I suspect it is much harder to convince believers who have a strong support network (such as a church congregation, or a web-based campaign group) which keeps reinforcing their beliefs, than it is to get isolated individuals to reconsider.

The door of a bigoted mind opens outwards so that the only result of the pressure of facts upon it is to close it more snugly. - Ogden Nash

[Pebble]

It's a difficult issue, and I agree with John that there is no one optimum approach - it depends on the circumstances. However, in any circumstances yelling abuse is likely to be counter-productive..

The odd thing about yelling abuse is that it tends to work very well for religious groups. The essential point is to create group membership first (the saved versus the dammed) and then to focus the anger outward, reinforcing group membership.
In theory this should alienate all outsiders from the group, yet it attracks many!

[smudge]

Back to Phil Plait's speech.

I am the only one to suggest he's wanting it both ways, that he's not spelling out exactly what he means? Am I plain wrong?!
His speech mainly seems to attack people who send angry name calling posts on forums. No-one disagrees with him here. No-one is arguing that this is good or effective policy for skeptics as a whole.

He then, at the very end, slips in the suggestion we must be "a big tent". This is a different issue. He could have been clearer. Who are the 'dick's'? Is that a wise term in a speech about clarity and communication?
My suspicion is that he may be having a pop at the New Atheist camp. In suggesting a 'big tent' he wishes to be open to moderate believers. In doing so potentially alienating the New Atheist group. The only criticism I have of his speech is that he may be trying to slip this suggestion in under the smokescreen of an easy target (aggressive forum posters).

I may be wrong. Any thoughts?

Personally I'm more comfortable in a tent with New Atheists and skeptics than one with skeptics and moderate believers. This, I suspect, is the question Phil is angling towards.

[Jules]

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.

I agree. In order to win the 'war of ideas' we need to back up and examine our motivations. And I like the marketing analogy. A good salesman knows that one size doesn't fit all, and that you need to point out the benefits of your product - not only that you're missing out by not "buying into it", but that sticking with the current model can actually cause harm. Know your competitor's product well, and explain why yours is better. Being pushy and arrogant may close a sale occasionally, but the customer will probably never come back.

[Harryprice]

I have a couple of practical examples of changing the opinions of believers. I did not stop them being believers but I did get rid of some particular beliefs.

In both cases, they suggested that certain phenomena they had witnessed were paranormal. Rather than explain to them why they were in error, I suggested they try some simple experiments on their own. They did and, of course, it demonstrated the true cause of the apparently paranormal phenomena.

Just as people gain unsupported beliefs through misinterpreting personal experiences, so those beliefs can reversed by giving them experiences to show their error. I suspect if you chipped away at enough of a person's unsupported beliefs in this practical way, they may eventually decide that all the associated beliefs may be wrong too.

So my suggestion would be, give people things they can try on their own. They may not believe it when someone says they're wrong but they will believe their own experiences.

[Tony Williams]

The odd thing about yelling abuse is that it tends to work very well for religious groups. The essential point is to create group membership first (the saved versus the dammed) and then to focus the anger outward, reinforcing group membership.
In theory this should alienate all outsiders from the group, yet it attracks many!

Well, religions have a unique selling point: if you join up (and are gullible enough to believe it) you are promised an eternity of singing hosannas, 72 virgins (or raisins, or whatever), whereas if you fail to join you will be threatened with eternal damnation. We can't quite match either the promised rewards (well, we might manage the raisins) or the punishments.

[Jules]

The problem is, it's not really about replacing one set of beliefs (the irrational ones) by another set (the rational ones), but more about learning a methodology, and as Phil points out, it doesn't come naturally to people. So where is the motivation to learn when your only "reward" takes away the very things which you find comforting?

[Harryprice]

So where is the motivation to learn when your only "reward" takes away the very things which you find comforting?

Finding out you've been taken in and then seeing the truth is quite a motivation!

[Pebble]

I agree. In order to win the 'war of ideas' we need to back up and examine our motivations. And I like the marketing analogy. A good salesman knows that one size doesn't fit all, and that you need to point out the benefits of your product - not only that you're missing out by not "buying into it", but that sticking with the current model can actually cause harm. Know your competitor's product well, and explain why yours is better. Being pushy and arrogant may close a sale occasionally, but the customer will probably never come back.

One point about a good business man - he/she sells the customer what they want, irrespective of benefit. Now they may try to convince the buyer that they want something, the buyer had never previously considered a need. But in the final analysis, if the product is not wanted, the buisnessman simply moves to a different product line. We have only one product. It is not glitzy and does not have the track record of the established multiple religious products already out there.
Newcomers to the market, trying to displace the established product range must get themselves noticed, and stay in the public eye throughout a sustained period. That is what Dicks are particularly good at doing. When it comes to selling to the individual, one can be all sweetness and light, when grabbing attention - showmen are what you need.

[Matt]

I think Dawkins point may be relevant. The person you're being a Dick towards and the person you're trying to convince may well be two different people. In which case Plaits arguments on effectiveness don't seem relevant.

Now I'm not sure if there any direct evidence but I'd hardly be suprised if there were instances where a crowd of people were brought round to a particular point of view by witnessing the persecution of a different outgroup for not holding that point of view. It's certainly a tactic often used by cults to hold onto their members and discourage dissent.

[smudge]

So my suggestion would be, give people things they can try on their own. They may not believe it when someone says they're wrong but they will believe their own experiences.

Great idea Harry. Could you elaborate on any of the techniques you used/suggested?

We can't quite match either the promised rewards (well, we might manage the raisins) or the punishments.

We have only one product. It is not glitzy and does not have the track record of the established multiple religious products already out there.
When it comes to selling to the individual, one can be all sweetness and light, when grabbing attention - showmen are what you need.

to both!

It's the old thing about 'believing a comforting lie rather than an uncomfortable truth'.

And how to make science 'cool'. Not that it isn't. But it consistently fails to sell itself as such.
The whole geek/nerd culture thing is not helpful. A dead end if ever there was one.

I think Dawkins point may be relevant. The person you're being a Dick towards and the person you're trying to convince may well be two different people. In which case Plaits arguments on effectiveness don't seem relevant.

Could you (or anyone)please post a link to the Dawkins comments?

[smudge]

A few thoughts.

I dislike Phil's 'dick' term, it is vague. I suspect he means to include Dawkins (rather than the obvious name calling forum poster) and the like in this. In that case I think he is wrong. But using his term in this wider sense; perhaps we need MORE 'dicks', not less!

We need people who are able to cross over and appeal to non science geeks as well as nerds. Dawkins and Goldacre are perhaps closest to this. We need others who are much more 'cool', who can appeal to a wide, young, audience.

The analogy of selling has been used. Lots of good sense arguments for ideal ways of expressing arguments and ideas. Fine.
We are not short on clever debates and ideas about scientific method and long detailed analysis of the intricacies of critical thinking. Thats great. IF you are already interested in such things. 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!

The first thing we need is to be NOTICED! 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!
YES, we need to be able to explain the arguments and think clearly too. But that is not enough.

Nerdy is not cool. Never will be. It has it's place. But we need to have much much more in our arsenal.

[brianp]

Could you (or anyone)please post a link to the Dawkins comments?

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

[Tony Williams]

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!

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.

[polomint38]

The first thing we need is to be NOTICED! 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!

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.

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

Back again to the fact that we are constrained by truth and reality, advertising techniques do not care about the truth & reality. (no offence to anyone in advertising)

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 opposite. 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!
YES, we need to be able to explain the arguments and think clearly too. But that is not enough.

Probably true.

Nerdy is not cool. Never will be. It has it's place. But we need to have much much more in our arsenal.

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

P.S. we really need to get a better acronym for PCBHRES as we have never actually managed to do any re-enactments as we are still discussing how to pronounce it.